Insanity and guns is not good either. Also everyone having guns is worse for people that cannot aim. Also I am not sure you need 30 bullets or large extended clips because that makes mass killings easier. Hint charge the guy while he reloads can save you in mass shootings. The only case I can see where that happens is both sides can't shoot well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, living in a country where we are free to own firearms, I honestly think that proper gun safety, handling, knowledge, and maintenance should be a class that is mandatory for all children in schools to take, with regular updates and testing throughout their education. I wouldn't want to be without my gun and think that just about everyone should be able to acquire one, as long as they display the proper understanding of them and haven't proven themself unqualified to keep one (such as violent criminals). Teaching healthy respect for, and a comfort with, weapons from an early age would be good for a land where we have the right to go out and get a weapon fairly quickly.
I enjoy the British system.You mean the one that doesn't do a thing to curb violent crime while making it difficult for people to protect themselves?
We (the British) have people who inhabit pubs who are what we call nutters.
I am so glad they are not armed.
A knife is not a valid tool of self defense.
If someone is trying to kill me and a knife lets me kill them its valid self defense whether a court recognizes it or not. When someone is trying to kill you you use whatever you have on hand.
I would MUCH prefer to grab someone and throw them. If they have fists, a bat, or a rock that's a valid option. The problem is that in a knife fight being bigger just makes you a bigger slower target, and a knife won't slow someone down the way a bat or 2 by four will.. so running is an iffy option at best.
Its also a matter of being all you have. My oak walking stick doesn't fit in my pocket to go into the movies with me.
Getting stabbed is no better than getting shot. At all. In fact, depending on what you get stabbed with, it can be worse.Yes, but 1) its very hard to stab 17 people at one go. 2) you can run away from someone with a knife 3) Its a lot harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun. 4) People can grab improvised weapons and be decently effective against someone with a knife . With a gun, not so much.
1) Mass shootings result in a minuscule part of all gun murders. They are not at all common.
2) That doesn't mean you'll escape. What happens if you get chased down?
3) That is patently false.
4) People get guns wrestled away from them all the time.
But, it seems to me that the easy access to firearms changes the dynamic of any personal conflict, any time I upset someone I have 0.1% chance of things getting ugly, (your sister was coming on to me)
Where I live most people have guns (lots of hunters), and when we get into fights they generally don't get pulled out. Even when mad, we don't grab weapons and pop off shots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Mass shootings result in a minuscule part of all gun murders. They are not at all common.
Mass shootings may be rare, but they're more common than instances where you will need 30 round clips.
2) That doesn't mean you'll escape. What happens if you get chased down?
Its a fair sight easier than outrunning bullets.
3) That is patently false.
Its absolutely true. Go out and stab the first 300 pound person you see. Let me know how it goes.
4) People get guns wrestled away from them all the time.
Usually while reloading.
1) Mass shootings result in a minuscule part of all gun murders. They are not at all common.Mass shootings may be rare, but they're more common than instances where you will need 30 round clips.
2) That doesn't mean you'll escape. What happens if you get chased down?Its a fair sight easier than outrunning bullets.
3) That is patently false.Its absolutely true. Go out and stab the first 300 pound person you see. Let me know how it goes.
4) People get guns wrestled away from them all the time.
Usually while reloading.
1) Have you ever used a 30 round pistol clip? Those things are pieces of s+#$. They are so clumsy it's difficult to load them. That's why the guy in AZ dropped the clip while reloading and was wrestled to the ground.
2) I wonder. Have you ever fired a handgun at a moving target?
3) Okay.
4) No, usually at close range where most robberies occur.
I enjoy the British system.You mean the one that doesn't do a thing to curb violent crime while making it difficult for people to protect themselves?We (the British) have people who inhabit pubs who are what we call nutters.
I am so glad they are not armed.
As a general rule, even in America most people who get into bar fights are not carrying guns.
This thread is rapidly turning into a "yes it is" - "no it isn't " thread as both sides dig in and refuse to give ground.
There will be no understanding or consensus in this thread because everybody is stubborn and wants to win the intarwebz.
I say we abandon the thread and do something more constuctive.... Like work out Batmans alignment.
Vinland, let me ask you. If its just as easy to kill with a knife as it is with a gun... why were guns invented?
no it isn'tThis thread is rapidly turning into a "yes it is" - "no it isn't " thread as both sides dig in and refuse to give ground.
Yes it is.
I say we abandon the thread and do something more constuctive.... Like work out Batmans alignment.
That depends if the batman has taken a bribe to fix the match
Vinland, let me ask you. If its just as easy to kill with a knife as it is with a gun... why were guns invented?
It's more effective as a tool of war. I'm not saying knives are absolutely superior, I'm saying that in the average robbery or assault a knife wielding assailant is just as likely to kill you as someone with a gun.
Hold on, guys. This is about whether gun control is a good idea, right? Arguing whether people would rather be shot or stabbed is kind of irrelevant, non?
I'm not saying one is better. I'm saying knives are deadly enough, especially in assaults and robberies, that getting rid of guns isn't an instant make everybody safer solution.
I'm in the middle! I said so!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to get way too emotional, and if I keep posting the mods are going to have to do something about my belligerence. I'm going to find something else to do for awhile before that has to happen.
I'm starting to get way too emotional, and if I keep posting the mods are going to have to do something about my belligerence. I'm going to find something else to do for awhile before that has to happen.
Thank you so much for this attitude and level of maturity. The moderators truly do appreciate it.
A knife is not a valid tool of self defense.
If someone is trying to kill me and a knife lets me kill them its valid self defense whether a court recognizes it or not. When someone is trying to kill you you use whatever you have on hand.
I would MUCH prefer to grab someone and throw them. If they have fists, a bat, or a rock that's a valid option. The problem is that in a knife fight being bigger just makes you a bigger slower target, and a knife won't slow someone down the way a bat or 2 by four will.. so running is an iffy option at best.
Its also a matter of being all you have. My oak walking stick doesn't fit in my pocket to go into the movies with me.
A knife is not a valid self defense weapon -- it can't block an attack, and it can't stop an attack.
Being bigger does give a huge advantage in any blade fight as you have longer reach. Also the thought they are slower than you is laughable. Honestly it's not the case, especially if he's the kind that does the violence thing on a regular basis. He's also got a significant advantage over you -- he's pass the decision point, the one you are only now getting too -- his body is completely in fight mode while your body is still going WTF? Reach is everything in such combats, and unless you actually know how to use that knife you aren't going to inflict fight ending wounds. Instead you are going to end up with a guy with a bunch of cuts on him saying how you attacked him with a knife.
However if you pull a knife in the movies -- you're going to be seen as the aggressor. You came with a weapon -- concealed with the intent to kill someone.
Because quite frankly that's all a knife is good at outside of cutting things.
But hey -- lets say you are right -- they are trying to kill you, you got your knife out, used it correctly and killed them first.
Now you got a problem -- someone is dead. Sure wait around for the cops, except what's the people around you doing? They messing with the body? They yelling at you? Just standing there? Have you called your lawyer yet? You better. Also try and make sure any video footage that might be better actually is there, and hope to heck it shows you defending yourself and not assaulting a guy, cause as it stands right now you've murdered someone.
Then the other problems kick in -- you're going to be missing some work what with the court and all. Hey when you killed them how did they die? You get them in the heart first go? Yeah that's no so good -- it's shows you came with a knife intent on stabbing someone and then you did it, you didn't panic, you weren't 'not thinking straight' or 'fearing for your life' you stabbed straight stabbed true and killed. That's not the actions of someone that's fully in fight or flight mode -- in that mode you slash... which is painful but generally not deadly.
Also now the guy's family is suing. Yeah you might win, but that's more time and money.
Hey did he bleed on you? More than likely, I wonder what diseases he might have had that you could now potentially have.
Besides what the heck are you doing at a movie theater in the part of town were people are going to just out and attack you?
Why didn't you stay to the lit path? Why'd you get away from the crowd? Why did you let him have ability and opportunity?
That's what the police are going to ask. Cause they got a guy that's dead, and another guy that pulled a knife on him -- oh and not just any knife I bet... I bet it's a beau isn't it? All nice and big with a serrated edge on the back... perhaps triangular for a better wound channel.
Sure of course you were just a sane citizen defending himself. They'll believe you -- after all they've never heard someone say that before and be wrong right?
**************************
Now before someone thinks I'm all 'anti-weapons' or some non-sense I would like to repeat my position. Responsible ownership and complete understanding of what does and doesn't constitute self defense are things I fully endorse. Having the means to protect yourself is a great and good thing.
A gun or knife doesn't give you that. Knowledge and skill give you that. Own the gun for hunting -- I'm good with that. Have the knife because you like the look. That's fine, heck get some practice in and join a club that's good too. Just understand what you are practicing there isn't self defense -- it's fighting. There is a huge difference.
If someone wants to own a deadly weapon I'm fine with that -- I currently do. I have no intention of carrying for 'self defense' because the window for what constitutes self defense with a deadly window is so effectively small I can close it almost entirely by simply applying my knowledge instead. Remove opportunity, remove intent, and remove ability. If you are in a place they won't commit a crime (in public) you have removed ability. You remove opportunity by simply not giving him an excuse to target you don't get the last word in, instead apologize or simply try to leave. Finally you remove intent by not giving off the victim or attack target signs.
Hey Abe, what was the point of that? I think I got lost somewhere.
Were you arguing that gun > knife, or knife for self defense isnt a wise choice, or...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Abe, what was the point of that? I think I got lost somewhere.
Were you arguing that gun > knife, or knife for self defense isnt a wise choice, or...?
A knife isn't a wise self defense choice. It's a deadly weapon. It's use will result in injury. Pepper spray or a taser will get you in an awkward situation but hey it's non-lethal (most the time) and is much easier to argue in court.
Using deadly force to defend yourself opens you up to huge legal issues, possible health issues, retribution, and the psychological issues that go with killing someone.
It is not free of consequences and people seem to forget this. If that guy was a gang member that is killed his people are going to be after you -- and if you land in jail, bad news, they've probably beat you there and have more friends.
The problem with having weapon is that simply by it being there you have shown intent -- you are already 1/3 of the way to being a criminal.
It's a huge responsibility and people want to treat it like a joke.
I've recommend this site twice now and I'm going to do it again -- please understand this is not the sum of my knowledge or experience on the issues at hand but it really needs to be read by as many people as possible because it just might save your life both literally and in a legal sense.
Everyone is forgetting something very important though; it is incredibly fun to shoot a S&W 500.
Ringtail I fully support the recreational use of guns, I even support their use in self defense -- when justified.
The first last and totality of gun control is self control -- you can't control anything else until you can control yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, living in a country where we are free to own firearms, I honestly think that proper gun safety, handling, knowledge, and maintenance should be a class that is mandatory for all children in schools to take, with regular updates and testing throughout their education. I wouldn't want to be without my gun and think that just about everyone should be able to acquire one, as long as they display the proper understanding of them and haven't proven themself unqualified to keep one (such as violent criminals). Teaching healthy respect for, and a comfort with, weapons from an early age would be good for a land where we have the right to go out and get a weapon fairly quickly.
Hmmmm here in rural PA, we had this. (granted it was the 80's) In 6th grade a few state troopers came in and taught us this. IIRC, it was only for 2 or 3 days, but overall, I agree.
A.S. - do you feel that legislation specific to guns is largely irrelevant when the root cause (people using weapons of any kind irresponsibly) isn't being addressed?
It isn't irrelevant -- but it is very close.
The legislation does a lot to stop people that simply don't need to have guns from having them.
I mentioned earlier the 'closed door' effect -- I'm merely an amateur on psychology but I'll try to explain it:
Now understand the door wasn't locked or anything -- but people wouldn't even try, even people with a history of theft. Simply because the door was closed.
Gun control laws work a lot like that. People don't want the hassle of owning an illegal gun -- their brains function well enough for them to realize it's simply too much of an issue unless they are committed to an illegal life style. However the fuss and work that has to be done in order to get a gun acts as a closed door -- it presents too much work and hassle for people to bother with usually.
It also means that those that get guns are more committed and spent more energy getting the gun. This honestly helps setting up court cases much easier -- the guy went out of his way to get the gun and took the classes that should have told him how to use it responsibly.
If he then doesn't do so he's obviously a dangerous criminal and deserves what he gets in the eyes of the jury and court.
It takes out the, "amateur" and 'novice' from gun ownership and specifically tells people, "IF you are going to do this YOU are going to be responsible for it AND we know you know this."
If guns were easy to obtain without a culture of responsibility then we would have much more of the gun violence we saw heading into the gun control law age.
Vinland, let me ask you. If its just as easy to kill with a knife as it is with a gun... why were guns invented?It's more effective as a tool of war. I'm not saying knives are absolutely superior, I'm saying that in the average robbery or assault a knife wielding assailant is just as likely to kill you as someone with a gun.
Knives are typically used to murder or assassinate -- no one brings a knife to a fight other than a complete idiot or psychopath. A bat, club or other such weapon is a vastly better choice.
Knives do hurt and kill -- the problem with using them for self defense is the suck at preventing people from doing it to you.
A proper self defense weapon needs to be able to stop the aggressor before he can get to you to inflict harm on you. A knife fails at this because of how close range it is.
Secondly it needs to be able to prevent you from being injured in the case that it does not prevent the guy from getting to you and inflicting harm on you. Again a knife due to design alone is horrible for this.
But primary above all else it must be appropriate and no more to allow escape from the attack.
Most knife attacks happen in such a way as you will not know a knife is involved until it is too late to draw your own.
The knife is an ambush weapon or a tool. If it's a tool it's going to make a horrible weapon except as an absolutely luck of the gods last ditch effort -- or as a premeditated attack.
(this is to better explain why a knife is a bad choice of defense weaponry -- beyond the legal aspects from earlier)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, if the only reason you need a gun is for self defence because everyone else has a gun, then I think thats a good argument to start cleaning up the circus.
Funny, we get by just fine in this country without 'guns for self defence' and we have lower crime stats than all these heavily defended people.
I disagree with some of the OP´s premises.
There´s plenty of places in the US that are ´very white´ yet very liberal in general terms.
Portland, Oregon for one. Saying that just because you don´t run into people of X ethnicity on a regular basis means you are willing to write them off as lesser humanity just doesn´t hold up. Scandinavian countries have not been signifigantly diverse for a long period of time, yet have supported equal rights across the globe for a very long time, certainly post-WWII. On the opposite side of things, being exposed to different ethnic groups (in a positive light) doesn´t prevent ethnic conflict. See Yugoslavia post Etho-nationalism. See Israeli Palestine, where ´Jewish´ - non-Jewish interaction existed(s) on some basis yet doesn´t prevent the occupiers from disgarding their perspective of exclusive power to recognize universal right of return to refugees (or if you consider the original colonists pre-Israeli state-hood, who certainly had interactions with the locals, some of which would have been neutral or good).
There are also very liberal rural areas where people are just as familiar with guns. Plenty of very conservative areas are urban or suburban and not any more ´in touch with the land´ hunting wild animals than more liberal areas... if they are ´pro-gun´ that is pretty much in the context of killing a person, not an animal. Countries whose gun laws are extremely more controlling than the US almost always allow hunting licences, even if their populations are overwhelmingly urban (e.g. Japan).
The 2nd amendment is pretty schizophrenic. On one hand it talks abouts rights in the same way there is a right to free speech. On the other hand it is talking about well organized militias of states, which doesn´t have anything to do with rights of random citizens to have guns for their own purposes (self defense, hunting, etc).
On the other hand it is talking about well organized militias of states, which doesn´t have anything to do with rights of random citizens to have guns for their own purposes (self defense, hunting, etc).
Indeed.
I reckon you touch on a pretty important point there.
Then there's also the point of 'arms', back then there was a bit of a difference between the arms of today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I grew up in rural Wisconsin. My dad had rifles and shotguns (and some crossbows) in the house that he used for hunting. I've been hunting with my father before but I've never shot anything. I have a lot of respect for hunting as a sport and as a way to put food on the table, something I think a lot of liberals really don't understand.
I don't want to take away guns that people use safely for hunting. Ever.
I understand some people have handguns for personal or home defense. It's not something I have any need to do, but I respect that some people feel that way.
I don't want to take away guns from people protecting their home.
I have absolutely NO FREAKING IDEA why people would want to walk around all day strapping, unless they are just an utter a-hole. It's a power trip. Someone with a gun makes me uneasy, just like someone with a big knife makes me uneasy, in everyday scenarios like going to a movie or shopping or getting a burger. You don't need your colt 45 in the Red Robin.
I don't know why people need assault rifles, semiautomatics, or any of a number of things that go way above and beyond personal/home defense or hunting.
In Wisconsin they just ruled that you can conceal carry handguns in the CAPITOL building, but you can't bring in CAMERAS. How f&#@ing bass ackwards is that?!
Right there with you meatrace!
A knife is not a valid self defense weapon -- it can't block an attack, and it can't stop an attack.
It can stop an attack in a few ways, pretty much the same way a gun can.
1) And this was, thankfully, my one and only experience with it. Someone may decide that trying to harm an unarmed person sounds like a good evenings entertainment, but trying to hurt someone willing to draw a knife is not.
2) Offense is a good defense.
Being tossed in jail for using either is bad, but dying is worse. The justice system is very hodge podge accross the us, and the reaction of law enforcement is likely to vary by state, county, town, and individual prosecutor.
However if you pull a knife in the movies -- you're going to be seen as the aggressor. You came with a weapon -- concealed with the intent to kill someone.
This view however would be pretty rare in most parts of america. Many people have pocket knives on their person without any intent to use them except as tools.
What brought this on?
"Guns are like condoms. I'd rather have one and not need it, then need it and not have one."
- That one chick from AvP.
I find that a lot of gun people, for lack of a better term, have trouble understanding that their rights and wants are not the only ones that matter, and that the government's job is to balance all of our competing rights as well as it can. For example, other people have a right not to be endangered by those with guns, and a right not to be made to feel afraid by those people. A lot of gun people abuse their rights and hide behind a disingenuous "nothing happened." "No one got shot, so what's your problem?!?! Mind your own business (insert name-calling [statist, enemy of freedom, etc] here)!" If 20 guys carrying loaded weapons walk into a restaurant, something happened (and they're well aware of it-it's not a naive or inadvertent transgression of a social contract), even if it was legal and no one was hurt or killed. See here for example of what I am talking about.
Meh, if the only reason you need a gun is for self defence because everyone else has a gun, then I think thats a good argument to start cleaning up the circus.
Funny, we get by just fine in this country without 'guns for self defence' and we have lower crime stats than all these heavily defended people.
Well that's the bit of the catch 22 isn't it?
We have a country with guns, so we need to defend ourselves against people with guns.
In order to get to a country where we don't need to defend ourselves against people with guns, we need to remove the guns. The problem (even before politics enter into this) is that you have to ask for people to give up their guns... and the criminals are the least likely ones to reply. You wind up with a period of time where the criminals are just as heavily armed as ever and citizens are far less armed. This period of time would be pretty considerable for about 20 years until handguns worked their way out of circulation. (while guns will last far longer with proper care and maintenance, the criminal element is known neither for their firearm care or accuracy)
I think a large part of the blue red divide on this one is exposure and location, location, location....
Location, location, location is not a disability, and can easily be over
come with education.So, based upon your example(s), I have to say you are implying the largest
part of the blue red divide is *intelligence* (maybe education) and
not location. (Unless intelligence is based on location, but I don't
think it is.) Because a smart person in Iowa, and a smart person in New
York can educate themselves about life & culture in other parts of the
country, and then make educated and informed decisions -- just like you did.
This applies to gun control too. We need guns, but we don't need ignorant people shooting at the boogeyman.
I believe that a free citizenry should have the right to own weaponry for sports and personal defense. However, I also believe that before a gun license/permit is issued, a background check should be done. Those with criminal records and a history of mental illness should be prohibited from legally acquiring firearms. Also, before a license is issued, the citizen should complete a safety course and pass a written and a practical exam.
These seem like sensible restrictions to me. Firearms are dangerous, and people who aren't willing to go through a mild inconvenience to be a responsible owner should not have them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that a lot of gun people, for lack of a better term, have trouble understanding that their rights and wants are not the only ones that matter, and that the government's job is to balance all of our competing rights as well as it can. For example, other people have a right not to be endangered by those with guns, and a right not to be made to feel afraid by those people. A lot of gun people abuse their rights and hide behind a disingenuous "nothing happened." "No one got shot, so what's your problem?!?! Mind your own business (insert name-calling [statist, enemy of freedom, etc] here)!" If 20 guys carrying loaded weapons walk into a restaurant, something happened (and they're well aware of it-it's not a naive or inadvertent transgression of a social contract), even if it was legal and no one was hurt or killed. See here for example of what I am talking about.What brought this on?
"Guns are like condoms. I'd rather have one and not need it, then need it and not have one."
- That one chick from AvP.
This is already covered. If the business or public place has a sign forbidding carrying a weapon inside, then they are tresspassing.
Of course, a guy who carries a gun in there to rob the place will most likely not pay attention to it, but there you go.Under that though, I belive people do have a "right" to feel and be offended, but this "right" does not trump a law abiding citizen's actual right to do what's permissable under the law. Some people just need to get over themselves, seriously.
So, based upon your example(s), I have to say you are implying the largest
part of the blue red divide is *intelligence* (maybe education) and
not location
No, its experience.
You cannot educate someone's opinion if the information is contrary to their daily experience. You can tout all the numbers and statistics of how many pistols there are being safely and responsibly used in wyoming to someone living in the inner city, it will NEVER make the same impact as the 24/7 reality of the urban hell they live in.
I believe that a free citizenry should have the right to own weaponry for sports and personal defense. However, I also believe that before a gun license/permit is issued, a background check should be done. Those with criminal records and a history of mental illness should be prohibited from legally acquiring firearms. Also, before a license is issued, the citizen should complete a safety course and pass a written and a practical exam.
These seem like sensible restrictions to me. Firearms are dangerous, and people who aren't willing to go through a mild inconvenience to be a responsible owner should not have them.
This is where I differ with the vast majority of people. I think guns
should be cheap and easy to get. The laws should not change, but if youchoose to blow somebody away you better be able to justify it.
A knife is not a valid self defense weapon -- it can't block an attack, and it can't stop an attack.
It can stop an attack in a few ways, pretty much the same way a gun can.
1) And this was, thankfully, my one and only experience with it. Someone may decide that trying to harm an unarmed person sounds like a good evenings entertainment, but trying to hurt someone willing to draw a knife is not.
2) Offense is a good defense.
Being tossed in jail for using either is bad, but dying is worse. The justice system is very hodge podge accross the us, and the reaction of law enforcement is likely to vary by state, county, town, and individual prosecutor.
However if you pull a knife in the movies -- you're going to be seen as the aggressor. You came with a weapon -- concealed with the intent to kill someone.This view however would be pretty rare in most parts of america. Many people have pocket knives on their person without any intent to use them except as tools.
A threat display is not the same as an attack -- and it can be a good way to get an attacker to back off. But if that's what he's doing already you just got yourself hurt and legally started the fight.
The problem with offense as a defense is now you are fighting and not simply practicing self-defense. How you view self defense doesn't really matter it is a legal term and is legally defined. If the jury sees you approach the guy you are claiming you defended yourself from with a knife in your hand and he's bleeding/dying and you aren't you are going to lose the case.
Self defense doesn't care about how you feel -- it cares about how you escaped the situation, what he did to prevent your escape (which is really hard to do), and how your force was justified to stop the attack without being unreasonable.
But hey -- don't believe me -- there are plenty of people that have done just this in the USA have lost their cases, their jobs, and then been sued for wrongful death by their supposed aggressor.
BNW you almost quoting the very arguments that site completely tears apart -- I again recommend you visit the knife fighting section of that hub.