Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[schimmy]

No, the only reason MAD 'worked' is that people like this man weren't stupid enough to follow through.

[bbqrocks]

I heard the americans were developing some kinda non-lethal 'deathray' type thing, which doesn't injure you at all, just covers your body with excruciating, blinding, paralysing pain.

Any of you guys know anything about that?

[Alex C]

Yeah, I'm familiar with Petrov, but couldn't one still say that it was the severity of the consequences that made him think twice about following through with things even under orders? I still think the dumbest thing about the Cold War is that we were willing to kill each other over this shit in the first place at all.


As far as deathrays go, not that I'm aware of, unless you count LRAD, which is capable of firing a "beam" of deafening sound that's being put on Navy ships to be used on small unidentified vessels who are getting too close to ships and don't return hailing. Basically, they just center it on the ship in question and start off projecting moderately loud warnings in a variety of languages and then start turning up the volume as the ship continues to approach the ship. Since the suicide bombing of the USS Cole the military's been interested in ways of convincing ships to back off that doesn't involve firing naval weapons at tiny fishing boats which simply  may not have the equipment or experienced crewmen to realize they need to give a warship some space.

[Dissy]

I heard the americans were developing some kinda non-lethal 'deathray' type thing, which doesn't injure you at all, just covers your body with excruciating, blinding, paralysing pain.

Any of you guys know anything about that?

I've seen it and stood in it.  I lasted all of a second.  My buddy holds the record at five seconds.

[Johnny C]

Here is an AP reporter being exposed to it.

It's for "crowd dispersion."

[jhocking]

google 'pain ray'

[negative creep]

Just to clarify: those things are illegal by any international standards.

Also that thing in the video seems to be quite harmless in contrast to what I've heard about it. Could a different one, thought.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

Man, how often has anyone here had to defend themselves with lethal force? I'm not asking that rhetorically to argue in a snide sort of way, I'm asking seriously.

my friend Stevie got robbed at gun point last week, buddy JD got jumped twice but luckily he just stood up to them and they turned out to be cowards, TJ got his teeth knocked out with brass knuckles recently, and the same guys that knocked his teeth out also broke some girls ribs and tried to throw her into the ocean. those are only the recent examples that i can think of; there's definitely more that i won't go into.

feel free to feel as safe as you want but i sure as shit don't. these are people i know and i live in an extremely small town surrounded by several other, equally small towns. and this shit still goes down.

and that fails to mention all of the herion/crack/meth addicts who wouldn't hesitate to rob and/or kill you (several of whom are people who i used to call friends,unfortunately).

...and that's my rant.

[schimmy]

Now, I don't know much about the scenario, but there's a few things that make MAD a bad analogy for guns in general.
I assume those in charge of missile bases, like Petrov had to be highly intelligent to get to their positions. Intelligent enough to weigh up the pros and cons of firing missiles when they think the other side might have already fired there's. I don't know the gun laws of any country, but I'm going to go ahead and assume that you don't have to be as intelligent, trained, or experienced, as men like Petrov to buy a gun. So, what makes you* qualified to decide whether someone is posing a definite threat to your, or someone else's, life. Presumably in any situation where you know for certain "This person is going to try to kill me" it's going to be far too late for you to draw a gun and eliminate the threat.**
That takes me neatly onto my next point: time. How long does it take for nuclear missiles to get from the former Soviet bases to the American mainland, and vice versa? A matter of minutes I assume. In those minutes, at least some sort of rational decision making can be done to determine whether the threat is genuine. How long does a person have to figure out if someone is going to try to kill them, or someone else? I think saying they have 10 seconds to decide is fairly generous.

So, to sum up, MAD involves intelligent people who have a certain (admittedly fairly short) amount of time to rationally decide whether a nuclear attack is underway.
On the other hand, we have people who are almost certainly going to be less intelligent than military officials*** with much less time than military officials having to decide whether they need to use a gun or not.

*'You' not being aimed at anyone here, just people in general.
**Because, you know, they're not people, like you or me, they're criminals who are therefor pure evil and deserving of being wounded or killed.
***I'm not saying gun owners can't be intelligent, but rather that MOST people are less intelligent than military officials.


Now. Will someone who can write better than be please rewrite all that to make more sense?

[Alex C]

I agree that MAD is a terrible analogy; I don't even know why the Cold War was brought up, honestly. That said, I'm fairly comfortable with very bad things happening to "People just like you or me" when they're in the midst of committing a crime because when you are committing a crime you've forfeited a lot of your rights, are antagonizing people and most imporantly, you become an unknown, unpredictable quantity. I don't know what a mugger or person who breaks into my home could do; I really don't. All you can know with any reasonable certainty is that the person in question is showing a lack of respect for society's conventions, the well-being of others and have quite willfully put you in a very bad situation for reasons unknown. How someone goes from there isn't something I'm really prepared to criticize.

I'm actually against the death penalty and I'm a pretty big advocate of the rights of the accused. I am a gun owner, but I'm against concealed carry and I don't really think of them as a self-defense option; my own weapons are stored empty and equipped with trigger locks plus shooting someone is an event I feel I could rather do without. That said, I worry less about people who would only fire a gun when they believe they're in very real danger than I would worry about someone who is willing to commit a crime for their own gain.

[jhocking]

doh

[Ozymandias]

Maybe they are hunting a Leviathan?

Ozy, while I appreciate the sentiment that intent behind use is key - see up there where I defend farmers using rifles as deterrents against feral animals and as a means of sustenance - arguing that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" sort of begs the question: if people kill people, why give 'em more weapons? I'm willing to tolerate gun ownership as the "right" a developed nation has determined its citizens possess, especially with stringent safety requirements, and I'm certainly in favour of using guns as tools rather than weapons - again, see my farmer example. Tying this back to the topic at hand, the Taser shotgun is not a tool. It is very much a weapon. I am not as concerned about its widespread uses as its potential for abuse, no matter how localized the situation.

I was just minding my own business reading this thread when I came across this.

Johnny, fuck you so much for confusing me with Switty. Fuck you SO MUCH.

[Something Witty]

At least the post for which he confused us was calm and thought out, as opposed to the way I usually post.

[dennis]

What is the purpose of a safety that disengages when the trigger is pulled? I don't know a lot about guns, and so I am totally at a loss for what the safety does if not prevent the gun from firing when the trigger is pulled.

Let me flip this question around: What is the purpose of a gun that doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled?

Dennis, I just don't feel safe with the idea of a gun where pulling the trigger removes the safety. I have always been taught that the safety is in case of accidents, including the trigger getting pulled when it isn't supposed to. Sure, most revolvers don't have a safety at all, and they don't go off randomly that I can tell (unless possessed by one B. Fife), but it just goes against the grain, what I have been taught since I was four and shooting tin cans with a red ryder on the outskirts of town.

In that case, Glocks are not for you. The Glock safety system is not inherently flawed, but it doesn't cover for unsafe use of the gun, which is why it's popular with professional armed units like police. It's not as if any pressure on the trigger will fire the gun. It has to be pulled straight back, and the trigger safety has to be disengaged first. In any case, accidental trigger pulls are only an issue if there is a chambered round in the gun.

Revolvers often lack a safety because their actions either require manually cocking the hammer or require a heavy trigger pull when the hammer is down. You wouldn't carry a revolver around with the hammer cocked on a loaded chamber, would you? Why would would you carry a Glock around like that?

[Slick]

For the record, I did not bring up MAD (since when is that a commonplace acronym?), though that is a possible consequence of what I brought up. I mentioned the arms race, because the notion that 'others pose threats to me, thus I can have a gun if I am responsible with it and use it only in self defence' is part of what motivated the arms race. Let's all just get 'nuclear deterrents' and we'll never get robbed, guys!
If any old punk on the street can have get his dirty little mitts on a pistol, why can't I have an assault rifle? Because if two of the fuckers break in on my house to rob my priceless heirlooms, I wan't to be able to fuck their shit up and protect my family.

I know people aren't here arguing the right to bear automatic assault weapons, but reducto ad absurdum, guys. I like the idea of people not having many lethal weapons.

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. If you take out the guns, you will not make it impossible to kill, but you will make it harder.

Also, the cold war nearly ended the fucking world more than once. We could all not be here right now. Think about that.

[dennis]

Man, how often has anyone here had to defend themselves with lethal force? I'm not asking that rhetorically to argue in a snide sort of way, I'm asking seriously.

my friend Stevie got robbed at gun point last week, buddy JD got jumped twice but luckily he just stood up to them and they turned out to be cowards, TJ got his teeth knocked out with brass knuckles recently, and the same guys that knocked his teeth out also broke some girls ribs and tried to throw her into the ocean. those are only the recent examples that i can think of; there's definitely more that i won't go into.

feel free to feel as safe as you want but i sure as shit don't. these are people i know and i live in an extremely small town surrounded by several other, equally small towns. and this shit still goes down.

and that fails to mention all of the herion/crack/meth addicts who wouldn't hesitate to rob and/or kill you (several of whom are people who i used to call friends,unfortunately).

...and that's my rant.

So, are you saying that if you're robbed at gunpoint, it's ok to kill the robber?

I think your anecdotes do not really stand up to scrutiny.

If you're robbed at gunpoint, the robber has the jump on you to begin with. If you go for your gun when he's already got a gun pointed at you, you're going to get shot.

If you're assaulted by a group that doesn't have lethal weapons, then deadly force isn't justified. If you shoot them, your self-defense excuse isn't going to stand up in court. (As an aside, there is no such thing as "legal" killing. All killings are illegal, but some are excused by the law as being in self-defense. When you mount a self-defense defense, you are admitting to homicide.)

And I live in the third largest city in the United States, and I have yet to be assaulted. Just because you live in a small town and get assaulted, it doesn't mean that violence is rampant everywhere. I mean, I could go hang out in MLD territory wearing the wrong colors and probably see some violence, but that doesn't mean I need a gun.

Also, drug addicts aren't unhinged killers. What a ridiculous thing to say.

[dennis]

For the record, I did not bring up MAD (since when is that a commonplace acronym?), though that is a possible consequence of what I brought up. I mentioned the arms race, because the notion that 'others pose threats to me, thus I can have a gun if I am responsible with it and use it only in self defence' is part of what motivated the arms race. Let's all just get 'nuclear deterrents' and we'll never get robbed, guys!
If any old punk on the street can have get his dirty little mitts on a pistol, why can't I have an assault rifle? Because if two of the fuckers break in on my house to rob my priceless heirlooms, I wan't to be able to fuck their shit up and protect my family.

Mutually Assured Destruction has nothing to do with guns. Guns are fundamentally different from the weapons involved in MAD mainly because they're not weapons of mass destruction. A gun is designed to kill one thing at a time. People are allowed to own guns. People are not allowed to own WMDs. You can't have any type of bomb, much less a nuclear weapon anywhere, for obvious reasons.

It is simply riskier to shoot someone who also has a gun. That is all.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

@Dennis
are you going to stand (or sit) there and tell me that if somebody raped and murdered your whole family you wouldn't want them to die? what if they did it right in front of you, with no law enforcement around, and you had a gun in your hand? would you shoot them? i fucking would.

the idea that "murder is never right, no matter what" is idiotic, idealistic, and naive. sometimes, people just need to die. i'm sorry we don't live in candyland but shit happens.

yes, my examples from my own life were weak but that's just my life. that's all i have to go on. they may not seem bad to someone from a city (not you necessarily, i don't know where your from) but i grew up in a place where that shit just didn't happen so when something like that happens, it's a big fucking deal. it's scary when you've never seen that kind of violence before, to all of a sudden have it crashing through your doors.

if i was robbed at gun point, i wouldn't want to kill the person; that would be silly. i would however, try my damnedest to really hurt that person, if i could, then call the police.

i know all drug addicts aren't maniacs, that's obviously ridiculous. i tend to overuse hyperbole.
one of my best friends is a heroin addict and she's lovely. but many of my other ex-friends who are now constantly doped-up have actually taken to stealing and other sketchy activities. so it seems to me that the next step couldn't be far-off.

i'm pretty sure i sound like a huge jerk thoughout most of this post but i don't want to try to find a p.c. way to say it so i'll just leave it as is. sorry.

also, on a semi-related note: i really liked what you said about guns a couple posts ago. you basically said what i wasn't articulate enough to say.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

@tommy
first quote: that's not what i was saying.

second quote: i'm supposed to respect someone who doesn't value their own life, let alone others lives? i fail to see the logic in that.
let's say someone is rushing into a crowd with a bomb strapped to their chest. you would be opposed to me shooting that person in the head and saving dozens of other lives? that's moronic.

now quit ganging up on me. i went to american public schools and can't defend myself.

[jhocking]

Let me flip this question around: What is the purpose of a gun that doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled?

Given that you didn't answer the question, I'm guessing you thought I was arguing with you. That's okay though, other people already answered.

Also, I missed this post until dennis quoted it:

my friend Stevie got robbed at gun point last week, buddy JD got jumped twice but luckily he just stood up to them and they turned out to be cowards, TJ got his teeth knocked out with brass knuckles recently, and the same guys that knocked his teeth out also broke some girls ribs and tried to throw her into the ocean. those are only the recent examples that i can think of; there's definitely more that i won't go into.

Dude, where do you live? Remind me never to go there.

@Dennis
are you going to stand (or sit) there and tell me that if somebody raped and murdered your whole family you wouldn't want them to die? what if they did it right in front of you, with no law enforcement around, and you had a gun in your hand? would you shoot them? i fucking would.

I scoured his posts rather carefully, and I cannot find the part where he said that. Could you provide a quote?

[E. Spaceman]

@tommy


second quote: i'm supposed to respect someone who doesn't value their own life, let alone others lives?

I would have thought this a very basic example of humanity! Your example is ridiculous and not applicable.

[SonofZ3]

Jesus Goddamn at least you could call them something other than "the target."

Anything I'm pointing a loaded firearm at is a target. Its simple: Don't point a loaded weapon at something you're not willing to shoot, hit what you shoot at. To me, something I shoot at is a target. If it moves and breaths its still a target.

So, are you saying that if you're robbed at gunpoint, it's ok to kill the robber?

Yes. If, in the process of defending myself the robber gets killed then he gets killed. In my state the law allows me to defend myself until I feel can safely escape the situation. If the shot that neutralizes the robber as a threat kills him then thats the way it goes. Don't want to get shot? Don't mug people. 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. Simple as that.

[IronOxide]

I guess the question is do you think that your cash on hand is worth more than somebody's life.

I could have a million dollars on hand and the person mugging me could be the most vile human being alive, and I still would not value my cash over his life.

[Alex C]

See, the thing is, this isn't game theory and people don't have perfect information. Tommydski, whether you admit it or not, people do get killed or maimed in those situations-- you weren't, but you could have been. Anyone who kills someone else in an altercation would have to live with the idea that maybe what they did wasn't necessary to defend themselves, but by the same token they won't be around to regret the decision if it turns out it was necessary. I'm simply not willing to sit here and make that decision for someone else. Period.

[SonofZ3]

I guess the question is do you think that your cash on hand is worth more than somebody's life.

I could have a million dollars on hand and the person mugging me could be the most vile human being alive, and I still would not value my cash over his life.

I don't think it is a matter of how much money I have. I'd respond the same way if someone pulled a knife, threatened me and I had absolutely no money on me at all. I feel it is the principal that someone is threatening my well being, and wants to take from me what I earned by working. If someone threatens me in a serious manner I assume they are willing to do me harm, and if they're trying to do me harm I don't feel any remorse for responding in kind.

[dennis]

@Dennis
are you going to stand (or sit) there and tell me that if somebody raped and murdered your whole family you wouldn't want them to die? what if they did it right in front of you, with no law enforcement around, and you had a gun in your hand? would you shoot them? i fucking would.

I said it's always illegal. I said nothing about whether it's right or wrong, and I'm not naive enough to believe that just because something is against the law that it's also wrong. I do think that it's wrong to kill someone, whatever the reason, but I doubt I doubt I would be strong enough to resist the temptation to kill in your hypothetical situation.

the idea that "murder is never right, no matter what" is idiotic, idealistic, and naive. sometimes, people just need to die. i'm sorry we don't live in candyland but shit happens.

Why? What makes you so sure your gut feeling is true?

yes, my examples from my own life were weak but that's just my life. that's all i have to go on. they may not seem bad to someone from a city (not you necessarily, i don't know where your from) but i grew up in a place where that shit just didn't happen so when something like that happens, it's a big fucking deal. it's scary when you've never seen that kind of violence before, to all of a sudden have it crashing through your doors.

Well, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, you should probably avoid roads.

if i was robbed at gun point, i wouldn't want to kill the person; that would be silly. i would however, try my damnedest to really hurt that person, if i could, then call the police.

You'd risk getting shot for petty revenge? You don't fuck around, man.

i know all drug addicts aren't maniacs, that's obviously ridiculous. i tend to overuse hyperbole.
one of my best friends is a heroin addict and she's lovely. but many of my other ex-friends who are now constantly doped-up have actually taken to stealing and other sketchy activities. so it seems to me that the next step couldn't be far-off.

So petty crime is a gateway to murder? Or only if you're a drug addict? I mean, assuming you avoided getting shot by the armed robber in your previous example and subdued him, you'd maim him, then call the police. That's assault and battery, a worse crime than theft and "sketchy activity". Does that mean you're a step away from murdering people you think might commit a crime in the future?

i'm pretty sure i sound like a huge jerk thoughout most of this post but i don't want to try to find a p.c. way to say it so i'll just leave it as is. sorry.

also, on a semi-related note: i really liked what you said about guns a couple posts ago. you basically said what i wasn't articulate enough to say.

I don't think anyone cares if you're PC in here. I certainly don't.

[dennis]

Let me flip this question around: What is the purpose of a gun that doesn't fire when the trigger is pulled?

Given that you didn't answer the question, I'm guessing you thought I was arguing with you. That's okay though, other people already answered.

Sorry. I was feeling rhetorical.

[Nodaisho]

In that case, Glocks are not for you. The Glock safety system is not inherently flawed, but it doesn't cover for unsafe use of the gun, which is why it's popular with professional armed units like police.

And I am sure the price cuts glock gives to police units doesn't have anything to do with it. And your average police officers likely shoots less often than your average gun enthusiast, they only have to qualify once yearly. If glocks are so awesome, why does only one military use them, that being the Austrian military, and not some special forces group? The Marine Expeditionary Unit uses 1911s still, as does delta force (allegedly). This is becoming a glock/1911 debate though.

Now, here is a question. How do you know the guy robbing you won't just stab you or shoot you if he doesn't want you to be able to finger him in a lineup or if he is angry that you don't have as much money as he thought you would? It isn't so much that you value your money more than someone's life, it is that you don't want to be at someone else's mercy.

I am unlike sonof, in that I would feel a great deal of remorse over it, at least after it happened. I would probably have myself put on a suicide watch, because shooting someone is something that should not have to happen. If you shoot someone, it means something went wrong somewhere, even if it was just when he (or she) decided to start mugging people on the street.

[dennis]

I don't think it is a matter of how much money I have. I'd respond the same way if someone pulled a knife, threatened me and I had absolutely no money on me at all. I feel it is the principal that someone is threatening my well being, and wants to take from me what I earned by working. If someone threatens me in a serious manner I assume they are willing to do me harm, and if they're trying to do me harm I don't feel any remorse for responding in kind.

But what exactly can you do to protect yourself against a man who has a gun pointed at you (and presumably anyone you're with)?

If you assume that he is not willing to kill you and just using the gun to intimidate you, and you use deadly force against him, that's attempted murder if not murder. Whether or not you're successful, you are risking your own life and that of anyone who is around which you basically do not have the right to do.

If you assume that he is willing to kill you for your money, then you are putting a price on your life, and that of bystanders. How much your life is worth to you is your business, but you can't make that decision for anyone else.

If you assume that he is going to kill you anyway, then you're wrong. If that were the case, he'd just rob your dead body.

In any case, robbers want your money, not your life.

[dennis]

In that case, Glocks are not for you. The Glock safety system is not inherently flawed, but it doesn't cover for unsafe use of the gun, which is why it's popular with professional armed units like police.

And I am sure the price cuts glock gives to police units doesn't have anything to do with it. And your average police officers likely shoots less often than your average gun enthusiast, they only have to qualify once yearly. If glocks are so awesome, why does only one military use them, that being the Austrian military, and not some special forces group? The Marine Expeditionary Unit uses 1911s still, as does delta force (allegedly). This is becoming a glock/1911 debate though.

If Glock offers discounts to police units, I'm sure other manufacturers do as well.

I'm also not some kind of Glock nut. I think they have their merits, as I do of 1911s, USPs, and the M9. Military contracts are awarded as much for personal preference and political reasons, as much as technical reasons.

Now, here is a question. How do you know the guy robbing you won't just stab you or shoot you if he doesn't want you to be able to finger him in a lineup or if he is angry that you don't have as much money as he thought you would? It isn't so much that you value your money more than someone's life, it is that you don't want to be at someone else's mercy.

Like I said, you don't know that. However, pulling a gun on a person who is already pointing a gun on you is tactically stupid. Sometimes you don't have a choice, which is why guns are scary!

[Slick]

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.

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 helmet

If 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]

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 helmet

If 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?

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]

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.

Agreed.  I would probably grab your right forearm and stab you in the kidney or groin first.

[SonofZ3]

You're proving my point for why deadly force and carrying a weapon is wise.

There are people like KharBevNor in the world, who would be happy to hurt someone first then take their money. Relying on a criminal not to harm you if you comply is asking to get hurt.

[Sox]

You're making a lot of assumptions about the person who has a gun in your face. You seem to be dehumanising them somewhat. A person is still a person, and while genuinely psychopathic people do exist, a lot of people are driven to acts of crime by desperation. Does this somehow lessen their value as a human being?
If a single person is killed as a result of firearms who didn't deserve it, then there is something wrong with using firearms in those situations. While I don't want to take this thread offtopic, I'm going to liken this argument to an argument against capital punishment, as I find it easier to describe that situation and I think the mentality behind the argument is the same argument I am trying to make here.
An argument against capital punishment is that the life of one innocent person being killed for a crime they didn't commit is reason enough to abandon it completely. I happen to completely agree, and I think that only people with an insatiable bloodthirst would support it. Now, if a person robs you at gunpoint, and you shoot them to kill, this is somehow okay, because they were allegedly trying to kill you? Well, you're still alive, and they're not. You'll never know. But you also didn't let them live long enough to find out. What if the person was a family man, stealing money to feed his kids? Panicking, nervous, not himself, he chooses to rob a convenience store. A quick and easy job for money. He is then shot and killed, for being a criminal, even though he had no intent to harm anybody, and he was driven to act by external factors. Was that man really a criminal?

People attach the word 'criminal' to a person in order to dehumanise them. To take away their faces, to make it okay to hate them. It's assumed that all "criminals" are bad. This is simply not the case. The word 'criminal' is used so loosely that it could apply to anybody. From a child stealing candy from a store, to a person who has avoided paying taxes. From protesters for human rights, to bank robbers. The reason that people think it's 'okay' to shoot criminals is because they see in black and white, and we all know that there's also shades of gray.
I don't think that 'criminals' and so-called 'law abiding citizens' are mutually exclusive by any sane standards given modern day society, especially in light of many recent events.

There are people like KharBevNor in the world, who would be happy to hurt someone first then take their money. Relying on a criminal not to harm you if you comply is asking to get hurt.

This is not a fair comment. I've been reading KharBevNor's posts and I believe his has a very high level of respect for all human life, excluding DJs.

[öde]

I am a criminal. Please don't shoot me!

[KharBevNor]

I believe all human life is sacred, but I could still stick this joker before he shot me. I mean, if I were going to stick someone up with a knife, I would probably either be within three feet of him. In fact personally I would probably be behind him with the blade of the knife actually in contact with his body and one foot between his legs. Hell, even if I had a gun he would still be better off knowing aikido or judo than he would be carrying a gun. Also, we would both be alive after the altercation, which would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?

[schimmy]

Khar, you're ignoring one basic fact: Criminals are NOT human, and they do NOT have a right to live.

[Something Witty]

All of you people talking about "respect for human life" are forgetting that the person robbing/raping/mugging you doesn't have any of that, because if they did, you wouldn't be getting robbed/raped/mugged.

Furthermore, you don't draw a gun and aim it at someone as a deterrent. That's called "escalating the situation," and will get you arrested, your gun license taken away, and quite possibly thrown in jail for a while. You draw a gun as a last resort, and only if you intend to use it. It seems that some of you think that people who carry concealed are going to draw at the drop of a hat and wave their gun around in an effort to intimidate people into leaving them alone, when that would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Let me say it again, you only draw your gun if you intend to use it, and only as a last resort.

As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.

I'm not trying to say I wouldn't feel awful about it immediately afterwards, and for a long time. I'm saying that I will do what I have to do to stay alive. And you know what? If they're "so desperate that they HAVE to rob someone so they can live," then they're stupid. Not stupid because they got into the situation, but stupid because of they way they've chosen to resolve it.

I'm actually done with this thread, this time. Honest.

[öde]

All of you people talking about "respect for human life" are forgetting that the person robbing/raping/mugging you doesn't have any of that, because if they did, you wouldn't be getting robbed/raped/mugged.

So? I still have my morality and I'm not going to give it up.

[schimmy]

Sox's last post pretty thoroughly showed the problem with making points like that, anyway.
I think it's horrific that you are capable of thinking of people in any terms other than as people. Sure, you have a very real right to defend yourself, but their right to not be killed is as important as yours.
People breaking the law still have basic human rights, you know.

[KharBevNor]

Dude, if I truly had no respect for human life, and I wanted to rob you, and I was prepared to kill you, I would simply shoot you in the head and then rob your corpse. The fact that I have not would imply that I have maybe some reservations about casual murder, right?

[Sox]

As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.

Please, don't leave this discussion. You're one of the few people arguing for the guns that's making points I can get behind. Your second paragraph inparticular shows you to be a very sensible person. The part I've quoted however, is something that I can not get behind. A person driving drunk is putting my life in danger, but that doesn't mean they have forfeit their right to live.
There's a difference between and act of recklessness and an act of aggression, and as I've previously stated, I believe that an event such as a robbery could be either of the two, so I don't get to make that call.
Other examples, such as rape, are a VERY different topic, and for the sake of keeping this discussion as simple as we can so as to prevent it from becoming overwhelming, we should discuss it another time.

Dude, if I truly had no respect for human life, and I wanted to rob you, and I was prepared to kill you, I would simply shoot you in the head and then rob your corpse. The fact that I have not would imply that I have maybe some reservations about casual murder, right?

Dude, if I truly had no respect for human life, and I wanted to rob you, and I was prepared to kill you, I would simply shoot you in the head and then rob your corpse. The fact that I have not would imply that I have maybe some reservations about casual murder, right?

It's possible that you have a higher value on bullets than the life of the person you're aiming at.

[thewayigroove]

Other examples, such as rape, are a VERY different topic, and for the sake of keeping this discussion as simple as we can so as to prevent it from becoming overwhelming, we should discuss it another time.

Is this topic wicked complicated? If you are going to rape me, I am going to shoot you in the face.

That felt pretty simple.

[Something Witty]

I should have phrased what I said differently, such as "Intentionally threatens my life" as opposed to puts my life in danger.

Now, the reason I'm leaving the discussion is because I've made my points in as simple and precise a way as I am capable. Restating the points is going to do little to no good, why why waste the energy and time?

[Sox]

I understand, I appreciate you taking the time to state your views.
thewayigroove, rape is a very different subject to gun control laws. It's also a very sensitive subject, especially if you live in the UK, where getting away with rape is easier than seeing a gun. It is a very complicated topic, and if we talked about it like we've spoken about gun control in this thread, we'd have barely scratched the surface. It's a huge topic and it can't be discussed here without moving irrecoverably offtopic in this thread.

[David_Dovey]

We're already irrecoverably off-topic, and have been for about 3/4 of this thing. Look at the thread-name.

[negative creep]

[opinion]Just because someone doesn't have respect for human life doesn't mean you shouldn't either.[/opinion]