|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
"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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course, poor marksmanship makes any firearm less effective. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
edit: no I won't |
Quote:
Who said I distrust the law, I distrust the individuals upholding it, as one should. There are no perfect scenarios, but I would much rather be in one where I have a gun than not... good god, that is sure as hell simple to figure out. As for those who talk of aim, I can (consistently) hit a target at a full run at 300 yards, 50 with a handgun. For me, at least, it is not an issue. I need not worry about anyone else. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Lots of fun when you get rid of the blood part, though: http://www.sca.org Been in a few melees myself. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Question, xoB: In the situation highlighted above, what is sufficient? |
Quote:
There is no need, it does harm to the debate. Quote:
You can go to the anti-island if you want, you will be happy there.... there is no freedom there. |
Quote:
Quote:
__________________ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Oh, by the way, your sig line is totally bogus. Quote:
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.