OT: Safety is an Illusion

[scaredyclassic]

I really don’t think a gun is useful for true self defense. Have you checked out target focus training? They are true survival teachers. In real life you won’t have time to get out your gun when confronted with violence … What will ensure your survival is your will to meet violence with extreme violence with whatever is at hand even if it comes down to grabbing the dudes face and biting off his nose while he’s stabbing you By the time you draw the fights probably over if the dude intends you harm.

Gun ownership for personal defense in general is weak. Real defense involves permanently disabling the other person with hands feet teeth and the objects around you.

This is why it is a bad idea to ever fight with anyone no matter how small or weak. If you are ready to fight to the death you will have a better chance of winning than if you have a gun in a leg holster. Taking out an eyeball with a thimb for defense is a better skill than going to a shooting range.

I don’t have the stomach for posers with guns who think they are tough. Give me a quiet street fighter who will bite your face off any day.

[scaredyclassic]

So when the revolution comes.

The local cops who live down the street are going to be our enemies. And we are going to kill them with our guns? And the federal troops. Who are on 4 year rotations. We’re going to kill them?

And all this is going to clear away corruption and America will be better after?

[LuckyInOC]

[quote=zk]I think that we should have gun laws like the U.K.’s. I think we could have those and still comply with the second amendment.

I’d like to hear other views.[/quote]

ZK, the same individuals who fought the english with weapons as the same firepower as the english armies wrote the 2nd amendment. The ‘arms’ referred to in the 2nd amendment is for protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not for sporting or hunting. If england banned weapons in the new world as it currently has, there would not be an United States. Like or not, our country exists because of the end of a gun barrel.

A real example of the need for semi-automatic weapons for the citizens against non-government aggressors would be the 1992 L.A. riots and the Korean shop owners. They protected their stores from hundreds of looters. The local police would not help. They were too busy protecting fire fighters and government buildings.

Who would willing to pay the compensation for the losses of these store owners if they did not have the semi-automatic weapons and shotguns for personal protection, not hunting? I assume you would be the first in line to pay up.

In the time of major emergencies (earthquakes, riots, etc.), one will need to protect, secure, and feed your family for at least 3 days. Even after 3 days, your local police or national guard may not be able to protect you on a hourly basis. If you really needed them, they might be there in hours, not in minutes.

I have always believe one should vote with his/her feet. May be you should live in UK if you would feel safer.

Lucky in OC

[CA renter]

[quote=squat300]I really don’t think a gun is useful for true self defense. Have you checked out target focus training? They are true survival teachers. In real life you won’t have time to get out your gun when confronted with violence … What will ensure your survival is your will to meet violence with extreme violence with whatever is at hand even if it comes down to grabbing the dudes face and biting off his nose while he’s stabbing you By the time you draw the fights probably over if the dude intends you harm.

Gun ownership for personal defense in general is weak. Real defense involves permanently disabling the other person with hands feet teeth and the objects around you.

This is why it is a bad idea to ever fight with anyone no matter how small or weak. If you are ready to fight to the death you will have a better chance of winning than if you have a gun in a leg holster. Taking out an eyeball with a thimb for defense is a better skill than going to a shooting range.

I don’t have the stomach for posers with guns who think they are tough. Give me a quiet street fighter who will bite your face off any day.[/quote]

“So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense?

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.”

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: “When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success.”

When asked if additional gun laws would be beneficial or have no effect, most Americans, like Ice-T, get it. They oppose shifting power to the criminal. And they don’t need the National Rifle Association to tell them: The only people willing to abide by additional gun laws are the law-abiding.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-366250-guns-ice.html

————-

Scaredy,

I agree with you about the victim being willing and able to commit extreme violent acts in self defense, but what about a woman who’s 5’2″ vs. a man (or two) over 6′ and 200+ pounds?

Have you ever been the victim of a violent attack or a stalker? There is only ONE thing you will want at that moment: a gun (yours, or one belonging to a capable armed guard or cop).

[LuckyInOC]

[quote=squat300]QUESTION:

to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.

Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?

that is, wont rebelling citizens be just as effective at slaughtering the govt tyrannists with various non-gun weaponry?

if guns didn’t exist, gun enthusiast seem to beli,eve that we won’t be any safer, as killers will turn to equally effective means…and if that were true, then taking away guns shouldn’t affect the ability of the citizenry to revolt.

right?

or are guns absoltuely necessary for the people to overthrow the govt.

the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.[/quote]

I only have two recent examples to prove you wrong – Egypt and Syria…

If they did not have hand weapons at all, they would not have any chance. A semi-automatic weapon with numbers is good odds. The underdog with inferior weapons and numbers seem to win.

Regardless of the army, it will be always more deadly to fight someone in their own town.

Lucky In OC.

[LuckyInOC]

[quote=zk][quote=dumbrenter]

As for your position on cultural differences, I hope you realize that it is a very thin argument that can logically be taken to dangerous conclusions: Americans are culturally inferior, hence cannot be trusted with guns while swiss can > to Americans are more violent > to Americans are inferior & violent.[/quote]

“Thin” and “can logically be taken to dangerous conclusions” are two completely different things. You say it’s both and then explain how you think it can be logically taken to dangerous conclusions, but don’t explain why you think it’s thin. I’d be interested to hear why you think that.

As far as “dangerous” conclusions, the most dangerous conclusions are those you reach based on what you want to believe instead of the evidence. If you don’t want to conclude that Americans are more violent than Swiss, and therefore you don’t, that is dangerous. If it is your opinion that “more violent” is “inferior,” then I don’t see how you can escape the conclusion that Americans are inferior to Swiss. In that respect. Because clearly Americans are move violent.[/quote]

I find it very interesting that the non-violent Swiss were neutral in WWII, while the more violent Americans stepped in to save them from evil.

Lucky in OC

[CA renter]

How did the Americans save the Swiss from evil?

The Nazis (and many others) avoided Switzerland because of its armed citizenry and superior fighting abilities. They were “neutral,” but it was an *armed* neutrality.

[LuckyInOC]

[quote=squat300]So when the revolution comes.

The local cops who live down the street are going to be our enemies. And we are going to kill them with our guns? And the federal troops. Who are on 4 year rotations. We’re going to kill them?

And all this is going to clear away corruption and America will be better after?[/quote]

I trust the most police and national guard will act morally and protect the rights of ‘we, the people’ to which they are sworn to protect. They are the same citizenry that lives among us. They could be shooting their own family members.

Lucky In OC.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CA renter][quote=squat300]I really don’t think a gun is useful for true self defense. Have you checked out target focus training? They are true survival teachers. In real life you won’t have time to get out your gun when confronted with violence … What will ensure your survival is your will to meet violence with extreme violence with whatever is at hand even if it comes down to grabbing the dudes face and biting off his nose while he’s stabbing you By the time you draw the fights probably over if the dude intends you harm.

Gun ownership for personal defense in general is weak. Real defense involves permanently disabling the other person with hands feet teeth and the objects around you.

This is why it is a bad idea to ever fight with anyone no matter how small or weak. If you are ready to fight to the death you will have a better chance of winning than if you have a gun in a leg holster. Taking out an eyeball with a thimb for defense is a better skill than going to a shooting range.

I don’t have the stomach for posers with guns who think they are tough. Give me a quiet street fighter who will bite your face off any day.[/quote]

“So, how often do Americans use firearms for self-defense?

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: “We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.”

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: “When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success.”

When asked if additional gun laws would be beneficial or have no effect, most Americans, like Ice-T, get it. They oppose shifting power to the criminal. And they don’t need the National Rifle Association to tell them: The only people willing to abide by additional gun laws are the law-abiding.”

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-366250-guns-ice.html

————-

Scaredy,

I agree with you about the victim being willing and able to commit extreme violent acts in self defense, but what about a woman who’s 5’2″ vs. a man (or two) over 6′ and 200+ pounds?

Have you ever been the victim of a violent attack or a stalker? There is only ONE thing you will want at that moment: a gun (yours, or one belonging to a capable armed guard or cop).[/quote]

Reading the very brief criticism of Kleck on Wikipedia, I’m persuaded his numbers are inflated probably grossly.

At a moment of real danger unless you have the gun close at hand it’s probably too late. A small bobcat would easily subdue a 6′ brute. A small woman could easily too.

We need to stop thinking like vaguely civilized humans and start thinking about ripping out flesh and spitting it back in the attackers face.

[scaredyclassic]

I was able to run away from the one potentially violent encounter in my life.

Family acquaintance was recently brutally attacked by thugs. Attack only ended when his wife used car as a weapon to come to his defense. Had he been armed, same result. If she were armed same result, probably easier though.

Street violence is unpredictable by nature.

[ucodegen]

[quote=craptcha]In this particular case (NY firefighters killed by a guy unable to purchase guns legally) the gun(s) were purchased by a neighbor for her own protection.

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/29/feds_woman_bought_rifle_for_upstate.php%5B/quote%5DTry reading the article again. She did not buy the guns for herself… she bought them for him, so that he could get past the ban on felons owning guns. This is why it states that she was acting as a “straw purchaser” or “straw buyer”.. See quote.. particularly last sentence:

“When the police asked her about the purchase after the shooting, she claimed the guns were for her own protection. She also said they had been stolen from her car, although the police said no report had been filed to support that claim.”

Also:

However, Spengler apparently wrote in his suicide note that a neighbor’s daughter helped him buy the guns.

And

But Nguyen apparently texted messaged with a friend—who is a deputy—and told him that she bought Spengler the guns. Nguyen was released on her own recognizance.

[ucodegen]

[quote=squat300]Then I suppose the 30000 or so people shot this year including the new town kids are actually heroes whose deaths are worthwhile and in furtherance of the cause of liberty.[/quote]Did you subtract the number of people killed by people who were already not supposed to have a gun? The very same people who if pulled over with a gun, go straight to jail? People for whom illegal ownership of a gun is no problem?

[all]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=craptcha]In this particular case (NY firefighters killed by a guy unable to purchase guns legally) the gun(s) were purchased by a neighbor for her own protection.

http://gothamist.com/2012/12/29/feds_woman_bought_rifle_for_upstate.php%5B/quote%5DTry reading the article again. She did not buy the guns for herself… she bought them for him, so that he could get past the ban on felons owning guns. This is why it states that she was acting as a “straw purchaser” or “straw buyer”.. See quote.. particularly last sentence:

“When the police asked her about the purchase after the shooting, she claimed the guns were for her own protection. She also said they had been stolen from her car, although the police said no report had been filed to support that claim.”

Also:

However, Spengler apparently wrote in his suicide note that a neighbor’s daughter helped him buy the guns.

And

But Nguyen apparently texted messaged with a friend—who is a deputy—and told him that she bought Spengler the guns. Nguyen was released on her own recognizance.

[/quote]

I doubt she walked in and asked for a gun that will be handed over to a convicted criminal. According to the article she’s still claiming that she bought the guns for personal protection, gun(s) were stolen, she failed to report the theft.

The argument made earlier in a thread was that people need easy access to guns in order to protect themselves from criminals like Spengler. But the necessary ease of access is what allowed Spengler to acquire weapons.

[ucodegen]

[quote=craptcha]I doubt she walked in and asked for a gun that will be handed over to a convicted criminal. According to the article she’s still claiming that she bought the guns for personal protection, gun(s) were stolen, she failed to report the theft.[/quote]The problem with her statement, is that it is contradicted with other facts in evidence. Of course she would claim that it was ‘stolen’. What she did is a felony(fine of up to $250,000 and/or up to 10 years in prison). If he was stealing guns, why did he need to risk theft to obtain a second bushmaster? Theft would only instigate investigation within the neighborhood.

See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)

[all]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=craptcha]I doubt she walked in and asked for a gun that will be handed over to a convicted criminal. According to the article she’s still claiming that she bought the guns for personal protection, gun(s) were stolen, she failed to report the theft.[/quote]The problem with her statement, is that it is contradicted with other facts in evidence. Of course she would claim that it was ‘stolen’. What she did is a felony(fine of up to $250,000 and/or up to 10 years in prison). If he was stealing guns, why did he need to risk theft to obtain a second bushmaster? Theft would only instigate investigation within the neighborhood.

See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)[/quote]

Sorry, I’m failing to formulate my point clearly.

You responded to the initial post about Spengler. Your position was that new laws would make no difference since he was already banned from owning a gun. My point was that we should figure out how he got the gun and address the loophole.

[Author]

Posts