gun control

[Hotwired]

Some punk gang member isn't going to think twice about mugging some old lady. If he knew the old lady, and everyone else on the street around her had a .45, I can bet you he'd reconsider his plan.

So the punk gang member left his .45 at home then?

Everyone has a gun and the stakes go up, if someone has the nerve to do it they'll do it. If you pull a gun on someone who's mugging someone and they also have a gun you're going to end up with a homicide rather than a mugging. Who dies is irrelevant.

[joannaardway]

Hotwired's hit the nail on the head.

I forget where I heard it, but you are actually at significantly higher risk of severe injury if you carry a gun for self defense.

Picture this situation:
A guy's mugging you. You pull a gun on him.
He then has a choice - Be shot by you, or disable you in some fashion.

I know which he'll prefer. Without the gun, if you co-operate, you might lose some money and get kicked a bit.
With the gun, you run a higher chance of ending up leaking vital fluids on to the pavement/sidewalk, and with no money either.

Of course, the best option is to be a properly trained martial artist.

It is a very interesting situation that martial artists are actually attacked less than the untrained combatant.
An interesting survey using ex-criminals showed that there is some subconscious body language, so that the criminal automatically steers clear because they know they're going to get their arses kicked big time.

[XxtriviumxX]

joannaardway is right, guns just add to the potential risk of someone getting hurt, possibly very severely, martial arts is a much better and safer defense.

[joannaardway]

Martial arts are better, but almost no-one can be bothered to learn them. They think it's just simpler to pick up a gun, and that will be fine.

Although some people are totally dedicated - I know this guy who is a black belt in, I think, 4 martial arts. And he's 6' 4" tall.
Absolutely no-one messes with him.

[beebs111]

the comments about martial arts are assuming that the mugger isn't carrying a knife or a gun, and wouldn't fight back if you started karate kicking him. he peobably is a hard core criminal and is willing to kill you if you fight back, so why should you give him the upper hand. id rather put my life in the hands of a .357 than in "some subconscious body language" if someone is willing to beat the shit out of me to steal my wallet, you better believe i would not hesitate to put a hollow point into the base of their skull

[Hotwired]

You'd kill someone over a few dollars would you?

Someone with nothing to lose will try rob other people for money and you'd rather shoot that person in the head.

The excuse of "he was after my wallet" sounds lame as a reason to kill someone. Attempted mugging doesn't carry a death penalty.

Theres a good reason why chain stores have a policy that goes along the lines of "give them the money then call the police" rather than "reach for the shotgun under the counter"

If a mugger has a weapon then he'll already have it out, he'll have a headstart on you. If you go for a lethal weapon of your own then hes MORE likely to slot you because you're attempting to become a significant threat to him.

If you pull a weapon on an unarmed mugger then sure, they might back down, (if they don't then you've got another problem) but you can never know for certain if someone is is isn't armed.... and of course if he was armed and you did pull a weapon on him then we're back to the above point.

If someone wants to mug you they'll give themselves the advantage. They will ALWAYS have the advantage because they're the ones starting it. Trying to equalise the situation by packing lethal devices in the hope that you'll have something the other person/s don't can put you in greater risk than before as Jo and I have said.

[cdheller]

Hotwired's hit the nail on the head.

I forget where I heard it, but you are actually at significantly higher risk of severe injury if you carry a gun for self defense.

I have heard that ,and other "studies" used by both sides.
I googeld the U.S. dept. of justice website

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Self-defense with firearms

*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.

Vermont, a state with no restrictions or laws on carrying a handgun,
is always rated as one of the 5 safest states to live in,,every year.

The city Washington D.C. which has the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S.has gotten the name "murder capitol of the united states"

the opposition to concealed handgun laws consistently brings up wild west shootouts, gunfights breaking out ,,ect to prevent their passage .
It doesn't happen.
the opposite happens crime always drops when government recognizes the right of people to defend themselves


I'm sorry the concept that a innocent victims life is equal to a criminal a@@holes life is far from my beliefs and values

[paaiyan]

You'd kill someone over a few dollars would you?

Someone with nothing to lose will try rob other people for money and you'd rather shoot that person in the head.

The excuse of "he was after my wallet" sounds lame as a reason to kill someone. Attempted mugging doesn't carry a death penalty.

Theres a good reason why chain stores have a policy that goes along the lines of "give them the money then call the police" rather than "reach for the shotgun under the counter"

If a mugger has a weapon then he'll already have it out, he'll have a headstart on you. If you go for a lethal weapon of your own then hes MORE likely to slot you because you're attempting to become a significant threat to him.

If you pull a weapon on an unarmed mugger then sure, they might back down, (if they don't then you've got another problem) but you can never know for certain if someone is is isn't armed.... and of course if he was armed and you did pull a weapon on him then we're back to the above point.

If someone wants to mug you they'll give themselves the advantage. They will ALWAYS have the advantage because they're the ones starting it. Trying to equalise the situation by packing lethal devices in the hope that you'll have something the other person/s don't can put you in greater risk than before as Jo and I have said.

OK I understand your point somewhat. Maybe I tend to generalize a bit. I'm not trained in the martial arts, but I have been to a small academy my local police had and I AM trained in several other techniques. I can take someone's pistol in three ways, a knife and God only knows how many, and if they're unarmed, well then I'll have my own gun.

As for the "he was after my wallet" excuse, I wouldn't use it. More like "he posed a significant danger to myself or someone else". Around here, we have three very nice laws. One says that a person can use their licensed concealed weapon if they feel they are being threatened, or in the defense of another person, so long as you can prove that you were defending. The second is the "Make My Day Law". Basically if anyone comes into my house and I feel they are a danger to myself, my family, or my property, they're as good as dead, and the law protects me. The last is the "Stand Your Ground Law". Same thing as the second, but it applies in your vehicle, or place of employment if I remember correctly.

Basically, if I can prove the guy was trying to harm me in any way, it's all good.

[LGM]

I am a green belt, and I would feel o.k. trying to disarm someone with a knife, but not a gun. I would rather carry a gun if I was in a dangerous area but I would want to be quick with it.
Joanna has a point in that a good martial arts training is the best self defense, and if you know what you are doing you can defend yourself against an armed assailant. However, if someone would rather carry a gun I respect that as lethal force is sometimes necessary in defense. This is controversial, but I wouln't miss some street thug that tried to mug an (armed) old lady.

[beebs111]

as i said, im not willing to kill over a few dollars. carrying a gun is not "looking for trouble" or "picking a fight" but id rather be able to take someone out if they decided to stick a .38 into my back.

If a mugger has a weapon then he'll already have it out, he'll have a headstart on you. If you go for a lethal weapon of your own then hes MORE likely to slot you because you're attempting to become a significant threat to him.

someone who is doing that is a significant threat to ME, and in my book, me is more important than the thug with the .38 in my back. if i felt that i was in danger of death or serious harm, like getting the shit kicked outta me by someone, i wouldn't hesitate to shoot them. not becasue i wouldn't want to lose my wallet, but if someone is willing to violently steal my possesions he must need money really bad, and id rather take the risk that i could get shot tryign to protect myself than take the risk that this thug would blow my brains out so i couldn't testify against him.
also im not sure why you think people with a CCW permit jsut pick up a gun. most people are extremely good with their guns, just like with martial arts. why not just learn martial arts and carry? not to mention trying to disarm someone with a gun with martial arts involves you being very close to them, as opposed to disarming them with a gun............

[joannaardway]

@cdheller:
They may have had choices before then, but at that place and time, it comes down to:
- attack you
-get shot
-surrender if they think it might work, but as you're pulling a gun, then that's unlikely

@beebs111:
Don't laugh at the subconsious body language. It is a proven fact. Body lauguage is far more important than you might think.

If you've ever been around a really proper martial artist, there is always this slight indeterminable feeling of unease. If that worries friends who don't have to worry about being attacked, imagine what it's like for someone who has to attack them. They'd probably be crapping themselves.

A gun might (if you're lucky) help if you get attacked. Martial arts help you avoid getting attacked. Prevention always beats a cure.

A gun is useless unless it is in your hand - that's a precious few seconds pulling it out. That's more than long enough to be killed in.

However, a martial artist has no need to pull out anything, and their reactions are naturally much quicker.

From my past as a mild-ish martial artist, I recall that a lot of the training helps you spot dangerous situations and avoid them.
This training still works in my mind today - it may seem like paranoia to some, but I can tell when things are likely to be a problem ages before my friends.

Given a choice between:

1) A lethal device that's useless unless it's in my hand, takes precious time to draw, can be stolen and misused, and is dangerous to both bystander and offender.

Or:

2) A non-lethal weaponless combat which is excellent for incapacitating and disarming opponents, which helps you avoid situations, discourages criminals from attacking you, enhances your reactions, has no legal problems, can't be taken from you to be used against you, and has no risk of being outlawed. And for which in any situation where you can take any action), your opponent is exceptionally likely to be within "range".

I know which I'd choose.

[beebs111]

[quote="joannaardwaynon-lethal weaponless combat which is excellent for incapacitating and disarming opponents, which helps you avoid situations, discourages criminals from attacking you, enhances your reactions, has no legal problems, can't be taken from you to be used against you, and has no risk of being outlawed. And for which in any situation where you can take any action), your opponent is exceptionally likely to be within "range"[/quote]
no questions asked, an ounce of prevention is worth10,000 pounds of cure, but when it comes down to it, being able to carry a gun is not just for situations where youre being mugged. if there are gun laws reventing concealed carry, that won't stop a criminal from carring a gun. they are called a CRIMINAL for a reason. why do cops carry guns then? instead of carrying a gun, maybe they should ALSO be trained in martial arts. OMFG! they ARE trained in martial arts, yet they still carry a gun, sometime 2. the cops in my town have an M4 variant strapped to their roof above the drivers seat. if i was in the bank and someone came in waving a shotgun, id sure want to be able to take him out before he shot a teller.
now to my quotes in big size. i know about 20 different ways to kill someone with my bare hands, and how to break someone wrist with about 30 pounds of force. you are saying that martial arts is not potentialy lethal, and that if you took down a mugger or someone else who was threatening your life, and maybe paralyzed them, they could sue you for all you own. dead men tell no tales, and even though the chances of you being sued are slim, they are still there. people have been sued becasue a burgler fell through the roof and cut his leg on a kitchen knife. plain and simple, i dont like the odds of me trying to take a handgun away from someone, with my bare hands, against them squeezing their finger this distance____. even if i dont ever use it, i would rather be prepared for any situation that comes my way, and be ready to act in any way that i can, be it using my hands, a tazer, or having to shoot someone, i would rather be ready for anything, than only preparing for what is likely.

[Hotwired]

U.S. cops carry guns.

UK cops carry nothing more lethal than a snap-out baton and pepper spray.

Wonder what that tells you about how safe it is to live in each country.


I think you're trigger happy and the fact you feel it's fine to kill someone because they are threatening to assault you is exactly where we seem to be differing in opinion.

I don't give a dam if someone is threatening me, I'd still rather incapacitate or painfully injure them and run. Dignity comes second to life whoever the other person is in my book.

If you think it's better to stand your ground and kill someone through massive blood loss or brain tissue damage rather than avoiding that altogether then you find life too cheap.

Yes I will be graphic about it because thats exactly what it's about. You're saying you're fine with doing that to someone else to avoid problems if you injured them to escape instead.

If the law in on your side then injure them, If you think you can prove you were doing it in self defence if you killed someone then you can prove you were injuring someone in self defence too.

[beebs111]

http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conserv ... yagun.html

http://www.kc3.com/editorial/40reasons.htm
read #9 #12 #13 #14#17#18#20#23 take note of #27, #29, and take special notice of #32, #33#34

[Hotwired]

You answered nothing I said about what you said...

Incidentally: the guy in the first link is saying its his duty by the 2nd ammendment, a document written 200 years ago and which can never be changed because of the way it was written ...and a gun somehow protects him against the evils of the elected government.