Citizens and Weapons

[Kulindahr]

A talented knife fighter will finish a gun armed victim or threat first every time inside of 25 feet.

"Talented" being the critical factor.

But this is why the training courses tell you that if someone is holding a lethal weapon (which includes knives and also pipes and tire irons) and gets closer than 25 feet, you don't wait -- you shoot to stop the threat.

One instructor pointed out that you almost have to train that to be able to do it right, because at 25 feet away, you won't feel like it's a threat.

 

[JayHawk]

"Talented" being the critical factor.



One instructor pointed out that you almost have to train that to be able to do it right, because at 25 feet away, you won't feel like it's a threat.

That's the point. To a average untrained person a threat will not appear until they are on top of them. That is where a knife is much more valuable. Equally helpful in such situations is the unlikely event that a perp will fell YOU are a threat. Until of course you are...with a knife. Often there is no time to draw. A novice will also feel amazingly uncomfortable walkin around with a chambered round.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's the point. To a average untrained person a threat will not appear until they are on top of them. That is where a knife is much more valuable. Equally helpful in such situations is the unlikely event that a perp will fell YOU are a threat. Until of course you are...with a knife. Often there is no time to draw. A novice will also feel amazingly uncomfortable walkin around with a chambered round.

We role-played it, and most of us felt threatened when the guy with the knife got to about ten feet -- way too close.

And our instructor made us 'walk around' with chambered rounds to get used to it -- interesting firing line lecture approach; we never knew when he'd stop explaining things and tell us to turn and fire.

 

[FanofFiction]

Never going to a JUB meeting in the USA...

I don't like guns and I wouldn't feel safe sitting with someone who had one on their person.

 

[JayHawk]

Good training technique.

I prefer pop up targets that show as you go... very expensive but very effective at developing millisecond decision making. A very necessary talent in the world of 24/7 televised war.

I do digress though.

On Johan's question...

ALcohol linked to 75,000 deaths a year

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

SO obviously Alcohol outpaces firearms deaths BY a huge margin because suicides will find a way. (I know that sounds callous but those intent upon harming themselves will do so.)

 

[JayHawk]

Never going to a JUB meeting in the USA...

I don't like guns and I wouldn't feel safe sitting with someone who had one on their person.

You are of course entitled to your opinion but are amazingly deceived if you think where ever you live is weapon free. Usually it simply means the people with the worst intent are the armed ones. Good luck with that.

 

[FanofFiction]

I'll take my chances with a guy who might possibly be brandishing a knife. Almost nobody has handguns in my province. Long guns, sure, but too hard to conceal. We have very few gun related deaths here.

 

[JayHawk]

All does depend on where you are...

Hard to compare the two countries though.

 

[Kulindahr]

Never going to a JUB meeting in the USA...

I don't like guns and I wouldn't feel safe sitting with someone who had one on their person.

That's a bit irrational. In any given room in a typical dwelling there are probably a half dozen lethal weapons, for those who think about it. How can you feel safe anywhere at all?

Safety lies in the intent of the other person and your ability to deter any violent action. If you don't trust someone with a gun, but you would with a knife, a glass bottle, a belt, or other lethal item, there's something deeply wrong in your psyche, because your fear is aimed at inanimate objects, which are no source of danger, rather than at people, who are.

this is what I have.. a Ruger P89DC; got it back in the early 90's when I used to work for an armored car company. I still keep it because I live in an isolated area and it takes a while for the law to get out here

Response time is important. The two times that having a firearm saved me from violence, police response time would have been on the order of twenty minutes, if I could have communicated instantly and response was immediate. The time I actually drew in protection of others, police response time would have been on the order of half an hour under perfect conditions.

If you think police response time might be under a minute, and you can stall the bad guy, it's not a ridiculous choice for a means for safety. OTOH... I know only too well how an expected response time can swell from two minutes to twenty (which criminals know how to achieve if they really want to).

 

[Kabluey]

So anyway - if you own a gun, have you ever fired it in self defence, or do you know someone who has?
I live in a place with a fair few guns (lots of hunters here), but have only ever used one skeet shooting, which was kinda fun.

 

[JayHawk]

I suppose defending the idea of any violent crime is ok as long as it isn't a gun related shooting or death makes sense for somebody.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

But you are right sir we will never convince you that defending yourself is a darn good idea. Our media and sensationalism will ensure that is never possible.

 

[Kulindahr]

And about stopping crime, two million you say? What may be the cost saved by guns, is it lives being saved? Most likely just money and material loss being prevented. On the flipside however, what is the cost of having such availability of guns? Armed robberies, Gang-related violence, shooting sprees and quick-and-easy suicide?

No, most of the violence is thanks to the government, which generates it. Take away the government support, and the violence would go away -- guns are not a cause.

Besides which -- again, it's impossible to deprive criminals of firearms if they want them; they can be made at home.

I seriously doubt, and for obvious reasons, there will ever in the near future be an eye to eye opinion on americas gun culture. It is so ingrained that it is defended strongly. But to those elsewhere, the arguments are still too weak for you to convince us that we would be better off following suit.

I don't know anything about any "culture". I know that a human being who is not permitted his or her own choice of means of self-protection and/or is restricted from the use thereof, is not a citizen, but property.

To me, all that guns do, is increase the liklihood that any conflict will result in a resolution that involves loss of life, and thats not a good thing, even if the crook deserves it.

So you don't believe in deserved punishment? Most civilized people call someone getting what they deserve "justice".

By your argument here, we should take guns away from the military, too.

 

[Ram]

I live in Singapore where holding a spike in a threatening manner can land you in jail. Absolutely no firearms of any sort. And we are one of the safest countries in the world. I can walk down the streets of my city 2,3 a.m. in the morning and still get home safe.

Advantage: Safety. No reason to fear anyone.

Disadvantage: Probably be ill-equipped and ill-trained to defend ourselves when the army/local police force fails.

I choose everyday safety over a threat that might not come.

I don't understand America's gun culture. It looks like it based mainly on misplaced fear and insecurity rather than understanding the need of defend oneself.

 

[HoodedRat]

I always find it somewhat alarming that, all too often, the most vocal gun-toters are also rabid Christian Bible-ists.


Weaponry-worshipping weirdos; armed asshats; nutters with nukes; god-botherers and guns... what's all that about then? Why do so many religious people seem to be so fearful?

 

[Kulindahr]

The fear and insecurity accusations are projection. I know and have known many people who collect, shoot, and carry guns, and not one of them has had a fear or insecurity problem. The ones who do are generally the criminals.

Your typical gun bearer carries not to feel proud, but to be proud, not because he is afraid, but to make sure the bad guy has reason to be afraid. It's like with the gourmand who loves to cook: he doesn't cook so he can like food, he cooks because he already likes food.

Carrying a firearm is the most direct and practical statement of self-ownership. The firearm isn't carried to make the person feel he owns himself, but because he knows he does.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

^That's rhetoric. Which is why I can't take this seriously anymore.

I'm going back to watching Oz.

 

[HoodedRat]

Carrying a firearm is the most direct and practical statement of self-ownership. The firearm isn't carried to make the person feel he owns himself, but because he knows he does.

Thanks for that Kulindahr. I can always count on you to make me laugh.


PS. I wonder what on earth insecure people did prior to the relatively recent invention of fire-arms? Shout loudly and carry a big stick perhaps?

 

[Kulindahr]

I always find it somewhat alarming that, all too often, the most vocal gun-toters are also rabid Christian Bible-ists.

It is a worrisome combination. What I don't grasp is why liberals have become such cowards as to fear inanimate objects. JFK, Hubert Humphrey, indeed most of the old greats, were grade-A gun enthusiasts, and thought it was a mark of a free people, that they should love the means of their freedom and security.

I don't understand the Sarah Palin attitude, either, that seems to drool over the possibility of armed conflict -- she, with many fundamentalists who love guns, doesn't operate out of fear, but out of a lust for power, even for predation. They seem to salivate at the thought of being in public sometime and getting the chance to shoot a criminal; they really don't get the attitude of the guy at the top of the stairs protecting his family, who regretted the need to eliminate the threat "with extreme prejudice" -- they want to shoot someone (me? the only time I actually thought I might have to shoot someone, I got ill afterward). The only time I feel an itch in that direction is when I read about another gay person killed or nearly killed out of hate -- because I despise oppression.

I suspect that if a lot of liberals went back to the traditional position, it would both brighten a substantial number of the FFL (fundamentalist firearm lovers), but get respect from a fair portion of the non-fundamentalist types.

 

[Kulindahr]

^That's rhetoric. Which is why I can't take this seriously anymore.

I'm going back to watching Oz.

That's a big problem with today's electorate -- so many hear truth and manufacture an excuse to ignore it. Any attempt at really understanding the fellow citizen is avoided.

Oz? Say hi to the scarecrow.

 

[Ram]

Carrying a firearm is the most direct and practical statement of self-ownership. The firearm isn't carried to make the person feel he owns himself, but because he knows he does.

To put it respectfully, that is pure fucking insane horse shit.

I don't think I need the help of some item to make me feel like that. Letting some equipment control our entire psychological standing is the most dangerous thing you can do to yourself. And if you do, you need help.