Gun Facts

[Eidolon]

Hell if I'm getting mugged and happen to have a hammer on me, you'd better believe that the mugger is going to get a nice bashing with it. And frankly, a quick shot from a pistol would probably be more preferable since it would be much less gruesome.

I'm pretty sure that if you were getting mugged and pulled out a hammer or pistol instead of a wallet, you'd get shot. Congrats, you lost a whole lot more than $40 and your driver's license.

Also pretty sure Loughner wouldn't have been able to hit 19 people with a hammer before he got taken down.

If I happen to have a weapon of some kind on me, and had the choice while reaching for a pocket to either grab the wallet, or the weapon, then the time it takes for the attacker to distinguish between the two would be the same. Except when I grab the wallet, I have ultimately given up my ability to defend myself whereas if I grabbed a gun, the attacker is now the one looking down the barrel and I'm in charge. And if he knew I had a weapon on me before he decided to mug me, then hes pretty fucking stupid.

And if your in a position where you are clearly outnumbered, out gunned and have no choice than to surrender, then obviously you surrender. Having a way to defend yourself doesn't mean be a dumb ass and try to attack a Panzer with a fucking pellet gun. But when all sides are balanced, then your best bet is to stand your ground. If anything at all, it will show the attacker that his chosen profession is not as easy as he once thought.

On that thought, what if the mugger wants to kill you anyways? He will just take your life anyways along with your money. At least if you had a way to defend yourself, you would have stood a better chance at surviving than if you just bent over and took it.

 

[kenandkids]

Living in a world of bombs and guns, people sometimes forget the power of a small razor blade.
http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/gallery/2.htm

 

[RichardMNixon]

And if your in a position where you are clearly outnumbered, out gunned and have no choice than to surrender, then obviously you surrender.

You are always in that position if someone pulls a gun on you. Thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are. Even if you get the gun out and aimed on him, you've still increased your chance of getting shot. I don't want to get it a shootout on my way home, I'd much rather pay a fee on rare occasion to not get shot.

Why do you think bank tellers aren't armed? Which do think foils more convenience store robberies, a gun under the desk or a silent alarm?

On that thought, what if the mugger wants to kill you anyways? He will just take your life anyways along with your money. At least if you had a way to defend yourself, you would have stood a better chance at surviving than if you just bent over and took it.

I can't imagine he would. The police pursue a murderer a lot harder than they pursue a mugger.

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

Living in a world of bombs and guns, people sometimes forget the power of a small razor blade.
http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/gallery/2.htm

Yeah man, lets ban razor blades! :facepalm:

 

[Ad Initium]

Let's look at it using science.

We have 5 same worlds.

Each world:
- Has 8 trillion people.
- The goal of each world is to assasinate eachother as quickly as possible. Leaving 1 person standing.

World 1:
- Can only use their hand to kill an other person.

World 2:
- Can only use knifes to kill an other person.

World 3:
- Can only use six-shooter revolvers to kill an other person.

World 4:
- Can only use semi-automatic riffles to kill an other person.

World 5:
- Can only use atomic bombs to kill an other person.

....

Well you'd probably say ... this is a silly experiment. It will be clear from the start which world will die out first and which world will die out last. You will say in order of dying out ... it will be 5 4 3 2 1.

Now gunlovers will tell you that guns will keep you safe and create a safe environment. But if you would put this above test to them ... they will come to the same result as any pacfist will do. Okay ... so we have found a common ground. It is clear to both the pacifist and the gunlover that bigger guns kill more and faster.

I find that odd ... because according to mosty gunlovers logic ... the world with the atomic bombs will be the last to die out and the world at which one would kill eachother by hand combat will be the first to die out. Now the goal is to kill each other A.S.A.P. ... but didnt make having bigger guns make you safer? .... I am confused.

Now let's take these same 5 worlds, but change some of the conditions. The weapons on each of these worlds will be the same. But now the intend is not to kill eachother as quickly as possible.

Now, the main goal for each person is -to live-. Nobody on these 5 worlds wants to die. However .... every hour ten persons can not take it any more and snap. Snap, meaning, they will start killing other people, and not stop doing so. Which world then would end up with one person left first and which one last?

What is the point of the test? Gun's kill? Bigger guns kill more?

Well, ... yes .... that is the whole point of the test.

Having nothing to do with culture and or religious upbringing, we have established that bigger guns kill more people when used.

So I ask then ...

Why on earth would one want to have big guns in a society, if the goal of a society is to not kill eachother but try to live with eachother peacefully?


I'd probably get an argument back ... "this is unfair, you have calculated in society, the neighbourhood I live in is so ruff, .... I need to protect myself and my family which is why I have all these guns"

... Well actually I have. I have calculated that into it all. Because all what I was telling you in this experiment is just this.

- If you have no weapons, killing eachother massively will be utterly difficult.
- Having semi automatic weapons to murder out your neighbourhood will be fairly easy
- Having an atomic bomb, will make you the king of your neighbourhood as you will be the only one left.
- If you support every one having guns, do not suprised if you defend your house from an intruder with a handgun, ... the intruder will be packing a semi-automatic.
- If you pack a semi automatic, ... dont be surprised his will be more bad-ass. Afterall ... you yourself voted allowing all these weapons of massdestruction on the streets.

**Waves goodbye to his family while he gets murdered and his family too.

... Geez, .... I wish that burgular only had hands to kill my family with, instead of the semi-automatic he used ... Some might have lived. :facepalm:

 

[kenandkids]

Let's look at it using science.

We have 5 same worlds.

Each world:
- Has 8 trillion people.
- The goal of each world is to assasinate eachother as quickly as possible. Leaving 1 person standing.

World 1:
- Can only use their hand to kill an other person.

World 2:
- Can only use knifes to kill an other person.

World 3:
- Can only use six-shooter revolvers to kill an other person.

World 4:
- Can only use semi-automatic riffles to kill an other person.

World 5:
- Can only use atomic bombs to kill an other person.

....

Well you'd probably say ... this is a silly experiment. It will be clear from the start which world will die out first and which world will die out last. You will say in order of dying out ... it will be 5 4 3 2 1.

Now gunlovers will tell you that guns will keep you safe and create a safe environment. But if you would put this above test to them ... they will come to the same result as any pacfist will do. Okay ... so we have found a common ground. It is clear to both the pacifist and the gunlover that bigger guns kill more and faster.

I find that odd ... because according to mosty gunlovers logic ... the world with the atomic bombs will be the last to die out and the world at which one would kill eachother by hand combat will be the first to die out. Now the goal is to kill each other A.S.A.P. ... but didnt make having bigger guns make you safer? .... I am confused.

Now let's take these same 5 worlds, but change some of the conditions. The weapons on each of these worlds will be the same. But now the intend is not to kill eachother as quickly as possible.

Now, the main goal for each person is -to live-. Nobody on these 5 worlds wants to die. However .... every hour ten persons can not take it any more and snap. Snap, meaning, they will start killing other people, and not stop doing so. Which world then would end up with one person left first and which one last?

What is the point of the test? Gun's kill? Bigger guns kill more?

Well, ... yes .... that is the whole point of the test.

Having nothing to do with culture and or religious upbringing, we have established that bigger guns kill more people when used.

So I ask then ...

Why on earth would one want to have big guns in a society, if the goal of a society is to not kill eachother but try to live with eachother peacefully?


I'd probably get an argument back ... "this is unfair, you have calculated in society, the neighbourhood I live in is so ruff, .... I need to protect myself and my family which is why I have all these guns"

... Well actually I have. I have calculated that into it all. Because all what I was telling you in this experiment is just this.

- If you have no weapons, killing eachother massively will be utterly difficult.
- Having semi automatic weapons to murder out your neighbourhood will be fairly easy
- Having an atomic bomb, will make you the king of your neighbourhood as you will be the only one left.
- If you support every one having guns, do not suprised if you defend your house from an intruder with a handgun, ... the intruder will be packing a semi-automatic.
- If you pack a semi automatic, ... dont be surprised his will be more bad-ass. Afterall ... you yourself voted allowing all these weapons of massdestruction on the streets.

**Waves goodbye to his family while he gets murdered and his family too.

... Geez, .... I wish that burgular only had hands to kill my family with, instead of the semi-automatic he used ... Some might have lived. :facepalm:

I couldn't find the science. Plenty of societal philosophy and assumption...

 

[SpaceCDT]

You are always in that position if someone pulls a gun on you. Thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are. Even if you get the gun out and aimed on him, you've still increased your chance of getting shot.

What an utter load of tripe. "The thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are."
This from the guy who said:

The two expressions that make my blood boil are "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people,

You like to have your cake and eat it, don't you?

As I mentioned before, there is no debate where both sides are choc a bloc full of bullshit like gun laws!

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

You are always in that position if someone pulls a gun on you. Thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are. Even if you get the gun out and aimed on him, you've still increased your chance of getting shot.

What an utter load of tripe. "The thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are."
This from the guy who said:

The two expressions that make my blood boil are "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people,

You like to have your cake and eat it, don't you?

As I mentioned before, there is no debate where both sides are choc a bloc full of bullshit like gun laws!

I don't see the inconsistency.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I don't see the inconsistency.

Nor do I. :?: In both cases I'm arguing that owning a gun doesn't protect you from shit.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I don't see the inconsistency either. A criminal who already has a gun pointed on you is going to have the advantage. This isn't a western where normal civilians can quickdraw so fast that the criminal didn't see it coming.

And yes the expression "guns don't kill people, people kill people" IS idiotic. And if guns were outlawed cops would have guns too, not just criminals. And that's even assuming that guns won't get any harder to get if outlawed. Not that I believe that no guns would ever wind up in criminals' hands but I can't imagine anyone thinking that either.

That said, I don't think an outright ban is the solution, for many reasons too long to list here, but there definitely needs to be stricter restrictions than what we have now in the states.

 

[SpaceCDT]

I wasn't saying there was any logical inconsistancy in what he was saying; I just thought it humorous for someone to say "these bullshit slogans make my blood boil" and then procede to spout a very similar kind of slogan.

 

[Memeticemetic]

I wasn't saying there was any logical inconsistancy in what he was saying; I just thought it humorous for someone to say "these bullshit slogans make my blood boil" and then procede to spout a very similar kind of slogan.

Thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are

Huh. Never heard that before. I mean, sure, it's a simple turn of phrase that says little on its own, but is it a slogan? Has anyone else even heard this before, let alone often enough for it to be considered a slogan?

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

I wasn't saying there was any logical inconsistancy in what he was saying; I just thought it humorous for someone to say "these bullshit slogans make my blood boil" and then procede to spout a very similar kind of slogan.

Thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are

Huh. Never heard that before. I mean, sure, it's a simple turn of phrase that says little on its own, but is it a slogan? Has anyone else even heard this before, let alone often enough for it to be considered a slogan?

Not yet - but it would make an awesome Game slogan.

GTA 6million: VCPD
"Thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are."

 

[SpaceCDT]

I wasn't saying there was any logical inconsistancy in what he was saying; I just thought it humorous for someone to say "these bullshit slogans make my blood boil" and then procede to spout a very similar kind of slogan.

Thing about crime is, criminals are better at it than you are

Huh. Never heard that before. I mean, sure, it's a simple turn of phrase that says little on its own, but is it a slogan? Has anyone else even heard this before, let alone often enough for it to be considered a slogan?

Does it even really matter?

Anyway, the point is if the USA had sensible, strict guns laws like we do here in Aus they wouldn't have problems with mass shooting every other Tuesday.

Now I'm an ISSF pistol shooter and those laws make life as a sporting shooter a bit painful at times - but that's a fairly small price to pay to not have kids bringing pistols to school and capping folks.

 

[BrainBlow]

Of course you can't pull a gun at a criminal who already has a gun pointed at you.
What it is more talk about is, for an example, people breaking into your house.

But the whole gun issue is like with batons.
Here in Norway, Batons are illegal. Which is utterly pointless since a criminal can use anything to bludgeon you while the civilians just get disarmed by these rules.

 

[Netheralian]

I'm curious to know of the people that support gun ownership as a means of self defence, how many of you are prepared to take someone's life over your wallet? We aren't talking about fake guns here that are designed to scare the criminal - we are talking about a loaded weapon that is designed to put holes in people and if you are going to draw it on someone you sure as shit better be prepared to pull the trigger.

 

[BrainBlow]

I'm curious to know of the people that support gun ownership as a means of self defence, how many of you are prepared to take someone's life over your wallet? We aren't talking about fake guns here that are designed to scare the criminal - we are talking about a loaded weapon that is designed to put holes in people and if you are going to draw it on someone you sure as shit better be prepared to pull the trigger.

I do find it funny how people talk about "reality is not like some cowboy movie", yet they talk about using a gun for self-defense like if it means you have to be like the hero in some cowboy movie.
You don't have to splatter their brains out over the pavement. If you get the gun out and point it at them, they'll probably react like you will if they have a gun pointed at you first. You don't try to do something stupid.
If they do try, you shoot them somewhere like the legs(not that that can't have a fatal result for them, it can). Most places, you'll be charged with murder/manslaughter if you managed to get the gun out first and then just gunned them down.

To make it clear, no, I don't think wielding a gun in public is a good idea for self-defense, since the mugger will have the situation mostly on their terms. Your wallet ain't worth it.

But you know what country has a lot of guns for civilians, yet have low crime-rates?
Switzerland.

 

[Netheralian]

If they do try, you shoot them somewhere like the legs(not that that can't have a fatal result for them, it can).

Sorry - but I think that is utter bullshit (although I agree with most of the rest of what you are saying). If you ever watch the news on TV when some crazy guy wielding anything (other than a gun) is shot by police he most often killed. There is always this outcry that he should have been shot in the leg or something to wound him but realistically, if your going to shoot someone you may as well do your best to aim for the biggest target - main point, DON'T MISS. To refer to your earlier point about "how people talk about "reality is not like some cowboy movie", yet they talk about using a gun for self-defense like if it means you have to be like the hero in some cowboy movie." Your right - this isn't a movie. Consider you are being held at in a situation that merits drawing your gun - you've pooed your pants and there is a warm trickle of urine running down your leg and your shaking enough to make Elvis jealous. Do you think you have enough time to take a considered aim at a non critical point on someone's body? Either the guy is going to run away as soon as you draw the gun - or he is going to do something that merits you shooting him. I doubt you will have time for any fancy gun work.

So, unless you are prepared to meet with the ramifications of having killed someone, then why would anyone carry a gun for self protection when it's only your wallet at sake?

 

[SpaceCDT]

So, unless you are prepared to meet with the ramifications of having killed someone, then why would anyone carry a gun for self protection when it's only your wallet at sake?

You're assuming that it's only your wallet at stake. Your life could be on the line too.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Well being innately paranoid and security-minded, and living in a small one-story house in an area with surprisingly high crime-rates for how rural it is, I can see the appeal. I'm not really worried that people will try to break in, but my position is much more vulnerable than I'd like; and, of course, I do occasionally go outside into the neighborhood. Naturally my preference if robbed would always be to fork over the cash, but the concern is always that somehow something will go wrong in the transaction. Although truthfully I'm more bothered by the roving bands of board looking teenagers and fratboys that roam the area, especially when my fiancée is with me. Cliché I know, but unnerving all the same.

So I'd like something to scare them off, or neutralize them if I have to. I have my machete, but it's sort of unwieldy up close and you can't walk around with it. My mace might do better, but you'd be surprised how much backspray there is from that stuff, especially if you use it indoors (it's more potent than you might think, be prepared to leave the building if you set if off accidentally.) I know a few pressure points that result in loss of consciousness, one well enough that I might actually consider using it, but that requires getting fairly close; the same goes for this little knife I carry around with me (it's also a bottle opener.) Ideally, I would want something small, portable, concealable, difficult to defend oneself against, with at least a medium range, and powerful enough prevent any possibility of recovery or counterattack on the part of my opponent.

Unfortunately taser guns are illegal in this state (go figure :roll: ), so that really only leaves one practicable option. Of course, I don't own a gun, don't approve of their possession, and would never want other people in my situation to have a one, but I can understand the temptation.