Since you own a gun... - Page 10

MaggieL · 10-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Read: I will shoot you right in your tree-hugging face!

Read: You have no right to disarm me.

Flint · 10-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

...poor marksmanship makes any firearm less effective.

So does ninjas.

MaggieL · 10-13-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

... if I were a woman in a rough town, I'd have to consider the conceal carry option.

Being one, I have. :-)

mrnoodle · 10-13-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

So does ninjas.

Okay, deal. I will give up my guns if I can be a ninja.

edit: no I won't

10-14-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

What happens to your family if a jury determines you were in the wrong when you killed what you thought was a criminal? What effect will seeing his father kill someone have on your son? When is it worth taking another person's life?

It seems to me that in most serious life-threatening cases you won't have the opportunity to use a sidearm. Unless you have a gun in a holster at your belt there'd be no time to get it. There's a knock at your door. You answer it and the door is pushed in - three guys with pistols pointing at you. Can you draw and kill all three? Is it valiant to go down in a hail of bullets, leaving your family to fend for themselves? How does having a gun help you?

True story: My friend's brother picked up a girl in a bar. When he got her home, he found out it was a transvetite. They struggled. My friend's brother went to his bedroom to get his pistol. The transvestite wrestled the gun from my friend's brother and killed him.

With. His. Own. Gun.

Rk, how do you reconcile your distrust of the law with your trust that you'll be exonerated by the law after killing someone?

You open your door to people you don't know?
Who said I distrust the law, I distrust the individuals upholding it, as one should.
There are no perfect scenarios, but I would much rather be in one where I have a gun than not... good god, that is sure as hell simple to figure out.

As for those who talk of aim, I can (consistently) hit a target at a full run at 300 yards, 50 with a handgun. For me, at least, it is not an issue. I need not worry about anyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

In Sven's case, the gun didn't have much to do with the lethality of the situation. As soon as Pat refused to leave, (gender inspecific pronoun) went from invited guest to trespasser. Sven made his first critical mistake here. His life wasn't in danger yet, so lethal force wasn't warranted. If Pat refused to leave, Sven should have. The first line of defense is removing yourself from danger. Alcohol, embarrassment, and machismo turned it into a fistfight and whatever escalated from there. If no guns had been present, there's still an excellent chance that someone would've died, or at least been raped. Death wasn't automatic because of the gun, either. I've seen someone with more than 30 wounds from 9mm pistols, and only 4 were lethal.

Exactly... I was wondering that myself. If he was unarmed why did the friend pull a gun on him. The friend introduced deadly force to the situation and reaped what he sewed.
You just call the cops and wait for them to show-up and escort the dude from your home, or you just ask them to leave and give them the cold shoulder until they do.

MaggieL · 10-14-2006, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

True story: My friend's brother picked up a girl in a bar. When he got her home, he found out it was a transvetite. They struggled. My friend's brother went to his bedroom to get his pistol. The transvestite wrestled the gun from my friend's brother and killed him.

What exactly what does "they struggled" mean? What was there to struggle about? Having discovered his pickup date wasn't truth-in-packaging compliant, it was time to demand that sie leave. Obviously the TV couldn't have thought any sex was going to ensue after a classic "Crying Game" reaction.

Your "friend's brother" clearly didn't understand how to use his weapon. If you're drawn on somone, you do not allow them to close with you...having warned them to get on the floor/ground, if they fail to "assume a position of compliance" as the expression goes) and then proceed to close with you, it's time to fire the weapon.

The whole story just doesn't hang together very well at all.

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-14-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

Thats exactly what I said I was for. Take 'em away from everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

That bit ain't my problem.

Unfortunately, Ibram, this point of view is the pro-genocide point of view. What you don't want to do is advocate making genocide practical or easier anywhere I can get at you. I am a decent man who is offended by pogroms, and doubly offended by their supporters, conscious or subconscious.

Go to http://www.jpfo.org and get an antigenocide education. Did me plenty of good, I can tell you.

Urbane Guerrilla · 10-14-2006, 10:46 PM

This example of Spexxvet's can be summed up in few words: not being in any wise aware of firearms training or technique, Spexxvet thinks armed self defense is doomed to failure at all times. Spexx fails to consider that if armed defense of self or other were as ineffectual as his superstitious, ignorant, and pro-crime neurotic thinking causes him to imagine, policemen would not carry guns. Kid, the British Bobbies started carrying ten years ago and are slowly carrying more and more often. Seems the softie stay-at-homes are catching up with the tough frontiersy types that left them and came here: our living was tougher and so were our crooks.

The people who know armed self defense disagree with Spexx's entire approach, top to bottom.

Ibby · 10-15-2006, 12:15 AM

If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont.

Dumbass.

Bullitt · 10-15-2006, 01:17 AM

And that fairytale scenario will never happen

tw · 10-15-2006, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No, let's not. There's been plenty of places with gun bans, and I don't consider any of them to be successes.

Dodge City. The western towns required all to surrender any weapons before entering town. Those towns were quite safe. But where guns were so plentiful - where the rich could afford and did carry guns - gun death rates in NYC were highest.

MaggieL would insiste that if everyone carried a gun, then no murders would exist. Reality throughout history says quite the opposite. MaggieL rationalizes using the same 'big dic' idea that force is always the best solution. That is her agenda in every discussion. Well, Iraq is now chock full of guns. Clearly death is decreasing - if facts are justiifed by a 'big dic' agenda.

No one is saying guns should be banned. When one posts that, then one is only hyping fear. But the need for guns and the lack of responsiblity advocated by no restrictions has through history only resulted in more violent crimes.

MaggieL insists that crime will decrease with more people carrying guns. That is total nonsense.

Ibby · 10-15-2006, 02:55 AM

I never said it would happen, I said that's my ideal solution. Note the use of the word ideal.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-15-2006, 05:36 PM

But ideal is far from reality on any subject I can think of.

OK, remove all guns from the equation. Robbers will still want to rob, for all the same reasons they do now. But now, instead of showing a gun and demanding your wallet, they have to get up close and personal. Close enough to threaten you with a knife, hammer, lead pipe.
That puts them at risk, so it would be much safer for them to just bash your head in, before you're aware you're being robbed. If you don't think being bashed in the head with a hammer/lead pipe is as bad as being shot....you're wrong.

MaggieL · 10-15-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

MaggieL insists that crime will decrease with more people carrying guns. That is total nonsense.

Except that that's been the experience in every "shall-issue" state.

And the pictures you paint of Dodge City and New York City can be no more than anecdotal and take no account of population and population density. I'd say they had nasty sampling errors, if it wasn't for the fact that obviously no sampling was even involved.

MaggieL · 10-15-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

I never said it would happen, I said that's my ideal solution. Note the use of the word ideal.

If it's unworkable, it's not a solution.

10-14-2006, 10:46 PM	#143
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	This example of Spexxvet's can be summed up in few words: not being in any wise aware of firearms training or technique, Spexxvet thinks armed self defense is doomed to failure at all times. Spexx fails to consider that if armed defense of self or other were as ineffectual as his superstitious, ignorant, and pro-crime neurotic thinking causes him to imagine, policemen would not carry guns. Kid, the British Bobbies started carrying ten years ago and are slowly carrying more and more often. Seems the softie stay-at-homes are catching up with the tough frontiersy types that left them and came here: our living was tougher and so were our crooks. The people who know armed self defense disagree with Spexx's entire approach, top to bottom. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

10-15-2006, 12:15 AM	#144
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont. Dumbass. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-15-2006, 01:17 AM	#145
Bullitt This is a fully functional babe lair Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Akron, OH Posts: 2,324	And that fairytale scenario will never happen __________________ Kiss my white Irish ass.

10-15-2006, 02:55 AM	#147
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	I never said it would happen, I said that's my ideal solution. Note the use of the word ideal. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-15-2006, 05:36 PM	#148
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	But ideal is far from reality on any subject I can think of. OK, remove all guns from the equation. Robbers will still want to rob, for all the same reasons they do now. But now, instead of showing a gun and demanding your wallet, they have to get up close and personal. Close enough to threaten you with a knife, hammer, lead pipe. That puts them at risk, so it would be much safer for them to just bash your head in, before you're aware you're being robbed. If you don't think being bashed in the head with a hammer/lead pipe is as bad as being shot....you're wrong. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)