I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.
I'm still curious to an example from someone.
I think your post opens up a rebuttal along the lines of: Wouldn't you be less safe considering the old drunk guys and crotchety old women walking around with concealed weapons?
An example where I feel safer carrying my gun concealed? Sure. I'm walking along with my aunt and my nephew. A crackhead approaches my family with a knife and acts belligerently. I happily hand over my belongings but the moment that I sense he's going to hurt me or my family I shoot him dead. That's a pretty simple one.
If you do face knife-wielder though, he will probably have it out whilst threatening you. A knife would probably be the more effective weapon in that case, if you don't draw your gun really fast.
Though I guess I couldn't say you'd be less safe with a gun in that situation.
Yeah, I remember a video showing demonstrations meant for police on how to deal with knife wielders. It showed that, over typical mugging distances, knives are muck faster than handguns.
In your case, I'd say a gun is an especially bad idea (if you can even get one). A) You were brought up in a country where krav magan is part of the curriculum, and You're blind one eye.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
Not sure if this a good example, but if you think about it: As a mugger are you more likely to try and mug someone if the chances are extremely high they have a gun? I know I sure as shit would rather go to an area that had a high amount of gun control so I can mug people with much lower chance of actually carrying a gun.
That's how I think of it, though.
I'd shoot him first.
Exactly. If I'm a desperate criminal, who has clearly already set aside any morality I did have, then rather than simply threatening my victim with a knife if i thought he had a gun I would simply stab him straight away and mug him once he was dead.
Furthermore a gun you own is most likely to kill you or a member of your own family. You'd be safer having a gun, but no bullets.
Seriously? A fatal knife wound takes quite a while to die from, even if you managed to kill someone with a knife (which is far from a guarantee if you don't have specific training to do such a thing), unless you managed to stab them through the brainstem it's still going to take a few minutes to bleed out and for hypoxia to the brain to take effect. Not to mention that with adrenaline and endorphins the person isn't even going to start feeling the wound for 30 or 40 seconds. You stab a guy with a gun, he's going to pull it out and shoot you.
Ever wonder why in news reports when they talk about stabbings they say "so-and-so was stabbed 15 times?" Because that was how many it took for the other guy to stop fighting back.
I might need an example of a situation where I'd be more safe carrying a gun in public than not to start to comprehend the line of thinking.
This isn't meant as a slight to you but against this general paradigm of argument- 'your' ability to defend yourself isn't eponymous with that of the larger public. I'm a physically able, mentally acute young man. When someone asks me to assess my ability to use my gun effectively in an instance of self-defense... studies mean nothing to me. Why should the ability of other Americans reflect on my ability? Old drunk guys might have hunting accidents or crotchety old women might fire their home defense guns in error... but they're not me. Of course, I'm not saying this as a defense of concealed carry- how well I can drive drunk shouldn't exclude me from the law- but just as a general conversation piece. I don't see why people tell me that studies prove I'm less safe if I carry a gun. I'm not necessarily the average American.
I'm still curious to an example from someone.
I think your post opens up a rebuttal along the lines of: Wouldn't you be less safe considering the old drunk guys and crotchety old women walking around with concealed weapons?
An example where I feel safer carrying my gun concealed? Sure. I'm walking along with my aunt and my nephew. A crackhead approaches my family with a knife and acts belligerently. I happily hand over my belongings but the moment that I sense he's going to hurt me or my family I shoot him dead. That's a pretty simple one.
If you do face knife-wielder though, he will probably have it out whilst threatening you. A knife would probably be the more effective weapon in that case, if you don't draw your gun really fast.
Though I guess I couldn't say you'd be less safe with a gun in that situation.
Yeah, I remember a video showing demonstrations meant for police on how to deal with knife wielders. It showed that, over typical mugging distances, knives are muck faster than handguns.
In your case, I'd say a gun is an especially bad idea (if you can even get one). A) You were brought up in a country where krav magan is part of the curriculum, and You're blind one eye.
Those demonstrations are measuring whether the person with the gun can shoot the knife wielder before he gets to him, thus avoiding injury altogether.
I've seen the results of knife vs knife fights in ERs (volunteered at a hospital for a few months in college) and it's not pretty, generally both sides get pretty messed up, I wouldn't want to fight a knife weilder with a knife or a gun, and I wouldn't want to fight someone with a gun with a knife or a gun either.
Honk: the way you're positing the question leads to a community action problem. Are, you, yourself, individually any safer carrying a gun? Maybe, maybe not. Is the community at large safer with concealed carry? If the deterrent effect of concealed carry against crime is greater than the risk of accidental or "crime of passion" shootings by otherwise peaceful citizens, then yes.
There are plenty of valid arguments against concealed carry, but asking for a specific acute example is not the way to go about it. You might as well be saying, "I'm an adult and I don't have kids. Give me an example where paying taxes for elementary schools makes me smarter."
Not really. For starters I wasn't asking for an example as an argument of mine, I was asking for one to better understand why a person would be safer carrying around a weapon. I'll make a wild statement and say that your attitude towards guns and gun control in America wildly differs from a cross section of Europe, that's why I was asking for an example as I couldn't think of a situation. On top of that I don't get your allusion at all.
The firearms training that most cops get is sadly rather pitiful.
I probably shoot more often than a majority of cops.
And I'm not including for the National Guard, just personally.
I will say that the use-of-force training cops get is probably an order of magnitude better than what anybody gets in "Concealed Carry 101." Especially since most states only require a general "safety" class, which hunter safety can cover, meaning they get no real use-of-force training.
Part of the problem with this is that what practice police do receive is under simulated stress conditions, and even then they have to train constantly to keep their reaction times up. I seem to remember one interview where a cop said that time on the shooting range doesn't matter past a certain level of proficiency because the main challenge when being attacked is just drawing fast enough when being shot at (which apparently slows you down).
Also, Switzerland has seen a considerable rise in violent gun crimes in the last few years, often committed with army weapons - men killing their wives and children or shooting up the local parliament. Switzerland is no longer the poster child for peaceful, happy people bearing arms.
If at any point there was a low crime rate despite a bunch of guns helps make the case that guns aren't a problem.
Violent crime is the issue here, not the guns. Blaming guns is a red herring.
You're either forgetting or ignoring that gun ownership in Switzerland, while widespread compared to other European nations, is still far more heavily regulated than in the United States.
So using Switzerland as an example of where high levels of gun ownership absent or independent of strict gun control legislation lead to lower crime rates is flawed.
Lawndart on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Not sure what to think of this. On the one hand, I know a lot of people who really shouldn't be owning guns (let alone carrying them) will be very enthusiastic about it. On the other hand, my walk home from work is in the same neighborhood of Oakland that the 4 cops were shot by Mixon a few weeks back, i.e. sometimes I feel the need to carry a gun.
More often than not you'd be safer without a gun. Does the law mean that it's a possibility that all Californians will be able to publicly carry guns? If so is there something to think positively about here in anyway?
An entire populace walking about with firearms is probably not the way to increasing security...
I think it is.
I'll try to adress both you and mcdermott here.
I'll just throw some points out there.
I'd imagine there'd be an increased risk for collateral damage, as in people getting killed. I base this on that cops tend to use guns very restrictively (exceptions have been common though...), something I don't think a regular guy might be when faced with a potential robber for example. Cops are also trained with guns - which as far as I've understood it, a citizen does not have to be to own a gun. Where do the citizens learn proper use of force, marksmanship and so on to use in dangerous situations?
People don't buy guns for self-protection and then not go to the shooting range enough that they are at least basically proficient in it's use because most people are not that stupid.
Legally obtained guns are only rarely used by their owners to commit crimes. Far less than the number of legally obtained cars which are used by their owners to commit crimes, for example.
Citizens have a right to self defense.
The police don't have an obligation to protect you from becoming the victim of a crime.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
These are just some of the reasons why gun control is dumb.
I'm not convinced that carrying around a weapon increases your personal safety or the people around you. So yeah citizens have a right to self defence and the police don't have to protect you - but for me reading this doesn't equate it with arguments for carrying guns in public.
e: And mcdermott raised some counter questions which I might otherwise have stated.
Also, Switzerland has seen a considerable rise in violent gun crimes in the last few years, often committed with army weapons - men killing their wives and children or shooting up the local parliament. Switzerland is no longer the poster child for peaceful, happy people bearing arms.
If at any point there was a low crime rate despite a bunch of guns helps make the case that guns aren't a problem.
Violent crime is the issue here, not the guns. Blaming guns is a red herring.
The easy availability of guns in Switzerland definitely was a major contributing factor. It wouldn't have been as easy for the people in question to commit the crimes if the guns hadn't been readily available.
Obviously it's not the guns that caused these crimes to happen, but if other aspects of the situation have changed (e.g. societal attitudes towards gun use, more men feeling powerless etc.), it may very well be the case that what was once relatively safe (i.e. widespread availability of guns) no longer is. And in a situation like this, addressing the underlying causes may well be much more difficult to address than the availability of guns. Added to which, there is an increasing percentage of Swiss people who want the military to safeguard weapons in between army stints rather than letting all soldiers take their guns home with them.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Why does my Krav experience deprecate the value of gun ownership? Possessing two valuable tools is better than possessing just one, isn't it?
I have taken the partial blindness into consideration. It just makes me more conscious of my responsibility to use it maturely.
You'd probably be much better served using your hands against a knife wielder, given that your hands are already at your disposal. Isn't there something called the bust technique for that very purpose, where you move forward, push his hand away with your left hand, and punch him in the neck with your right?
Part of the problem with this is that what practice police do receive is under simulated stress conditions, and even then they have to train constantly to keep their reaction times up. I seem to remember one interview where a cop said that time on the shooting range doesn't matter past a certain level of proficiency because the main challenge when being attacked is just drawing fast enough when being shot at (which apparently slows you down).
True. Though I don't just shoot under "optimal" range conditions. And I also practice drawing, though not to the extent that a police officer does. Then again, I don't even carry.
Also, I've probably been shot at more often than the average officer.
Not really. For starters I wasn't asking for an example as an argument of mine, I was asking for one to better understand why a person would be safer carrying around a weapon. I'll make a wild statement and say that your attitude towards guns and gun control in America wildly differs from a cross section of Europe, that's why I was asking for an example as I couldn't think of a situation. On top of that I don't get your allusion at all.
Since you're simply asking for "a situation," is a second-hand anecdote okay?
Guy is in the parking lot of a large store. Two sketchy looking dudes ask him for his cellphone. He decides he doesn't like the look of them, so he says he doesn't have one. They whisper to each other, then rapidly start approaching him (in the opposite direction of the store).
He pulls his concealed handgun, they stop, then run like frightened deer.
It's not unlikely that they meant him harm. He may or may not have been able to outrun them. Had they assaulted him, the damage could likely have been severe. Instead, he left and went about his day.
I'll note, however, that in most states this action would have been illegal...drawing a weapon (even without firing) is a serious use of force, and he'd not have been justified in this case. However, this was Texas, where displaying a firearm in self-defense carries a lower standard than discharging one (it falls under a "regular" use of force, not a "deadly" use of force). Basically he needed only a reasonable suspicion that they meant him harm.
Still, I'd say in this situation he was safer having it. And since he's never had a negative experience due to carrying, his net safety was improved.
I think there's a fair argument that any ruling coming out of the 9th Circuit these days is severely tainted.
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
Seriously? A fatal knife wound takes quite a while to die from, even if you managed to kill someone with a knife (which is far from a guarantee if you don't have specific training to do such a thing), unless you managed to stab them through the brainstem it's still going to take a few minutes to bleed out and for hypoxia to the brain to take effect. Not to mention that with adrenaline and endorphins the person isn't even going to start feeling the wound for 30 or 40 seconds. You stab a guy with a gun, he's going to pull it out and shoot you.
I think you're overestimating the effect of adrenaline during violent situations. Most people may probably be too stunned and/or disoriented to pull out their gun and accurately shoot someone before they keep getting stabbed. I know police get trained to react in situations like getting maced or being disarmed and other similar situations, and even they can have a tough time responding in an efficient manner. I mean, not to mention the mugger could see the person in their after stabbing state trying to go for their weapon and either stab them some more, or disarm them.
Why does my Krav experience deprecate the value of gun ownership? Possessing two valuable tools is better than possessing just one, isn't it?
I have taken the partial blindness into consideration. It just makes me more conscious of my responsibility to use it maturely.
You'd probably be much better served using your hands against a knife wielder, given that your hands are already at your disposal. Isn't there something called the bust technique for that very purpose, where you move forward, push his hand away with your left hand, and punch him in the neck with your right?
Possessing a gun doesn't mean that I need to use it in every circumstance. I've been in one nasty spot since I started carrying where some Texans (just kidding, guys ) probably would have discharged... and I didn't even brandish. I think of it as insurance.
And yes, there are a number of lateral throat attacks against knives directed between the navel and sternum. I'm not sure what they call them here. I don't know of a direct Hebrew equivalent for the technique vernacular. I've never been to a 'good' Krav session in this country.
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
It's never been applied at the national level, though.
You're never going to effectively "ban" guns in California for as long as they have an entirely uncontrolled border with Arizona. It's a short drive from Virginia to New York.
EDIT: Of course, I think it's more interesting to focus more on carry than ownership here, since ownership is now an established Constitutional right that's not going anywhere.
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
That may have more to do with how cities with very strict gun control laws (such as DC) are right next to states with very lax gun control laws, facilitating illegal gun ownership via ease of importing.
Seriously? A fatal knife wound takes quite a while to die from, even if you managed to kill someone with a knife (which is far from a guarantee if you don't have specific training to do such a thing), unless you managed to stab them through the brainstem it's still going to take a few minutes to bleed out and for hypoxia to the brain to take effect. Not to mention that with adrenaline and endorphins the person isn't even going to start feeling the wound for 30 or 40 seconds. You stab a guy with a gun, he's going to pull it out and shoot you.
I think you're overestimating the effect of adrenaline during violent situations. Most people may probably be too stunned and/or disoriented to pull out their gun and accurately shoot someone before they keep getting stabbed. I know police get trained to react in situations like getting maced or being disarmed and other similar situations, and even they can have a tough time responding in an efficient manner. I mean, not to mention the mugger could see the person in their after stabbing state trying to go for their weapon and either stab them some more, or disarm them.
It also depends on the wound. You bleed out from slashing, and so might be able to shoot depending one location. A stab wound to an organ just means more stabs while you keel over.
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
That may have more to do with how cities with very strict gun control laws (such as DC) are right next to states with very lax gun control laws, facilitating illegal gun ownership via ease of importing.
Edit: beated.
Yeah, most NE/Tristate mayors despise the gun laws in southern states, and have been really pissed about a recent law forbidding police from finding what out-of-state gun stores guns used in crimes came from.
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
It's never been applied at the national level, though.
You're never going to effectively "ban" guns in California for as long as they have an entirely uncontrolled border with Arizona. It's a short drive from Virginia to New York.
EDIT: Of course, I think it's more interesting to focus more on carry than ownership here, since ownership is now an established Constitutional right that's not going anywhere.
Err, that last bit hasn't been established yet.
Of course I forgot to mention that it would take strict nation wide gun laws to prove out the point, but I assumed everyone would infer that from what I wrote.
Anyways I've always been pretty ok with concealed weapons permits. As long as they take them away from anyone with a harassment or DUI conviction and have a mandatory class on gun safety beforehand. Like I said in the first post, legal gun ownership by responsible people is almost never the problem.
The big problem with guns in America isn't legal ownership, it's illegal ownership.
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
It's never been applied at the national level, though.
You're never going to effectively "ban" guns in California for as long as they have an entirely uncontrolled border with Arizona. It's a short drive from Virginia to New York.
EDIT: Of course, I think it's more interesting to focus more on carry than ownership here, since ownership is now an established Constitutional right that's not going anywhere.
Err, that last bit hasn't been established yet.
Of course I forgot to mention that it would take strict nation wide gun laws to prove out the point, but I assumed everyone would infer that from what I wrote.
Anyways I've always been pretty ok with concealed weapons permits. As long as they take them away from anyone with a harassment or DUI conviction and have a mandatory class on gun safety beforehand. Like I said in the first post, legal gun ownership by responsible people is almost never the problem.
Heller established ownership as an individual Constitutional right. Do you have some reason to believe that this circuit court ruling won't stand, and additionally that this individual right will not be incorporated in the near future?
Not really. For starters I wasn't asking for an example as an argument of mine, I was asking for one to better understand why a person would be safer carrying around a weapon. I'll make a wild statement and say that your attitude towards guns and gun control in America wildly differs from a cross section of Europe, that's why I was asking for an example as I couldn't think of a situation. On top of that I don't get your allusion at all.
Since you're simply asking for "a situation," is a second-hand anecdote okay?
Guy is in the parking lot of a large store. Two sketchy looking dudes ask him for his cellphone. He decides he doesn't like the look of them, so he says he doesn't have one. They whisper to each other, then rapidly start approaching him (in the opposite direction of the store).
He pulls his concealed handgun, they stop, then run like frightened deer.
It's not unlikely that they meant him harm. He may or may not have been able to outrun them. Had they assaulted him, the damage could likely have been severe. Instead, he left and went about his day.
I'll note, however, that in most states this action would have been illegal...drawing a weapon (even without firing) is a serious use of force, and he'd not have been justified in this case. However, this was Texas, where displaying a firearm in self-defense carries a lower standard than discharging one (it falls under a "regular" use of force, not a "deadly" use of force). Basically he needed only a reasonable suspicion that they meant him harm.
Still, I'd say in this situation he was safer having it. And since he's never had a negative experience due to carrying, his net safety was improved.
Thank you. That's a pretty good one actually since it's not a hypothetical and clearly states what happened. I could say that giving them the mobile, though frustrating, could have kept him equally safe. They didn't in this case but they could have had weapons themselves, inflating the situation.
It also depends on the wound. You bleed out from slashing, and so might be able to shoot depending one location. A stab wound to an organ just means more stabs while you keel over.
Well, I didn't mean just purely physical disorientation. Also the mental disorientation from seeing yourself get stabbed, and the whole 'what the fuck' thing. People can sometimes mentally blackout when crazy things happen, even if it's not weapon related.
I think it also depends how much prep time you have before hand. Like, I've been mugged or threatened a few times(or at least attempted muggings), and I had a chance to talk them down. Sometimes they've had knives, but I think the more time they stand there talking gives you more time to develop reaction time if they do attack you. If they just rush in demanding money/poessessions and then attack you right away regardless, a person wouldn't be as likely to prioritize what they need to do to be safer, except for self preservation i.e. trying to block the atttacks or somthing like that.
Not really. For starters I wasn't asking for an example as an argument of mine, I was asking for one to better understand why a person would be safer carrying around a weapon. I'll make a wild statement and say that your attitude towards guns and gun control in America wildly differs from a cross section of Europe, that's why I was asking for an example as I couldn't think of a situation. On top of that I don't get your allusion at all.
Since you're simply asking for "a situation," is a second-hand anecdote okay?
Guy is in the parking lot of a large store. Two sketchy looking dudes ask him for his cellphone. He decides he doesn't like the look of them, so he says he doesn't have one. They whisper to each other, then rapidly start approaching him (in the opposite direction of the store).
He pulls his concealed handgun, they stop, then run like frightened deer.
It's not unlikely that they meant him harm. He may or may not have been able to outrun them. Had they assaulted him, the damage could likely have been severe. Instead, he left and went about his day.
I'll note, however, that in most states this action would have been illegal...drawing a weapon (even without firing) is a serious use of force, and he'd not have been justified in this case. However, this was Texas, where displaying a firearm in self-defense carries a lower standard than discharging one (it falls under a "regular" use of force, not a "deadly" use of force). Basically he needed only a reasonable suspicion that they meant him harm.
Still, I'd say in this situation he was safer having it. And since he's never had a negative experience due to carrying, his net safety was improved.
Thank you. That's a pretty good one actually since it's not a hypothetical and clearly states what happened. I could say that giving them the mobile, though frustrating, could have kept him equally safe. They didn't in this case but they could have had weapons themselves, inflating the situation.
You mean before they started approaching him? I don't think expecting you to hand over your private property to anybody who asks is a reasonable response to being safe from violent crime.
And after they asked, and started approaching him, he had no reason to believe that all they wanted anymore was his phone. Hell, it's possible that was never all they wanted.
EDIT: It's also possible they meant him no harm at all, though given the circumstances I (as I said) find it unlikely.
Legally obtained guns are only rarely used by their owners to commit crimes. Far less than the number of legally obtained cars which are used by their owners to commit crimes, for example.
Cars have utility outside of harming others. A necessary one at that. Please, let's not bring up cars. The first part is absolutely correct, though.
Self defense is a utility outside of harming others. And is also, imho, a fundamental human right. Non-public motorized transport, on the other hand, is not a fundamental human right, imho.
Gun ownership does not lead to a higher crime rate.
[citation needed]
Most of the material I've seen making the link is either biased or obviously flawed, however most of the material I've seen disproving the link (or claiming the opposite) is as well.
Evidence is required to establish a correlation. In the absence of such evidence, non-colleration is the default.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Seriously? A fatal knife wound takes quite a while to die from, even if you managed to kill someone with a knife (which is far from a guarantee if you don't have specific training to do such a thing), unless you managed to stab them through the brainstem it's still going to take a few minutes to bleed out and for hypoxia to the brain to take effect. Not to mention that with adrenaline and endorphins the person isn't even going to start feeling the wound for 30 or 40 seconds. You stab a guy with a gun, he's going to pull it out and shoot you.
I think you're overestimating the effect of adrenaline during violent situations. Most people may probably be too stunned and/or disoriented to pull out their gun and accurately shoot someone before they keep getting stabbed. I know police get trained to react in situations like getting maced or being disarmed and other similar situations, and even they can have a tough time responding in an efficient manner. I mean, not to mention the mugger could see the person in their after stabbing state trying to go for their weapon and either stab them some more, or disarm them.
It also depends on the wound. You bleed out from slashing, and so might be able to shoot depending one location. A stab wound to an organ just means more stabs while you keel over.
I still think you all are overestimating the incapacitating effects of knife wounds. There was a case of a knife fight here (between a husband and wife of all people) recently, both sides had 4 or 5 deep wounds at the end of the fight and both had life threatening organ injuries. Sure after they fought for 3 or 4 minutes they both ended up unable to continue (and if not for people hearing the fight they'd both have probably died) but they both definitely had plenty of time to do some serious damage.
Edit: There are certainly a lot of variables here, but the original scenario was mugger sees man, knows man has a gun, so mugger stabs man and takes money safely when man is dead. Sure the man isn't going to be able to get a shot off all the time. But even if the guy only can effectively fight back 10% of the time, the mugger still is going to have a pretty short life expectancy if he's planning to do such a thing habitually. Only one victim is ever going to have to get his gun out and get a decent shot off for the mugger to suffer a life-threatening wound.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Not really. For starters I wasn't asking for an example as an argument of mine, I was asking for one to better understand why a person would be safer carrying around a weapon. I'll make a wild statement and say that your attitude towards guns and gun control in America wildly differs from a cross section of Europe, that's why I was asking for an example as I couldn't think of a situation. On top of that I don't get your allusion at all.
Since you're simply asking for "a situation," is a second-hand anecdote okay?
Guy is in the parking lot of a large store. Two sketchy looking dudes ask him for his cellphone. He decides he doesn't like the look of them, so he says he doesn't have one. They whisper to each other, then rapidly start approaching him (in the opposite direction of the store).
He pulls his concealed handgun, they stop, then run like frightened deer.
It's not unlikely that they meant him harm. He may or may not have been able to outrun them. Had they assaulted him, the damage could likely have been severe. Instead, he left and went about his day.
I'll note, however, that in most states this action would have been illegal...drawing a weapon (even without firing) is a serious use of force, and he'd not have been justified in this case. However, this was Texas, where displaying a firearm in self-defense carries a lower standard than discharging one (it falls under a "regular" use of force, not a "deadly" use of force). Basically he needed only a reasonable suspicion that they meant him harm.
Still, I'd say in this situation he was safer having it. And since he's never had a negative experience due to carrying, his net safety was improved.
Thank you. That's a pretty good one actually since it's not a hypothetical and clearly states what happened. I could say that giving them the mobile, though frustrating, could have kept him equally safe. They didn't in this case but they could have had weapons themselves, inflating the situation.
You mean before they started approaching him? I don't think expecting you to hand over your private property to anybody who asks is a reasonable response to being safe from violent crime.
And after they asked, and started approaching him, he had no reason to believe that all they wanted anymore was his phone. Hell, it's possible that was never all they wanted.
EDIT: It's also possible they meant him no harm at all, though given the circumstances I (as I said) find it unlikely.
I would seriously consider handing over my property to two threatening guys. And as I said, they could easily have had guns themselves - the situation could have gotten much worse from there, especially if they were out to hurt him from the start.
Well, domestic violence is substantially different than a random attack though. I also think that wouldn't be the normal type of reaction(s) in violent attacks. I can't say for sure, but it seems like something most people(even those that carry weapons) are not prepared to deal with. I had a friend who was mugged with a group of friends he was with. He was attacked in the neck with a hatchet, and even though it was not a grievous wound he was very disoriented, and not really able to deal with what was happening. I may be incorrect in my assumption here, but it seems like being attacked especially witha weapon would cause most people to panic and/or not know what's going on and just try and guard themselves.
The way I figure it is that if I'm carrying a gun concealed, I can choose not to escalate it- they don't know I have a gun- or if the situation calls for it, I can escalate it. In one situation, there are two options, in the other there is one option.
As long as I trust my judgment, I'm going for the circumstances that lead to me having the most 'outs'.
The way I figure it is that if I'm carrying a gun concealed, I can choose not to escalate it- they don't know I have a gun- or if the situation calls for it, I can escalate it. In one situation, there are two options, in the other there is one option.
As long as I trust my judgment, I'm going for the circumstances that lead to me having the most 'outs'.
From the community's viewpoint of this they'd also have to trust your judgement. Which might be a problem because I wouldn't know if you in fact have good or bad judgement in threatening situations. You'd be as likely to escalate a situation where it would be inappropriate, possibly ending in you and people around you killed.
The way I figure it is that if I'm carrying a gun concealed, I can choose not to escalate it- they don't know I have a gun- or if the situation calls for it, I can escalate it. In one situation, there are two options, in the other there is one option.
As long as I trust my judgment, I'm going for the circumstances that lead to me having the most 'outs'.
From the community's viewpoint of this they'd also have to trust your judgement. Which might be a problem because I wouldn't know if you in fact have good or bad judgement in threatening situations. You'd be as likely to escalate a situation where it would be inappropriate, possibly ending in you and people around you killed.
(Where you = any citizen)
I've already expressed that I'm not talking about me as an 'every person' for the purpose of legislation. My saying that I'm a good driver when I'm drunk shouldn't force other people to trust that judgment and allow me to do it. Everything I'm saying is a reflection of my choice to carry, not an argument for its legality.
Organichu on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The way I figure it is that if I'm carrying a gun concealed, I can choose not to escalate it- they don't know I have a gun- or if the situation calls for it, I can escalate it. In one situation, there are two options, in the other there is one option.
As long as I trust my judgment, I'm going for the circumstances that lead to me having the most 'outs'.
From the community's viewpoint of this they'd also have to trust your judgement. Which might be a problem because I wouldn't know if you in fact have good or bad judgement in threatening situations. You'd be as likely to escalate a situation where it would be inappropriate, possibly ending in you and people around you killed.
(Where you = any citizen)
I've already expressed that I'm not talking about me as an 'every person' for the purpose of legislation. My saying that I'm a good driver when I'm drunk shouldn't force other people to trust that judgment and allow me to do it. Everything I'm saying is a reflection of my choice to carry, not an argument for its legality.
Good ruling. I'm one of those crazy liberals who actually supports gun rights. It's apparent to me that the founders intended for everyone to have the right to carry a firearm. If they want to change that and take the right away, it requires a constitutional amendment.
Now if you are fucking crazy or a felon, then of course you can lose your right to bear arms, just like you can lose other rights by violating the law. I'm not that crazy.
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
You said it best. This is a good decision. I don't see why this should be any different than any other basic right. One major fuck up will probably lose you said right. Well, in the case of rights like Voting, etc.
OtakuD00D on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Posts
Yeah, I remember a video showing demonstrations meant for police on how to deal with knife wielders. It showed that, over typical mugging distances, knives are muck faster than handguns.
In your case, I'd say a gun is an especially bad idea (if you can even get one). A) You were brought up in a country where krav magan is part of the curriculum, and
Seriously? A fatal knife wound takes quite a while to die from, even if you managed to kill someone with a knife (which is far from a guarantee if you don't have specific training to do such a thing), unless you managed to stab them through the brainstem it's still going to take a few minutes to bleed out and for hypoxia to the brain to take effect. Not to mention that with adrenaline and endorphins the person isn't even going to start feeling the wound for 30 or 40 seconds. You stab a guy with a gun, he's going to pull it out and shoot you.
Ever wonder why in news reports when they talk about stabbings they say "so-and-so was stabbed 15 times?" Because that was how many it took for the other guy to stop fighting back.
Those demonstrations are measuring whether the person with the gun can shoot the knife wielder before he gets to him, thus avoiding injury altogether.
I've seen the results of knife vs knife fights in ERs (volunteered at a hospital for a few months in college) and it's not pretty, generally both sides get pretty messed up, I wouldn't want to fight a knife weilder with a knife or a gun, and I wouldn't want to fight someone with a gun with a knife or a gun either.
I have taken the partial blindness into consideration. It just makes me more conscious of my responsibility to use it maturely.
Not really. For starters I wasn't asking for an example as an argument of mine, I was asking for one to better understand why a person would be safer carrying around a weapon. I'll make a wild statement and say that your attitude towards guns and gun control in America wildly differs from a cross section of Europe, that's why I was asking for an example as I couldn't think of a situation. On top of that I don't get your allusion at all.
Part of the problem with this is that what practice police do receive is under simulated stress conditions, and even then they have to train constantly to keep their reaction times up. I seem to remember one interview where a cop said that time on the shooting range doesn't matter past a certain level of proficiency because the main challenge when being attacked is just drawing fast enough when being shot at (which apparently slows you down).
You're either forgetting or ignoring that gun ownership in Switzerland, while widespread compared to other European nations, is still far more heavily regulated than in the United States.
So using Switzerland as an example of where high levels of gun ownership absent or independent of strict gun control legislation lead to lower crime rates is flawed.
I'm not convinced that carrying around a weapon increases your personal safety or the people around you. So yeah citizens have a right to self defence and the police don't have to protect you - but for me reading this doesn't equate it with arguments for carrying guns in public.
e: And mcdermott raised some counter questions which I might otherwise have stated.
Obviously it's not the guns that caused these crimes to happen, but if other aspects of the situation have changed (e.g. societal attitudes towards gun use, more men feeling powerless etc.), it may very well be the case that what was once relatively safe (i.e. widespread availability of guns) no longer is. And in a situation like this, addressing the underlying causes may well be much more difficult to address than the availability of guns. Added to which, there is an increasing percentage of Swiss people who want the military to safeguard weapons in between army stints rather than letting all soldiers take their guns home with them.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
You'd probably be much better served using your hands against a knife wielder, given that your hands are already at your disposal. Isn't there something called the bust technique for that very purpose, where you move forward, push his hand away with your left hand, and punch him in the neck with your right?
True. Though I don't just shoot under "optimal" range conditions. And I also practice drawing, though not to the extent that a police officer does. Then again, I don't even carry.
Also, I've probably been shot at more often than the average officer.
Since you're simply asking for "a situation," is a second-hand anecdote okay?
Guy is in the parking lot of a large store. Two sketchy looking dudes ask him for his cellphone. He decides he doesn't like the look of them, so he says he doesn't have one. They whisper to each other, then rapidly start approaching him (in the opposite direction of the store).
He pulls his concealed handgun, they stop, then run like frightened deer.
It's not unlikely that they meant him harm. He may or may not have been able to outrun them. Had they assaulted him, the damage could likely have been severe. Instead, he left and went about his day.
I'll note, however, that in most states this action would have been illegal...drawing a weapon (even without firing) is a serious use of force, and he'd not have been justified in this case. However, this was Texas, where displaying a firearm in self-defense carries a lower standard than discharging one (it falls under a "regular" use of force, not a "deadly" use of force). Basically he needed only a reasonable suspicion that they meant him harm.
Still, I'd say in this situation he was safer having it. And since he's never had a negative experience due to carrying, his net safety was improved.
Why?
If tighter gun laws are needed to cut the number of guns on the street, so be it. However the connection between tougher laws and less guns has failed to pan out so far.
Possessing a gun doesn't mean that I need to use it in every circumstance. I've been in one nasty spot since I started carrying where some Texans (just kidding, guys
And yes, there are a number of lateral throat attacks against knives directed between the navel and sternum. I'm not sure what they call them here. I don't know of a direct Hebrew equivalent for the technique vernacular. I've never been to a 'good' Krav session in this country.
It's never been applied at the national level, though.
You're never going to effectively "ban" guns in California for as long as they have an entirely uncontrolled border with Arizona. It's a short drive from Virginia to New York.
EDIT: Of course, I think it's more interesting to focus more on carry than ownership here, since ownership is now an established Constitutional right that's not going anywhere.
That may have more to do with how cities with very strict gun control laws (such as DC) are right next to states with very lax gun control laws, facilitating illegal gun ownership via ease of importing.
Edit: beated.
It also depends on the wound. You bleed out from slashing, and so might be able to shoot depending one location. A stab wound to an organ just means more stabs while you keel over.
Yeah, most NE/Tristate mayors despise the gun laws in southern states, and have been really pissed about a recent law forbidding police from finding what out-of-state gun stores guns used in crimes came from.
Err, that last bit hasn't been established yet.
Of course I forgot to mention that it would take strict nation wide gun laws to prove out the point, but I assumed everyone would infer that from what I wrote.
Anyways I've always been pretty ok with concealed weapons permits. As long as they take them away from anyone with a harassment or DUI conviction and have a mandatory class on gun safety beforehand. Like I said in the first post, legal gun ownership by responsible people is almost never the problem.
I take it you didn't notice which thread I linked to.
Heller established ownership as an individual Constitutional right. Do you have some reason to believe that this circuit court ruling won't stand, and additionally that this individual right will not be incorporated in the near future?
Are you referring to Bybee?
Because, uh, he wasn't involved in this case.
Basically your statement made little sense. Unless I was missing something.
Thank you. That's a pretty good one actually since it's not a hypothetical and clearly states what happened. I could say that giving them the mobile, though frustrating, could have kept him equally safe. They didn't in this case but they could have had weapons themselves, inflating the situation.
I think it also depends how much prep time you have before hand. Like, I've been mugged or threatened a few times(or at least attempted muggings), and I had a chance to talk them down. Sometimes they've had knives, but I think the more time they stand there talking gives you more time to develop reaction time if they do attack you. If they just rush in demanding money/poessessions and then attack you right away regardless, a person wouldn't be as likely to prioritize what they need to do to be safer, except for self preservation i.e. trying to block the atttacks or somthing like that.
You mean before they started approaching him? I don't think expecting you to hand over your private property to anybody who asks is a reasonable response to being safe from violent crime.
And after they asked, and started approaching him, he had no reason to believe that all they wanted anymore was his phone. Hell, it's possible that was never all they wanted.
EDIT: It's also possible they meant him no harm at all, though given the circumstances I (as I said) find it unlikely.
Self defense is a utility outside of harming others. And is also, imho, a fundamental human right. Non-public motorized transport, on the other hand, is not a fundamental human right, imho.
Evidence is required to establish a correlation. In the absence of such evidence, non-colleration is the default.
I still think you all are overestimating the incapacitating effects of knife wounds. There was a case of a knife fight here (between a husband and wife of all people) recently, both sides had 4 or 5 deep wounds at the end of the fight and both had life threatening organ injuries. Sure after they fought for 3 or 4 minutes they both ended up unable to continue (and if not for people hearing the fight they'd both have probably died) but they both definitely had plenty of time to do some serious damage.
Edit: There are certainly a lot of variables here, but the original scenario was mugger sees man, knows man has a gun, so mugger stabs man and takes money safely when man is dead. Sure the man isn't going to be able to get a shot off all the time. But even if the guy only can effectively fight back 10% of the time, the mugger still is going to have a pretty short life expectancy if he's planning to do such a thing habitually. Only one victim is ever going to have to get his gun out and get a decent shot off for the mugger to suffer a life-threatening wound.
I would seriously consider handing over my property to two threatening guys. And as I said, they could easily have had guns themselves - the situation could have gotten much worse from there, especially if they were out to hurt him from the start.
As long as I trust my judgment, I'm going for the circumstances that lead to me having the most 'outs'.
Not everyone has the time, resources, or physical ability to become a martial arts master.
I don't want to be an internet tough guy ( :P ) but read above. I spent most of my childhood in Israel learning to defend myself physically.
From the community's viewpoint of this they'd also have to trust your judgement. Which might be a problem because I wouldn't know if you in fact have good or bad judgement in threatening situations. You'd be as likely to escalate a situation where it would be inappropriate, possibly ending in you and people around you killed.
(Where you = any citizen)
I've already expressed that I'm not talking about me as an 'every person' for the purpose of legislation. My saying that I'm a good driver when I'm drunk shouldn't force other people to trust that judgment and allow me to do it. Everything I'm saying is a reflection of my choice to carry, not an argument for its legality.
Okay then, must've missed that.
You said it best. This is a good decision. I don't see why this should be any different than any other basic right. One major fuck up will probably lose you said right. Well, in the case of rights like Voting, etc.
I hope you have a permit to conceal hearts!