Guns

[Blackguard_]

Before you complain about me using Marksmen in place of Marxman, I suggest you figure out capitals and how to properly quote on a forum. If you can't do that task easily enough or have enough hand-eye co-ordination to carry that through, I'm not so sure you should be carrying a gun.

Whether or not you are willing to shoot actually has a bearing on whether or not you should carry a gun.

 

[MacFall]

That assumes I'm going to have enough time to gather myself to use that gun. I can barely follow a conversation on the greatness of the Spice Girls after two glasses of wine, and to assume travelling alone on the metro after a nightclub or concert I'd be able to register my surroundings quickly enough to pull out a gun? I know I wouldn't, which is why again, one keeps cab fare in their purse instead of a revolver.

Why "instead of" rather than "in addition to"? You act as if having a gun on one's person means one is deprived of any course of action other than to deliberately seek trouble.

And you know little about being a woman in a city, so I suggest you shut your pie hole on that ignorance and paranoia argument.

I admit that I am ignorant of what that is like, but unlike you I'm not advocating laws to curtail the freedom of others based upon that ignorance. My position does not deprive you of any options, but rather makes more available to you. You would let your fear limit the choices that other people who mean you no harm can take.

 

[BranwenUerchLlyr]

My grandpa has had to pull out a gun in self defense at least a couple of times in his life. He has never had to point one at a person, though--just the mere knowledge of the weapon in play was enough to end the situation. This is exactly the sort of power I would want in a scenario in which I have to defend myself, because there is the potential for an immediate end to it with no injury to anyone. If the aggressor is stupid enough to continue, well.. his hospital bill, not mine.

TheTrash does bring up a good point about the situational usefulness of guns, though. If you're getting jumped from out of nowhere, you may not have much of a chance to get out a gun, or mace, or any other item beside your fists unless you get quite lucky. But in all other situations, a gun could prove quite useful.

 

[Sketcher]

The shotgun has the "shock and awe" advantage as well. If I've got the drop on the bad guy while I'm holding a double-barrel shotgun at a respectful range (meaning he can't just reach out and grab the thing) that might bring the whole business to a satisfactory conclusion right there. Few people who aren't totally crazy will try anything when facing the wrong end of a shotgun. Especially since the bad guy can't tell whether or not I might be totally crazy.

I've read my share of real-life stories where just the sound of pumping a shotgun is enough to make would-be intruders run for their lives.

 

[Luther073082]

Ahem.

So, let's presume I'm on the metro from the downtown core, with a gun in my... handbag (no, I'm not that happy to see you.) Creepy man or woman sits next to me; they are average-size or slightly-above.

Again, what use is a gun when they can easily physically outpower and outweigh me?

As for both sides: I'm not opposed to those who raise livestock, or those who hunt (though I am against hunting game as a 'hobby'; if you're going to eat the deer it's one thing. If you're just killing animals to prove how big of a man you are, just get a motorbike or that penis extension already!), or police owning guns. I do not believe the average civilian has any real use for one.

You know I'm not a rapist or a mugger or a killer or anything like that. And I have no intention of ever becomming one.

So I don't say this from any sense of experience.

But if I was going to try something like that. I don't care if it was a 60 pound miget, I don't think I'd be trying to overpower them if they had a gun pointed at my face.

Loaded gun > muscles

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I have shot firearms (and occasionally do).
I do not currently own any (never had an interest in hunting, so I never had an interest in owning a firearm myself).
I do indeed believe it is a right to own a firearm - I have no real objection to that right being revoked due felonious criminal acts, although "if involving a firearm", being the prerequisite thereof, is my caveat.

I feel the right to own a gun is constitutionally given for certain purposes (chiefly named directly). Namely being the right of defense against intruders and criminals -whether in personal application or in war- (that being the purpose of a militia). And that this right of arms bearing is applicable to the use for hunting, as well.

I am not against the idea of regulating ownership through background checks (for past criminal -namely felony- charges which may have involved firearms). I am, however, opposed to the idea of a Federal -or State- mandated registration of all firearms and owners thereof.

And I point out that, at least to my knowledge, all states offer "gun safety courses" through such groups as State DNR and State Fish and Game Services - generally branded "Hunter Safety" or "Hunter Education". And these are typically required before allowing the acquisition of Hunting Licenses and/or the person must have the certificate of completion of said course on their person when hunting.
As well, many other, often private, groups and organizations offer Firearms Training and Safety courses.

 

[armyman_83]

Again, that's why I'd be

a) not travelling alone on the metro in the wee hours
b) taking a cab
c) in the instance that I had no cab fare, be sure to keep my wits about me (preferably sober) or stay amongst a group of women.
d) call Mommy and Daddy first and let them know I had no cab fare, and to please run down to the bank, or meet me at the house to borrow the CC, thank you very much, hugs and kisses.

This may seem paranoid, but I fail to see how it's less paranoid than carrying around a concealed weapon.

You seem to only be taking into effect an attack in public. Ever heard of a HOME invasion? Yeah, calling mommy and daddy doesn't help. Calling the cops will give you a countdown to when they should arrive.

Its not just in a dark alley that crimes are committed.

 

[Tehchad]

We're really delving into this here! I still feel that we're being a bit too harsh with each other though - just IMHO.

TheTrash, You are totally right - there are many other options. Which ones do you employ? (other than avoiding certain areas/times) Are you in any martial art? I would threaten that in close quarters combat (say less than 1 meter), a solid hand to hand technique set would do much better than a firearm.

 

[Luther073082]

We're really delving into this here! I still feel that we're being a bit too harsh with each other though - just IMHO.

TheTrash, You are totally right - there are many other options. Which ones do you employ? (other than avoiding certain areas/times) Are you in any martial art? I would threaten that in close quarters combat (say less than 1 meter), a solid hand to hand technique set would do much better than a firearm.

Perhaps, but at all other ranges a firearm would do better.

On top of that, firearms take far less training then most Martial arts.

 

[MacFall]

I've read my share of real-life stories where just the sound of pumping a shotgun is enough to make would-be intruders run for their lives.

I have a friend who is a cop. When I asked him what kind of gun I should own for home defense he said "the sound of a 12-gauge chambering a round is the best crime deterrent in the world".

 

[MacFall]

I would threaten that in close quarters combat (say less than 1 meter), a solid hand to hand technique set would do much better than a firearm.

Perhaps, in some cases. But again, the option of hand-to-hand training should be in addition to, rather than instead of firearms training and ownership if you want to be as safe as possible.

To be honest, it's actually fairly easy to disarm somebody at arm's length if you know what you are doing and they don't. But the idea of the "hardened criminal" as an expert combatant is for the most part manufactured by Hollywood. Showing some steel (either literally or figuratively) is often enough to end a confrontation in your favor. But it's best not to be bluffing, either way.

 

[Tehchad]

Perhaps, in some cases. But again, the option of hand-to-hand training should be in addition to, rather than instead of firearms training and ownership if you want to be as safe as possible.

To be honest, it's actually fairly easy to disarm somebody at arm's length if you know what you are doing and they don't. But the idea of the "hardened criminal" as an expert combatant is for the most part manufactured by Hollywood. Showing some steel (either literally or figuratively) is often enough to end a confrontation in your favor. But it's best not to be bluffing, either way.

My personal opinion aside, could some martial arts training not do the job for those who do not want to carry a weapon? (for whatever reason they may have)

 

[Tehchad]

Perhaps, but at all other ranges a firearm would do better.

On top of that, firearms take far less training then most Martial arts.

agreed. But again, for those who are not desiring to carry a firearm, would this not even be an option?

Both to you and to Mac, to be as safe as possible, a firearm alone will NOT do the job. period

 

[Luther073082]

agreed. But again, for those who are not desiring to carry a firearm, would this not even be an option?

Both to you and to Mac, to be as safe as possible, a firearm alone will NOT do the job. period

True, the first line of defense either way is to not go into bad areas.

And I personally don't carry a firearm, and the only marital arts training I have is a small amount of training in fencing, which I don't imagine would do me any good in that circumstance.

I think the argument just needs to be made that private citizens who are old enough should have the right to own a firearm provided they don't have any violent felony convictions.

 

[Sketcher]

My personal opinion aside, could some martial arts training not do the job for those who do not want to carry a weapon? (for whatever reason they may have)

Assuming the criminal is close enough and doesn't have a weapon himself, sure. If he had a crowbar or a knife, then you'd better be a master or have a gun in your hands.

 

[Tehchad]

Assuming the criminal is close enough and doesn't have a weapon himself, sure. If he had a crowbar or a knife, then you'd better be a master or have a gun in your hands.

I've had a little training in MA and I can tell you that you don't have to be a master. As someone pointed out above, most criminals aren't trained to use anything - MA, a knife, or a firearm. Practice some application with someone who knows, and it's rather easy.

 

[Sketcher]

I've had a little training in MA and I can tell you that you don't have to be a master. As someone pointed out above, most criminals aren't trained to use anything - MA, a knife, or a firearm. Practice some application with someone who knows, and it's rather easy.

I'll grant you that, but do you really want to count on the guy with the knife to be an amateur with it?

 

[Tehchad]

I'll grant you that, but do you really want to count on the guy with the knife to be an amateur with it?

You'd have to ask those who don't carry.

 

[kumbaya]

I think too many people rely on guns, I agree that ownership is not a right but it should not be prohibited, just earned and maybe have people realise self defence does not rely on owning a gun.

 

[Sketcher]

I think too many people rely on guns, I agree that ownership is not a right but it should not be prohibited, just earned and maybe have people realise self defence does not rely on owning a gun.

I really don't think that any true gun enthusiast believes that self-defense is restricted to gun ownership. Rather, it provides a level of self-defense that people who don't have guns don't have. Gun people and non-gun people both rely on the same things to stay out of danger. The gun is simply a tool to use when normal precautions fail and when the situation calls for it.