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 you
choose to blow somebody away you better be able to justify it.
Honestly the majority of the cost is from the manufacture. Getting those precision parts is very technical and there is a lot of testing involved in addition to paying the people that make it.
You could buy a cheap gun... but you'll get what you pay for and with something that's dealing with that level of lethal ability (in multiple forms) people generally want a high quality product.
|
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.
I'm sure a 70 year old lady drawing knife is a viable defense tactic...against 1 person in her home wanting to do harm...or 2....or 5...
I am unconcerned about a younger persons ability to defend themselves in a 1-1 situation. It is the other situations, the elderly person defending themselves, the one woman defending against 2 or more assailants, the guy in his house defending his family against a few people who decided to come in and take his stuff, rape his wife and burn them all down in the house to cover the crime up. He pulls his trusty knife and.....fails. He pulls his 38 pistol out of the draw and has a decent chance. Can't exactly store his shotgun anywhere easily accessible to get to in time.
|
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.
It's a right that some people like to exorcise...
In some areas, particularly California, it's a right that is constantly under attack. Many feel that a right taken for granted and/or unused gets taken away...
For most that carry, it has nothing to do with power and everything to do with just wanting to protect themselves and their family while out and about. Most of the time, they are some of the nicest people you're likely to ever meet...
Someone with a gun makes me uneasy, just like someone with a big knife makes me uneasy
This is all on you here. If someone is thinking of doing you harm, they will do so regardless of how they are or are not armed. That neighbor you wave to every morning is the same person with or without a gun at his hip...
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.
In a perfect world, I would agree with you here. Yes, most of the time nobody is going to shoot up the Red Robin while you're out having dinner with your family, but, what IS more likely to occur, is you'll emcounter some knucklehead who's been waiting in the bushes near your car (and he isn't going to wait while you unlock the trunk to get your gun out)...
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.
This always makes me laugh (or at the very least, smile broadly) when I hear it...
First off, when you make something like a semi-auto illegal, now only the criminals will have them. Because we all know how they give a rat's bottom about what is and what is not illegal. So why tie the hands of the law abiding citizen?
Second, when I hear people say this they tend to add, "Because it gives the bad guys more ammo"...
Again, a criminal won’t care that he is only allowed a bolt action rifle; he will have whatever he darn-well wants to have...
But let's look at a famous shooting incident:
Charles Whitman, back in 1966 decided to shoot up the University of Texas. Only two of the (many) firearms in the arsenal he had with him was semi-automatic (those being an M1 carbine and one of the pistols he had with him)...
My point is, just as much damage (and fear and panic) can be done with a bolt action rifle or revolver as can be done with a semi-auto...
So again I ask, why tie the hands of the law abiding citizen?
Besides, an AR-15 can be fun (if a bit expensive) to build and shoot at paper targets ;-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
If they are in the bushes they aren't going to attack a family -- they are going to go for the lone guy coming out -- and they aren't going to do it in the open -- by the time you know they are on you you won't have time to draw... unless they are an idiot. Also your first priority should be getting your family safe -- not shooting them. Remember if you have a gun and he has a gun you are threatening anyone behind him and he to you -- which means your family. Yeah having that gun (if you get it drawn) can kill him -- but killing him doesn't mean you have acted in proper self defense.
Violence rarely happens against the vigilant much like predators don't hunt predators -- the criminal does not want a shoot out -- he doesn't want to fight you, he either wants something from you or he wants you dead. IF he wants you dead he's not going to do it in such a way as to give you time to draw that concealed weapon, if he wants something else and you are showing common sense and vigilance he's going to look for an easier target. You are looking too dangerous for him to want to attack.
What's more likely if he's actually targeting you -- that he'll jump from the bushes or that he'll simply shoot you then come out? The second makes more sense and he's going to know that.
All in all it is just another 27 ninja's scenario.
As to the Charles Whitman accident saying that he only had one after the laws were starting to be passed, and using that as an example of why we don't need them isn't fair since I can just as easily say he only had one because he couldn't get more. We should look at the small period of time that full auto was available and easily available.
|
|
Sorry Abe, you make a lot of broad sweeping statements of fact there....
Who is to say that the dude lurking in the bushes isn't going to target a family? I've read about a guy getting into a car at a stoplight and making the driver drive to a secluded spot then raping and killing the driver's wife and daughter after tying up the driver and sticking him in the trunk. If driver had a sidearm on him that went un-noticed he may have been able to draw it and kill the idiot car-jacking him.
Not all predators are reasonable or act reasonably. Being vigilent and confident in your surroundings sounds great but once again, what about the scrawny dude or the elderly person or that 95 lb girl or that guy with arthritis in his knees that limps along.....Predators like picking on the weak, why can't the weak have a means to increase their chances of survival.
I guess only the strong get to survive despite us being a supposedly "advanced" culture.
|
|
All in all it is just another 27 ninja's scenario.
This is very true...
But concerning some of your other points; the better prepared person that carries is one that is at the range several times a week running drills, and has taken a training course or two (and practices what he's learned). These are the people that CAN react within seconds...
And the whole reason I brought up Whitman, was because of what he was able to do with those firearms. It matters not what was or was not available to him. He had what he had...
That link was pretty cool, fellow Abe.
Well worth a read.
I think your basic point about guns and self defense is absolutely true, and very happily moderate.
Self defense is a pisspoor justification for owning a gun. There are about 300 things to do first in order to protect yourself, and if you buy a gun before that you're making your risks more severe, not less.
Note that I am not against gun ownership in general. I just think self defense is one of the last acceptable arguments in favor of gun ownership. I think safeguarding against a police state (which is NOT self defense) is much more important and logical.
Sorry Abe, you make a lot of broad sweeping statements of fact there....
Who is to say that the dude lurking in the bushes isn't going to target a family? I've read about a guy getting into a car at a stoplight and making the driver drive to a secluded spot then raping and killing the driver's wife and daughter after tying up the driver and sticking him in the trunk. If driver had a sidearm on him that went un-noticed he may have been able to draw it and kill the idiot car-jacking him.
Not all predators are reasonable or act reasonably. Being vigilent and confident in your surroundings sounds great but once again, what about the scrawny dude or the elderly person or that 95 lb girl or that guy with arthritis in his knees that limps along.....Predators like picking on the weak, why can't the weak have a means to increase their chances of survival.
I guess only the strong get to survive despite us being a supposedly "advanced" culture.
Consider this -- the one man took on and defeated 3 people, before killing 2 of them. Three people -- action economy and what not -- standard tactics tells us this shouldn't have happened gun or no from the driver. If the driver had a gun on him and had managed to get it out and shoot the man before he did this that could have been great. But how did the man get into the car? Why didn't people fight back then? Did he have a gun on them already? You've named a very specific circumstance and not provided very important details that need to be considered in a case.
They can -- it's going out in a pack, staying in lit public areas, and doing what is needed to live -- including letting yourself be robbed if it keeps them from killing you. Understand self defense isn't about pride, fear, emotions or possessions -- none of those matter in self defense. It comes down to doing what is needed to not be killed.
If you are physically handicapped you must consider this when planning self defense. So travel with someone, and do things that keeps you safe.
I'm not against having a lethal weapon to defend yourself -- I'm for knowing the more important steps of staying out of situations so that if one is forced upon you then you have a solid case, and then having the training to use what you must to stay alive.
I'm sorry but your whole post reeks of 27 ninjas. This is short hand for the extreme question of, "What do I do if I'm walking down a dark alley with 20 dollar bills falling out of my pockets and I'm attacked by 27 ninjas using uzis?"
The answer is, "you die."
Don't focus on the circumstances that might happen -- those are infinite -- instead focus in on the probable ones and taking steps to lower the probability of you being a target.
Again I'm not against gun ownership or self defense -- I am against stupidity and 27 ninja questions from WIM (what if monkeys).
@ Digital Elf -- Hey I'm all for training -- yes go to the range -- go often PLEASE DO THIS. If you don't please do not carry -- you are a danger to yourself and others.
However ask anyone with any experience in the police or other security position that allows them a gun -- if it is concealed and the 'target' is within 30 feet you will not get it drawn before they can close on you.
Heck try it yourself. Get a holster put a fake in it and have someone else close on you and see if you can draw and get a shot before they can be on top of you. Then do it when they are behind you, then from the side, then closer (as in hiding in the bushes), then do it from behind the side and the front (multiple assailants). Then do it when you don't know they are there.
THAT is honest self defense training, and I'm fairly sure you'll be very sad at the results.
And the whole reason I brought up Whitman, was because of what he was able to do with those firearms. It matters not what was or was not available to him. He had what he had...
No no I'm not saying you are completely wrong -- only think of the justification of gun control laws, that they help prevent people from getting guns that they should not have. Like automatic weaponry (I'm not too upset by semi-automatic personally), if those laws are not in there then he could have easily had much worse than he did.
Now obviously no gun control law is going to be absolute. Just as no self defense technique is absolute (and anyone saying otherwise is lying), but like taking any reasonable precaution they do help limit what threat there is.
Remember the reason these laws went into effect right after full autos came out? Because of crime happening with full autos and happening much more regularly and with much more deadly results than had happened before they came out.
It's not an elimination factor but it is a limiting one and if the same guy goes to buy guns (especially the same ones or types) several places in one day and that is logged and tracked... well perhaps he's planning something hmm?
|
|
It's not an elimination factor but it is a limiting one
The NFA of 1934 did nothing to limit the number of those "evil gangster guns" to the "gangsters. The "gangsters" still had the same access to their Thompsons, HBARs, and everything else they used same as before...
It merely placed an extra $200 price tag to the law abiding citizen who wanted one of these same firearms (both then and now)...
and if the same guy goes to buy guns (especially the same ones or types) several places in one day and that is logged and tracked... well perhaps he's planning something hmm?
Not saying this doesn't happen, but most criminals are not going to use the same route you or I would (i.e. the legal one) in order to get one or even many firearms. They are going to steal one or buy one that had already been stolen...
So for the sake of a few dumb criminals (that buy their guns the legal way and then go use them in a crime), the proposal is to tie the hands and punish all of those that choose to abide by the law?
Doesn't make any sense to me...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
That's a very Ivory tower response. Because I'm physically disabled, I'm not suppossed to go to the grocery or even go to my mailbox until I can schedule with someone else to go with me if I want to be safe?
You make me laugh.
How about 'don't go to the grocery at 1 in the morning, make time during the day'? Better?
How about 'don't go to the grocery at 1 in the morning, make time during the day'? Better?That's a very Ivory tower response. Because I'm physically disabled, I'm not suppossed to go to the grocery or even go to my mailbox until I can schedule with someone else to go with me if I want to be safe?
You make me laugh.
What if you're a disabled vampire?
What if you're a disabled vampire?Then you should kill yourself, you damn unholy abomination.
With a gun?
|
|
I don't believe I am "27 ninja"ing or WIMing at all....I have brought up things that are a concern for me and how I would like to have more defense in those types of instances. I don't remember anyone stating that tossing out What Ifs was not allowed anyway or hearing that Abe Spalding's way to do things is now the rule of law on the messageboards but....
Home invasions are becoming popular. Multiple people breaking into a house and taking whatever they want and killing the occupants. That is a concern to me. I agree with other self-defense techniques to avoid conflicts in general through vigilance and awareness. I used to teach rape prevention techniques and have 10 years of martial arts training. I also believe that the weaker people should do what they can to minimize their exposure to danger. I just also accept that not everyone is going to spend months/years training to defend themselves. Owning a gun for self-protection is a viable choice to me. Owning a gun to protect from threats either foreign or domestic is a viable choice to me. If someone wants to apply a ton of rules to make it harder to get a gun or to limit guns from people that may pose a hazard to innocent people then go for it. I don't care if guns took a 30 day waiting period and 2 weeks of training to get. They should be available to those that feel a need for them whether that need is recreational, self-defense, or patriotic defense.
Not really. It's just trading one set of risks for another.
Agreed.
|
|
Criminals kept using "Thompsons, HBARs, and everything else they used" just the same as before? I suppose they still have the same easy access to full-auto weapons and use them just as heavily?
I was speaking of the "gangsters" in which the NFA was enacted (1934)...
Sure, 77 years later there aren't many crimes committed with full auto weaponry...
However, one could continue to purchase brand new full-auto firearms right up until 1986. Now, any legally transferable full-auto firearm has to be older than that (and the Federal Tax Stamp required to own an NFA item will cost you $200 above and beyond the price of said item)...
Really? The legal manufacture and availability of types of firearms has not affect on what criminals can get?
During the 90's the Federal government did ban assault weapons (like semi-auto AR-15's and semi-auto AK-47's). You know what happened? Did the source dry up? Nope...
The manufacturer's kept one step ahead of the laws. If the law said a bayonet lug was illegal, the company removed the lug, if they said no folding stock, they pinned the stock open or slapped on a "regular" stock...
This was kept up right until the ban was allowed to expire in 2004...
Added to that was the "Grandfather Clause", which allowed one to continue to own a firearm that had became illegal if that person had it prior to the ban. Also, the parts for these "grandfathered" firearms were still readily available...
So no, the criminals still had access to firearms that were otherwise illegal...
|
|
I know a guy who never fired a gun (nt even in boot camp) while he was in the military. How often did you hae gun training while in the military?
It varies based on the unit's mission. I haven't had to fire it since we deployed in February, working in brigade headquarters.
I do have an example, however. Unit SOP is that all soldiers on base will carry their weapons at low ready (in front of the body, muzzle to the ground) when walking to and from work.
This doesn't actually accomplish anything, because any insurgents that manage to sneak weapons onto the base will have surprise on their side. We don't carry with a round chambered, requiring time to lock the magazine and chamber that round before we can draw a bead and return fire. I don't think I need to explain what is the most likely occurance there.
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.
And yeah we had that phase for a while.
A potted breakdown of our history was this:
Once upon a time in Australia you could buy all sorts of guns, and people did. You could walk into the local gun shop and buy yourself a 12g pump or semi-auto rifle no worries, the SKS was a popular model with the guys I used to hang with, but a few guys I knew had Uzi's and M16's tucked away, and there were a few SLR's (FN FAL) kicking about too - you weren't SUPPOSED to have the last lot, but no one was going to get in any real trouble for having them.
At the time though, armed robberies of banks was pretty off the charts, and we were having a period of underworld 'wars' raging, particularly between Bikie gangs, and on the streets of a couple of our major cities over the heroin trade (and the Melbourne painters and dockers wars)
We then had a succession of mass killings where nutty 'lone gunmen' decided to go on a shooting spree.
This changed the politics pretty fast and with a bit of a waggle the Govt stepped in and put an end to the proliferation of firearms.
The first step was to put limits on who could have a gun, and what sort they could have (pretty much bolt action rifles only) and special arrangements made for sport shooters/collectors/hunters. Tight control was placed around the transportation of firearms (ie no 'public carry') and in order to compensate people, a gun amnesty and buyback was arranged. People were paid good cash to hand over the weapons.
Now sure this all took a while and didn't take all the guns out of the equation, some criminals kept them no doubt. However it did fix the problems that we were having, and over time the ridiculously harsh charges brought down on those who were carrying illegal firearms about (gets worse if you then use one in a crime) meant that gun crime is now quite rare.
Sure there are still Bikies shooting Bikies, and Mafiosa shooting Mafiosa, but stories about some guy who was otherwise minding his own business getting shot in a crime are now so rare they become national news.
It took a few years, but we made it.
Now if someone is running around acting like a pork chop, the chances of them having a gun are practically nil, and with the draconian knife laws we have in place he is pretty unlikely to be armed... as a result, we are now much safer.
I like it this way.
(*Disclaimer: we are a very different country in that we don't have a lot of the issues America has, so maybe we are just a bit more relaxed as a society)
I know a guy who never fired a gun (nt even in boot camp) while he was in the military.
Ermm come again?
That can't be possible, surely.
I know a guy who never fired a gun (nt even in boot camp) while he was in the military.Ermm come again?
That can't be possible, surely.
I concur. I spent some time in the Navy, and EVERYONE had to fire a pistol and a shotgun during basic training.
Yeah it sounded pretty far fetched as a tale.
lots of stuff
Again I'm not saying don't own guns. I'm not even saying don't carry one. I am saying that if you do carry a gun (or knife) that you need to realize you are making a serious lifestyle choice -- just like getting married or having a kid. This choice should not be a spur of the moment thing, and should not be taken if you are unwillingly to dedicate the time and energy needed to make it a safe, legal and responsible choice.
It's not something that should be done if you aren't willing to spend the time to learn the legal ramifications, or spend time regularly (and not once a month or even every two weeks) practicing.
Now back to the case you read about:
Do you have any answers for my questions? Why did one person successfully take out 3? Why did they let him in the care? Was he already armed and threatening with a lethal weapon? Why did no one else notice and why did no one involved or witnessing report it?
There are hundreds of tonnes of guns in America - sure the majority are in the 'red' states (normally rural areas) but lets face it the urban areas aren't lacking in firepower either, and here's the catch... especially in the urban criminal population. See, your urban soccer mom and accountant dad realise that guns can be expensive (legally bought, gun safe, gun licence(s) and practice at the local gun range) and they don't want to miss and hurt someone else. Criminals don't give a toss.
Actually they really do give a toss. It all boils down to what they are after -- criminals don't like to make the news (not the long term sane ones at least -- and these are the most common type). It's bad for business -- and realize that most criminal ventures are just that -- business. They are out to make their buck -- not get into a gun fight (or a fight at all), and therefore want the 'exchange' to go quickly and quietly. The more people that see, and are around the more likely they can't control the exchange and something might go wrong for them.
Also if guns aren't common people they will be more expensive. If you can't get it legally and having it will make you a criminal then the criminals will realize this raises the price and demand -- as well as the risk for having one. The more it costs the less even criminals will have them and the more likely they are to go for something else -- indeed a piece of pipe picked up from the alley is just as good of a threat weapon as well as easier and cheaper to get rid of.
Remember the criminal is still human -- he has to deal with many of the same problems everyone else does, his answer is simply very different. He's going to want to strike from ambush as that gives him a better chance, and lessens your chances of getting something out that can hurt him.
I was quite surprised when I heard him talk about it, but it had something to do with the beuracracy. I don't claim that its common, but it happened for this guy (an old team lead of mine from several years ago).
I know a guy who never fired a gun (nt even in boot camp) while he was in the military.Ermm come again?
That can't be possible, surely.
My brother made it through boot with only one time on the tests -- he made... sharpshooter (I think? It wasn't the highest rank -- he missed by 1 shot) because another person dropped a box of ammunition on his own head. David (my brother) having been a first responder for six years was the first to the scene and when the Drill Sargent realized my brother was competent and had already passed had him take the injured to get medical attention. My brother didn't get a second chance at the test.
(I'm still a civie, so I don't know all the technical terms off the top of my head unfortunately. As such if you do have questions or clarifications feel free to point them out or whatever)
In addition to Darkwing Duck's suggestion on required training I would add that I think that any such training should include:
1. Situational awareness and threat recognition training
2. Legal training on what is and is not self defense
3. Stress retrieval training and 'tagging' during such training if not up to speed. This training should include drawing while approached from multiple positions and at different distances. Should include a 'firing model' (paint ball gun could work) so that accuracy in such situations can also be assessed.
Remember Prohibition? They thought making alcohol illegal would raise the price and make it less common. It didn't actually solve any social ills and, in fact, created a few.
Again I'm not advocating banning guns. I'm advocating restrictions and responsibility. Please note that since we changed from banning alcohol to restriction and responsibility training the problems of drunk driving and 'social ills' has been reduced drastically.
the draconian knife laws we have in place he is pretty unlikely to be armed...
Can you still carry if its cultural.... As I made my grooms-men wear kilts at my wedding - I gave them a sgian-dubh and a hip flask full of Glenfiddich each for grooms gifts.
We had a discussion about the legality (a few lawyers at the wedding)"concealed" knife and all... none of the lawyers were criminal law somebody mentioned religious or national costume as an exception... I then raised another question would my replica 18th Century basket hilted Claymore be illegal as it was a blade of greater than 18cm.
I was guessing private property and it being a wedding... the boys in blue would have better things to worry about.