11/13: Destroying Pakistani firearms

[Whit]

Okie-doke. First off I forgot to thank Warch for the UN link. It was very thought-provoking.

On the gun issue, first off my stance: I'm a martial artist this more or less demands the belief one should stand up for one's self. If you need a firearm to do this then get a license Once you've done that, more power to you. I believe that our constitutional right to own a gun should be upheld. Even so, I don't own one. Nor do I expect to anytime soon. Why? Let me give three quick stories for consideration.

I'm actually training a guy with a concealed handgun license. He figures that he has to have enough time to draw the gun, and most attackers don't intend to make themselves known untill the attack itself begins. This means the would-be victim has to make the time, so he trains to fight as well.

I lived in Dallas for a while, while there a co-worker that was an ex-con told me that a trend had begun in the bad area's of town. It seems that when a car-thief saw a vehicle he knew he could sell for parts (ever heard of a chop-shop) the thief would step up to the car and shoot the driver, without speaking or calling any attention before the shot was fired. This was done just in case the driver had a gun.

I heard this story about a rape recently from someone who knew the victim personaly. She was a Tae-Kwan-Do black belt (fourth or fifth dan, I don't remember which) and was well versed in self defense techniques. She was unlocking her car door in an parking garage and didn't see the guy. Her head was driven directly into the door frame of her car before she was aware of him. This left her barely awake with a major concussion. She was then pushed directly through her own cars driver side window. This all happened in maybe a couple of seconds. The initial attack effectively immobilized her and no one in that condition could have done anything (she couldn't raise her arm, much less draw a weapon) at that point. Then the real attack began... I know an instructor that works with victim's of violent crimes often and he says stories like this one are far too common.

My point? Don't think a gun will make you safe. It just means the other guy will come at you that much harder.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Speaking of rights: PA constitution Article 1 Section 21: "The right of Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Out of curiosity, how long ago was that written? If that were, for whatever reason, to be challenged, I wonder if the interpretation would be word-for-word, or the "spirit of the law."

I would read that as follows: You have the right to protect yourself, but restrictions can be applied to that right.

[Undertoad]

Juju, I've made the change for you, let's see if it "takes" this time. The option in question is "Use email notification by default".

[jaguar]

Wierd shit? Not really, most areas in ities are as bad as bad areas of american cities, same diff.

Whit did a betterpoint of illistrating the point - it jsut raises the stakes. Carrying/owning of and semi/auto weapons here is illegal, so noone can legally carry round a firearm, heck even carrying knifes is illegal. I know as a fact that there are *very*few illegal weapons in melbourne and thsoe thatare held are held bepeople who are not stupid enough to use them willy-nilly, in other words they are pros, the kindof people who you'dahve to piss off before you'd find lead in your neck. Net result - low number of shootings.

I'm sure when that was written they wern't capable of carrying a weapon with a clip of 15 at a +5ps rate of fire. Heck you could carrying something like an MP5K PD under you're jacket without it being visible.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Whit


My point? Don't think a gun will make you safe. It just means the other guy will come at you that much harder.

Not safe. But measurably safer. The "other guy" may come at you harder, or choose another victim, or simply run away. Concealed carry keeps the uncertainty in your favor.

As your stories point out, there are some attacks aganst which there is no defense. And martial arts training is a good--but not perfect--protection too, be it tai kwon do or aikido (in which I have some training) or whatever else floats your boat. All good martial arts training teaches an awareness of your environment, and carrying a firearm is not an excuse to not pay attention to whats going on around you. Quite the opposite.

But that a defense is not 100% effective is not an argument against using it--otherwise you might as well leave your keys in your car, since any car can be broken into and hotwired.

As for poor Jag, who I didn't realize was in Austrailia, my sympathies. Not only do your lawmakers have no respect for freedom of speech down there (judging by the internet laws they keep passing) but my understanding is that in the first year after your gun bans went into effect there was a 44% increase in armed robberies and the steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years turned around and became an increase.

Not exactly a success story.

Being prepared to defend yourself doesn't "raise the stakes"--the stakes are exactly the same: your life. It may, however, raise the risk for your attacker, and that's the idea.

[jaguar]

As for poor Jag, who I didn't realize was in Austrailia, my sympathies. Not only do your lawmakers have no respect for freedom of speech down there (judging by the internet laws they keep passing) but my understanding is that in the first year after your gun bans went into effect there was a 44% increase in armed robberies and the steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years turned around and became an increase.

Ironic for an american to talk to me about his or her nations respect of freedom.

Firstly: the NRL made a campaiign beased on these laws that aparantly australian homeownder were now cowering infear becuase they couldn't wield thier NVGM16s and more - that pissed off alottapeopel down here because it was BULLSHIT.

The laws affected only RIFLES - semi auto and auto rifles at that, how this would have an effect on the number of crooks with firearms is well beyond me. It has been illegal to carry a conceled firearm or own semi-auto pistols or heavy rifles for a long time so that is irrelavent in relation to armed robberies. I'm curious where thsoe stats came from, state or federal?

As a general rule, crooks dislike using deadly force, after all that carrys murder one/death - its a high risk, you're not ogin to use willnilly. Where i lived in briton i regualry saw people carrying pistols, it was gang territory but use them? Only in dire emergencies, the cost was too high. Same applies here, if someon hets shot here with a glock or something similar is goes federal immidietly, its a really serious thing and a big effort will be made to track it down. As a result shootings are very, very rare, every one will make the bloody news.

If 50% of the population are carrying a 9mm pistol, crooks are more likely to be carrying, and using.

[Whit]

I'd like to say that I do agree with the idea that guns add a measure to one's self defense capability. I simply don't think most of the people that carry guns fully recognize the limitations. They definately are an effective threat.

I've done some minor training (mostly target shooting and such) as part of my martial art training and have been amazed at the accuracy of a quality handgun. A friend of mine and I went out with a few of his, particulary this nice little Glock made model, no I don't remember the specifics. Having only fired a handgun once before I could hit a 1 gallon paint can at just under fifty yards the majority of the time. That's some spooky offensive capability.

I would like to point out that in the second story the ante was only uped because the criminals expected people to have guns. For that matter I expect that since most rape's are commited by someone that knows the victim that the attacker probably approached that way because he knew of her training. Same thing different situation. This does not mean that I'm against the use of guns by well trained indivduals or that martial arts don't work. It simply means that the danger a person faces may be greater because of the defenses. If I was to anger someone that knows me they are far more likely to use a gun on me than a person with no training. Just as a shoot first policy is far more likely in gun rich enviroment.

Oh yeah, hey Jag if it makes you feel any better I know a alot of Americans that are pissed about all the 'Anti-terroist laws'. Hopefully enough of us will make it clear that this neo-Macarthyism crap won't fly to make a difference.

To all US citicens, please write your reps, make it clear they've lost your vote if this keeps up. Even if it's an idle threat tell them they better change or they're out. Please! It needs to be done.

[warch]

So it starts at home. Stand down. I dont own a gun.

I have been attacked. And afterwards I thought about it and decided. If in that situation again, I will think, react, resist, do my best, survive if I'm meant to. I'm no Rambo, no Annie Oaklie. I know that I'm not suited to that particular power. I continue to look for my strength and comfort elsewhere. Thats just me. Perhaps hard for some to understand, but I sleep better at night.

(Watch, I'll survive gun-play at McDonalds just to be hit by a bus, c'est la guerre.)

[Chewbaccus]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Speaking of rights: PA constitution Article 1 Section 21: "The right of Citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

I find this law to be null and void as PA is a commonwealth, not a State.

Technicalitingly.

~Mike

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar

If 50% of the population are carrying a 9mm pistol, crooks are more likely to be carrying, and using.

That's an unsupported assertion. Criminals will always carry, and for a convicted criminal to carry isn't legal--even here-- for whatever good the law does. Point being that they don't care if it's legal or not.

If a bad guy is determined to kill me for my purse or after a rape, it won't matter much to me whether he does it with a baseball bat, a knife, or a Glock. But if *I'm* carrying, I have superior force available in the first two cases, and equal force in the third. Naturally, I'm at a disadvantage in that he has the attacker's initiative until I understand his violent intent. But the odds in my favor are much, much better. And if he should suspect that I may be armed, he's less likely to attack. In a society that has disarmed me, he *knows* I'm disarmed unless he's had the misfortune to decide to bust on another crook. That's how the 9/11 hijackers knew they could take control of four jumbo jets with no more than *boxcutters*, and their victims are just as dead as they would have been if the weapons had been Uzis.

The argument that I should disarm in the hopes that the crooks will is silly, because they won't. Prohibition of guns works no better than prohibition of drugs, or of alcohol.

Say, Chewbaccus--if PA isn't a state, does that mean I don't have to pay income tax to the Feds? :-) People in Massachusetts, Virginia and Kentucky will be delighted too..

[Chewbaccus]

It stands to reason. But in government, what's that worth?

~Mike

[jaguar]

MAggie, my arguement was about availability.......ITs not easy to get a hot handgun here, in fact its very, very hard and would cost you alot of money ($20k for a beretta rounghly) meaning less are around than if they were availiable in every gun store on a 30day purchasing time.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
MAggie, my arguement was about availability.......ITs not easy to get a hot handgun here, in fact its very, very hard and would cost you alot of money ($20k for a beretta rounghly) meaning less are around than if they were availiable in every gun store on a 30day purchasing time.

Well, Beretta's *are* overpriced. But not *that* much!
.
Sorry, but I simply don't beleive that price. Where did you get it? Surely *you* haven't shopped for an illicit handgun, have you? And if you have, you definatly should shop somewhere else.

If someone can really get $20,000 for a single 9mm handgun, you must have a *serious* gun smuggling problem. down there.

People with violent intent will be violent. Gun prohibition will not make them less violent. If the price you cite *is* accurate, then I'm guessing you have a lucrative black market in guns every bit as evil and violent as the drug black market.

We don't have a 30-day wait here, I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a brand new or used whatever I want...from a Beretta 9mm to a semiauto M-16, SKS or AK-47, if I'm so inclined. That's becuase I have a fireamrs licence and when they call to check my background they will see that I haven't been convicted of any criminality since the licence was issued.

And I haven't shot up the neighborhood even once yet.

[jaguar]

Yes but you or someone like you COULD, and has extremely access to the firearms to do it.

That figure...is entirely accurate, i'm not going into where it comes from at all but it is an actual quote, as i've stated before, firearms offenses are taken very seriosuly here when high power/illegal arms are involved, its insurance money as much as anyhting else because if you go down wiht an illegal weapon and it gets traced back bad things happen - to you and them.

There is a market here, its handeled by a number of differnet...intersts mostly drug-affiliated because they already have the mechanisms to get things into the country, often by silent dumps along the top coast, so much terriroty that to watch every 50-person high speed speedboat who drops off a couple of crates and goes back is completley impossible. *I* have not, i know who have - its not bullshit.

For record that was a beretta Cougar L and 200ish rounds.

hey, i got a water pistol... 1/4 as functional as a beretta, 1/20th the price!

just $1,000!

add a Super Bass-O-Matic '76 for only $500 more! mmm, now that's some good bass!