Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 23/01/2013 4:13 PM, graham wrote:
> > "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 23/01/2013 1:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Someone please explain to me: why does any ordinary citizen need an
> >>>> assault-type weapon, and why does any ordinary citizen need a magazine
> >>>> with more than 6 or 7 rounds of ammunition? And I am not interested
> >>>> in answers that say "it would be a first step in taking away Second
> >>>> Amendment rights," because that is not logical.
> >>>
> >>> In a recent case a woman shot a home invader and hit him 6 times, and he
> >>> was
> >>> able to run away.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hit six times and "ran away"?????
> >> I'll need a cite for that.
> >>
> > Wasn't there a case not long ago where a guy tried to rob a bar (?in NYC)
> > but didn't know it was where the cops drank? In the resulting shootout,
> > some of the cops were wounded by their colleagues.
> > So much for training, eh?
> >
> >
>
> Yep. I remember reading about that one a few years ago. There were at
> least five cops shot .... by "friendly fire"
>
> Along a similar line was the case in New Orleans <?> where a guy bought
> his grandmother a gun for self defence. For some reason, the cops
> tried to raid her house. The original story was that she shot 5 cops
> before gunned gunned her down. The subsequent investigation determined
> that the cops were all shot by other cops.

Those cops got in trouble as well for their negligence.

>
> I just don't get this whole firearms for self defence stuff.

It seems you won't "get it" until you find yourself in the position of
needing to defend yourself. The fact that you have not yet been in such
a situation in now way invalidates the thousands of people who are in
such situations daily and who successfully defend themselves with
firearms, most cases you never hear about.

> There are
> lots of guns up here, but you have to jump through hoops to get the
> licence to buy or own them, and they have to be safely stored here.
> There is no doubt that there are some people who think they need them to
> guard their castles but there are some facts to deal with.... like that
> you can't do that here. You can only use lethal force to counter a
> likely lethal force, and forget about using a handgun, because that will
> be locked up and trigger locked and ammo stored elsewhere... by law. If
> you have time to go and get the gun and unlock it and get the ammo....
> you weren't in that much danger.

Denying people the basic human right of self defense is a crime against
humanity.

>
> The overwhelming majority here seem to like it that way, including
> this gun owner. Go figger... our murder rte is lower, our firearms
> homicide rate is much lower. People here just don't feel a need to be
> armed for self defence, and there are fewer victims. If guns were useful
> for self defence, you should expect the exact opposite.

Your murder rate in your big cities is fast approaching those of our
festering big cities. Our crime rates outside of those festering big
cities are little different than your crime rates. Anti-gun types like
to hype up total US homicide rates, but the reality is that nearly all
of those homicides are criminal gang members killing other criminal gang
members in very small geographic areas. The vast majority of the US and
of the US population is entirely unaffected by those gang issues.