Your opinion of guns

[Celeste]

Absolutely inconceivable for me to comprehend how being raped is "no reason to shoot the guy." I'm at a loss for words, honestly. I can't even write anything somewhat eloquent regarding the thread right now...but alas, I'll try.

I have been in a situation where rape was probably inevitable. The guy had a knife and was on top of me, in my room, in an empty apartment. I bit his hand so hard, while incapacitating him in another more graphic way, that he dropped the knife and I stabbed him as hard as I could. If I'd had access to a gun, it would've been used. I would never hesitate to use a gun for self protection. I live in constant fear, as unhealthy as that is. I talked to Anthony about this subject as well, right down to what kind of gun I'd buy if I could. I feel very vulnerable to men in this city. I can't count how many experiences I've had where I have -sometimes justified, sometimes overreaction- feared for my life. I know it sounds dramatic, but with respect, not many of you (Wiichat population being overwhelmingly male) have the same circumstances.

I'm against shooting little animals and birds as a recreational activity. I'm against the ridiculous availability of weapons (to people with a history of mental illness ala Virginia Tech gunman) and redneck gun-toting subculture. Self defense though, is a completely acceptable purpose.

 

[sremick]

I'm a liberal, crunchy, tree-hugging, environmental pacifist... and I own a gun.

Contradiction? No, just aware of reality.

First of all, I live in Vermont. Vermont has some of the most-relaxed gun control laws in the entire USA. In fact, Vermont is only one of two states (the other being Alaska) where you don't need a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

If the gun-control advocates are to be believed, Vermont should be a warzone overrun with violence and crime. Actually, Vermont has some of the lowest per-capita crime in the entire country. In fact, "In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels." Ponder that for a minute.

Someone once asked why so much crime takes place in gun-free zones like schools and malls? The response was, probably for the same reason you don't see gunfights at gun-shows and police stations.

Chew on this:
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/gunyeszonesign.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_doors.jpg

And consider this:
http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/sept11withgunrights.jpg

"The only accomplishment of gun-control laws is to assure the criminals that their victims will be unarmed."

Next, it's important to realize that control-control laws are pointless. Why? Well, we already have laws against robbery and murder. Someone who's going to commit one of those obviously doesn't care about the law. So how is a gun-control law going to deter them? If you think someone who wants a gun can't get one, even in the face of a ton of laws, you're wrong. If someone wants to break the law and commit a crime with a gun, they'll find a gun, regardless of any more laws they need to break. But what you've done is handicap the law-abiding citizen from defending themselves against the criminal.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." -Thomas Jefferson

"Gun control laws are like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."

For what it's worth, I'm not a hunter.

Next, the whole "self-defense" thing... the gun is an equalizer. Only a gun can put a 100 lb woman on equal footing with her 200 lb attacker. Usually you don't even have to use it. Pull it out, or state, "you'd better stop right there, I have a gun" is usually enough. A gun's greatest use is as a deterrent... it makes you "un-victimizable".

"Firearms reduce the power differential between the weak and the strong, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak. Being strong doesn't help much when you're dead or wetting your pants in fear because your potential victim shoved a barrel muzzle under your nose."

"The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound. God may have made men and women, but Colt made them equal."

http://www.a-human-right.com/guessing_s.jpg

"If the only things needed to prevent crimes were laws and policemen, then there wouldn't be any crime statistics. But every murder, every rape victim is testimony to the fact that neither the law nor the police can protect individuals from criminal attackers. On the other hand, very respectable studies have shown that firearms are used by Americans more than a million times a year to prevent crimes, usually without having to be fired. "

Some real-life examples...

1/16/2002: 2 students with personal firearms subdue a shooter at a law school
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Woman forced to watch her parents be shot and killed because she forgot the pistol she normally carries in her purse (start reading 3rd paragraph):
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1611939,00.html

Would-be robber shot by his intended victim
http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/502952.html

Homeowner shoots at would-be thief and scares him off
http://www.wjbf.com/midatlantic/jbf/news_index.apx.-content-articles-JBF-2008-02-19-0026.html

Neighbor runs to women's aid, shoots and kills attacker
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/19/e19attackweb/

Passing motorist stops an assault by pulling a gun on three attackers
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/02/daily_police_beat_32/print.html

Man breaks into house, shot by woman living there
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080217/BREAKING01/80217002

Armed homeowner arrives to interrupt an attempted burglary of his house
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages...n=7&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

80yo shoots and scares off 2 armed robbers from his home
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/d...ries/wfaa080213_mo_fightingback.bd009f6a.html

Man protects home and mother from two robbers
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/15280225/detail.html

Something I wrote to someone else not long ago:

"While you dislike guns, I doubt you dislike other people who have been trained to use one and own one for emergency situations. People like police officers or soldiers. Perhaps some enjoy guns and killing, but I think most do not. They are trained, and respect them, and don't look forward to having to pull the trigger if that's what it comes to. But they know that "**** happens", and they have the gun so that they're prepared if it does. Unfortunately, you can't always have a police officer the moment you need one. It's like first-aid... just because hospitals exist doesn't mean that people shouldn't learn first-aid themselves, how to stop bleeding, etc. In an emergency, you need to be able to act fast and take things into your own hands, as there might not be time to call in a professional."

"Unfortunately there are bad people out there who do bad things to innocent people. I don't want to be caught unprepared if my number ever comes up, and end up just as an unfortunate statistic. I feel I have a responsibility to myself and anyone I care about to do something about a dangerous emergency situation and prevent harm from coming to myself or other innocent people. It's important to me to be able to fulfill this role, as protector of those I love, however unlikely or unpleasant it might be. I would take a bullet for you, but I'd much rather be in a position to prevent it from even coming to THAT, by having my own means of quickly suppressing the threat. I have no hesitation of pulling a gun on someone trying to hurt me or my family, but it's hard to do that if I don't have the means to do so. A guard-dog without teeth. "

http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/5329-2/defender.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_protection.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_emergencies.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_faster.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_fightback.jpg
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_options.jpg

Now, to respond to some others on this thread:

carrying a gun doesn't make you any stronger than you were before.

This is incorrect. If your attacker has a gun and you don't, you are the loser in this situation. The genie is out of the bottle: guns exist, and criminals will have them. Victims should get them too.

If you're defending yourself in any situation I would rather run, grab something sharp or use my vocal chords like God intended me to do and squeal the hell like a woman.

A lot of people have depended solely on that. A lot of them are dead, either because their attacker had a gun, or had other means (strength, knife, etc) to overpower the victim. What if the attacker can run faster than you? (very likely, if they're stronger than you). What if there's no one to hear you scream? And "grabbing something sharp" is useless against someone stronger than you. A knife-like weapon's effectiveness is dependent on the strength of the wielder. A 200 lb man can easily subdue a 100 lb knife-holding woman. But if she holds a pistol, he now needs to pause and consider the situation. Even if he has a gun too, she is now his equal. More than likely, however, he wasn't expecting that and doesn't have a gun himself, expecting her to be easy prey. Not so.

"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." (J.R.R.Tolkien, The Two Towers)

I would suggest reading this:
http://davekopel.org/2A/Foreign/SelfDefense-Equalizer.htm

 

[DBloke]

The defenin your self rule also alpiys to kinfes

Some thin small with a sharp edge can not defend you from nothin
Its primary useis are for attackin and cuttin food
If you need to defend your self get a suit of armor

Even if some one comes at you with a knife your bound to get cut

I blame the current so called music

Its also illegal to carry a gun in the UK (if your ont a cop on duty)

 

[Napalmbrain]

People that think guns are cool are useualy the wrong type of person
Whats wrong with setlein things the good way
By beatin some body to a pulp with your own fists

I have more respect for some body that can fight than some body that carrys a gun for safety

There only real good is in the army where there only rly nessaesary because the other side has them

I'm not going to advocate fighting as an alternative to shooting, but I agree that people who love guns are not the kind of people I want to hang around with. Guns are dangerous, plain and simple. If they get in the wrong hands, they're potentially lethal. Yesterday I read about two kids in Birmingham who discovered a gun lying about outside their house, and decided to shoot out their car window. Fortunately no one was hurt, but it exemplifies everything that's wrong with having them around. I'm glad there's no big gun culture here like in America.

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

^ exactly.

 

[Frogger]

Absolutely inconceivable for me to comprehend how being raped is "no reason to shoot the guy." I'm at a loss for words, honestly. I can't even write anything somewhat eloquent regarding the thread right now...but alas, I'll try.

I have been in a situation where rape was probably inevitable. The guy had a knife and was on top of me, in my room, in an empty apartment. I bit his hand so hard, while incapacitating him in another more graphic way, that he dropped the knife and I stabbed him as hard as I could. If I'd had access to a gun, it would've been used. I would never hesitate to use a gun for self protection. I live in constant fear, as unhealthy as that is. I talked to Anthony about this subject as well, right down to what kind of gun I'd buy if I could. I feel very vulnerable to men in this city. I can't count how many experiences I've had where I have -sometimes justified, sometimes overreaction- feared for my life. I know it sounds dramatic, but with respect, not many of you (Wiichat population being overwhelmingly male) have the same circumstances.

I'm against shooting little animals and birds as a recreational activity. I'm against the ridiculous availability of weapons (to people with a history of mental illness ala Virginia Tech gunman) and redneck gun-toting subculture. Self defense though, is a completely acceptable purpose.

Well that depends if you're shooting with the intention to kill, I really wouldn't want to kill them, but do enough damage so I can get the hell out of there and get some help. There's a difference between injuring someone and killing them.

Possiblities of using a gun in those situations are really slim, and it's quite depressing that women can't really get away from it, I can be outran pretty easily, but if a gun had been there, there's a 90% chance they would be using it, if I somehow got ahold of it, I wouldn't go for the head or the heart at all.

A lot of people have depended solely on that. A lot of them are dead, either because their attacker had a gun, or had other means (strength, knife, etc) to overpower the victim. What if the attacker can run faster than you? (very likely, if they're stronger than you). What if there's no one to hear you scream? And "grabbing something sharp" is useless against someone stronger than you. A knife-like weapon's effectiveness is dependent on the strength of the wielder. A 200 lb man can easily subdue a 100 lb knife-holding woman. But if she holds a pistol, he now needs to pause and consider the situation. Even if he has a gun too, she is now his equal. More than likely, however, he wasn't expecting that and doesn't have a gun himself, expecting her to be easy prey. Not so.

Basically it's weaponry, anything can be used against you, but I wouldn't like the more powerful things, such as guns to be easily obtained by the public because of this, I'd rather reduse the chance of anyone having a gun than using it to defend where it so magically appeared out of fairy dust and gave me an opening to shoot someone. That doesn't happen, they choose their victim so they can obviously overpower them if something like that happens.

If that situation was me, I, wouldn't fire, I'd think out if I'm decent or not, and they're quite obviously psychotic and shouldn't hesitate to fire first. If they're going to be stronger, then they can dart out of the way of my shoddy woman aim.

 

[sremick]

Guns are dangerous, plain and simple.

So are knives. And belt sanders, band saws, and soldering irons.

If they get in the wrong hands, they're potentially lethal.

So are baseball bats and matches.

Yesterday I read about two kids in Birmingham who discovered a gun lying about outside their house, and decided to shoot out their car window. Fortunately no one was hurt, but it exemplifies everything that's wrong with having them around.

Who's at fault here? The guns, the kids, or the parents?

The kids "decided" to shoot out the car window.

What if the story read this way: "Two kids in Birmingham who discovered a rock lying about outside their house, and decided to throw it through their car window." OMG more rock-control laws! We can't leave them just lying around! Think of the poor, defenseless children who can't control their impulses!

The gun should've been stored in a safe place, and the kids should've been raised to respect guns and not be stupid jackasses. There were lots of mistakes here by various people, but it's not the gun's fault.

 

[DBloke]

I'm not going to advocate fighting as an alternative to shooting, but I agree that people who love guns are not the kind of people I want to hang around with. Guns are dangerous, plain and simple. If they get in the wrong hands, they're potentially lethal. Yesterday I read about two kids in Birmingham who discovered a gun lying about outside their house, and decided to shoot out their car window. Fortunately no one was hurt, but it exemplifies everything that's wrong with having them around. I'm glad there's no big gun culture here like in America.

I think wii both are kinda headin in the same way
BUt I think theres nothin wrong with a good old man to man fist fight
The only person that gets hurt is the other person that got hit more

I want to go back to Edo era Japan
I LIEK TEH SWORDS


Anyway bugger it im outa this thread for fear of it all becomein one big loop or the same words then a flame battle

 

[[DT]]

Absolutely inconceivable for me to comprehend how being raped is "no reason to shoot the guy."

I was going to address that item directly, but edited it out - however, I can't fathom it either: Rape vs. Shooting your attacker??

[Post removed - see above]

Amazing post.

Everyone should read and note it has actual cited sources vs. "I think" and anecdotal snippets.

The other takeaway is sremick's stance on ownership is almost identical to mine - I don't hunt, I'm not a "gun fanatic" (some recent posters in another thread sound obsessed), and am very moderate politically speaking. Like him (per another post in the last several weeks) I also have a reasonable amount of training when it comes to physical confrontations (I'm also 6-1 and 195lbs).

However, I also choose to own a handgun based on just about every point in sremick's post.

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

People that think guns are cool are useualy the wrong type of person
Whats wrong with setlein things the good way
By beatin some body to a pulp with your own fists

I have more respect for some body that can fight than some body that carrys a gun for safety

There only real good is in the army where there only rly nessaesary because the other side has them

Agreed, If I'm going to ever kill somebody. I'll beat their brains out with my fists and legs.

This is incorrect. If your attacker has a gun and you don't, you are the loser in this situation. The genie is out of the bottle: guns exist, and criminals will have them. Victims should get them too.

No, if you don't know how to properly defend yourself at gun point, then yes.. you are a goner. However, for those who are well trained under the situation then it's a completely different story. Such as myself, I'm well capable of defending myself at gun point, without resorting to using any other weapon than my hands alone. Granted, even those who are well trained can mess up, and bang they're gone just like that.

People like Celeste are perfect examples, she clearly doesn't know what to do in situations like that, and sees the grabbing of the gun as the only way to defend yourself. I have other friends who would easily agree with her, and the reason as for why is all the same. Panic and fear will drive anyone to a desperate solution.

 

[Celeste]

Well that depends if you're shooting with the intention to kill, I really wouldn't want to kill them, but do enough damage so I can get the hell out of there and get some help. There's a difference between injuring someone and killing them.

Yeah. I don't think I'd have much trouble sleeping at night if I killed someone who had the intent of raping me, killing me, or harming someone I care about. Unless I had flashbacks. But remorse? **** no. Too bad, so sad. Don't **** with this bitter, afraid little girl.

 

[sremick]

No, if you don't know how to properly defend yourself at gun point, then yes.. you are a goner. However, for those who are well trained under the situation then it's a completely different story. Such as myself, I'm well capable of defending myself at gun point, without resorting to using any other weapon than my hands alone.

I'm sorry, but you have a pretty high opinion of yourself. I'm a blackbelt but I'm not delusional.

Picture this: you're 15 feet from your attacker. He's got a pistol pointed at you. You have nothing. The bullet can move 800-1000 feet per second. How fast can you move to cover that 15' and defend yourself with your arms and hands before he has time to pull the trigger?

 

[Foosoo]

I have a few guns, but I don't use them anymore, I only used them in the army. As stated before, there is no need to use a gun in self defence because you can just use your fists. The only time I think a gun would be suitable for self defence would be if the other person had a gun, which is why it's okay to kill people in the army, because you have to to survive.

Instead I've been training with a samurai sword and learning Ninjutsu for fighting.

 

[Gikoku Harakami]

I'm sorry, but you have a pretty high opinion of yourself. I'm a blackbelt but I'm not delusional.

Picture this: you're 15 feet from your attacker. He's got a pistol pointed at you. You have nothing. The bullet can move 800-1000 feet per second. How fast can you move to cover that 15' and defend yourself with your arms and hands before he has time to pull the trigger?

No, there's nothing delusional of it at all. It only depends on how far apart you are from the shooter, obviously if the distance is fair enough between us in which it would benefit the gunman, then my chances of survival would be much slimmer. I'm no fool, and am well aware of when my chances of surviving against a certain weapon are almost non-existent.

 

[Frogger]

I'm sorry, but you have a pretty high opinion of yourself. I'm a blackbelt but I'm not delusional.

Picture this: you're 15 feet from your attacker. He's got a pistol pointed at you. You have nothing. The bullet can move 800-1000 feet per second. How fast can you move to cover that 15' and defend yourself with your arms and hands before he has time to pull the trigger?

...What would the shooter really want from you 15 feet away? I think people who use guns only really want to rob or rape, because killing has no gain for themselves, so ti really wouldn't be useful them being far away from you anyway, unless shooting, robbing and then necrophilia is your thing, and I don't think there's that many demented people out there. D: