Reply #7: Both pro-gun and anti-gun...

[spin]

You could argue both sides.

Let me argue the pro-gun side.

Let's assume for a minute that if the gun grabbers who want to ban firearms had been successful and all firearms in this country had been totally eliminated. (Impossible, but make that assumption for the sake of the argument.)

Instead of individuals armed with firearms, the man would have been attacked by three individuals armed with knives, baseball bats or chainsaws. Unless he was an extremely well trained martial artist, he would have suffered serious injury or died. Movies are bullshit. In the movies, the good guy who actually is Superman takes on opponents one at a time and beats them. In real life, you may beat one, but the others are still attacking you at the same time. Chances are you lose big time.

In this story the individual successfully defended himself against three attackers. He was shot but managed to shoot two of the attackers. Quite possibly he was a much better shot than his attackers. Maybe he was just lucky.

Without that firearm he undoubtedly would have lost badly. If he would have been well trained in martial arts, he might have had a chance of survival. How many people are that well trained? Black belts often lose one on one fights with street fighters. Street fighters do not fight fair. A good street fighter only knows a couple of techniques, but he's damn good at them.

Let me use another example of a three on one fight won with a handgun.

Creation of the original anti-ballistic body armor was the result of a pizza delivery that turned into a shootout. In 1969, the night after Apollo 11 took off for the moon, Davis who was a Detroit area pizzeria owner, was concerned because his delivery staff was being robbed. Making a delivery himself in a particularly rough part of town one night, he was held up at gunpoint. To the three robbers surprise, Davis was also armed. In the ensuing shootout, he wounded two of his attackers and was hit twice himself. That incident set in motion the events that would lead to the founding of Second Chance Body Armor Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_Body_Armor_Company

In my opinion, I would prefer to have a "lead-spitting freedom machine" for self defense against a person or persons who were attacking me with the intent of causing severe injury or worse. There is a good possibility that the mere fact that I have a firearm will be enough to defuse such an attack without a shot being fired. I have absolutely no desire to ever injure another individual. Given no other choice, I would shoot to stop the attack.

And yes, I have some training in the martial arts. My training was in Jujutsu which focused primarily on real life self defense including tactics to use against a club, a knife or a gun. I was trained for a nasty form of fighting with no rules. You fight to win and live and you never fight unless necessary. I never was an expert, but the techniques were simple and very effective.

But I value my life and the lives of those I love. I believe that my life and the lives of those I love are worth defending. A firearm is one method of defense, and it may well be one of the best.

But as I said, the story could be used as a base of discussion for both sides of the gun issue.

You seem to believe that civilian ownership of firearms should be banned or severely restricted. let's us assume that this was the law. In this story, how should the victim have defended himself? Or for that matter, should the victim be allowed to defend himself? Do people have the right to hurt other people in legitimate self defense?