|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 106 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 84 of 106:
| 
Dec 22 03:28 UTC 2000 |
Shooting lumps of lead at a very large facetted iron object sounds like
an excellent way to kill a bystander with a stray.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 85 of 106:
|
Dec 22 06:48 UTC 2000 |
Re #80: yes, one has lots of Rights. One has the right to drink oneself
to death, jump off tall building, lie down on railroad tracks, etc.
Even granting that one has a "Right" to carry a gun, that is absolutely
no reason for doing so.
|
russ
|
|
response 86 of 106:
|
Dec 22 06:53 UTC 2000 |
Re #78: And what if you're too old, too small, arthritic, palsied or
just plain clumsy? Is it "just too bad" for such people?
What if someone suddenly becomes aware of a possible threat, and
doesn't have six years to spend in a gym before that potential could
become all too real? "Too bad" again?
What if you have a threat to others, like children? What if the
assailant might have a weapon, like a knife or a club? Multiple
assailants? How long would it take to acquire the skills to defend
yourself and others adequately in such a situation?
I often encounter anti-gun bigotry from martial-arts people (ESR being
a prominent exception). There appears to be a mind-set among some
which holds that guns are "unfair". Of course they're not fair. It's
not about what's fair, it's about what's right. It's wrong to allow
criminals to have their way with innocents. If innocents use advantages
in force to keep themselves from harm, that's morally preferable to some
crook carrying out a crime against someone.
Almost anyone can learn to use a gun effectively. There are documented
cases of bedridden people shooting burglars to death, and at least one
case of the same person shooting the dead crook's buddy to death when
he came to avenge his associate's honor. What chance would these people
have had of saving themselves with martial arts, Scott? "Too bad" again?
The Colt wasn't called "The Equalizer" for nothing. And that's all a
gun is, something that puts the young and strong down near an equal
footing with everyone else. Even if the crook has a gun, they no
longer have an advantage. Most crooks don't like even odds, and will
go for guarantees of easy pickings. The whole point of CCW legislation
is to take away the criminal's ability to guess, and persuade them not
to pick on people. Heck, they might even decide to get a job.
I find it VERY ironic that scg's list of 911 calls does not include
the one incident where he claims he was assaulted by a drunk carrying
a shotgun. There's a felonious assault charge right there, which
could have barred the drunk from owning a gun ever again. Did he? No.
Re #84: Actually, lead ricochets pretty poorly. I have had an airgun
pellet *stick* to a solid steel target. Then again, I did hit it
squarely on a flat face.
|
scg
|
|
response 87 of 106:
|
Dec 22 08:07 UTC 2000 |
Ah, that incident. I was out in the middle of the woods, on my bike, years
before I got my first cell phone. I got out of there fast enough that I
didn't get a very good look at the guy, so even if somebody had been able to
track him down, I probably wouldn't have recognized him. It was probably
another hour or so before I was near a phone, at which point the guy wasn't
posing any sort of threat to me.
Even now, I don't carry a cell phone while mountain biking. It's not
something I want bothering me, my chances of needing it and being somewhere
where it will work are fairly small, and my chances of damaging it are pretty
high. But no, carrying a handgun in my pocket while mountain biking wouldn't
be a good idea either. It would be a very bad thing to land on in a crash.
Anyhow, if what a gun will get me is even odds on survival, I'm really not
interested. Even if I were being threatened by somebody with a gun, my odds
would probably be better than even of surviving if I were to back away and
make it clear I wasn't posing any sort of threat to them. Really, the guns
are needed for safety argument seems to rest on a couple of arguments. The
first is that while occurrances where a gun would be needed for self defense
are so rare that nobody in this item can describe one from personal
experience, the sane and rational gun carryer would of course have their gun
with them and be prepared to use it when such an occurrance happened. Since
I don't even bother to carry my pager most of the time when I don't think I'm
going to get paged, I find it hard to imagine that others will faithfully
carry their guns constantly for decades, without ever having had a use for
them. The other argument is that you will never have to shoot somebody,
because if you pull a gun on them they will of course drop their gun and back
off. And yet, this assumes that the "good" gun owner will pull their gun and
stand their ground, while facing an armed attacker. Why is the attacker, in
a situation where the "good" gun owner appearas likely to kill them, going
to back off so easily, while the "good" gun owner will stand their ground so
firmly, and shoot the attacker if the attacker doesn't back off? Wouldn't
the attacker be at least as likely to defend themselves by shooting the "good"
gun owner in that situation?
|
scott
|
|
response 88 of 106:
|
Dec 22 13:52 UTC 2000 |
Gee, Russ, I didn't even *mention* martial arts.
One of the best defenses is just being able to run away.
And I'll stand by my assertion that guns are too encumbered with safety issues
to be a safety improvement for most people. Let's say you are confronted by
an agressor, and you are packing a concealed gun. What happens when you reach
for it? The average agressor is going to be ready for just that, and will
easily have "the drop" on you. Hell, if you are within 3 or 4 feet the
agressor won't even need a weapon. Need I mention that any agressor will be
more likely to injure/kill you if he/she thinks you are going for a gun?
|
bru
|
|
response 89 of 106:
|
Dec 22 17:15 UTC 2000 |
why should I explain to you the times I felt I needed a gun? Am I gonna
change your mind?
Fine. Neighbor knocks on my door at 11 oclock at night and asks to use the
phone, Her face is rather bruised because her husband has been beating her.
I call 911 as she refuses to come inside. I get my gun and lay it on the step
just in case her husband does show up looking for trouble. WE wait for the
police.
Neighbor pounds on door, (different neighbor, different city). Her boyfreind
has beaten her up real bad. Called 911 and had them dispatch police and
ambulance. pistol inside door in case he showed up with the bat to finish
her off.
Lady screaming behind the house, "He's killing me, He's killing me." at 2:00
in the morning. Did not have gun available, grabbed sword and yelled as I
approached vehicle for them to stop. They drove off. Returned sword to
house, weaited for police and gave them a description of the vehicle. I
wanted to have the gun then. If I had had it I would have been a bit more
forceful in approaching the car. (don't bring a sword to a gunfight)
|
aaron
|
|
response 90 of 106:
|
Dec 22 17:17 UTC 2000 |
Russ asks, "And what if you're too old, too small, arthritic, palsied or
just plain clumsy" to work out at a gym.... Well, obviously, clumsy,
palsied, arthritic small people should use handguns instead. That sounds
perfectly safe.... having clumsy, palsied, arthritic people firing shots
in public places.
Let's be blunt. Most people who want to carry a gun want the feeling of
power that they think it will give them. The notion that a clumsy,
arthritic granny somehow justifies their being able to carry a gun? Well,
perhpas granny will carry her gun in some sort of quickdraw holster, and
practice with it until he is an expert marksman... Perhaps they really
believe that. The minority of people who want to carry a firearm as
something other than a phallic extension, unfortunately, get tarred by the
majority.
|
ashke
|
|
response 91 of 106:
|
Dec 22 18:07 UTC 2000 |
RE 89: In all of those situations, did you need the gun? And quite frankly,
I'm all for the sword. But in all 3 situations you put yourself into the
middle of something else that was happening.
So, basically, you want to carry a gun to solve a possibly violent situation
in a more violent way. Waving around a gun or threatening to use it on
someone is assault, by the way. Do you honestly NEED the gun, or do you just
feel like "better him than me" if something were to arrise?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 106:
|
Dec 23 05:51 UTC 2000 |
I interpret the described incidents to not call for personal ownership of
a gun. You called 911. Your job was done. (Neighbor asks to use phone
but refuses to come inside?)
|
danr
|
|
response 93 of 106:
|
Dec 24 00:46 UTC 2000 |
Exactly. None of the situations you describe in #89, with the possible
exception of the last incident, called for the use of a gun. And even that
incident was settled without the use of one.
I'd take it one step further and say that you could just as easily have gotten
yourself in trouble by having it available. What would have happened if some
guy happened to be walking down the street then up your walk, and your neighbor
suddenly got all bothered and excited. You, thinking the guy was her
husband/boyfriend pull the pistol, it goes off accidentally (or on purpose),
and kills the guy.
Afterwards, you find out he was just a lost motorist looking for directions.
This scenario is just as plausible as the wife beater showing up and your
needing the gun to fend him off.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 94 of 106:
|
Dec 24 02:22 UTC 2000 |
Bruce and I are worlds apart on the gun issue, but I can't agree that he
was wrong in wanting a gun at his side in those situations. Yes, it
turned out in all three situations that he didn't need to use the gun
(and he wasn't "waving it around"), but he certainly couldn't know that
he wouldn't, and calling 911 doesn't magically prevent further harm from
occurring, particularly when you are dealing with someone who is
violent, angry, irrational, and near by. If a bloodied and battered
woman in desperate need of help showed up at my door late at night, I
certainly wouldn't send her away (or make her wait outside)--"I've
called 911, so my job is done; Good Luck!"[slam]--, but I would also
make sure I (and the woman and my family) had necessary protection
(which could mean a sword or a baseball bat or locking oneself in a back
bedroom, but I don't think a gun would be unreasonable here) in case the
boyfriend showed up before the police did.
I will point out, however, that (in light of the current thread) none of
Bruce's cases would have required a concealed weapons permit.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 106:
|
Dec 24 04:08 UTC 2000 |
This is the crux of the matter - "wanting a gun" in some situations. I
don't want a gun for use against other people in any imaginable situation.
It isn't that I wouldn't be scared if someone threatened me with a gun,
but because I feel I would be safer without a gun than with. All a gun
would do for me is increase the chance I would be viewed as threatening,
and shot.
In the scenario you describe, if you take in the bloody and battered
woman, it is extremely remote that the batterer would invade your locked
home *because they would not know the situation* inside. If the batterer
is carrying a gun, they would consider the possibility that you were
armed also.
|
aaron
|
|
response 96 of 106:
|
Dec 25 04:42 UTC 2000 |
Running at somebody's car with a sword drawn is a bit silly. Running at
a car with a gun drawn, particularly after CCW permits are widely
available, is suicidal.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 97 of 106:
|
Dec 26 19:32 UTC 2000 |
Re #85: Not having a reason to carry is insufficient justification to
forfeit the right to carry.
That I don't have a reason to carry *right now* does NOT mean that I won't
have a reason to carry in the future. Nor does it mean that I did not
have a reason to carry in the past. All it means is that I don't have
a reason to carry right now.
For most occasions that I can envision wanting a weapon, a knife with
six inches of blade would be more useful than any handgun. And as I read
the law, I cannot legally carry that tool *except while hunting*. Yes,
it would be useful then, but that is not the only time it would be helpful.
|
ashke
|
|
response 98 of 106:
|
Dec 27 14:29 UTC 2000 |
So you're going to spend your entire life carrying around a weapon just for
the possibility that some day, in the future, it might, perhaps, come in
handy.
What a paranoid way to live.
|
russ
|
|
response 99 of 106:
|
Dec 27 20:17 UTC 2000 |
Re #87:
>It was probably another hour or so before I was near a phone, at which
>point the guy wasn't posing any sort of threat to me.
Come, now. You were the victim of a crime, namely assault with a deadly
weapon (a felony). You should have reported it. The police could easily
have matched your description of the perp with anyone still around the scene.
>But no, carrying a handgun in my pocket while mountain biking wouldn't
>be a good idea either. It would be a very bad thing to land on in a crash.
Who said anything about you carrying a gun? This was about you carrying
out your civic responsibility to report a crime and remove a danger to
society. As I said before, conviction for assault with a deadly weapon
would have barred that drunk from owning a gun.
Why are you against the law-abiding exercising their rights, when you
won't even act to use existing laws against people acting criminally?
Re #88:
>One of the best defenses is just being able to run away.
Only if you're faster. I'll wager that the average teenage crook is
faster than me, I'm faster than Rane, and we're all faster than anyone
trying to herd and protect a small child.
>And I'll stand by my assertion that guns are too encumbered with safety
>issues to be a safety improvement for most people. Let's say you are
>confronted by an agressor, and you are packing a concealed gun. What
>happens when you reach for it?
You have the advantage of surprise, that's what. You have a double
advantage if you are reaching in the region of your wallet or the like
in response to a robbery. Even the NYPD will admit that the difference
between a wallet and a gun isn't the easiest to distinguish. By the
time the crook can recognize and react, it's over. Any circumstance
which justifies drawing and aiming a weapon justifies firing; you do
not aim at anything or anyone that isn't a legitimate target.
>The average agressor is going to be ready for just that, and will
>easily have "the drop" on you.
Funny, that doesn't seem to apply to the crooks who tried robbing the two
under-cover police officers at toy-gun point (which ol' Beady noted in this
forum). They were woefully (fatally) unready for anything except their
planned plunder and escape. Cognitive psych would tend to indicate that an
aggressor faced with a victim carrying a concealed (and unknown to the
aggressor) weapon would be at a huge disadvantage during the crucial second
after the weapon is pulled. There are dozens of accounts of perps taking
fatal wounds before they realize they've picked the wrong victim; I think we
can take this for granted. The only perp who would not be at a disadvantage
against an armed (but unknown) victim is one who incapacitates the victim
before doing anything else.
Re #98: I carry a number of tools in my car for the express purpose
of dealing with road hazards. I also carry a rain suit and space
blanket in case I need to use the tools in inclement weather, or if
the road hazards get the best of me and maroon me away from civilization.
I've had the latter, or equivalent, in my regular car for the last 11
years. I've not needed them yet. I had tire chains for my last car;
never used them. Nevertheless, they are good to have. Most of the time
they would only make a difference in comfort and cleaning bills, but there
are very real circumstances where the difference could be life and death.
Moral: Just because you may never need something, does not mean that
you may not need it *very* badly if it should happen that you do.
Abortion is a similar issue. Barring miracles of medicine to make it
possible (which would also probably make the entire issue moot) there is
no way I could possibly have one, let alone need one. Still, I stand for
the right of any woman to have an abortion under any circumstances which
are not medically contraindicated. It's a very basic issue of freedom
from state interference: nobody has the right to tell you you can't.
Ditto guns. Excepting crooks, crazies and kids, nobody has that right.
|
other
|
|
response 100 of 106:
|
Dec 28 03:21 UTC 2000 |
Why the exception? (ref. penultimate para.)
|
aaron
|
|
response 101 of 106:
|
Dec 28 03:35 UTC 2000 |
Um... We're supposed to be impressed because undercover cops managed
to "outdraw" a criminal armed with a *toy*? Did it at least fire
suction cup darts which could have taken one of the cops' eyes out?
Little plastic discs? Come on.
|
ashke
|
|
response 102 of 106:
|
Dec 28 15:21 UTC 2000 |
Okay, so not only do you act paranoid and carry it around, but then you think
that by reaching for it you have the drop on someone? Lovely. Only if they
have one out, or can do something to you before you get it out.
And as is always the question: whom do you decide for? If you leave out the
crooks, crazies, and kids, at what limits to you set those names? Are we
talking a felony? b felony? a class d felony? or can we include
missdemeors? too many parking violations? only violent offenses? Once
again, you're getting into shaky ground.
|
scott
|
|
response 103 of 106:
|
Dec 29 23:04 UTC 2000 |
Russ, I'm continually amazed at these scenarios you come up with. Somebody
confronts you, and *you* have the element of surprise? Heh.
At the dojo I train at we have at least a couple of cops as students. They're
trained that if somebody with a gun gets within 10-15 feet there's no point
in trying to get your own gun out in time. That's why they study martial
arts.
Damn, I should have been clipping stories out of the paper when I was on
vacation. One was about the guy who went postal in his dot-com workplace.
He didn't have any kind of criminal record! But somehow he ended up using
his guns to kill people, even though he wasn't a criminal to begin with.
|
aaron
|
|
response 104 of 106:
|
Jan 5 14:03 UTC 2001 |
Unbelievable. You must have the facts wrong. :*
|
scott
|
|
response 105 of 106:
|
Jan 5 14:32 UTC 2001 |
Oh, and I and remember the other story now. Seems a woman had been raped,
even though she told the attacker she had a gun in her purse. "You better
use it now", he told her, then dragged her off.
|
aaron
|
|
response 106 of 106:
|
Jan 5 14:50 UTC 2001 |
Obviously, she had the element of surprise on her side.
|