Do you support armed self defense?

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

Yes I 100% do... And for those that say they don't...
While the OP means guns, anything can be a "weapon" and you don't have to just have a gun to be considered "armed" ... If I'm walking down the street bashing people's skulls in with a baseball bat, I'm gonna be considered "armed and dangerous"...
And the bat is now a "murder weapon"
Same could be said if I'm in the house and bash someone with a rolling pin..
People have a right to defend themselves... And the 5th amendment gives us the right to bare arms...
Those so against guns or "weapons",
If someone breaks into your home and threatens your child, are you going to stand there and do nothing?
Or are you going to find the nearest object to use as a "weapon" to defend your child? But you don't bring a knife to a gun fight, so if "they" armed with a gun, good luck with that...
Lobbying for more gun control isn't the answer... Lobbying for stricter punishment for criminals, lobbying to get more criminals off the streets is

[WhiteSteve]

I don’t love guns, but they exist. If someone else produces a gun or weapon of equal and true likelihood of fatality, I’m reluctantly ok with someone producing their own in self-defense.

What I do NOT endorse is people thinking a gun is ok to use instead of defending yourselves in a fistfight. Most serious interpersonal differences and even a lot of hostile situations, you should just box your way out of that, win, lose, or draw, as a first violent resort. “I felt threatened” should not be a reason to pull a lethal weapon of any sort. Basically, don’t bring a gun to a fistfight. And ideally, nobody should relish shooting anyone else. If you’re in the right in the situation, after you shot a guy, you should be like “FUCK, that sucks that I just had to do that”, not “see you in hell, motherfucker!” What makes me nervous about supposed honest gun owners is that I see too many that are way too excited, like they HOPE someone does something that will justify them getting to shoot someone. A reasonable, self-defense-minded gun owner should hope to fire zero shots in their lifetime outside of a controlled range or sport situation. I just see too much cowboy-itis to trust everyone with it without worry.

[Citizenkirk]

In combat I had to use everything from explosives, firearms, chemicals, my radio for air support and extraction, rockets, missiles, and one funky looking shoulder fired projectile-directed energy hybrid weapon. My point?
Whatever is in my hand is a weopon the instant someone becomes aggressive with me. Since I can put a bullet in someone's leg with a firearm, it's better for everyone concerned that I carry a gun, if I ever decide too renew my CCP. The reason being, that I was naked with nothing in my hand too defend myself when a scumbag with a gun broke into my residence.
He never had a chance. R. I. P. scumbag.

[douride2]

If some crazy person breaks into my house & is threatening my life I should be able to use as much force as is necessary to protect myself. If it means armed defense because he has a weapon so be it.

[Kaneki05]

Do you support armed self defense? Yes Do you support rights to bare arms? No
It's a dumb question with 2 contradicting answers that can only be conducted logically. Since there is nothing wrong with shooting a guy who broke into your home, but there is clearly something wrong this Uk In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014. Logic dictates if america had gun laws like Uk there would/should only be 6 times the amount due to size but because it does not it's 160 times.
If them deaths are worth it then you go ahead but in reality it's not hard to see one time gains out weigh the deaths of the masses, which in society gun laws been like they are in america cause. Even if there is nothing morally wrong with shooting a guy who broke into your house.

[Kaamraj]

A lot of Americans dont realize that outside the US, or the western world, low level ethnic riots, cleansing, pogroms, do happen when the law of order breaks down and when you have an entire mob coming for you and it know that by killing you, looking your property it can most likely get away then the only thing that can protect you is a firearm. Now in such situations you can't leave because public transport shuts down and there are armed mobs roaming the highways and lanes. So you home is your best bet. So yes, I believe that firearms should be regulated, however, some types of basic firearms such as shotguns, revolvers, and single shot rifles should be avaliable after a background check for self defense.

[Dongtai]

Not under the context of excessive force. If it’ll save your life then yes. If you got your ego burned but aren’t physically threatening enough to win an verbal confrontation so you pull out a gun? No. Most of the time you don’t need a gun.


A lot of gun users can’t fight or aren’t physically challenging enough to stand their ground in an argument. I can see pulling a gun out if you’re getting jumped or being chased by a bear. But one on one? You should only be pulling that gun out if they have a knife or running is impossible.

[Bat-Perv]

Yes. Its more important now than ever what with the BLM assaulting people, huge crime waves and the democrats defunding the police. Just having a gun is often enough to dissuade a criminal from f*cking with you. I had to shot a guy last year in my home.

[RingOfFire]

The right to physical self defense and the defense of your family is probably the most basic human right.

If you cannot own the means to defend yourself, you are being deprived of your most basic human right. There are already far too many restrictions on gun ownership. The fact that you cannot carry a gun on your person to use for self defense in many places is an outrageous violation of rights. We need fewer gun restrictions not more.

I'm for elimination of almost all gun laws AND for increasing penalties for crimes involving the use of guns. Stop punishing the good guys for what criminals do. Punish the criminals not the citizens who are exercising their liberty and basic human rights.

[Bee-Hatch]

No. When societies start taking that as an applicable option. You end up with messed up countries like America where school shootings are just a hazard of living there.

[andreasderjuengere]

If I live in a brutal and uncivilized environment, I might consider to support the idea.
But thankfully, my own society is educated enough to not make it necessary to be 'armed' whenever I leave my house.
Sad to see that we still have some primitive spots on this planet.

[karupted]

I believe, as it has been said recently, that people need to be taught to deescalate. That should ALWAYS be your first line of defense. However, as unfortunate as things are, between the legal system and and people's state of mind it is a necessity to have the option of force. A caveat to that, it should be mandatory to take a safety course, and as laws change to retake if you continue to own weapons.

[Drumlin2001]

My issue woukd be that it is uaed appropriately only when truly needed. There are enough stories involving the police misusing deadly force, and they are highly trained to deal with situations. Citizens being given a green light to use potentially lethal weapons in name of defence, seem rife for misuse through lack of experience or maliciousness

[Anonymous]

In a nation with an excessive amount of guns that are easily obtainable by criminals and the mentally ill, yeah. However, if you stop manufacturing guns and strictly regulate them, armed self-defense becomes completely unnecessary, like in every other nation where there are no guns and thus no gun violence.

[Anonymous]

i voted no because i think everybody could become a good person , i thought that be smart in those situation is better then using violence.

but after thinking a bit deeply about it , now i think that if it's necessary violence should be used too , because maybe the robber could even become a good person , BUT if now he is hurting someone and should be stopped at all cost

so my final tought is , i don't like armed self defense , but it's necessary in SOME situation. i think everyone should try not to use violence until it's 100% necessary.

be nice people.

[Oigit]

I do and the reason I do is very much rotted in life experience. I learned at in early age just how screwed up and dangerous people can be. Also I have a couple reminders of that over the years. Such as having a 2nd job at a gas station and being robbed during my shift.

[ShadezMcgee]

I support the second ammendment and the right to self defense, regardless of stand your ground laws. Armed self defense is the quickest way to end the threat.

I don't want to wait for the police to come save my ass in two to five minutes. Way too much can happen in that time frame. Some guy wants to hurt or kill me, fuck him, I am taking that clown out first.

[TheLawAroundHere]

Yes. Without a doubt... or even a moment of hesitation.

I dont know about you. But I love my life. I've got 30 years of brittle diabetes under my belt. Point being that im staring down the barrel of my own mortality. I refuse to let any minute go to waste.

Besides. Its bad form to die from lack of shooting back.

[utterlyconfused11]

yes I do and I always carry a knife on me unless im going to an airport because in todays world its just not smart to not have a way to defend yourself. why don't I have a gun you may ask, im in Germany and when I go back to America it still won't be the best idea for me to have a gun because im black and I don't trust the police not to shoot me even if though it would be legal. I saw what happened to Philando

[Anonymous]

No. On the surface it looks a good idea to have a weapon to defend against armed attacks but in reality your more likely to blow 14 year-olds brains out because he's shoplifting. Angry people don't think straight.

[WesBrewer]

Do you think the average female can fight against the average male? No siree, but if she had a gun or a knife then yes she could, and by banning weapons the only people with weapons are criminals who are robbing you with them.

[TadCurious]

If I have to defend myself from an aggressor who wants to do me harm then I want to be better armed than he or she is. I support the Second Amendment rights of Americans to defend themselves and their families, friends and members of the public.

[MsLivy]

Yes and no, there's cases where people have taken the. law into their own hands and killed people doing admittedly the wrong thing like shoplifting but shite isn't worthy of death

[DrunkAss]

I see it as an inevitability that we'll have to learn to trust each other even if we have basements full of weapons. I spent enough time in Texas to learn that. Good people there even if they have a borderline military base in their own home.