No gun control in US

[MrP]

This assumes that such a fight is one-on-one.

If it's a couple of guys I'm reasonably sure of my safety. If it's a dozen lads, I'm fucked even if I have a gun.

Why pull the knife out, except to keep stabbing?

It's alittle known fact that blades stick in the wound. It's one of the handy things about saw-bladed knives - they're easier to withdraw.

A gun will work better in more circumstances. Both also share some of the same drawbacks.

Which circumstances? It's got better reload capacity, I'll give you that. But to use a gun effectively you need to unholster it, aim and then fire, as said above. Given that the military trains people to cross twenty odd feet and take someone down using unarmed combat in less than the time it takes to draw, aim and fire a gun, I don't deem that a good deterrent. Guns are a handy deterrent if one's in a very open space and there's plenty of distance between one and one's assailant.

Still, overall, I've got to say I'd take unarmed combat training over a gun. Miss with the gun, and the person's on you. For women especially I'd like to see more unarmed combat training. Little is so empowering as knowing just how to take out a bigger and stronger assailant at close range.

They won't be legal in a decade or two

How can you bash his head in if he's already killed you?

If he's already killed me, then my having a gun won't help much . . .

No, a gunshot is more powerful (and precise) than a blow to one's head with a baton.

Try getting hit with a baton. It's disorientating, mate. Incidentally, I'd rather avoid killing someone and just dislocate a few of their limbs instead, if attacked. And I'd much rather women had compulsory classes in self-defence.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

On the issue of self-defense via rolling up the newspaper, I suspect that anyone capable of rolling up the Sunday New York Times is ranking low on the non-legally blind predator's target list.

 

[MrP]

On the issue of self-defense via rolling up the newspaper, I suspect that anyone capable of rolling up the Sunday New York Times is ranking low on the non-legally blind predator's target list.

Well, Sarge, it seems he was crushed to death with a bloody huge blunt object.

 

[Landshark]

Women who need guns to defend against abusive psycho exes have died because of waiting periods. They turned in the initial paperwork for the gun and never came back to get it because they were murdered in the meantime.

It cuts both ways.

So do most laws.

Are you saying that the benefits of women being able to get hold of guns to defend themselves as soon as they need them outweigh the benefits of keeping potential killers from guns until a background check can be done on them?

Scenario 1:

A woman goes into a gunshop to buy a gun to protect herself from her ex, is told she'll be able to pick up the gun in three days time and is murdered on the second day by her ex.

Scenario 2:

A woman goes into a gunshop, buys a gun there and then over the counter and shoots and kills her ex when he tries to attack her.

Scenario 3:

A woman's ex goes into a gunshop, buys a gun there and then over the counter and shoots and kills the woman he's on bail for assaulting.

Scenario 4:

A woman's ex goes into a gunshop to buy a gun to kill her, is told he'll be able to pick up the gun in three days but is visited by the cops on the second day wanting to know why someone out on bail for assault wants a gun?

 

[Landshark]

Well, I honestly don't see why one would need a gun specifically, because any fighting in a home is likely to be at close range.

Not exclusively and in any case firearms can be used effectively at close range.

Still, various things are legally available for home defence in the UK.
I've got some nunchuks and an extendable baton right here, in fact.

Increasingly though limits are being put on what you can use for self defence. While it is still legal to possess and carry an extendable baton it is illegal to sell or import them. The right to self defence exists but access to the tools to provide self defence is getting increasingly difficult.

I'm also aware of the potnential of a rolled newspaper for legal defence when away from home.

That's probably because you've encountered only soft, southern muggers. I'd still prefer something with a bit more oomph.

No, a gunshot is ore powerful (and precise) than a blow to one's head with a baton.

Again this is best case scenario thinking. Any impact to the head, be it by baton or bullet, is in most cases preferable to a shot to any other body part. Also a gunshot is only more precise if it is aimed (and only then by a reasonable shot) and in a sudden life or death attack situation being able to draw, aim and fire your gun is less likely than just getting the thing out of the holster and pointing the business end in the general direction of your attacker.

Exactly. The potential is protected by his right to arm himself.

Possibly I'm not making myself clear there. When I say less likely to rob a person carrying a gun I meant it was less likely because people who concealed carry only make up a relatively small percentage of potential victims.

Fair enough. But now you have muggers being locked up for murder, keeping them from mugging again for a long time.

Only if they're caught and I have to go with Nappy's general WTF? reaction to that statement.

You make the assumption that the robber will still strike if his own life is at risk.

As stated elsewhere you make the assumption that a violent armed criminal will flee rather than kill a potential threat.

How about the freedman in 1874 in the rebel states of the late ACW who would be arrested for shooting a klucker on his land due to gun control laws?

What has this to do with the uses of firearms in the early 21st Century?

 

[Landshark]

If it's a couple of guys I'm reasonably sure of my safety. If it's a dozen lads, I'm fucked even if I have a gun.

Possibly. However guns have a deterrent effect and even at close range you can do serious damage to an attacking mob. This does of course become less effective if your opponents are armed.

Still, overall, I've got to say I'd take unarmed combat training over a gun. Miss with the gun, and the person's on you./quote]

That depends on how close the attacker is, whether you can get another shot off, (and this is doable in seconds if you're skilled enough) and finally on whether your attacker runs like hell from the loony shooting at him.

For women especially I'd like to see more unarmed combat training. Little is so empowering as knowing just how to take out a bigger and stronger assailant at close range.

And what if the assailant is big enough, strong enough and skilled enough in unarmed combat to resist being taken out?

 

[MrP]

Increasingly though limits are being put on what you can use for self defence. While it is still legal to possess and carry an extendable baton it is illegal to sell or import them. The right to self defence exists but access to the tools to provide self defence is getting increasingly difficult.

I don't even know if it's legal to carry one. This one's just a 17" teat ended one. And I can honestly say that I wouldn't carry it for defence.

That's probably because you've encountered only soft, southern muggers. I'd still prefer something with a bit more oomph.

Meh. Put thyself down for some self defence classes, mate. The sole reason I'm not going to all the ones I can hereabouts is my fear of strangers. They're so much fun . . . *wistful look*

And what if the assailant is big enough, strong enough and skilled enough in unarmed combat to resist being taken out?

Imagining an imaginary opponent? If they're that good, then having a gun's probably going to be useless because said assailant will choose his pattern of attack exceptionally carefully and make sure you can't get to your gun in time. At which point it all comes down to close in skill. If said assailant's superior to you there, then buggered you are. But the more skill you have, the greater the chance of holding him off long enough for someone else to intervene.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Nap,

Re: my comments about looking fierce, some 14 year olds from a housing project near my college robbed some sorority girls using a toy gun. They probably figured the victim would panic and obey any of their demands without question.

Also, in Atlanta a year or so ago, some guy was with his daughter in the park when some guy tried to rob him at gunpoint. The father drew, aimed, and shot and killed the guy, who apparently wasn't able to get a shot off.

Plus at West Georgia college recently, some guy barged into some college students' apartment with a gun, only for the students to hack him to death with their pocket-knives.

So being a street criminal doesn't automatically make you omnipotent.

And why'd you spaz out like that (all the shouting)? Are you not in a good mood or did some member of your family get killed trying to fight an attacker and thus this is an issue you feel passionate about?

 

[Weapon M]

21 feet, guys, the standard distance is 21 feet. We do drills like this on a regular basis. I can close 21 feet before your first shot goes off, and this is when

A. You know it is coming

and

B. Your pistol is either holstered or laying on a table in front of you.

Also, this is simply the time to get a shot off, it is not necessarily a well-placed one.

A gun does not make you unbeatable, and within 21 feet, it may give you way too much confidence, and this overconfidence can be fatal.

You must consider backing away, at an angle from the attacker's approach, and trying to interpose something between you and him. When his intial momentum is broken, such as from needing to change direction, or needing to negotiate an obstacle, then you can open fire.

Look around you right now. Do you see a 21 feet circle? Anyone who gets inside that radius is a threat, whether you have a gun or not.

Remember, in gunfight, it is possible for everyone to miss. In a knife fight, you are going to get cut. Period.

Carry both.

 

[Wendell]

And you're making the assumption that the victim will strike if his own life is at risk.

His own life is already at risk if he's being persued by one who wishes to do harm unto him. Carrying a gun increases the victim's chances of escaping the encounter alive and with his possessions and person in tact.
--------

Again this is best case scenario thinking. Any impact to the head, be it by baton or bullet, is in most cases preferable to a shot to any other body part. Also a gunshot is only more precise if it is aimed (and only then by a reasonable shot) and in a sudden life or death attack situation being able to draw, aim and fire your gun is less likely than just getting the thing out of the holster and pointing the business end in the general direction of your attacker.

And in the worst case scenario, the only person armed is he who ignores the law anyway. A gun is far more eay to conceal than a long baton or baseball bat.

Possibly I'm not making myself clear there. When I say less likely to rob a person carrying a gun I meant it was less likely because people who concealed carry only make up a relatively small percentage of potential victims.

Because they are armed.

Only if they're caught and I have to go with Nappy's general WTF? reaction to that statement.

There is good potential for witnesses, as there likely would be for a robbery, mugging, or theft anyway.

As stated elsewhere you make the assumption that a violent armed criminal will flee rather than kill a potential threat.

And you assume that the assailant would be that willing to put their own freedom or even life on the line.

What has this to do with the uses of firearms in the early 21st Century?

It demonstrates the nature of gun control as a deliberate hindrance of liberty in favor of criminality.

 

[luakel]

His own life is already at risk if he's being persued by one who wishes to do harm unto him. Carrying a gun increases the victim's chances of escaping the encounter alive and with his possessions and person intact.

A criminal's goal isn't to kill, it's to steal. But I'd say it's likely he'd be more willing to kill than your average civilian, if both have guns.

 

[Wendell]

A criminal's goal isn't to kill, it's to steal. But I'd say it's likely he'd be more willing to kill than your average civilian, if both have guns.

You are saying that a robber with no intent to kill will risk a life sentence or more for what could be a measely $10 dollars? I think not. Likewise, the criminal will want to commit his crime and get away with his own life. Or, do you dispute that as well?

 

[luakel]

You are saying that a robber with no intent to kill will risk a life sentence or more for what could be a measely $10 dollars? I think not. Likewise, the criminal will want to commit his crime and get away with his own life. Or, do you dispute that as well?

The criminal is making that choice the moment he decides to commit a crime. And since he wants to protect his life, if it seems threatened, he will take potentially lethal action.

 

[MrP]

You are saying that a robber with no intent to kill will risk a life sentence or more for what could be a measely $10 dollars? I think not. Likewise, the criminal will want to commit his crime and get away with his own life. Or, do you dispute that as well?

But criminals do risk life sentences every single day for such paltry amounts. I'd be amazed if every single one had no homicidal tendencies . . .

How willing someone is to kill is a matter of circumstance. Put me in a society which permits private gun ownership and carriage and watch me shoot (possibly fatally) anyone who threatens any woman I'm near - and possibly anyone (non-fatally) who threatens me - dependent on circumstance and ability. (Thankee, Weapon M, for giving me the distance of 21' to work off. I just remembered it was the distance across the Sports Hall. )

But I would caution against regarding me as an average civilian. When it comes to how far I'd go - if capable - to protect a woman from aggression - it's far better to put me in the atypical civilian category.

 

[Wendell]

The criminal is making that choice the moment he decides to commit a crime. And since he wants to protect his life, if it seems threatened, he will take potentially lethal action.

The object of such criminality is to gain something for nothing. A loss of life isn't nothing. If the criminal already makes the choice to murder when planning his crime, then gun or not, the victim may die. Arming the victim improves his odds, if only slightly.

A comparatively crook, however, will try to avoid a situation where his own life may be at risk. Thus, crime is lower where civilians can carry arms legally.

 

[luakel]

A comparatively crook, however, will try to avoid a situation where his own life may be at risk.

If this was true, then crime would be much much lower even in a society where the right to bear arms isn't law...

 

[Wendell]

But criminals do risk life sentences every single day for such paltry amounts. I'd be amazed if every single one had no homicidal tendencies . . .

Then, surely you will agree that carrying a gun would increase the civilian's chance or survival.

How willing someone is to kill is a matter of circumstance. Put me in a society which permits private gun ownership and carriage and watch me shoot (possibly fatally) anyone who threatens any woman I'm near - and possibly anyone (non-fatally) who threatens me - dependent on circumstance and ability. (Thankee, Weapon M, for giving me the distance of 21' to work off. I just remembered it was the distance across the Sports Hall. )

And, if you did this enough, the women in your area would be left alone.

But I would caution against regarding me as an average civilian. When it comes to how far I'd go - if capable - to protect a woman from aggression - it's far better to put me in the atypical civilian category.

And the world could use more like you

 

[Wendell]

If this was true, then crime would be much much lower even in a society where the right to bear arms isn't law...

How so? Areas without a right to bear arms will be safer areas for criminality, because the only folks with arms will be those criminals, and maybe (Yes, maybe) the Police. Having the Right To Bear Arms allows oneself to better ward off such criminals. Crime is often about power, and evening the situation will be unfavorable to the criminal.

 

[luakel]

How so? Areas without a right to bear arms will be safer areas for criminality, because the only folks with arms will be those criminals, and maybe (Yes, maybe) the Police. Having the Right To Bear Arms allows oneself to better ward off such criminals. Crime is often about power, and evening the situation will be unfavorable to the criminal.

Why? Simple. If the victim remains alive, they will be able to report the robbery to the police and describe the criminal. If caught, he will be sent to a prison, which is not a place a criminal wants to find themself in, but they take the chance anyway when they decide to rob someone.

 

[Wendell]

This makes several key assumptions.

Why? Simple. If the victim remains alive, they will be able to report the robbery to the police and describe the criminal.

Reporting the crime won't alone get it solved. If a criminal is concerned enough about this, he will take precautions to make this more difficult.

If caught, he will be sent to a prison, which is not a place a criminal wants to find themself in, but they take the chance anyway when they decide to rob someone.

Well, being in prison certainly is not a good career move, but with free television access, free healthcare, free security, free library or weight room access, prison is not all that bad to the common robber. In some cases, it might be the best overall living condition that the said convict has ever experienced.