Since you own a gun...
When would actually use your gun to kill someone? If you were threatened by someone with a gun, undoubtedly you would try to shoot first. If you or your immediate family were threatened with bodily harm, I can understand. How about if it's your cousin, or a neighbor? What if a stranger was being accosted by someone with a bat? What if a stranger was being accosted by someone with a roll of toilet paper? What if someone walked into your house, unarmed, and said nothing - just kind of walked around looking at things, but not touching anything, and wouldn't leave when you asked him to or told him to? What if the person was a woman? A boy? A girl?
What would it take for you to kill someone with your gun?
I would kill someone if I felt that the damage from the person I was considering killing outdid the damage of actually killing the person.
it depends on what i need and who has it
I actually was once in the position of seriously having to decide to kill someone or not. I got stalked by this complete wacko for three years. He threatened to kill me. In fact he once came after me with a piece of re-barb, and I barely made it into my house in time to lock the door and call the cops. I should have made charges against him, but I was scared of what he'd do if I did. He threatened to kill my best friend; and the last straw was when he threatened to kill my mother. I had a friend who was an ex biker chick and she coached me on what to do under Colorado's "make my day law." I was going to sit on my couch with the door unlocked (the guy was always cruising my street to see if I was home). I was going to hold my Dad's officer's colt in my lap and when he got fully inside, I was going to shoot him.
Lucky for me I had a good friend who is a young Gulf War vet and in excellent physical condition. My friend cornered my stalker in a parking lot and told him in exact detail just what he was going to do to him if anything ever happened to me. He also promised to track him to the ends of the earth if he had to. I guess my friend was pretty convincing because my stalker left town the next day and was never heard from again. I figure either someone else shot the dude or else he's in jail.
Killing someone with a gun isn't something you give a lot of thought to. When its time to do it, you'll know.
What would it take for you to kill someone with your gun?
Have you read the law on justification? For Pennsylvania, it can be found at
http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/18.Cp.5.html
It's my opinion that anyone who carries and hasn't read and understood their local equivalant of that law is being irresponsible. I think that would require "giving a lot of thought to it".
Usually when I see someone fishing for edge cases like ol' Spexxy here it's because he's got an itch to play "slippery slope".
The reason I won't ever own a gun is that I know I wouldnt use it. I could never bring myself to use it, and having one would just escalate the situation. But I figure people dont know if I have one or not cause of all you people who do have them, so yeah.
Have you read the law on justification? For Pennsylvania, it can be found at http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/18.Cp.5.html
Que? This is an international BB on the
WWW..... pray explain the relevence of Pennsylvnia Borough Council ByeLaws to the rest of us....
Whether or not I could kill was something that I long considered before I made the decision to own a pistol. If the answer had been no, I wouldn't have a firearm in the house. I owned and shot a bow for many years. My purpose was enjoyment of target shooting. I still do this with a pistol, but with the understanding that there is a reason for my practice.
As far as "justification laws," one has to check their own jurisdiction's version because there is a lot of variance. Some states require retreat, some require feeling at risk of loss of life, and others allow you to shoot to defend property as well as life.
All of which beats what is sometimes called "Government Sponsored Dial-a-Prayer."
I live in a township that has a lot of officers on the street. It is not unusual to take up to 15 minutes for an officer to respond to a call. In some places, that can go as long as a half-hour, or even more. A lot can happen in that length of time.
I used to be the webmistress for a gunshop. I added a quote to the site that the owner loved.
Gun Control: The notion that a woman lying dead in an alley, raped and then strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a woman in the same alley explaining to police how her attacker died of fatal bullet wounds.
The reason I won't ever own a gun is that I know I wouldnt use it.
That is actually a very good reason not to own a gun.
I used to be the webmistress for a gunshop. I added a quote to the site that the owner loved.
Gun Control: The notion that a woman lying dead in an alley, raped and then strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a woman in the same alley explaining to police how her attacker died of fatal bullet wounds.
mmmmm..... substtute 'ex-husband ex-lover some guy in th street who pissed me off for 'attacker' in that quote...
Wolf ain't bull shitting , I Helped my wife pick out the correct hand gun for HER , tought her how to shoot ( she had shot Some , but I tought her how to shoot so it counts ) , she can shoot a 5 shot group the size of a fist at 25 + ft , all day every day and move that group ANY where she wants ,
We have had LONG discussions about deadley force , no warning shots , NO leg shots , if'n you have to draw you SHOOT TO KILL !!!
Mozambik drill . 2 to the chest , 1 to the head, if that won't drop a person that NEEDS shooting I dont know what will
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
When would actually use your gun to kill someone?
I would actually use a gun to kill someone when even if I didn't have a gun I would kill that someone anyway.
You can "what if" the topic to death; but, society evaluates each shooting as a unique set of circumstances. Sensible people use applicable laws and case studies to answer those questions for themselves. Among the things that case studies have demonstrated is that in the aftermath of any shooting, previous statements made by shooters in response to "what if" questions can be spun to work against them. It can be contended that a shooter was predisposed (i.e. already made up their mind) to act in a particular way regardless of the unique set of circumstances they faced in real time when a shooting occured. Even that which is learned through bona fide training by competent authority (e.g. law enforcement) should not be
casually discussed in the context of "what if" situations. With all of the resources law enforcement itself has, it too at times has difficulty validating justifiable shootings. I don't think you will get many answers that specifically address your "what if" questions [at least I hope not].
mmmmm..... substtute 'ex-husband ex-lover some guy in th street who pissed me off for 'attacker' in that quote...
I don't have that kind of a temper, another reason that I carry.
Have you read the law on justification? For Pennsylvania, it can be found at http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/18.Cp.5.html
It's my opinion that anyone who carries and hasn't read and understood their local equivalant of that law is being irresponsible. I think that would require "giving a lot of thought to it".
Usually when I see someone fishing for edge cases like ol' Spexxy here it's because he's got an itch to play "slippery slope".
Thanks for not answering the question. I guess it depends what your definition of "is" is.
I'm not interested in the laws. When would you, MaggieL kill someone with your gun?
Thanks for not answering the question. I guess it depends what your definition of "is" is.
I'm not interested in the laws. When would you, MaggieL kill someone with your gun?
Still want to play slippery slope, eh?
I would use deadly force in a situation in which the conditions in the cited law were met. Good thing you don't carry, since you aren't interested in the law. But fact that you could conflate a citiation of the law on Justification with Clinton's pathetic equivocation verges on tragic.
The reason I won't ever own a gun is that I know I wouldnt use it. I could never bring myself to use it, and having one would just escalate the situation. But I figure people dont know if I have one or not cause of all you people who do have them, so yeah.
If you don't think you could use a firearm, then you're absolutely right not to carry. And your observation that the 3% of us who do carry extend protection to the 97% who don'
t just by creating that uncertainty is very much on-point.
mmmmm..... substtute 'ex-husband ex-lover some guy in th street who pissed me off for 'attacker' in that quote...
Did you actually have a point?
I would use deadly force in a situation in which the conditions in the cited law were met.
Does US law permits civillians to kill another person without any repercussions?
And please define the situation.
I'm actually not sure which worries me more, having one and not using it or having one and using it...
Does US law permits civillians to kill another person without any repercussions?
And please define the situation.
It's state, not federal law, so you are welcome to look up the justification law in all 50 states. For all intents and purposes, the United States actually functions like 50 little independent countries, each with its own laws.
It just amazes me how liberals will hold forth on this issue without actually being willing to read the law. Pennsylvania's justification law is typical amongst the "shall-issue" states; I posted a link to it earlier.
Does US law permits civillians to kill another person without any repercussions?
And please define the situation.
Yes. If you are protecting your life or anothers. It is very simple.
Also, you do not think, you just do or do not... you pull your weapon and fire.
Que? This is an international BB on the WWW..... pray explain the relevence of Pennsylvnia Borough Council ByeLaws to the rest of us....
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is considerably larger than a borough. It has it's own constitution, a population of about 13 million people, and a land area roughly twice that of Ireland. Its laws are important to me since they're the ones I live under and will observe.
If you're disintrested, because you live in a country where you're not allowed to defend yourself with anything but a cellphone, you're invited to move along quietly.
Also, you do not think, you just do or do not... you pull your weapon and fire.
Well, you *do* think. But you likely will not have time to think much.
Ok, you think "There is my target".
Ok, you think "There is my target".
Hopefully you started that thought with "That *is* a target", and followed it with "There's clear space behind."
What if someone walked into your house, unarmed, and said nothing - just kind of walked around looking at things, but not touching anything, and wouldn't leave when you asked him to or told him to?
That would be weird. What a great scenario. "Who are you? What do you want?" And he would just walk around, open the silverware drawer, close it, maybe hurrumph a few times, but never say anything. That would be truly odd. It would make a great reality TV show too. What would people do? How would they react? "Would you like a glass of water or something?" Maybe you could "kill him with kindness." Maybe watch a movie together?
In fact he once came after me with a piece of re-barb, and I barely made it into my house in time to lock the door and call the cops.
You clearly meant to say rhubarb, not re-barb. Rhubarb is a poisonous plant, so I can understand your apprehension. If not cooked properly, one could die.:yeldead:
It just amazes me how liberals will hold forth on this issue without actually being willing to read the law...
It just amazes me how conservatives think that because the law states such-and-such, that such-and-such will actually happen. Don't you have a gun for situations occur outside of the law? Aren't there going to be situations that are ambiguous in terms of the law? Are there situations where your judgement and actions are not consistent with the law? Do you wear your republinders so close to your head that these possibilities don't even occur to you?
Do you wear your republinders so close to your head that these possibilities don't even occur to you?
Of course those situations exist. But she has already acknowledged that she's not going to play the "what if" game--both because of the futility of such a thing, as well as the potential legal complications if she ever
were to have to shoot someone and this messageboard somehow got entered into evidence.
Hopefully you started that thought with "That *is* a target", and followed it with "There's clear space behind."
You have never been shot at.
Of course those situations exist. But she has already acknowledged that she's not going to play the "what if" game--both because of the futility of such a thing, as well as the potential legal complications if she ever were to have to shoot someone and this messageboard somehow got entered into evidence.
Of course! :smack: Maggie has legitimate reasons. Anybody with an opposition to the way Maggie thinks does so for illegitimate reasons - liberalism, weakness, ignorance. :crazy:
You clearly meant to say rhubarb, not re-barb. Rhubarb is a poisonous plant, so I can understand your apprehension. If not cooked properly, one could die.:yeldead:
Well it was a thin length of metal that I beleive they use to re-enforce concrete or something? What-ever it was, it was pretty scarey looking. My stalker wanted instant gratification by threatening with heavy objects or just his fists. Poisoning me would have been too slow and he might not have been around to see me die. He also drove around with a gun in his car for a while. He'd borrowed it from a friend. The weirdest thing of all was that the stalker considered himself in love with me. Hint to all you guys out there: Threatening someone and their mother with death is not exactly the way to a girl's heart.:eyebrow:
Well it was a thin length of metal that I beleive they use to re-enforce concrete or something?
Which is why it's called "re-bar"...short for "reinforcing bar". They run from like a half inch up to two inches or more in diameter. The larger sizes make a nasty bludgeon.
You have never been shot at.
True dat. I hope to keep it that way, too.
Well it was a thin length of metal that I beleive they use to re-enforce concrete or something?
Well marichiko, I was joking with that one. You are right about re-bar, it's just when you wrote "re-barb" I couldn't resist the rhubarb comment.
It reminded me of some dude here who was upset that the Coast Guard wanted him to have a "collage" degree. I told him I could have understood if they wanted him to have a degree in macrame for all the knot-tying he would have to do, but why collage?
Just fun with typos.
Whoever that stalker was, I hope he is totally out of your life. That would freak me out.:worried:
Perhaps he should be put into some formwork with rebar and have concrete poured around him?:neutral:
Of course! :smack: Maggie has legitimate reasons. Anybody with an opposition to the way Maggie thinks does so for illegitimate reasons - liberalism, weakness, ignorance. :crazy:
How very lame.
You clearly want to get out onto the slipperly slope and play with hypothetical edge-cases until somebody says something that you can wave around as a bloody shirt to prove how "humane and progessive" you are compared to the "gun nuts". A childishly transparent ploy. Sorry to spoil your game.
The law defines the conditions under which I can use deadly force to defend myself or another person, and I accept those conditions. How hard is that to understand?
It just amazes me how conservatives think that because the law states such-and-such, that such-and-such will actually happen. Don't you have a gun for situations occur outside of the law?
Have you read the law yet?
I didn't think so.
.. Hint to all you guys out there: Threatening someone and their mother with death is not exactly the way to a girl's heart.:eyebrow:
That explains a lot!:thankyou:
Have you read the law yet?
I didn't think so.
Have you answered my question yet.
I know you did not, it's not just what I think.:p
Have you answered my question yet.
Yes, I did. As I've said several times, my behavior would be guided by what the law allows. Since you say you don't care about the law, you're out of luck.
If it was my intention to violate the law, I'd have to be a moron to admit that intention in writing.
And your observation that the 3% of us who do carry extend protection to the 97% who don't just by creating that uncertainty is very much on-point.
Gee Maggie, I wonder what stats you can find to support that righteous claim.
Here's mine: I'll continue to extend protection to the 3% of handgun carriers by remaining unarmed in daily life, thus cutting down on accidental discharge and gun theft.:rolleyes:
(heh heh she said "discharge" heh heh)
Gee Maggie, I wonder what stats you can find to support that righteous claim.
Typically when a state implements "shall-issue" concealed carry, about 3% of the eligible population gets licences. Now a criminal doesn't know if their intended victim is packing or not...so the protection extends to people who don't carry, but *might* be.
Unless they're wearing a Kerry button or something.
If it's stats you seek, there's a boatload of them at gunfacts.info
Yes. If you are protecting your life or anothers. It is very simple.
Also, you do not think, you just do or do not... you pull your weapon and fire.
So, in the US you can kill another citizen without any question asked? You don't think, you pull your weapon and BANG! Go ahead, make my day punk... No wonder so many gun related death in th US.
Who is going say you're protecting life? You never have to proof that?
It's state, not federal law, so you are welcome to look up the justification law in all 50 states. For all intents and purposes, the United States actually functions like 50 little independent countries, each with its own laws.
Well, is it allowed by law to kill another citizen? Any proof? I can't imagine this Wild West rule still holds law in the modern US and A. In our country it's against the law to kill or even shoot at another citizen, at any circumstances. Probably we'r too liberal here. Then again gun related deaths are about 100 times less here too...
It just amazes me how liberals will hold forth on this issue without actually being willing to read the law. Pennsylvania's justification law is typical amongst the "shall-issue" states; I posted a link to it earlier.
For once, could you just answer my question without the knee jerk Pavlov reaction about liberals? Show me the law and define the situation, pretty please...
I'm sure there are! Boatloads. Citing Lott, I think I'll try to find something less (pardon the pun) loaded. I will avoid Brady as well, and seek something from the law enforcement /public health community. It may take me a few ticks, as I am actually supposed to be working now.
Once again, thanks for kindly extending such uncertainty to the thoughtful criminals on my behalf. I'm sure, because they know you are out there with your heat, they're rattled and logically more reluctant to be bad now! Whew!
Yes, I did. As I've said several times, my behavior would be guided by what the law allows.
No, you didn't. That's a non-answer. Tell me how you would react in those scenarios.
Since you say you don't care about the law, you're out of luck.
I want to know how Maggie would react, not what the law states.
And, I'll paraphrase someone else's sentiments: I've tried reading the law. But the problem is to do so you have to have the amount of time you have and, having an actual life, I don't.
If it was my intention to violate the law, I'd have to be a moron to admit that intention in writing.
So you admit that your behavior would violate the law, else you could post it without any negative consequences.
And, I'll paraphrase someone else's sentiments: I've tried reading the law. But the problem is to do so you have to have the amount of time you have and, having an actual life, I don't.
Then you don't have time to discuss the issue informedly...despite blathering on here at length. By the way, my statement dealt with *refuting* tw's posting, not just reading them. The relevant law is less than one third of the size of *one* typical tw post. If you can't be bother to click on the link and read the law, my sympathies.
So you admit that your behavior would violate the law, else you could post it without any negative consequences.
*sigh*
No, I didn't say that. I said my behavior would be guided by the law. The law very specifically describes the circumstances under which the use of deadly force is legally justified.
I added the comment to point out that soliciting a written statement to the contrary is stupid. But being stupid doesn't seem to bother you. Since you refuse to read the law, you'll just have to live without enlightenment on the issue.
But being stupid doesn't seem to bother you.
Not at all - please continue. ;)
Since you refuse to read the law, you'll just have to live without enlightenment on the issue.
You still don't get it. I'm not interested in
the law. I'm interested in how
you would handle these situations. You refuse to answer.
I'm sure there are! Boatloads. Citing Lott, I think I'll try to find something less (pardon the pun) loaded. I will avoid Brady as well, and seek something from the law enforcement /public health community. It may take me a few ticks, as I am actually supposed to be working now.
Once again, thanks for kindly extending such uncertainty to the thoughtful criminals on my behalf. I'm sure, because they know you are out there with your heat, they're rattled and logically more reluctant to be bad now! Whew!
Yes, the "public health" crowd is full of useful opinion on the subject. There no shortage of liberal docs wanting to tell you how to live your life.
Do read that Gun Facts booklet, even though it would place you in jeopardy of being exposed to facts that contradict your preconceptions...if you think criminals don't think, perhaps you'd better think again; Gun Facts reports the results of surveys of felony prisoners as to what they do worry about when comitting a crime.
If you don't want to accept the protection afforded by being around armed citizens (and we wouldn't want you to compromise your principles) you can probably cancel the effect by posting
a sign like this one outside your home or place of business.
There no shortage of liberal docs wanting to tell you how to live your life.
cause ya know...its often their job to save or at least extend lives. (And reality has a well-known liberal bias. )
Guns are banned at my work place and I feel safer for it. I am also searched when entering sporting events, as guns are banned and I feel safer for it.
I can see we're going to disagree. Just dont shoot me for it. gotta run to class. cheers.
That explains a lot!:thankyou:
You're welcome. Glad to be of assistance. ;)
You still don't get it. I'm not interested in the law. I'm interested in how you would handle these situations. You refuse to answer.
My answer is I'd follow the law; it regulates when I can legally use deadly force. My actions would be based on my assessment of the actual situation and the motivations and intents of the actors invoved...which I can't possibly do from some vague description of an edge-case hypothetical you've pulled out of your ass.
If you'd read and understood the law, you'd know why that's important. But you don't care about the law.
This is a serious issue, not a parlor game. If you were seriously interested in the issue, instead of looking for a quick snarky buzz, you'd care about the law.
So, in the US you can kill another citizen without any question asked? You don't think, you pull your weapon and BANG! Go ahead, make my day punk... No wonder so many gun related death in th US.
Who is going say you're protecting life? You never have to proof that?
Well, is it allowed by law to kill another citizen? Any proof? I can't imagine this Wild West rule still holds law in the modern US and A. In our country it's against the law to kill or even shoot at another citizen, at any circumstances. Probably we'r too liberal here. Then again gun related deaths are about 100 times less here too...
No. If you shoot someone you WILL be arrested. The Judge will decide if you can post bail or go back to jail while the District Attorney decides if he thinks you were justified. If he does not, you have to convince a jury you were justified. Hardy wild west, shooting someone (even if they don't die) is very serious business.:cool:
Well, Colorado may no longer be wild, but it is STILL western. Under Colorado law, had I shot my stalker, and his body had fallen in the door NOT outside it (that's why I was going to sit on my couch which was a good distance from my front door), I could then claim I was defending myself against an intruder. I'd have been arrested - POSSIBLY, but I would not have done jail time, and I'd have been able to get out on bail. In Colorado, if an intruder enters your home with harmful intent, you have the right to shoot him. I think the rebar would have proven the harmful attempt.:cool:
Speaking as the (possibly) only person here who HAS fired a legally owned firearm at an armed attacker, I have to agree 100% with Maggie's assessment.
I identified a dangerous situation (being fired upon)
I assessed the situation (number of attackers, skill with guns, possible non combatants in area, everything)
I chose to return fire (10 rounds out of 15 available to me)
The police were called AFTER the event
They responded to a report of a gun battle in a residential area two HOURS later!
No one was arrested.
The gunshots stopped at that time and were never repeated.
Those are the facts, Ma'am.
Have you answered my question yet.
I know you did not, it's not just what I think.:p
No... I don't. But, I live in a castle doctrine state.
If you are in my home uninvited/unannounced you are there to kill my family... you die. The same goes for a street threat. I must assume you are armed and mean me, or my family, harm with deadly force.
No responsible parent/spouse has the right to assume anything else IMO.
BTW... being fired upon, seeing a gun, is WAY too late.
My answer.
Don't know about CO... but in FL if you have reason to believe that you are in danger it does not matter what side of the door the body falls on... you have the RIGHT to protect yourself and that is right and just.
I was a bouncer and in security for several years, you never know what they have on them and you never know exactly when and how they are going to choose to do what they are going to do. If they choose to attack you or behave in a manner as to force you to respond in manner that is such that you must believe that your life is in danger, you have no time to "decide" what the intricacies of the law are. There is time to act and nothing else. At least FL and some other castle doctrine states have the wisdom to know that.
Oh... I do not have "republiblinders". I am a legalize it, go alternative fuel, pure Constitution followin', old timey, tie-dye wearin', liberal. That is why I believe in everyone's freedom to protect themselves just like we have always been able to do. Not one of these new fangled commie liberals.... they are not liberal at all, they are dictators in disguise.
Spexx, why is it so hard to understand that Maggie has decided to obey her local laws? Those laws define the situations in which deadly force is permissible and the situations in which it is not.
Any thinking law-abiding citizen who owns a gun must familiarize themselves with their local laws and act accordingly. (Admittedly, they do have additional options - they can or be a criminal, or be a victim - but neither seems to be the case for Maggie.) If you want to know how a law abiding citizen intends to use (or not use) a firearm, read up on the law and figure it out for yourself.
Here's a quick introduction to the subject, based on the laws in WA, where I live:
If you shoot someone, even under legally justifiable circumstances, you can expect to spend at least $100,000 on legal representation, and there is a non-trivial chance that you will lose everything you own as a result of a civil lawsuit (again, even if the law states that shooting was justified). I assume that most states are somewhat similar. This makes deadly force a last resort. Gun owners should assume that pulling the trigger will cost them everything they own. Most gun owners are gun owners because they would rather lose everything they own than lose their life.
Does that clarify things for you at all?
Speaking as the (possibly) only person here who HAS fired a legally owned firearm at an armed attacker, I have to agree 100% with Maggie's assessment.
I identified a dangerous situation (being fired upon)
I assessed the situation (number of attackers, skill with guns, possible non combatants in area, everything)
I chose to return fire (10 rounds out of 15 available to me)
The police were called AFTER the event
They responded to a report of a gun battle in a residential area two HOURS later!
No one was arrested.
The gunshots stopped at that time and were never repeated.
Those are the facts, Ma'am.
Was anyone hit? Did they die? :confused:
the knee jerk Pavlov reaction about liberals?
:lol2:
You got that right.
Spexx, why is it so hard to understand that Maggie has decided to obey her local laws ...
Me: Hey Maggie, How do you get from here to New York City?
Maggie: I obey the law.
Me: Hey Maggie, How do you get across a busy street?
Maggie: I obey the law.
Me: Hey Maggie, What are you going to have for lunch?
Maggie: I obey the law.
Me: Hey Maggie, What's your favorite song?
Maggie: I obey the law.
You see, saying she has decided to obey the law doesn't answer
some questions.
Was anyone hit? Did they die? :confused:
Dunno. I wasn't about to go into that house and find out.
The situation was a classic "Hogan's Alley"...druggies in a drug den got all wired up and decided to plink at the sailors across the street for fun. Said sailors, having had this experience before (no injuries) retreived their legally owned weapons from their respective cars and returned fire. This after the police told us point blank that unless someone was shot, they weren't going to respond to every report of gunfire in THAT neighborhood. Serve and protect, indeed!
The aftermath was pretty tame...we waited for police to show up after the lead stopped flying. We gave up after an hour and went home. It seems that the police (our guard tells us) were not particularly interested in whodunit. They knew it was us but didn't care to do more than write a report on the scene and do nothing other than that. I heard ofr no bodies being carried out and there was no mention of the incident in the paper the next day.
To answer your question: I obey the law! Seriously, I do not think anyone was hit. We were more interested in deterrence than a body count. I aimed mostly at windows and walls. All I ever saw was a hand (with handgun) in an upper level window.
I know Maggie will take me to task for firing without a clear target but sometimes you have to do what is possible. Since there was never a repeat incident, no further shooting was ever necessary, and the innocent people living in that area were likely marginally safer for it. Although there continued to be shots fired by the locals (not us) no one shot at the sailors again.
Perhaps things would have been different for the defenders here had we actually hit anyone. No way to tell. All I know is that was one shooting incident too many for me and I hope that I never have to repeat the experience. But should it become necessary to protect me and mine, I will not hesitate to employ deadly force in accordance with my training (civilian and military) and neutralize the threat.
Gotta roll now, catch you later
I own guns, I would use them. The presence of a weapon has kept me from being robbed/assraped/killed twice, and ensured my safe transport once. I have fired once at a person, but knowing that he was too far away to be killed or seriously injured (shotgun). Don't come messin 'round my nana's house.
Plus, there's this rabbit that's tearing up all the landscaping around the house, and it's got a date with a .22 as soon as I can catch him in front of the barn. That way, any ricochet will hit the wall and not go flying into the sunset. Responsible gun owners think about where bullets go after the initial impact.
At least three threads and hundreds of posts, and not one pro-gunner willing to acknowledge that more people with guns in our country leads to more deaths. Wow.
Oh, I didn't read the original post, just the last page or 2.
Okay, more people with guns in our country leads to more deaths.
So? More people with cars leads to more deaths, too.
Thank you for your candor, mr-mo-fucking-hammed-noodle. :)
anytime :D
But seriously, we have this assumption that ANY unlawful use of firearms ALWAYS trumps the lawful possession and use of them. If 1 million people use guns without incident, but 2 people get killed either criminally or accidentally, we want to eliminate all guns. We don't apply that logic to any other aspect of society. Why? Because it's faulty logic.
OK, I'll acknowledge it. Here are several stories (updated pretty much daily) of people being killed by guns:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
It's unfortunate, but sometimes shooting beats the alternative outcomes.
OK, I'll acknowledge it. Here are several stories (updated pretty much daily) of people being killed by guns:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
It's unfortunate, but sometimes shooting beats the alternative outcomes.
Absolutely. So how many times have had to shoot someone rather than suffer the alternative outcomes?
Spexx, why is it so hard to understand that Maggie has decided to obey her local laws? Those laws define the situations in which deadly force is permissible and the situations in which it is not.
Any thinking law-abiding citizen who owns a gun must familiarize themselves with their local laws and act accordingly. (Admittedly, they do have additional options - they can or be a criminal, or be a victim - but neither seems to be the case for Maggie.) If you want to know how a law abiding citizen intends to use (or not use) a firearm, read up on the law and figure it out for yourself.
Here's a quick introduction to the subject, based on the laws in WA, where I live:
If you shoot someone, even under legally justifiable circumstances, you can expect to spend at least $100,000 on legal representation, and there is a non-trivial chance that you will lose everything you own as a result of a civil lawsuit (again, even if the law states that shooting was justified). I assume that most states are somewhat similar. This makes deadly force a last resort. Gun owners should assume that pulling the trigger will cost them everything they own. Most gun owners are gun owners because they would rather lose everything they own than lose their life.
Does that clarify things for you at all?
A man that lived near me was told by a potential bugler that he would be killed if he resisted... when the man informed him that he was armed the man then told him that he was armed and was going to kill him (he lied, he was not armed). The neighbors heard the exchange. The home owner shot the criminal, killing him.
He was released the next morning. No charges were ever brought.
Again, proper application of the castle doctrine.
Dr.s prescribing incorrect drugs or making mistakes kill so many more people than guns in the US it is crazy... should we outlaw them?
http://www.carthagepress.com/articles/2006/10/10/news/03%20rifle.txt
From MO: 7th grader knows home gun safe combo and gets access to (legal I'm guessing) home weaponry including assault rifle. Takes guns, ammo and bomb stuffs to school, threatens, but thankfully no one is killed.
Adding to the statistic that correlates multiple gun ownership with probability of involvement in gun crime.
Did they happen to mention how many children didn't gain access to gun safes :question:
The reason I won't ever own a gun is that I know I wouldn't use it. I could never bring myself to use it, and having one would just escalate the situation.
Escalate it? Don't worry about that part. "Violence -- naked force -- has settled more issues in human history than anything else." "He's dead, I'm alive, and that's how I wanted it." Such a degree of escalation produces inevitable deescalation, and the life-and-death problem is solved. It still leaves the question of whether one acted lawfully. I'll list some reference works about it below.
Never bring yourself to use it? Well, I just couldn't bring myself to submit to being murdered the way you would. Or so you say you would now, anyway. Having a mind, you
are at inalienable liberty to change it when a better idea comes along.
Intelligent discussion of the entire matter may be undertaken once these have been read and understood:
That Every Man Be Armed: the Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook, constitutional lawyer. He argued the Brady Law before the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled to void certain provisions of the Brady Law. Halbrook knows what he's talking about.
Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" Is The Gateway To Genocide by Simkin, Zelman, and Rice; sets forth the compelling moral reason for never refusing to own a weapon yourself, as making a genocide impractical is a highly moral thing to do by any standard. This argument has never been refuted in the dozen years it's been out.
The Truth About Self Defense by Massad Ayoob, self-defense scholar, firearms instructor, former police captain. Examines the combative, technical, and legal picture of armed defense of self or other in modern days.
Optional reading for fleshing out the big picture:
More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott, professor of economics. The study this book is based on studied all three thousand-plus counties in the United States, covering a fifteen-year period.
At least three threads and hundreds of posts, and not one pro-gunner willing to acknowledge that more people with guns in our country leads to more deaths. Wow.
Spexx, I've already told you where the flaw is in that idea. If you abandon that idea, you will then be on the road to wisdom, and good for you. Go, find and reread [edit: p.5 of If You Outlaw Guns Then Only...] what I told you, for it isn't sinking in. What you believe must
reflect reality, not exclude it. Some deaths, say Adolf Hitler's, improve things, others, like Anne Frank's, do not. Seems about as obvious as a nearby mountain to me.
Did they happen to mention how many children didn't gain access to gun safes :question:
What ratio is acceptable?
Adding to the statistic that correlates multiple gun ownership with probability of involvement in gun crime.
"Statistic" isn't the plural of "anecdote".
You see, saying she has decided to obey the law doesn't answer some questions.
Did you read the law yet?
I didn't think so.
At least three threads and hundreds of posts, and not one pro-gunner willing to acknowledge that more people with guns in our country leads to more deaths. Wow.
Because it's not true.
And even if it were, not all deaths are bad. If I blow away someone who's trying to rape me (you really should read that law, you know), I'd consider that a good thing.
Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you think the rapist is a victim of society, and should be given a chance to reform...or try again.
Please note that the second paragraph of this post is a hypothentical...I don't even agree that more guns implies more deaths. Millions of guns in this country--the vast majority of them--never killed anyone and never will.
Do people shooting guns cause gun shot wounds? If not, what causes gun shot wounds?
People getting in the line of fire. :D
There is no acceptable or unacceptable ratio.
Parents being stupid is somehow an imperative for me to divest myself of guns? I don't think so.
Some parents have been being stupid forever, I don't see than changing.
Nor do I see that as a particular problem I can do anything about.
I'd be much more worried about the damage the stupid parents allow their whelps to do with automobiles.
Do people shooting guns cause gun shot wounds?
Not always. Or there'd be hell to pay every third Saturday in Southampton PA.
However, gunshot wounds are always preceded by gunfire.
For some reason, this discussion always seems to have problems with logical fallacies (especially affirming the consequent and errors of composition and decomposition) and causation.
Since the gungrabbers here are so fond of hypotheticals, here's one for Spexxvet:
Consider a sealed room with two people in it. Obviously if the room contains no guns, no shootings will occur. If the room contains two guns, each in the posession of one of the people, I maintain that shootings are
less likely to occur than if there was only one gun.
Of course, if most of what you know about firearms has been gleaned from watching television and movie drama, and you believe that guns are implicitly eeeevil, tend to go off at random on their own, and cause agressive insanity in people touching them, you won't accept that assertion.
On the other hand, if you've actually been around guns and noticed that none of those three propositions is true, you'll probablyfind the assertion more plausible.
But I say the idea that there's an implicit positive correlation between the mere number of weapons in existance and their criminal use is mistaken.
Interesting post at NRO:
Our nation has too many people who are not only unwilling to learn how to protect themselves, but who are also determined to prevent innocent third persons from practicing active defense. A person has the right to choose to be a pacifist, but it is wrong to force everyone else to act like a pacifist. It is the policies of the pacifist-aggressives which have turned American schools into safe zones for mass murderers.
My family are from the country, where guns are just another tool (IE, a mechanical device with no implicit psychological characteristics). These "urban" associations with guns don't jibe with their "rural" function. Ironically, the function of those guns might be altered dramatically if some fancy law-makin' city-slicker were trying to take them away.
The "taking-your-guns-away-boogeyman" is the ideological flip-side to the "replacing-the-Constitution-with-the-Bible-boogeyman" . . .
...Since the gungrabbers here are so fond of hypotheticals, here's one for Spexxvet:
Consider a sealed room with two people in it. Obviously if the room contains no guns, no shootings will occur. If the room contains two guns, each in the posession of one of the people, I maintain that shootings are less likely to occur than if there was only one gun. ...
Utter foolishness. Unlike UG, I'll explain why.
Ok, not utter. If there were no gun at all, there would absolutely be no shooting.
If there was one gun, and you had it, then I would surrend, lay face down on the floor, do whatever you told me to do, and you would only shoot me if you were a nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch. So that's one shot, probably. If I got had the gun, I would only shoot if you didn't surrender, after trying less lethal solutions.
If there were two guns, I would shoot you right away, so that you couldn't shoot me, knowing that you would do the same. If I didn't kill you, or you got a shot off at the same time I shot, you would still get a shot off. That's two virtually guaranteed shots.
Ha!
My family are from the country, where guns are just another tool (IE, a mechanical device with no implicit psychological characteristics). These "urban" associations with guns don't jibe with their "rural" function. Ironically, the function of those guns might be altered dramatically if some fancy law-makin' city-slicker were trying to take them away.
The "taking-your-guns-away-boogeyman" is the ideological flip-side to the "replacing-the-Constitution-with-the-Bible-boogeyman" . . .
Pistols or rifles/shotguns?
At least three threads and hundreds of posts, and not one pro-gunner willing to acknowledge that more people with guns in our country leads to more deaths. Wow.
There is of course more here to think on.
It's not about bloodthirstiness and it's not about playing at cops-and-robbers. It is about resisting evil; somebody robbing and murdering you is breaking a couple of Commandments, no question. There is also the fundamental concept that humans may resist evil -- without even being duly constituted or paid by other humans to do so. Evil and resistance to evil is a thing of every human heart and every human mind. When the practitioners of evil, as they do, kill either righteous or unrighteous people in pursuit -- sometimes how trivial that pursuit! -- of their aims, there is absolutely no wrongness in resisting their endeavors and no genuine reason -- though some specious ones have been offered -- to stop short of lethal force if that's all that's going to succeed.
No pro-gunner with a lick of sense -- in my experience, about 99% of them -- fails to recognize that this comes at a considerable personal, and emotional cost; uneasy lies the head that shot the guy. This is inescapable to anyone mentally normal. Even the immediate prospect is jarring, as I know from personal experience: I had a roommate who was going quietly crazy, and once I thought I would have to pull a gun on him -- in my own bedroom. It felt terrible. It requires mental conditioning to function under such a stress: it starts with deciding beforehand if you're going to take on the responsibility for ending a man's life, or if you're going to submit to him wrongfully killing you.
Far too many antigunners demand -- though they will deny it, and demonstrate a passive murderousness in the denial -- that one do precisely that. Thus is these people's sense of the allegedly rightful satisfied. None of these bozos will consider that it could as easily happen to them, rather than to the gun people. This is the huge moral chasm between the righteous progunner and the murder-loving anti.
In reading John Lott (see p.5 this thread), you will discover a pretty well-founded estimate that the lawful and righteous use of such killing tools about two and a half million times annually prevents a loss to the American economy of upwards of three billion dollars each year, totting up property loss, worktime loss, medical costs, lawyer fees, and so forth. Even in a trillion-dollar economy, that's still a good shot in the arm preserving wealth.
Spexx, you are a man who is visibly reluctant to go around killing. That in itself is a recommendation that you should own three or four guns yourself, as you would not use them wrongly and take measures to guarantee no one else would use your arms wrongly either. You've also had the grace not to accuse progunners of lacking that reluctance, which is commendable. You've not yet taken an effectual antigenocide stance, which in my view (and that of most humans) is not commendable, but you show no signs of having educated yourself on that matter yet.
Approximately every second household in the United States has at least one firearm in it. Yet crime and bloodshed do not come to every second household. There are things guns do and things guns do not do -- the man educated on the subject knows well which these are.
What do we see in men who murder schoolgirls or shoot up the neighborhood in a suicide-by-cop? A great degree of aberrancy, a viciousness that lacks sanity. The anti-self-defense lobby prevents immediate and effectual response to these monsters through its hysterical fear of killing tools, and does all humanity a terrible injustice: it is so terrible that these people ought to be locked up for lengthy prison terms for mass and chronic incitement to murder.
Do not, Spexxvet, ask moral persons to stop resisting evil, even unto death.
The plural of "anecdote" may not be "statistics" but I've long held that an analysis of all those
The Armed Citizen columns that have figured in NRA magazines for decades ought to help the statistical study somehow. At the least, it is a very considerable weight of testimony in support of the moral use of arms.
Utter foolishness. Unlike UG, I'll explain why.
Ok, not utter. If there were no gun at all, there would absolutely be no shooting.
If there was one gun, and you had it, then I would surrend, lay face down on the floor, do whatever you told me to do, and you would only shoot me if you were a nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch. So that's one shot, probably. If I got had the gun, I would only shoot if you didn't surrender, after trying less lethal solutions.
If there were two guns, I would shoot you right away, so that you couldn't shoot me, knowing that you would do the same. If I didn't kill you, or you got a shot off at the same time I shot, you would still get a shot off. That's two virtually guaranteed shots.
Ha!
The assumption that if guns are present, they WILL be used to kill someone, is one of many failings all antis share. Why do you think that just because you're both armed, you have to try to kill or overpower each other? No wonder you guys don't like guns.
And why aren't you fighting the nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch? With or without a gun, you're just going to lay there and let her kill you?
What does the room look like? Is there food? How long are they in there? What is the room sealed with?
by the way I love venison. Hunt your game, just dont use an AK-47. Give 'em a chance and dont spoil the meat.
Mrnoodle, well said. But we must remember Spexx is unlikely to be completely rational on this -- he clearly rages against self defense, and that is his besetting sin.
He will pretend rationality, and keep up the pretense pretty well, but hoplophobia has got its claws well sunk in his id and his ego. The cure is difficult, and I do not greatly anticipate imminent success. A BBS is not quite the right medium.
I'm going to go see if the JPFO website still has its article on "Raging Against Self Defense."
Bingo. This is one of the best summaries I know of what the guns-and-freedom people are up against, and of why the antis won't be made to see reason: they do not have eyes to see.
Warch, there's no such thing as "an evil gun," which is the theory you're subscribing to. It's a gun-ignorant point of view, which ignorance redounds to the favor of the crime- and genocide-lovers. NOT a view I take, for sure.
A semiauto civilian AK chambered in 7.62x39mm is actually about as good a deer gun in close country as a .30-30, delivering about the same punch. Use an expanding, hunters' bullet. An AK-74 type semiauto, in 5.45x39mm, wouldn't be quite as good a bet -- and you'd probably be hunting deer in Siberia with that cartridge anyway.
The assumption that if guns are present, they WILL be used to kill someone, is one of many failings all antis share. Why do you think that just because you're both armed, you have to try to kill or overpower each other? No wonder you guys don't like guns.
I've read in one of these threads that you have to assume that an armed person is going to kill you - if you wait to analyze the situation, it's too late, you're dead. That was said by a pro-gun poster. BTW - what else is a handgun used for, besides killing someone? Big game hunting? Pu-leeze.
And why aren't you fighting the nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch? With or without a gun, you're just going to lay there and let her kill you?
In that situation, what is your measurement of success? Getting out alive is mine. That means I will do what it takes to be successful, including laying face down. If you want to fight in that situation, go ahead, I'll send flowers to your widow and tell stories of you to your kids "yeah, he cooda been a contender, but his pride was more important than raising his kids".
Maybe that's the problem. If someone with a gun broke into my house, I would say "take my stuff". It's only stuff. Try to hurt me or my family, and I'll do my best to kill you - gun or no gun. But staying alive and unhurt is my primary goal.
BTW - what else is a handgun used for, besides killing someone? Big game hunting? Pu-leeze.
Jay-zus, Spexx. You call yourself a modern, with-it man? Uh uh -- your thinking is so totally last century as to make you a complete square -- maybe a tesseract.
Handgun hunting even has its own particular season, Spexx. (Kid, if you're going to debate guns with gun people, you need to know all about guns!) Here is a short and not at all comprehensive list of hunting handguns, both single shot and repeaters:
Smith & Wesson Model 29, .44 magnum; Thompson-Center Contender and Encore, any caliber you want up to minor elephant gun cartridges like .375 H&H, single shot; Casull .454, a magnum that dwarfs the .44 mag, and a 5-shot revolver you can shoot bears with; .460, .475, and .480 Linebaugh -- mainly, like the Casull, put in conversions of large Ruger revolver frames. Lots of revolver makers make a .357, which was the first magnum cartridge Elmer Keith invented before he came up with the .44 mag -- specifically to hunt with.
With a hunting handgun, you're not keeping one hand involved with toting seven or eight pounds of rifle while you make your way through or across the rough country, but instead
wearing three or four pounds of smaller more convenient pistol and pistol scope, often as not. (Elmer Keith did it with iron sights and shot moose three hundred yards off with his .357. Ate 'em, too. Then he did it better with a bigger cartridge.)
Handgun hunting seasons approximate the special muzzleloader seasons, and for about the same reason -- each has its particular demands (like no available follow-up shot) and imposes limits upon the gun-toting hunter.
But staying alive and unhurt is my primary goal.
Then arm yourself and become skilled not only at putting shots inside the ten-ring, but in what tactics you will use to defend your dwelling -- the best way, proven in study after study
of which studies you know nothing, nothing at all, is to have greater force available to you than to the invader. Your chances of "doing my best to kill you" if you didn't bring a gun to the gunfight are laughably small: "...a grasshopper may fight a lawnmower; his courage is undoubtable, but not his judgement" or something like that. Heinlein again -- his thinking, along with Jeff Cooper's, informs a lot of my thinking on this and related subjects.
What does the room look like? Is there food? How long are they in there? What is the room sealed with?
by the way I love venison. Hunt your game, just dont use an AK-47. Give 'em a chance and dont spoil the meat.
Another ignorance, that window dressing somehow makes one gun "worse" than another.
My hunting rifle shoots just as many rounds, more powerful rounds, with more penetration, just as quickly as an AK, it just does not look like a military weapon. It is more powerful than an AK... it is closer to (and sometimes uses as one by cops) a sniper rifle, but no hippie idiots want to ban it, because they have never seen it in movies. So, they have no flaky emotions tied to it.
Most crimes are committed with a revolver or shotgun, a STOLEN, revolver or shotgun, to clarify.
Anti-collector legislation aimed at military styled weapons makes
NO sense and is just a waste of legislator's time and tax payers money.
BTW, I target shoot to relax and used to shoot skeet when I still could physically. It is no one's right to take that away from anyone who is not a felon.
Busybodies who feel they have it in them to remove other's rights need to go to a nation that is not based on freedom.
Freedom means you are exposed to other's freedoms as well, some of those are going to make you uncomfortable. If you can't deal, that means you are not cut-out for freedom. It is simple.
I've read in one of these threads that you have to assume that an armed person is going to kill you - if you wait to analyze the situation, it's too late, you're dead. That was said by a pro-gun poster. BTW - what else is a handgun used for, besides killing someone? Big game hunting? Pu-leeze.
In that situation, what is your measurement of success? Getting out alive is mine. That means I will do what it takes to be successful, including laying face down. If you want to fight in that situation, go ahead, I'll send flowers to your widow and tell stories of you to your kids "yeah, he cooda been a contender, but his pride was more important than raising his kids".
Maybe that's the problem. If someone with a gun broke into my house, I would say "take my stuff". It's only stuff. Try to hurt me or my family, and I'll do my best to kill you - gun or no gun. But staying alive and unhurt is my primary goal.
I have used my sidearm to protect my life from rattlesnakes more than once on my family ranch while crawling under fruit trees and once from a wild boar that was attacking. You have no idea what you are talking about.
They are also for protecting your life from others.
If you want to take mine away, fine,
NO ONE else gets one under any circumstances, no cops, no military, first, then we will talk.
Thats exactly what I said I was for. Take 'em away from everyone.
To protect me from snakes and boar?
*has aneurysm*
To protect me from snakes and boar?
*has aneurysm*
Nope, from these sows:
Take 'em away from everyone.
How?
That bit aint my problem!
That bit aint my problem!
Typical two-toned lobster rhetoric!
My wife protects me from them just fine...[SIZE="1"]
damn it[/SIZE].
...
Then arm yourself and become skilled not only at putting shots inside the ten-ring, but in what tactics you will use to defend your dwelling -- the best way, proven in study after study of which studies you know nothing, nothing at all, is to have greater force available to you than to the invader. Your chances of "doing my best to kill you" if you didn't bring a gun to the gunfight are laughably small: "...a grasshopper may fight a lawnmower; his courage is undoubtable, but not his judgement" or something like that. Heinlein again -- his thinking, along with Jeff Cooper's, informs a lot of my thinking on this and related subjects.
I know people who can shoot with a handgun at sharpshooter level and cannot hit a moving target better than some ten-year-olds in our family.
Had a long talk one day with a cop about this, he said it was a real problem on the force. The older cops can shoot just fine on the range but can't hit a live target, but young people raised on video games all shoot like they were born with guns in their hands (well... they were) and hit everything they aim at. I asked him to put them on first person shooters... he said they did and his people sucked so bad that the learning curve was so huge that it was almost a waste of time.
My next statement upset him... "promote younger men", he did not, or could not speak, but just nodded.
I shoot fine, and did not play games, but grew-up hunting. Makes sense though. Drs. are training for surgery on video games now. Just works.
To protect me from snakes and boar?
*has aneurysm*
Just because you've never been in the general locale of snakes and boar doesn't make em any less dangerous. A javelina tried to kill my dog one time. In our yard. He might have been sent by the armadillos.
I am saying that is what I used my side-arm for. You are making my point. Are you reading other's posts or just tail-posting?
Tail posting. I lack the attention span to keep up with 3 gun threads in their entirety. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
A javelina tried to kill my dog one time.
Did it stab your dog in the foot? ;)
It bounced off the chainlink fence a couple times and got its head under. It had about 10 friends with it, they had been displaced by a flood and were terrorizing the countryside.
I didn't see it happen, I had to read the tracks (and fix the fence).
I think people should be allowed to keep guns but spreading them will do nothing to prevent crime.
If I bring a gun to protect myself, will it really protect me? If someone robs me at gunpoint it is most likely that they want the money and NOTHING ELSE. Sure there are some fucked up souls that do it to scare, hurt, and that shit but the majority just want the money and doesn't want anyone to get hurt. Now if someone robs me at gunpoint and I falsely assume that the person wants to kill me and I pull out my gun, most likely one if not both of us will end up dead or seriously injured. Are we any better off then when we started? Even if I do have a gun on me when I get robbed at gunpoint I would not pull it out unless I am sure that my life is in danger. I will sacrifice my $50 to not scare the criminal and possiblily getting me killed.
As I said before I am in favor of keeping guns but using them as self-defense is a death sentence.
I think people should be allowed to keep guns but spreading them will do nothing to prevent crime.
If I bring a gun to protect myself, will it really protect me? If someone robs me at gunpoint it is most likely that they want the money and NOTHING ELSE. Sure there are some fucked up souls that do it to scare, hurt, and that shit but the majority just want the money and doesn't want anyone to get hurt. Now if someone robs me at gunpoint and I falsely assume that the person wants to kill me and I pull out my gun, most likely one if not both of us will end up dead or seriously injured. Are we any better off then when we started? Even if I do have a gun on me when I get robbed at gunpoint I would not pull it out unless I am sure that my life is in danger. I will sacrifice my $50 to not scare the criminal and possiblily getting me killed.
As I said before I am in favor of keeping guns but using them as self-defense is a death sentence.
Owning a gun isn't a cure-all. You have to have awareness of your surroundings, a level head, and training. The complete package is what will save your life, not simply a piece of hardware.
At first, your last sentence boggled my mind. But you're right. If you don't have some basic safety training to go with your gun, you're probably going to get hurt or hurt someone else accidentally. However, if you DO get proper education (which I think should be mandatory for ownership), suddenly the mystique and danger disappears.
As I said before I am in favor of keeping guns but using them as self-defense is a death sentence.
So you are ok with state murder but not self-defense or the defense of family, children or others? Yeah, you make
perfect sense.:rolleyes:
The way I look at it is that I
don't know that a criminal is not going to kill me. My life and the life of my family is not worth that gamble under any circumstances. The criminal chooses to place themselves in the situation where I have to decide to trust that they are not going to kill my family or I... I don't trust that and would be a bad husband and father if I trusted them more than my instincts and logic.
Logic says if they are a threat you must eliminate it in the most efficient and final way possible so the threat does not return so my I and/or my family no longer has to deal with said threat. It is simple.
BTW, I am not ALLOWED shit... it is my right and no one has fuck-all to say about it. "allowed to keep....":biglaugha
Molon Labe
When the Greeks came to Sparta they told the Spartans to lay down their arms...the Spartans replied "Molon Labe"...
"Come and take them"
HURRICANE KATRINA GUN CONFISCATIONS
November 8, 2005
No phone. No power. No 911. No police. No way to get help.
You're totally cut off from the rest of the world. Armed, predatory gangs are roaming the streets and committing violent felonies at will. And with nothing to rely on except yourself, you have no choice but to stand at the ready, day and night, to defend your family, keep looters out of your home, or even prevent a murder or rape.
More than a week later, when police and National Guard troops finally arrive, you feel relief... Until they make it clear that they've come to confiscate your guns under sweeping "emergency powers" laws.
As hard to believe as it sounds, the situation I'm describing is exactly what law-abiding citizens of New Orleans faced -- just days after Hurricane Katrina struck.
Two weeks into the disaster, high-ranking politically-appointed police officials set out to turn nature's assault into a government assault on our rights -- and destroy the last remaining thing that Katrina couldn't touch... The RIGHT guaranteed by our Second Amendment to keep and bear firearms for self defense.
The signal for citywide gun confiscation came from New Orleans Superintendent of Police Edwin Compass, who declared: "No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." In a statement to the Associated Press, Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley underscored this profound betrayal by stating, "We are going to take all the weapons."
And with these announcements, law enforcement officials began a massive house-to-house search -- confiscating lawfully-owned firearms that, in the days and hours before, had been used to prevent countless murders, robberies, looting and rapes.
Just that quickly, every notion of justice, freedom, and common sense that you and I have ever believed in was turned completely inside out.
In the eyes of the government, the good guys -- true heroes who had defended not just themselves but their families and neighbors -- were now bad guys.
And the bad guys -- who had exploited the tragedy and chaos to go on a sickening spree of murder, looting and rape -- were effectively given government protection to commit any crime they wanted, no matter how heinous.
In a place where 25% of the police force inexplicably vanished from their jobs... Where helpless people were ordered into the Superdome by the mayor, some reported to be murdered and raped while denied police protection... Where hospitals were looted for drugs... Where gunfire erupted every night on the streets... Where government officials played the blame game for days around an expanding circle of mayhem and death...
...The police were dispatched into the homes of law-abiding citizens with orders to disarm them -- by force if necessary.
Fox News caught one of these violent episodes against peaceable citizens on tape when police entered the residence of an elderly woman, Patricia Konie, and demanded that she evacuate her home. Konie pointed out that her street was dry, she had plenty of food and water and, if looters came, she had a gun.
But when she showed her revolver, held in her palm with the cylinder open, no finger on the trigger, the police mercilessly body-slammed the elderly woman into a wall sending dishes flying -- then confiscated her firearm and dragged her from her home.
No one will ever know how many violent crimes were prevented by law-abiding citizens with lawfully-owned firearms when New Orleans erupted into total chaos and anarchy.
No one will ever know how many violent crimes were committed after law-abiding citizens were forcibly disarmed in the citywide gun sweep. But I do know one thing with absolute certainty:
THIS PRECEDENT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND.
We must ensure that never again will government officials take the Second Amendment into their own hands.
And we must ensure that never again will our fellow law-abiding Americans be disarmed by the government for the "crime" of defending their homes and loved ones -- NEVER.
What we've seen in New Orleans is a 100% vindication of our longtime defense of the Second Amendment.
Every gun-ban lobbyist who ever claimed that we could rely on the police and the government to protect us was proven dead wrong. The politicians who said, "Trust the government to provide for your safety," were nowhere to be found.
And those citizens of New Orleans who misguidedly bought into the "It Takes A Village" gun control philosophy of Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein were the first in line to become victims of violent crime when disaster struck.
When civilization crumbled away, when all else failed, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was all that stood between life and death for innocent people.
To steal that right by unilateral, arrogant decree... taking guns from law-abiding people who have no other means to protect themselves against the worst elements of society... is not just legally wrong -- it's morally wrong at the deepest level...
However, if you DO get proper education (which I think should be mandatory for ownership), suddenly the mystique and danger disappears.
This is the first time I've heard any pro-gun person voluntarily express a desire to limit the owning of guns. Did you really mean to say this? Or did you simply mean that getting training is a good idea? I agree with you that all gun owners should be required to get proper training before they can own a gun.
...The way I look at it is that I don't know that a criminal is not going to kill me. My life and the life of my family is not worth that gamble under any circumstances. The criminal chooses to place themselves in the situation where I have to decide to trust that they are not going to kill my family or I... I don't trust that and would be a bad husband and father if I trusted them more than my instincts and logic.
Logic says if they are a threat you must eliminate it in the most efficient and final way possible so the threat does not return so my I and/or my family no longer has to deal with said threat. It is simple.
...
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?
Your friend's brother's conduct was the problem, not the gun. :headshake
He was stupid to threaten the transvestite with a gun he had no intention of using. If he had, they wouldn't have been wrestling for it.
I'd bet dollars to donuts, he said he was going to get his gun, too.
The purpose of a gun in this case, is to preclude hand to hand combat, keep them at bay while calling the police, if they refuse to leave.
So you should HAVE a gun, but you shouldn't USE the gun? Is there a manual, or a flipchart, or flowchart, we could use in these situations to figure out the "right" thing to do?
Common sense, I would think. Personally I can see few situations where, even if I were willing to use a gun, I would be able to. Most of the cases where it would be useful you wont have time to get at it, and almost all the rest using or even having it will simply escalate the situation... But I can see that, in the small fraction of cases where you need it and can get to it, it can be a literal lifesaver... And a liftaker, too...
I agree with you in many ways, but how does common sense enter into a life or death situation? It's like saying Capital Punishment is a deterrent: most crimes are crimes of passion, anger flaring, uncontrolled emotions, robberies gone awry (is that redundant?) etc and so on.
Very simple. A gun is not the answer, it's an option. If you can't handle that, don't have one. :D
This is the first time I've heard any pro-gun person voluntarily express a desire to limit the owning of guns. Did you really mean to say this? Or did you simply mean that getting training is a good idea? I agree with you that all gun owners should be required to get proper training before they can own a gun.
When I say mandatory, I don't mean the government should regulate and restrict your ownership. I mean that if you don't know how to use a gun safely, you have no business owning one. Same with a chainsaw, a ladder, or a salad shooter.
It should be common sense, but if the buyer lacks it, the pressure should come from the citizenry and from the gun shops, not the government or the manufacturers.
If I owned a gunshop, I would offer first-time buyers classes on general gun safety at no charge. Unless they demonstrated knowledge of the subject at the time of purchase (i.e., before I ran the background check), I wouldn't send them out the door with a weapon. If they don't have the knowledge, I'd explain the (posted) store policy, schedule a class with them, and happily transfer possession upon their successful completion of the course.
The government has no involvement in my scenario.
Spexx,
I'm not sure I take the right lesson of your morality tale.
Through the course of a few short sentences your friend's brother became a violent felon. The outcome of getting shot by his own gun is probably one of the best possible. At least he did not kill or seriously hurt anyone else, and society didn't have to work too hard or pay too much to clean up his mess.
In order for this tale to be anti-gun, we have to have more concern for this guy's life and safety than he did.
We have to notice that the innocent person being attacked was probably unarmed.
We have to notice that the attacker had time and room to choose any approach, including calling the cops if he felt there was a threat; and so, he would have been a violent homophobic killer with a knife, if that were the favored method of violent homophobic killers everywhere.
We have to not put his face on the statistics that say you might be shot by your own gun. Sure, if you are a violent homophobic felon bringing home TVs from bars, you might well get shot by your own gun. If you don't behave like that, your chances become miniscule.
Meanwhile, if I have to be around violent homophobic felons, I will want to have a gun.
It's harsh because you have some connection to this person, but this person was too stupid to live free, and was inches away from landing on death row no matter what the outcome of that night.
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?
I don't think there is nearly enough information in this description of the incident to make assumptions such as:
[PART QUOTE PART SNIPS]1)We have to notice that the innocent person being attacked was probably unarmed
2)We have to notice that the attacker had time and room to choose any approach, including calling the cops if he felt there was a threat; and so, he would have been a violent homophobic killer with a knife, if that were the favored method of violent homophobic killers everywhere.
3)We have to not put his face on the statistics that say you might be shot by your own gun. Sure, if you are a violent homophobic felon bringing home TVs from bars, you might well get shot by your own gun. If you don't behave like that, your chances become miniscule.[/PART QUOTE PART SNIPS]
We weren't in that room. The friend's brother or the TV could have been the initial attacker. The friend's brother or the TV could have been the initial attackee. We just don't know.
I understand the point you're making but I don't think we have enough info to attribute those points to this particular story.
If he leaves the room there is not a continous struggle. If there is not a continuous struggle he is not threatened with deadly harm. If he is not threatened with deadly harm he should not threaten with deadly harm. If he does, he is a violent felon. That's my reasoning and I'm stickin to it.
If the other dude/dudette keeps him from leaving the room there is a struggle. If d/dette is very strong, there is threat of deadly harm as well as ability to wrestle the deadly weapon away. We don't know.
Just sayin'
Well no, he left the room to get his gun.
If there is not immediate deadly harm, he should dial 911 at that point.
If there is immediate deadly harm, he should come out shooting.
and so, he would have been a violent homophobic killer with a knife, if that were the favored method of violent homophobic killers everywhere.
You made the same basic comment with the Amish killer too, but I think you mentioned a ball peen hammer.
Guns are in a completely different league from other weapons like knives and hammers.
Sure, there will always be violent crime if guns don't exist, but I think there will be far far less of it. I can be easily killed by a gun, but the only way you can kill me with a knife is if you can outrun me or if you surprise me. And in both cases you have to overpower me as well. Criminals know this, and are less likely to risk getting in a struggle with someone. They are lazy cowards.
Criminals are emboldened because they have guns. Take the guns out of the equation, and there will be far far less violent crime.
Well no, he left the room to get his gun.
If there is not immediate deadly harm, he should dial 911 at that point.
If there is immediate deadly harm, he should come out shooting.
Yep, sorry, stand corrected...:redface:
My story was not meant to be case-specific. I just wanted to illustrate that even if you are a law abiding citizen (he was), know guns (he did), are using your gun to protect your home (he was), and your assailant is unarmed (he was), you can still get killed. And you can still get killed with your own gun. There are many many many situations that would be resolved much more favorably if there were no guns involved.
Hopefully this will clear up the story. Let's call my friend's brother "Sven", and the TV "Pat". When Sven found out that Pat was a guy, Sven asked him to leave. Pat refused. They scuffled. Sven broke away and ran to his bedroom, opened the drawer to get his gun, not knowing that Pat had followed him. Just as Sven grabbed his gun, Pat hit him on the back of the head, stunning Sven momentarily. Pat got the gun away from Sven, and shot him dead.
...Guns are in a completely different league from other weapons like knives and hammers.
Sure, there will always be violent crime if guns don't exist, but I think there will be far far less of it. I can be easily killed by a gun, but the only way you can kill me with a knife is if you can outrun me or if you surprise me. And in both cases you have to overpower me as well. Criminals know this, and are less likely to risk getting in a struggle with someone. They are lazy cowards.
Criminals are emboldened because they have guns. Take the guns out of the equation, and there will be far far less violent crime.
Yup!
On the matter of clarity, Spexx, that's an awful lot of detail and only the survivor lived to tell the tale. All we really know is there is a TV in the bedroom, and a dead guy with a knot on his head and shot with his own gun. The details are left to the defense lawyer. But I take your point.
Sure, there will always be violent crime if guns don't exist, but I think there will be far far less of it.
You need better evidence than "I think". And "guns don't exist" is not part of the state space; it's a fantasy. There'd be less drug crime if drugs didn't exist.
You need better evidence than "I think". And "guns don't exist" is not part of the state space; it's a fantasy. There'd be less drug crime if drugs didn't exist.
OK. Lets do a trial ban on guns and collect some data.
You need better evidence than "I think".
And you can use precisely the same argument to discount UT's claim that if you remove guns there would be the same level of violent crime. There's no evidence to back that up either.
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.
Guns are in a completely different league from other weapons like knives and hammers.
Guns do make killers more efficient, I don't think that can or should be denied.
Unfortunately, if guns are banned and we're reduced to knives and hammers it changes the dynamic to: I'm stronger, I'll do my worst. The weak lose the option of a level playing field. With guns, there is more equality. I don't live in a place that my personal safety is threatened by thugs but if I were a woman in a rough town, I'd have to consider the conceal carry option.
OK. Lets do a trial ban on guns and collect some data.
No, let's not. There's been plenty of places with gun bans, and I don't consider any of them to be successes.
"Trial ban" indeed. This is why the Constitution is difficult to amend, to keep bright boys with clever social experiment ideas from playing with it. And as I said, "no guns" is a fantasy...you simply want to disarm me to give yourself a warm fuzzy liberal moment, and I won't stand for it.
...I won't stand for it.
Read: I will shoot you right in your tree-hugging face!
I've seen someone with more than 30 wounds from 9mm pistols, and only 4 were lethal.
No, a 9mm isn't exactly a hand cannon. I carry a 9mm because it's light and concealable and was cheap. I envy Gwennie her Kimber Pro-Carry.
Of course, poor marksmanship makes any firearm less effective.
Read: I will shoot you right in your tree-hugging face!
Read: You have no right to disarm me.
...poor marksmanship makes any firearm less effective.
So does ninjas.
... if I were a woman in a rough town, I'd have to consider the conceal carry option.
Being one, I have. :-)
So does ninjas.
Okay, deal. I will give up my guns if I can be a ninja.
edit: no I won'tWhat 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.
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.
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.
Thats exactly what I said I was for. Take 'em away from everyone.
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.
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.
If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont.
Dumbass.
And that fairytale scenario will never happen
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.
I never said it would happen, I said that's my ideal solution. Note the use of the word ideal.
But ideal is far from reality on any subject I can think of. :lol:
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 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.
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.
before you're aware you're being robbed.
And there it is. I'm not against responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns, but the reality is, shit happens. Carrying a gun lawfully is not a guarantee that you will not be a victim, and it concerns me that some seem to think that it is.
And...robbers don't even have to have a gun--they can just say they do. Or they can just forego the chit-chat and beat the crap out of you from behind, even without a weapon. Having a gun isn't going to help you then, and may even end up being worse for you, god forbid.
Having the option to defend yourself is never worse for you. Hypothetically, anything you do in a self-defense scenario could end badly -- that doesn't mean you shouldn't give it your best shot, no pun intended.
Carrying a gun lawfully is not a guarantee that you will not be a victim, and it concerns me that some seem to think that it is.
That's a straw man. Nobody said it was a guarantee.
But I claim you're
vastly better off armed than disarmed. And the record (see Gun Facts) backs that up, even though so many of the cases where it does work never even make it to the record.
And there it is. I'm not against responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns, but the reality is, shit happens. Carrying a gun lawfully is not a guarantee that you will not be a victim, and it concerns me that some seem to think that it is.
And...robbers don't even have to have a gun--they can just say they do. Or they can just forego the chit-chat and beat the crap out of you from behind, even without a weapon. Having a gun isn't going to help you then, and may even end up being worse for you, god forbid.
That is what Krav-Maga is for.
I'd never heard of Krav-Maga before, and was almost afraid to google it. :o Sure, that would work, or any martial art for that matter. A little story--a relative of mine, trained in something or other, plus a Vietnam combat vet and and a retired cop, was once attacked by two men intent on robbing him. But all they got for their trouble was a pair of broken knee caps, each. :eek:
"Martial Art" in the strictest sense. Mostly used by military and police/police-like groups. Developed by the Mossad to be a straight street fighting technique.
There is no form to it, just practical technique. Disarming and disabling is a lot of it, so someone with a gun behind you is not really an issue if your training has passed that point.
It is very effective.
Lately a lot of special forces and soccer moms have been taking advanced forms of it.
I saw a video of two guys who made the mistake of trying to take one of these ladies purses, it was caught on a security camera.
All I can say is "oucheeee".
The physical conditioning and training regimen required to be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan is not practical for most people.
The basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks. :D
... If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. ...
Bush "it might be haaaaard work, but it will create thousands of jobs in martial arts training sector...." ;)
I just want to go on record that the pro-killing, uh, I mean the "guns for everyone" advocates have made two good points, IMHO.
First - Griff's "even playing field for women" point.
Second - Bruce's "if they don't have a gun they're more likely to just bash in your head before they even ask for your wallet" point.
I'd still like to see many, many fewer handguns on the streets.
See, I'm not a closed-minded conservative! :D
How do you "prevent gun violence"...?
Wage a war against gun crime?
The same way the "war on drugs" made people stop doing drugs?
Sorry, I was being ironic (sarcastic)
As you were.
It's too late for "sorry" . . . we're obligated to have a knife-fight now.
The physical conditioning and training regimen required to be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan is not practical for most people.
The basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks. :D
I was not suggesting that it was a substitute, I was a bouncer for years... it was just part of my training. I did a lot of close quarter, disarming, combat.
My guns will
never be taken from me.
Krav Maga does not take physical prowess or years of training, that is the great thing about it, btw. Just practice and commitment.
I'd still like to see many, many fewer handguns on the streets.
That's why I carry concealed. You'll never see it. Even if you are a specs vet.
How do you "prevent gun violence"...?
A good first step would be by identifying the actual problem (which is "criminals"), instead of indulging in spintalk.
MaggieL insists that crime will decrease with more people carrying guns. That is total nonsense.
Severely wrong, tw. That crime decreases with liberalized concealed carry is the UNIVERSAL experience of absolutely EVERY ONE of the 39 states that has liberalized concealed carry. Read the books I cited earlier in the thread or remain silent, tw, for your ignorant, evil, and neurotically hoplophobic point of view gets innocents killed: it is the viewpoint of an unmitigated immoral son of a bitch.
You can prove whether you are an unmitigated son of a bitch or otherwise by your actions after this date. You think you know anything? Let's see how good you are at educating yourself away from the pro-crime, progenocide point of view. Start reading the NRA, too, for updates -- they too have come around to the understanding that gun control plants a vital seed for later genocide.
And I'll take the documented experience of the several states over the present views of tw.
Aside note to poster Ibram: this is an example of a not-libertarian tw post. Libertarians reckon general arms ownership a good idea.
If NOBODY has 'em, nobody can use them on those that dont.
Swords, pollaxes, bows and bills, pikes and lances, maces and warhammers. Changes the sound of battle from boom bang rattatat to clatter thump and scream, but really just about as bloody.
Lots of fun when you get rid of the blood part, though:
http://www.sca.org
Been in a few melees myself.
The physical conditioning and . . . basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks. :D
Very well said, Bruce. There's hope for you yet. This thread so far is making good argument for having an array of options for self defense, non-lethal to quite-.
How do you "prevent gun violence"...?
How about door-to-door searches. If the police find a gun, but no permit, all occupants of said how get executed on the spot. :rolleyes:
How do you "prevent gun violence"...?
More cops? Oh wait....then we'd have to raise taxes. Better check with Maggie to see if that expense is on her "collectivism" list.;) We'd also better inform the police to be careful of RZ, he doesn't trust cops, you know.:p
The physical conditioning and training regimen required to be Chuck Norris or Jackie Chan is not practical for most people.
The basic moves aren't sufficient against someone with their finger already on the trigger, wound tight as a clock spring, and with the option to take your wallet off your body instead.
It only works with robbers that are distracted, sloppy and careless which is how they get when they think nobody has a gun. If you take away guns, you have to have the Mossad train everyone and that's not practical or possible. I'll keep my guns, thanks. :D
Emphasis mine, quoted entire for context.
Question, xoB: In the situation highlighted above, what is sufficient?
Severely wrong, tw. That crime decreases with liberalized concealed carry is the UNIVERSAL experience of absolutely EVERY ONE of the 39 states that has liberalized concealed carry. Read the books I cited earlier in the thread or remain silent, tw, for your ignorant, evil, and neurotically hoplophobic point of view gets innocents killed: it is the viewpoint of an unmitigated immoral son of a bitch.
You can prove whether you are an unmitigated son of a bitch or otherwise by your actions after this date. You think you know anything? Let's see how good you are at educating yourself away from the pro-crime, progenocide point of view. Start reading the NRA, too, for updates -- they too have come around to the understanding that gun control plants a vital seed for later genocide.
And I'll take the documented experience of the several states over the present views of tw.
Aside note to poster Ibram: this is an example of a not-libertarian tw post. Libertarians reckon general arms ownership a good idea.
I really hate it when I agree with what you, or anyone, are saying, but you descend to making such a point acting like this, name calling and such.
There is no need, it does harm to the debate.
How about door-to-door searches. If the police find a gun, but no permit, all occupants of said how get executed on the spot. :rolleyes:
You want a police state, searches with no probable cause, no fourth ammendment?
You can go to the anti-island if you want, you will be happy there.... there is
no freedom there.
I really hate it when I agree with what you, or anyone, are saying, but you descend to making such a point acting like this, name calling and such.
There is no need, it does harm to the debate.
--snip--
[Quote=Urbane Guerrilla]
If your thinking's actually good enough, you need not bolster it with abusive language. Nor need you indulge in hysterics.
Welcome to the Hall of Fame, Urbane Guerrilla. While I have had my doubts that you would deserve mention in this thread, and I have quoted you rather narrowly, this statement is absolutely on the mark. It is succinct, germane, uncommon and above all true. It is all the more startling coming from you as it stands in stark contrast to many, many of your posts. I'm delighted to see this change, however brief it may be.[/quote]
Your observations aren't the first, nor is this example UG's first recidivous offense. Frankly, this is the norm and my HoF quote is the exception, sadly.
__________________
More cops? Oh wait....then we'd have to raise taxes. Better check with Maggie to see if that expense is on her "collectivism" list.;)
Actually, I don't think the gun crime problem is amenable to attack with "more cops" as long as the judges won't send the criminals to jail, and the urban mayors won't build enough jails to hold them. Criminals know that the chances that they will face meaningful punishment is very, very small.
Emphasis mine, quoted entire for context.
Question, xoB: In the situation highlighted above, what is sufficient?
In that case, sufficient would be as good as the movies portray their heros(or anti-heros) to be. I know I, and I suspect you, will never be that good. :unsure:
Actually, I don't think the gun crime problem is amenable to attack with "more cops" as long as the judges won't send the criminals to jail, and the urban mayors won't build enough jails to hold them. Criminals know that the chances that they will face meaningful punishment is very, very small.
More
jails
? Oh wait....then we'd have to raise taxes. Better check with Maggie to see if that expense is on her "collectivism" list. :D
jails
I'm perfectly willing to have the government collect taxes to pay for law enforcement; that is a proper function of government.
Oh, by the way, your sig line is totally bogus.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetant"-Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein never, ever said that. You've confused him with Asimov's character in the Foundation series, Hari Seldon. Which pretty much indicates you haven't read much Heinlien...or if you did you didn't inhale
Appropriate Heinlein quotes might be:
"Place your clothes and weapons where you can find them in the dark."
or
"An armed society is a polite society."
or
"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men."
or
"I am opposed to all attempts to license or restrict the arming of individuals... I consider such laws a violation of civil liberty, subversive of democratic political institutions, and self-defeating in their purpose."
Heinlein and Asimov had nothing in common except both being SF writers and having worked together at the Frankford Arsenel in Philly duriung WWII. Hanging his name on that wishful pacifism desecrates his memory.
I'm perfectly willing to have the government collect taxes to pay for law enforcement; that is a proper function of government.
Collectivist!
that is a proper function of government.
Of course everybody has their own perspective on the proper function of government, don't they?
Oh, by the way, your sig line is totally bogus.
Heinlein never, ever said that. You've confused him with Asimov's character in the Foundation series, Hari Seldon. Which pretty much indicates you haven't read much Heinlien...or if you did you didn't inhale
...
It must be ereassuring for you to never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever admit to being incorrect.
I would kill someone to avoid being killed myself or to defend my family from being killed, but I sure would think first about how to RUN AWAAYYY (monty python) because I would really hate to kill someone and have that on my conscience but also because explaining it, defending my actions, and basically trying to fix the problem caused by having killed someone would be such a royal pain.. I'd rather avoid that.
It must be ereassuring for you to never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever admit to being incorrect.
I've admitted it on as many occasions as I'm aware of having been incorrect. Sorry that getting caught misquoting upsets you so much you have to wave a red herring around.
There's little point in having laws if there's no way to enforce them...which is what much urban crime is demonstrating. If beleving in the US Constitution (read the preamble again) makes me a collectivist, then I'm guilty. But there's plenty of *real* collectivists here on the Cellar.
Heinlein never, ever said that. You've confused him with Asimov's character in the Foundation series, Hari Seldon. Which pretty much indicates you haven't read much Heinlien...or if you did you didn't inhale
Did Seldon say it? I thought it was a politician later in the series, Salvor Hardin. Though I wouldn't be surprised if one of the prequels had Seldon "pre-say" it later on.
I'd rather avoid that.
Which is the origin of the expression "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
Did Seldon say it? I thought it was a politician later in the series, Salvor Hardin. Though I wouldn't be surprised if one of the prequels had Seldon "pre-say" it later on.
That's the attribution I have seen most often. While I have read a fair amount of Asimov (I have a personally autographed copy of "Opus 100"), I confess I never got far into the Foundation books without falling asleep.
But I do know my Heinlien.
I've read the whole series and I do believe that HM is correct, the saying appeared on a sign in Mayor Hardin's office.
I've admitted it on as many occasions as I'm aware of having been incorrect. Sorry that getting caught misquoting upsets you so much you have to wave a red herring around.
...
A red herring would be to comment on a signature line in the middle of a debate about guns. That's real hard to grasp, though, isn't it, for a hypocrit.
I really hate it when I agree with what you, or anyone, are saying, but you descend to making such a point acting like this, name calling and such.
There is no need, it does harm to the debate.
Rkzen, when a man's knowledge of gun rights is as inadequate as tw's is, there's a reason for it. This man tw, for his own twisted reasons, is trying to get people killed -- people who
don't need to die. That's immoral, and it's stone evil.
"People" includes you and me.
Name calling is the
least I can do! When tw acts that loathesomely, that consistently, and someone else calls him on it and tells him what kind of creature he's become -- there are grounds somehow to object?
Therefore, I protest at your protestation. In other circumstances, you'd be right; this isn't one of them.
Really? Please enlighten me as to what it accomplishes?
A red herring would be to comment on a signature line in the middle of a debate about guns.
Not when the sig purports to address the issue at hand.
My draw with a peacemaker is very fast, but not that fast. Of course I never had the benefit of having my film sped-up.
Hey, I could do that....I'm good at being slapped. :D
I'd be one of the dudes saying "did you see that shit?" to one another...
Really? Please enlighten me as to what it accomplishes?
Why, the demolition, perhaps even the permanent annihilation, of an invalid, unsupported viewpoint, of course. Can't come to a correct decision without facts, can we? Rather often, tw will try to steer people wrong. I, for one, resent that. I think anyone would.
And I didn't stop there: I've told tw exactly what he should do to both rehabilitate himself and simultaneously to grow in wisdom, for I believe in constructive criticism and make a point of always at least implying where salvation may lie. I admit to grave doubts that he'll take the advice, because it's me telling him, and his warped ego will shriek at him that it is more important to ignore Urb and remain wrong, than ever to try and find his way to being right. But theoretically, I should never stop offering the good stuff.
Now, Rkzen, why would you not understand one absurdly simple thing? The murderous point of view is not the point of view to be tolerated. Ever. As you can see, my view is that it is right to resist being murdered, whereas his is the complete opposite. Loathesome! Immoral! Repellent! Let him suffer revulsion for all that! Does he deserve any other?
You have obviously never been shot at.
...Since the gungrabbers here are so fond of hypotheticals, here's one for Spexxvet:
Consider a sealed room with two people in it. Obviously if the room contains no guns, no shootings will occur. If the room contains two guns, each in the posession of one of the people, I maintain that shootings are less likely to occur than if there was only one gun.
...
Utter foolishness. Unlike UG, I'll explain why.
Ok, not utter. If there were no gun at all, there would absolutely be no shooting.
If there was one gun, and you had it, then I would surrend, lay face down on the floor, do whatever you told me to do, and you would only shoot me if you were a nasty, heartless, sadistic bitch. So that's one shot, probably. If I got had the gun, I would only shoot if you didn't surrender, after trying less lethal solutions.
If there were two guns, I would shoot you right away, so that you couldn't shoot me, knowing that you would do the same. If I didn't kill you, or you got a shot off at the same time I shot, you would still get a shot off. That's two virtually guaranteed shots.
Ha!
:zzz:
:chirp:
:chirp:
Wait! I know! "This administration has never been about 'stay the course' - uh I mean 'more guns means fewer gun-related deaths'"
God, that was a great call-out post. The quotes, the smilie, the attached image, the Bush reference...
You have obviously never been shot at.
I have faced the prospect of having to maybe shoot somebody. In my own bedroom. Didn't like the idea one little bit. I think that will do.
She laughed at your penis, again? :question:
God, that was a great call-out post.
We'll put you down for "easily impressed by drivel you agree with".
The scenario is called
"mutually assured destruction". We've seen it once in history. Guess what the outcome was? Hint: It wasn't Spexxy's preemptive strike.
She laughed at your penis, again? :question:
Nah; he was going quietly insane, and not too long after that was prevailed upon by his relatives to voluntarily enter St. Elizabeth's, the DC area public mental hospital. Seems even after kicking cocaine and alcohol you can stay really fried.
How 'bout cutting the nonsense, Bruce? We're on the same side here. Let's behave that way.
Just to make it perfectly clear,UG, while we might have similar views on some subjects, I will never be on your side and don't want you on mine.
As far as that goes, I'd hate to narrow any subject to just two sides.....life is not that simple. Only simple people think it is. :rollanim:
Thought for the day.....
You are on my side here, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with that. You are at liberty to dislike me, for I am what I am and don't mind telling you so. I suggest you quitcherbitchin'.
Funny; I think the picture has been reversed. In all but some very special 1911 pistols, the safety is on the left side. I don't think that's a Swenson ambidextrous safety, either. I'd be looking for an unobtrusive cutaway in the edge of the grip panel right near the safety lever were that so.
How much does a leftie cost?
I don't think there is a cost difference... I think you just have to order them from the factory and wait a bit longer. At least that is what my uncle, a leftie told me when he got his Glock.
Oh, you meant a left handed gun. lol
It's an ambi safety. Note the extractor (the circle cut) is on the right side of the back of the slide. Also note the extended top of the grip safety and the long hammer spur, indicating that it's a 1911-A1 rather than an old model 1911.
I'm guessing it's a stock safety, because of the lack of other improvements that would indicate a competition or tactical weapon. For example, the hammer is mil-spec and not lightened. Comp shooters need the slight boost to cycle time from a lighter hammer. Also, the profile of the mil-spec hammer, the grip safety, and the rear sight would drag on clothing, indicating that it's not been modified for concealed carry.
My guess at first would be Kimber, but the grooves on the slide (which are used for getting a grip when you have to clear the action quickly in a malfunction) aren't the standard slippery-ugly Kimber style. I'd have to see the hammer to be sure. Based on the grooves on the slide alone, I'm gonna go with Colt or Springfield for $1000, Alex. Cuz I have one. And it looks like that. Only black and with cooler parts. :D
I am telling you, I can be pedantic with the best of em. AND I'VE GOTTEN TO USE THAT WORD TWICE THIS WEEK!
I'll post pics of mine tomorrow maybe. I took my pill tonight, and I don't touch any weapon unless I'm sober. So it remains locked away, safely hidden under the kid's bed.
I'm not saying it is not that gun, not arguing with you... but you can order left-handed guns from several manufacturers. A separate thought.
yah i didn't feel argued with. s'all good. it happens to me constantly. And come to think of it, you're probably right, except that the stock lefties will have stock safeties, and that one seems to be aftermarket to me. Just the shape of it, really.
I'm split 50/50 on leftie model or aftermarket ambi.
I was thoughtfully pulling my lip over that little pin end visible between the safety lever and the grip panel... seemed familiar. Where had I seen that before...? Yeah, I should have picked up on the extractor being on the right side where it belonged.
I tend to regard minimal-mod 1911s as "tactical," per the KISS plan. Ambi safety lever, your favorite fixed sights, being choosy about your magazines and a 4-to-5-lb trigger pull. Maybe beveling the mag well if it's in the budget. (That doesn't apply to double-stack 1911s like Para-Ordnance and the modulars, as there's a bigger well to shove 'em in and the mags taper a bit at the top.)
I suggest you quitcherbitchin'.
But you make such an entertaining bitch. :p
Honestly, I just started on pistols not too long ago. Had revolvers most of my life.
I want to get a Glock 6 for my next, I can't handle the larger grips now. I like .45s.
We, on the ranch, always used Glocks or revolvers because of weather.
Oh, you meant a left handed gun. lol
There are a few small gunmakers who've figured the lefties deserve a pistol set up for them too, which can be rather a thing in a basic design nearly a hundred years old. Modern fighting pistols like the Kahr or the Glock are less, uh, handed. Curiously enough, the venerable Colt Peacemaker revolver may be better laid out for use in the left hand than in the right, with its loading gate on the right side.
Kahr Arms/I'm pretty sure Rossi makes lefties to order.
Well, since we aren't allowed to have (and I obviously wouldn't want to have) handguns here, it really makes no difference to me which handed they are. :)
To your list I would add "profile reduction" -- bevelling or rounding surfaces that have a tendency to grab on to things when you draw. Back of the slide, the hammer, the spur, the front site (that's one that gets ignored till they whack it off on a brick wall during a chase and suddenly don't remember how to aim without a front sight.). Obviously, in the field, you have to be able to replace broken parts, so you want to stay standard as possible. They're not going to send your mercury filled recoil reducer in the mail to iraq if you lose one.
But spec ops guys are special. They get to take their OWN sidearms on trips :D And before they go, they load em up with a wide assortment of goofy shit that is basically for pimpin dey gun.j
The old schoolers snarl at them of course, but i always enjoyed talking to both camps.
That last was to UG. Damn you kids and your fast typin. ciggie break, brb.
The photo is simply reversed for the purposes of the graphic designer.
Nah, it's straight. Just has a safety for lefties.
And/or weak-hand firing... just in case your strong hand isn't working, or some crocodile just Steve-Irwinned it, and you without your chainsaw and the Army of Darkness still closing in...
...wonder if Nood has finished his ciggie?
Yeah it was a quick one. cold out there and im in me skivvies.
