Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Some Stupid Asshole Invented A Taser Shotgun
Slick:
--- Quote from: SonofZ3 on 14 Feb 2008, 20:47 ---If my life is potentially on the line I do not want it to be a fair fight, or to have a little bit of an edge, I want to have a decided advantage. If someone has a problem with the idea of using deadly force to protect themself, then they don't have to carry a gun.
--- End quote ---
See, I would like to point out that this is what I was referring to earlier as reasoning that can begin an arms race. If that punk-ass-bitch is pointing their sawed-off shotgun at you, how do you react? My point being, a bigger gun is not a decided advantage, it's a bigger gun. I can kill you with the .22 my father used to hunt small game. If you've got a Desert Eagle .50, you've got a nice big pistol to my small game pea-shooter rifle, but I can still kill you.
A decided advantage in this case would consist of:
* Quick draw lessons
* Stealth draw lessons
* Hand to hand combat and disarming skills
* Flak vest
* Flak vest
* Flak vest
* Combat helmetIf you've got a gun, and I've got a knife, I can stab your ass before you pull your gun. In fact, instead of your ass, I could stab you in the throat, or maybe just the arm so you can't shoot.
So, having a gun does not compensate for me having the drop on you. It may give you power, but just like a formula one car is crap at the off-roading I did in my old, trashy four-wheel drive, having target-shooting skills does not give someone the ability to successfully defeat a mugger.
Can you provide me an instance where someone you know was required to use lethal force in self defense?
P.S. I would just like to point out that Dennis' double-posting is not such a faux pas because separate posts are being used for separate points and responses.
BobJoeJim:
A gun is not a weapon, Marge. It's a tool! Like a butcher knife or a harpoon or, uh, uh, an alligator.
KharBevNor:
Lisa, if I didn't have a gun, then the King of England could just walk in here and start ordering you around! You want that, huh?
Theoretically my political beliefs would allow for gun ownership, mainly because I find the concentration of lethal force in the hands of authority conceptually more troublesome than everyone having access to lethal force. But then I go out of my room and meet actual people again. :(
SonofZ3:
--- Quote from: Slick on 14 Feb 2008, 22:01 ---
See, I would like to point out that this is what I was referring to earlier as reasoning that can begin an arms race. If that punk-ass-bitch is pointing their sawed-off shotgun at you, how do you react? My point being, a bigger gun is not a decided advantage, it's a bigger gun. I can kill you with the .22 my father used to hunt small game. If you've got a Desert Eagle .50, you've got a nice big pistol to my small game pea-shooter rifle, but I can still kill you.
A decided advantage in this case would consist of:
* Quick draw lessons
* Stealth draw lessons
* Hand to hand combat and disarming skills
* Flak vest
* Flak vest
* Flak vest
* Combat helmetIf you've got a gun, and I've got a knife, I can stab your ass before you pull your gun. In fact, instead of your ass, I could stab you in the throat, or maybe just the arm so you can't shoot.
So, having a gun does not compensate for me having the drop on you. It may give you power, but just like a formula one car is crap at the off-roading I did in my old, trashy four-wheel drive, having target-shooting skills does not give someone the ability to successfully defeat a mugger.
Can you provide me an instance where someone you know was required to use lethal force in self defense?
--- End quote ---
first off, quick and stealth draw lessons aren't even real. All it takes is practice drawing your firearm, bringing it to bear and squeezing the trigger. It takes me about a second and a half. Reaching for my gun and wallet look the same, so thats not an issue for me. The whole idea of stabbing me in my arm is far fetched as well. Most people are right handed, that would mean that my attacker would have to travel toward me, across my body and attack my right side to disable that arm, all while I'm moving, backing away and attempting to bring my gun to bear. The same argument is valid against the stabbing in the throat claim. Someone would have to be very good with a knife to stab someone in the throat while they're fighting back and moving away. Most likely, I would get stabbed in the left arm, as that is the side of my body that would be facing my attacker, and if someone is slashing/stabbing at your head/neck area it is natural response to throw up an arm to protect yourself. Target shooting has nothing to do with self defense shooting. If you're close enough to mug me, I can probably damn near stick the gun in your belly before firing. I'm not worried about aim.
Its true that a bigger gun isn't always better. But you're arguing that no gun is somehow better? It seems to me you're ok with trusting your life to the mercy of a criminal. No thank you.
Hand to hand training, in my opinion, is always a good idea, but I think its even better as an addition to a firearm, not an alternative.
I've never known anyone that pulled a firearm as a response. I do know people who have used knives to defend themselves, and one that used a liqour bottle to beat someone half to death that was attacking them with a razor knife.
KharBevNor:
--- Quote from: SonofZ3 on 15 Feb 2008, 09:14 ---The whole idea of stabbing me in my arm is far fetched as well. Most people are right handed, that would mean that my attacker would have to travel toward me, across my body and attack my right side to disable that arm, all while I'm moving, backing away and attempting to bring my gun to bear. The same argument is valid against the stabbing in the throat claim. Someone would have to be very good with a knife to stab someone in the throat while they're fighting back and moving away.
--- End quote ---
Agreed. I would probably grab your right forearm and stab you in the kidney or groin first.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version