NationStates

Galloism wrote:Actually, the given justification was so we would be in a position to stop violent crimes in progress that we may happen across, and to give aid and assistance to uniform police if necessary. Things I can still do as a legal CCW permit holder.

Also, I think you may have gotten the wrong impression (perhaps because I was following two thought trains close together). I worked traffic most of the time, and I was never a detective.

Well, I think that's a crap reason to force people to carry a gun. I'm not surprised that an American law enforcement whatever would hold that opinion, but it's unusual, to say the least.

And I did get the wrong impression, although really, I don't suppose it makes a difference.

WestRedMaple wrote:So you think that if someone is shooting at you, not shooting back is the preferred method of defense. You think that if someone is up close trying to harm you, that you should needlessly give them more opportunity to do so by intentionally using less effective methods, such as a knife or pepper spray.

By all means, though, explain how your alternatives would require less preparation.

You seem to be reading someone else's posts entirely. I've never mentioned appropriate responses for if someone is actively trying to harm you, though yes, "shoot back" is not always the right response, and yes, often a gun is not the best weapon.

And if it's not readily apparent how "run at them" is less preparation than "draw your gun, remove the safety, aim and fire" I don't know what to tell you.

Galloism wrote:Well, I have a friend that carries a knife for really short range, a scimitar for short to medium range defense, a taser for disabling at short range, a few rocks for medium range, and a crossbow for long range.

He gets stopped by the police a lot.

Har har - obviously I'm not suggesting you carry enough different weapons to run a self-defence class, I'm saying you're generally better off with your hands than a gun in most situations. I do like how many people took this seriously, though.

WestRedMaple wrote:The statement is ludicrous to anyone with the slightest clue about the topic.

Okay, great. Until you start explaining why that's the case, I'm not sure why I should bother reading your posts.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Galloism wrote:So what should this woman have done with her gun? Left it at home?

Unless she had a particular reason to believe she needed one, she shouldn't have owned a gun. But since she did, yes, she should have left it at home.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:Here's 3 examples of a concealed carry permit holder using a concealed weapon in self defense.

... So Jabbar went outside to the sidewalk and pulled a gun on a man who had just bought the shoes, Phares said. Only, the man had a gun, too.

... Lummus, who has a concealed handgun permit, pulled out his gun and fired several shots, hitting Carmillio as he was trying to get away in a vehicle. ... Carmillio drove off, but eventually died in the car, causing it to crash into a parked vehicle.

... Van Hermert entered a bedroom and returned with a loaded handgun. Smith, believing that his and his sister’s lives were in danger, drew his own handgun and fired five shots at Van Hemert.

So your examples are situations where a) he should have just given up the shoes and informed the police, b) it wasn't self-defence, and c) the victim shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun in the first place. I appreciate the effort, but none of these are particularly compelling.

You said:

Tubbsalot wrote:...
No. Depending on the situation, either you can't draw the weapon, or you could use a non-lethal weapon instead. There's no scenario in which a concealed firearm is a good option for self-defence.

As all of those examples were self defense, I'd say those examples WERE particularly compelling. The first example, the kid was pointing a weapon at him, he couldn't know whether the kid was going to leave him alive after the robbery. The second example, also covered here: http://truthalerts.com/cops-elderly-man ... cked-wife/, states that the man fired DURING the robbery. The third example, the victim was a concealed carry holder, it was the aggressor that wasn't supposed to have a firearm.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Seno Zhou Varada wrote:Just had to respond.

My bare hands of course. What you do is put your hands up and plead him not to shoot then move closer into him while moving to the side grab the gun then turn the barrel towards him and then to his side giving him a less intense grip and pull the gun away close to your body barrel facing the attacker and slowly back away keeping it pointed at him (all hims are him/her) and even if they fire the gun while your holding it you'll have adrenaline pumping.

That is of course circumstantial to where they do it basically point blank from up front.

Poor choice. An unarmed combat instructor would counsel against doing that unless you DON'T have a better weapon available.

Yes I would prefer to use a bo-staff or stick but this is if I don't have a weapon on me that wouldn't get me shot. If I pulled out a pocket knife pretending for my wallet I would be shot as soon as they see a bit of the knife. However I wouldn't usually ever have anything like that on my person so the other preferred option is throw my wallet on the ground act frickin terrified they pick it up (if they look down sidestep and kick their head to the ground and stomp them to death) and then while pointing the gun at me backing away before running away then pull out a phone and snap pretty pictures of them. Of course this is circumstantial as well.

But please tell me what I could also do as well I'm very curious on your training.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Galloism wrote:Actually, the given justification was so we would be in a position to stop violent crimes in progress that we may happen across, and to give aid and assistance to uniform police if necessary. Things I can still do as a legal CCW permit holder.

Also, I think you may have gotten the wrong impression (perhaps because I was following two thought trains close together). I worked traffic most of the time, and I was never a detective.

Well, I think that's a crap reason to force people to carry a gun. I'm not surprised that an American law enforcement whatever would hold that opinion, but it's unusual, to say the least.

And I did get the wrong impression, although really, I don't suppose it makes a difference.

Hell, the sheriff of detroit credits the severe drop in crime to the increased number of firearms present.

No, really.

A harvard study also shows that, within the context of the US, more guns is actually associated with violent crime reduction.

Not all studies agree, of course.

Galloism wrote:Well, I have a friend that carries a knife for really short range, a scimitar for short to medium range defense, a taser for disabling at short range, a few rocks for medium range, and a crossbow for long range.

He gets stopped by the police a lot.

Har har - obviously I'm not suggesting you carry enough different weapons to run a self-defence class, I'm saying you're generally better off with your hands than a gun in most situations. I do like how many people took this seriously, though.

It was an unexpected bonus.

Here's the thing,

If I was the father of the child, I would speak calmly to the child. I'd say something like "Are you pee? You don't bang. If you banged you, you will never see me again, no." Just saying.

St Williams Parr County wrote:Here's the thing,

If I was the father of the child, I would speak calmly to the child. I'd say something like "Are you pee? You don't bang. If you banged you, you will never see me again, no." Just saying.

Um, what?

St Williams Parr County wrote:Here's the thing,

If I was the father of the child, I would speak calmly to the child. I'd say something like "Are you pee? You don't bang. If you banged you, you will never see me again, no." Just saying.

...

Sounds like a speech deterring masturbation, really.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:As all of those examples were self defense, I'd say those examples WERE particularly compelling.

I'll grant that the first and third examples were indeed self-defence, but - and perhaps this is my fault for not including all of the caveats every time - I'm really just interested in situations where the gun is the best response, and the situation couldn't be dealt with by a broader ban on guns. In case A he made the very stupid decision to put his life at risk for the sake of his shoes; generally muggers do not kill their victims afterwards, for several reasons. In case C, again, the victim (i.e. the person who died, although I can see why you'd think otherwise) shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

The second example was not self-defence. He shot and killed a guy who was driving away. I'm not saying I hold it against him, and apparently it wasn't illegal, but shooting someone who is running away is not self-defence.

Galloism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Well, I think that's a crap reason to force people to carry a gun. I'm not surprised that an American law enforcement whatever would hold that opinion, but it's unusual, to say the least.

And I did get the wrong impression, although really, I don't suppose it makes a difference.

Hell, the sheriff of detroit credits the severe drop in crime to the increased number of firearms present. No, really.

A harvard study also shows that, within the context of the US, more guns is actually associated with violent crime reduction. Not all studies agree, of course.

Well, Sheriff Arpaio rates his pink uniforms pretty highly for recidivism, but that doesn't mean he's right. And even if we assume that more guns is associated with greater safety in the US - which isn't totally insane - the fact is that restricting the availability of guns through a gun ban would leave you in an even better situation, though I'll concede, that's definitely not true in the short term.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Unless she had a particular reason to believe she needed one, she shouldn't have owned a gun. But since she did, yes, she should have left it at home.


So your examples are situations where a) he should have just given up the shoes and informed the police, b) it wasn't self-defence, and c) the victim shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun in the first place. I appreciate the effort, but none of these are particularly compelling.

You said:

Tubbsalot wrote:...
No. Depending on the situation, either you can't draw the weapon, or you could use a non-lethal weapon instead. There's no scenario in which a concealed firearm is a good option for self-defence.

As all of those examples were self defense, I'd say those examples WERE particularly compelling. The first example, the kid was pointing a weapon at him, he couldn't know whether the kid was going to leave him alive after the robbery. The second example, also covered here: http://truthalerts.com/cops-elderly-man ... cked-wife/, states that the man fired DURING the robbery. The third example, the victim was a concealed carry holder, it was the aggressor that wasn't supposed to have a firearm.

You don't possibly think there could be some connection between the ease of legally buying a firearm and the proliferation of illegal firearms do you? My god, that would be a shock.

A smart gun wouldn't have gone off in the hands of a baby- and just how light of a pressure was on the trigger if a baby could pull it?- But the NRA is using a half-assed New Jersey law as an excuse to ban the manufacture and distributions of smart guns. Even though the author of that half-ass bill explicitly supported doing away with the mandate.

Gun control groups accuse New Jersey of ignoring 'smart gun' law

N.J. Democrat: We will reverse smart gun law if NRA plays bal

Classily, two gun store owners who were going to sell smart guns backed down after being bombarded with death threats. And not from gun control advocates.

Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:Here's the thing,

If I was the father of the child, I would speak calmly to the child. I'd say something like "Are you pee? You don't bang. If you banged you, you will never see me again, no." Just saying.

Um, what?

I have no clue what the hell is going on in that quote....

Tubbsalot wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:So you think that if someone is shooting at you, not shooting back is the preferred method of defense. You think that if someone is up close trying to harm you, that you should needlessly give them more opportunity to do so by intentionally using less effective methods, such as a knife or pepper spray.

By all means, though, explain how your alternatives would require less preparation.

You seem to be reading someone else's posts entirely. I've never mentioned appropriate responses for if someone is actively trying to harm you, though yes, "shoot back" is not always the right response, and yes, often a gun is not the best weapon.

And if it's not readily apparent how "run at them" is less preparation than "draw your gun, remove the safety, aim and fire" I don't know what to tell you.

So you just try to dodge it by intentionally misrepresenting your various melee and non-lethal weapons as simply "run at them"

WestRedMaple wrote:

Seno Zhou Varada wrote:Yes it is less effective if your untrained with it (like most of the general populace) but a knife is very deadly if you know how to use one (no stabbing).

And if you are trained with it, it is still less effective. It's range is much lower. It's ability to penetrate whatever someone is wearing is much lower. It has less stopping power, often leaving even a mortally wounded person ample time to harm or kill the defender.

That doesn't mean that someone extremely well-versed in the knife couldn't be more effective with the knife than someone who has never held a firearm before can be with a firearm, but a person knowing what they are doing with both would be more effective with a decent handgun

You've never trained at all with a knife much at all have you?

1st While it's range is much lower than a gun I'm not expecting (though I should prepare) to get into a shootout that's more than a few (1-4) feet at anytime.
2nd No a knife can penetrate very well if you use it well and considering most street thugs don't wear any proper armor if anyone uses correct technique (no wide slashes, drag the blade across no chopping or stabbing to stick them) they could cut through clothing enough to make large cuts.
3rd Man I just cut you across the gut area opening up your intestines and oh no they fell out. But no your wrong a knife has tons of stopping power if you know where to cut (across the gut area, of course neck, back of the leg high up on the thighs, under and over the armpits) and if you cut them in one of those places especially in the arteries there before you could dial 911 they would be dead and in the intestines just... they're going to be more worried about them falling out than you.
4th I'm not denying they could be equally deadly with both at all I just feel that both have their better uses knives at close range guns at medium to long.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Galloism wrote:Hell, the sheriff of detroit credits the severe drop in crime to the increased number of firearms present. No, really.

A harvard study also shows that, within the context of the US, more guns is actually associated with violent crime reduction. Not all studies agree, of course.

Well, Sheriff Arpaio rates his pink uniforms pretty highly for recidivism, but that doesn't mean he's right. And even if we assume that more guns is associated with greater safety in the US - which isn't totally insane - the fact is that restricting the availability of guns through a gun ban would leave you in an even better situation, though I'll concede, that's definitely not true in the short term.

I'm not sure that's even true in the long term.

We're notoriously bad at banning shit. Really.

We've spent billions untold on the drug war, and I bet you I could walk out my front door, and, inside of 30 minutes, score some cocaine (I won't - of course. It's illegal and, besides, I have no use for it). It wasn't all that fired uncommon in Florida when I was down there for a haul of full auto weapons imported from Russia or other places that have NEVER been legal in the US since their manufacture date.

Hell, there's what... half a dozen ATF field offices in Florida? And they're busy as hell grabbing illegal firearms.

So no, I don't think a ban would be effective. Not here.

Here is yet another story about guns.

More and more belong to people, especially to those who don't even live in the country.

Galloism wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:Here's the thing,

If I was the father of the child, I would speak calmly to the child. I'd say something like "Are you pee? You don't bang. If you banged you, you will never see me again, no." Just saying.

...

Sounds like a speech deterring masturbation, really.

The next thing that the boy says is "I NEED AN ADULT!"

Gauthier wrote:A smart gun wouldn't have gone off in the hands of a baby- and just how light of a pressure was on the trigger if a baby could pull it?- But the NRA is using a half-assed New Jersey law as an excuse to ban the manufacture and distributions of smart guns. Even though the author of that half-ass bill explicitly supported doing away with the mandate.

Gun control groups accuse New Jersey of ignoring 'smart gun' law

N.J. Democrat: We will reverse smart gun law if NRA plays bal

Classily, two gun store owners who were going to sell smart guns backed down after being bombarded with death threats. And not from gun control advocates.

Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?

I really like smart guns, provided if the battery fails or it becomes electronically unresponsive the "break" position is one that will allow firing.

It's useful for a whole hell of a lot of reasons. This one is a good one.

Galloism wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:Here's the thing,

If I was the father of the child, I would speak calmly to the child. I'd say something like "Are you pee? You don't bang. If you banged you, you will never see me again, no." Just saying.

...

Sounds like a speech deterring masturbation, really.

Sorry, didn't know what I was saying there.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Gun Manufacturers wrote:As all of those examples were self defense, I'd say those examples WERE particularly compelling.

I'll grant that the first and third examples were indeed self-defence, but - and perhaps this is my fault for not including all of the caveats every time - I'm really just interested in situations where the gun is the best response, and the situation couldn't be dealt with by a broader ban on guns. In case A he made the very stupid decision to put his life at risk for the sake of his shoes; generally muggers do not kill their victims afterwards, for several reasons. In case C, again, the victim (i.e. the person who died, although I can see why you'd think otherwise) shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

The second example was not self-defence. He shot and killed a guy who was driving away. I'm not saying I hold it against him, and apparently it wasn't illegal, but shooting someone who is running away is not self-defence.

Galloism wrote:Hell, the sheriff of detroit credits the severe drop in crime to the increased number of firearms present. No, really.

A harvard study also shows that, within the context of the US, more guns is actually associated with violent crime reduction. Not all studies agree, of course.

Well, Sheriff Arpaio rates his pink uniforms pretty highly for recidivism, but that doesn't mean he's right. And even if we assume that more guns is associated with greater safety in the US - which isn't totally insane - the fact is that restricting the availability of guns through a gun ban would leave you in an even better situation, though I'll concede, that's definitely not true in the short term.

How would you go about implementing something like that? It's not like Europe, where guns were never very common outside of the military; here in the US, guns are extremely common, and many people would resist through some means (e.g. elections, hiding, and, in some cases, resorting to violent) such a law, which would lead to a great deal of violence, as well as a need for authoritarian measures.

St Williams Parr County wrote:

Galloism wrote:...

Sounds like a speech deterring masturbation, really.

Sorry, didn't know what I was saying there.

Then why are you saying it?

Gauthier wrote:A smart gun wouldn't have gone off in the hands of a baby- and just how light of a pressure was on the trigger if a baby could pull it?- But the NRA is using a half-assed New Jersey law as an excuse to ban the manufacture and distributions of smart guns. Even though the author of that half-ass bill explicitly supported doing away with the mandate.

Gun control groups accuse New Jersey of ignoring 'smart gun' law

N.J. Democrat: We will reverse smart gun law if NRA plays bal

Classily, two gun store owners who were going to sell smart guns backed down after being bombarded with death threats. And not from gun control advocates.

Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?

And there is nothing wrong with using legal means to try and prevent that crappy law from forcing 'smart guns' in New Jersey.

If you don't like the law, then by all means: get rid of it. I fully support that

Seno Zhou Varada wrote:

St Williams Parr County wrote:
Sorry, didn't know what I was saying there.

Then why are you saying it?

Welcome to NSG.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:You seem to be reading someone else's posts entirely. I've never mentioned appropriate responses for if someone is actively trying to harm you, though yes, "shoot back" is not always the right response, and yes, often a gun is not the best weapon.

And if it's not readily apparent how "run at them" is less preparation than "draw your gun, remove the safety, aim and fire" I don't know what to tell you.

So you just try to dodge it by intentionally misrepresenting your various melee and non-lethal weapons as simply "run at them"

No, "run at them" was always my primary suggestion. Maybe you could find a use for pepper spray somewhere in there, but as I said at the start, you'd probably just grapple them to prevent them from shooting you.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:I'll grant that the first and third examples were indeed self-defence, but - and perhaps this is my fault for not including all of the caveats every time - I'm really just interested in situations where the gun is the best response, and the situation couldn't be dealt with by a broader ban on guns. In case A he made the very stupid decision to put his life at risk for the sake of his shoes; generally muggers do not kill their victims afterwards, for several reasons. In case C, again, the victim (i.e. the person who died, although I can see why you'd think otherwise) shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

The second example was not self-defence. He shot and killed a guy who was driving away. I'm not saying I hold it against him, and apparently it wasn't illegal, but shooting someone who is running away is not self-defence.


Well, Sheriff Arpaio rates his pink uniforms pretty highly for recidivism, but that doesn't mean he's right. And even if we assume that more guns is associated with greater safety in the US - which isn't totally insane - the fact is that restricting the availability of guns through a gun ban would leave you in an even better situation, though I'll concede, that's definitely not true in the short term.

How would you go about implementing something like that? It's not like Europe, where guns were never very common outside of the military; here in the US, guns are extremely common, and many people would resist through some means (e.g. elections, hiding, and, in some cases, resorting to violent) such a law, which would lead to a great deal of violence, as well as a need for authoritarian measures.

Make it harder for new firearm owners to buy firearms. Make firearm registration mandatory. Charge people who do not report their firearms stolen and also those who sell firearms without the appropriate transfer of registration.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:How would you go about implementing something like that? It's not like Europe, where guns were never very common outside of the military; here in the US, guns are extremely common, and many people would resist through some means (e.g. elections, hiding, and, in some cases, resorting to violent) such a law, which would lead to a great deal of violence, as well as a need for authoritarian measures.

Make it harder for new firearm owners to buy firearms. Make firearm registration mandatory. Charge people who do not report their firearms stolen and also those who sell firearms without the appropriate transfer of registration.

And how do you implement that? In the current political climate, it would be very difficult. And the poster said a "gun ban", what you're describing is nothing of the sort. Also, how do you define a "new" firearm owner? Just because someone has never had one registered under their name says nothing about their experience with firearms or firearm safety.