Water guns banned, REAL guns, OK....

redrock

I'm not going into a debate as to whether guns should be banned/more controlled, etc. and looking up statistics and all because that has been done ad nauseam in the numerous 'gun' threads.

What I am flabbergasted at are the propos held by some in this thread - quite shocking really....

If one chooses not to carry a gun for 'self defense' and may use reason or avoidance to get out of a 'situation', one is 'allowing' crime to happen, one is 'enabling' crime - causing it, one does not have empathy with the victims of crime but rather the criminal, etc.

Wow... even for the MT, this is quite low.

I've been speaking to a police officer friend of mine - was an officer in the US and in the UK. Been anywhere from a 'beat bobby', to detective, to special units, so quite a bit of experience. Asked him about his thoughts on 'carrying' and protecting one's self from crime, whether in the street or in the home. What he had to say was interesting (and note that it is not saying whether one should or not)...

More often than not, people who do carry a weapon for self defense (lay people - your 'average Joe') will not even be able to think about using their weapon when the time comes and, if they do think about it, won't be able to. More often than not, one is 'paralysed' in a sudden and traumatic situation (eg a mugging, staring down the barrel of a gun held by the mugger) and will not be able to function coherently. Or, even if one can think of the weapon, he/she cannot get to it for various reasons - reaction to surprise element not quick enough, physically unable to get to weapon (a purse being one of the worse places to keep a weapon), etc. Say one has his/her hands on the weapon, there are 'accidents' and the victim can shoot himself/herself as he/she pulls out the weapon from wherever it is, due to nerves (yep... the 'silly' shooting through the pocket/holster/purse). Shooting a target at the range with plenty of time to anticipate, think, aim, etc. is nothing like having to act in an instant in an unexpected and threatening situation.

This, I am told, is the same for those taking 'self defense' classes - most will not remember 'the moves' when push comes to shove.

When it comes to home defense - how 'lucky' will a homeowner be to find himself/herself with a loaded gun within reach at the same time as the intruder? 'Responsible' (as some called the licensed gun owner) will normally store their gun in a locked cupboard/cabinet with bullets stored elsewhere (how it should be - as we are regularly reminded in 'gun' threads). How does that work when one is surprised in one's own home? Or does one need a loaded gun in the open, available to all (kids included), in every room - just in case? Or do all the adults in the family need to carry at all times in the home? Best prevent - lock doors, windows, lights outside, etc.

Halifax had a long post mentioning the same kind of things.

A lot of crimes are opportunistic. Being ostentatious with flashy mobile phones, money, etc. will draw attention - prevention is the key.

The MIND is your best defense before the weapons, prevention, avoidance, assessing, knowing your capabilities and limits, etc.

Carrying a weapon thinking that you will be able to get yourself out of these kind of situations is a delusion for most. It's not a Hollywood film or a crime TV series where one keeps their nerves in dire circumstances, it's real life.

And as someone already said - things are just that - things. Not worth a life. A mobile phone, a watch, a ring.. all that can be replaced. A life can't - think it might be yours and not the criminal's we're talking about.

brianlux

redrock wrote:

I'm not going into a debate as to whether guns should be banned/more controlled, etc. and looking up statistics and all because that has been done ad nauseam in the numerous 'gun' threads.

What I am flabbergasted at are the propos held by some in this thread - quite shocking really....

If one chooses not to carry a gun for 'self defense' and may use reason or avoidance to get out of a 'situation', one is 'allowing' crime to happen, one is 'enabling' crime - causing it, one does not have empathy with the victims of crime but rather the criminal, etc.

Wow... even for the MT, this is quite low.

Thank you, redrock! I'm rather amazed and quite miffed myself. I suspect when I go into work this afternoon there will be wanted posters all over Main St:

WANTED
For allowing crime to happen:
brianlux

Warning, this man is unarmed
And should be considered
A danger to society.

redrock

At least you still have your sense of humour!

I am just so shocked that those 'accusations' have been made to a victim of crime as well (though I don't really see a 'victim' in you!)!

I note though that you have used your MIND in those situations, assessed the situation and did what was necessary.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

goingtoverona wrote:

You guys make it sound so simple, all we have to do is ban guns or not let people carry conceal and we can end all of the gun violence. If the government came out today with a law that said carrying a concealed gun is now a crime, the only people that would affect are law abiding citizens, do you think a guy using a gun to rob someone or rob a bank gives a rats ass about carry conceal laws? Of course not, they would prefer people not carry because that's less of a chance of someone trying to stop them, and if ur answer to that is well lets ban all guns, then you are not very familiar with how supply and demand works.

Say the government banned all guns tomorrow, what does that accomplish? Criminals aren't going to be lining up to turn their guns in, only law abiding citizens would, I've seen a lot of arguments saying people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against armed criminals because it leads to more violence and that just boggles my mind. Arguing that we should just leave the guns with the criminals to prevent less people getting shot, in my opinion, is absolutely ridiculous.

no one, as Brian said, said it was simple. but the mindset needs to change. IF guns were made illegal, which it never will in the US, no, obviously that wouldn't make all the crooks show up with their guns to hand them over, but is that any reason NOT to make a law? because people won't follow it? that's absurd. if it becomes illegal to conceal and carry, then it makes it a crime for which people can be prosecuted, like they are in Canada and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

it makes gun crime a little less available. tack on another 10 years to an offence just for having a gun and bammo, you reduce gun crime.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

redrock wrote:

If one chooses not to carry a gun for 'self defense' and may use reason or avoidance to get out of a 'situation', one is 'allowing' crime to happen, one is 'enabling' crime - causing it, one does not have empathy with the victims of crime but rather the criminal, etc.

Wow... even for the MT, this is quite low.

I'm still in shock over that.

goingtoverona

To brian, I agree with you on the being against violence, but if someone broke into my house to harm me or my family, what do you suggest to counter that? hope that I don't get killed? I get what point you're trying to make I just don't get how you would accomplish it, also, when I buy a gun, it's not to buy the biggest most deadly gun for if I have to shoot someone, it's what I think I would enjoy shooting at the range. Im not sure if you're saying people shouldn't have guns at all or not, but there are hundreds of thousands of people that own guns that have no intent on hurting anyone or committing crimes, are you saying these people shouldn't be allowed to have guns because others commit crimes with guns? If so a similar argument could be made for banning alcohol and automobiles.
To hugh, the point im trying to make is that with or without carry conceal laws, criminals are still going to commit crimes with guns, so making a law that takes away a persons right to carry a gun makes that person vulnerable and makes them a criminal if they did carry a gun for protection. So given the choice, with armed criminals committing crimes against people, id rather be able to defend myself against that rather than hope I don't get killed for not trying to defend myself.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

goingtoverona wrote:

To hugh, the point im trying to make is that with or without carry conceal laws, criminals are still going to commit crimes with guns, so making a law that takes away a persons right to carry a gun makes that person vulnerable and makes them a criminal if they did carry a gun for protection. So given the choice, with armed criminals committing crimes against people, id rather be able to defend myself against that rather than hope I don't get killed for not trying to defend myself.

well then I guess we should make machine guns legal for citizens to carry because criminals have them too.

goingtoverona

Now you're starting to make some sense.

USARAY

the anti gun folk are missing the point gun proponents are saying take some responsibility
instead of taking crime as a matter of fact try fighting back being proactive in a situation
then we prevent crime from continuing
every time a criminal is successful running into no conflict they grow more confident they will continue until they are caught or killed it's a way of life feeding off the innocent
no one is saying anybody has to own a gun but gun owners are proactive and will protect themselves and loved ones and prevent future crime those who are against guns are doing nothing but complaining about crime
each time they submit they allow that criminal to victimize hundreds of others

JonnyPistachio

Tritone wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

a whimperer huh? That was rude. Are you even old enough to own a gun? I thought you had to be at least 18.

I've had several guns pointed at me. Three of us were robbed in the front yard of my friends house by three young men. As the robbers ran off, my friends roommate came out of the house with some kind of automatic hardcore looking firearm. I was so glad they ran off because if that roommate woldve come out 10 seconds earlier, it wouldve been like the OK Coral.

I've had one go off -- a shotgun -- missed my head by a few inches. Boy was I scared. It was loud. And immediately I thought to myself, "that would've been quick" I would have not had much reaction time to avoid being shot. The triggerman? my friend: a cop. haha, yes, I am laughing now, and yes, he is a cop.

So, if you ask what's the WORST moment I can come up with? It would be if I owned a gun and it got in the wrong hands. If we're using our imagination here -- it would be if I owned a gun and some kid stole it somehow and used to it kill someone.

what are you the word police and yeah over 18 how about you mr nut
yeah thats great those guys got away to rob other folk maybe beat up some sweet old couple or something even worse wtf you are as bad as the criminals you allow the crimes to happen cause you are scared shitless
your worst case that kid who stole your gun and used it he would have found a gun no problem
so that would be worse than watching your loved one die or worse wtf
i'm not getting that no wonder women these days think they are on their own starting to carry their own guns

Ok, I think you've watched too many Steven Seagal movies. :roll: Actually I change my response to your question about the worst possible scenario i could think of. My new answer is you. You are the scariest scenario I can think of. Your paranoia is really showing through...again. You automatically jumped to the conclusions that our assailants skipped off into the fucking sunset and beat up an old couple? You are a piece of work dude. Quite an imagination. You shouldve just asked what happened instead of making yourself look foolish.

The three men that robbed me and my three friends that day ran off into an alley. Within minutes, police were on every corner and a helicopter was overhead. They were caught and I saw their conviction go through. two of them got 12 years, the third got a reduced sentence. So, no, they didnt go off and beat up an old couple, geesh. I let the authorities...you know..the professionals, handle the situation, and everyone came out fine.

In addition, as i stated, a gun wouldve made this situation FAR worse. We were surrounded and didn't know who had weapons. I thought about going after the main assailant as the gun was pointed at my temple, but I kept cool. Has i attacked him, there was a good chance one of the other two criminals would've shot my friends.

JonnyPistachio

Tritone wrote:

each time they submit they allow that criminal to victimize hundreds of others

Dude your overdramatizations are hilarious!

catefrances

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Tritone wrote:

each time they submit they allow that criminal to victimize hundreds of others

Dude your overdramatizations are hilarious!

agree. but dont you see? this is how they get people to feel they need to arm themselves.. by histrionics. the only person who victimises people is the assailant.

catefrances

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

redrock wrote:

If one chooses not to carry a gun for 'self defense' and may use reason or avoidance to get out of a 'situation', one is 'allowing' crime to happen, one is 'enabling' crime - causing it, one does not have empathy with the victims of crime but rather the criminal, etc.

Wow... even for the MT, this is quite low.

I'm still in shock over that.

but you cant be surprised it turned that way, right?

unsung

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

that's the POINT. make it illegal for anyone but police to have one.

Thankfully our Founding Fathers had the foresight to write the 2nd Amendment to protect us from our own General Government and nut job globalists.

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Tritone wrote:

each time they submit they allow that criminal to victimize hundreds of others

Dude your overdramatizations are hilarious!

really Jonny? that is kind of rude you normally aren't so rude.... :?

Do you think criminals only strike once? or do you think
they continue until they are stopped one way or another?

pandora

catefrances wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Tritone wrote:

each time they submit they allow that criminal to victimize hundreds of others

Dude your overdramatizations are hilarious!

agree. but dont you see? this is how they get people to feel they need to arm themselves.. by histrionics. the only person who victimises people is the assailant.

who is they?

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Ok, I think you've watched too many Steven Seagal movies. :roll: Actually I change my response to your question about the worst possible scenario i could think of. My new answer is you. You are the scariest scenario I can think of. Your paranoia is really showing through...again. You automatically jumped to the conclusions that our assailants skipped off into the fucking sunset and beat up an old couple? You are a piece of work dude. Quite an imagination. You shouldve just asked what happened instead of making yourself look foolish.

The three men that robbed me and my three friends that day ran off into an alley. Within minutes, police were on every corner and a helicopter was overhead. They were caught and I saw their conviction go through. two of them got 12 years, the third got a reduced sentence. So, no, they didnt go off and beat up an old couple, geesh. I let the authorities...you know..the professionals, handle the situation, and everyone came out fine.

In addition, as i stated, a gun wouldve made this situation FAR worse. We were surrounded and didn't know who had weapons. I thought about going after the main assailant as the gun was pointed at my temple, but I kept cool. Has i attacked him, there was a good chance one of the other two criminals would've shot my friends.

How many get away though Jonny?
The police are not stopping crime, they can not.
How many people had these 3 victimized already? if not caught, which is much more likely
scenario, how many more would be terrorized?
What about the next time Jonny? When is it ok for you to protect yourself?
Perhaps you should carry mace.

pandora

catefrances wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

redrock wrote:

If one chooses not to carry a gun for 'self defense' and may use reason or avoidance to get out of a 'situation', one is 'allowing' crime to happen, one is 'enabling' crime - causing it, one does not have empathy with the victims of crime but rather the criminal, etc.

Wow... even for the MT, this is quite low.

I'm still in shock over that.

but you cant be surprised it turned that way, right?

It is a logical conclusion, the one holding the gun has the upper hand in a situation.
Those who are proactive and own a gun realize this is their fighting chance,
as the case of my neighbor and the home invasion. If he had not had a gun,
his wife and kids would have been terrorized or worse.
He also saved many future victims with his bravery.
Can anyone argue that?

brianlux

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Tritone wrote:

each time they submit they allow that criminal to victimize hundreds of others

Dude your overdramatizations are hilarious!

really Jonny? that is kind of rude you normally aren't so rude.... :?

Do you think criminals only strike once? or do you think
they continue until they are stopped one way or another?

Speaking of rude, what about that bullshit statement about people like me "allowing" crime to happen?

And while you're at it, please tell again about that gun packin' Jesus of yours.

pandora

brianlux wrote:

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Dude your overdramatizations are hilarious!

really Jonny? that is kind of rude you normally aren't so rude.... :?

Do you think criminals only strike once? or do you think
they continue until they are stopped one way or another?

Speaking of rude, what about that bullshit statement about people like me "allowing" crime to happen?

And while you're at it, please tell again about that gun packin' Jesus of yours.

You are continuing to insult though I have said we can agree to disagree

I am not a Christian Brian but you know this ...
just another personal attack