We don't all have the speed and reflexes of a jacked-up 22-yr-old street fighter, whatever illusions we might want to hold on to.
<<And there are precious few "jacked-up 22-yr-old street fighters" running around.
<<Most of 'em are drug-adled punks that have barely handled a firearm and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.>>
You hear that, kimba? You can start packin heat now. Ami says your chances of getting the drop on the bad guys is, what is it Ami, 80%? 90% ? Boy, THAT'S good news!
What are the odds of surviveing such an encounter if you have no wepon?
Seems that if you did not pull your wepon the odds would not be worse , haveing the choice is 100% improvement and 0% drawback.
####################################################################
Could be better odds of surviving without. Probably are. The guy just might want your wallet. Or to score a few points by insulting or humiliating you in some small way. They're not all homicidal, but try to draw down on them and they could get pissed off pretty fast. Or their self-preservation instinct could go into overdrive.
Your big mistake seems to be in assuming that all these encounters begin with the bad guy determined to kill the good guy or wreak serious physical harm on him. In fact most of them are random encounters where the motive is simple robbery or theft, or just an exchange of street insults. There are relatively few homicidal maniacs roaming the streets and lots of petty grifters, muggers, punks etc.
You're also ignoring the false sense of security that a weapon can give - - it could unwisely embolden somebody in an escalating confrontation to take just one little step that he might otherwise not have taken, to linger a bit longer in an unpleasant situation or to enter a bar where he obviously should't be.
The gunplay wound up costing the poor bugger everything he had. Proving incidentally that if you DO shoot a street punk, you're probably way ahead of the game if you shoot to kill rather than merely wounding him.
I have some serious doubts about the competency of the general population to use a gun.
having a gun doesn`t increase a persons intelligence
Think of it as "evolution in action."
I thought that was driving.
My huge worry about owning a gun is that I'll wound an attacker, they'll tell lies about the incident, and I'll go to jail.
Better than being dead, yes. But it's a huge responsibility and worry. Also I worry that, like a sheriff's deputy here, I would be disarmed and killed by my own weapon.
My huge worry about owning a gun is that I'll wound an attacker, they'll tell lies about the incident, and I'll go to jail. Better than being dead, yes. But it's a huge responsibility and worry. Also I worry that, like a sheriff's deputy here, I would be disarmed and killed by my own weapon.
My huge worry about owning a gun is that I'll wound an attacker, they'll tell lies about the incident, and I'll go to jail.
Better than being dead, yes. But it's a huge responsibility and worry. Also I worry that, like a sheriff's deputy here, I would be disarmed and killed by my own weapon.
Also I worry that, like a sheriff's deputy here, I would be disarmed and killed by my own weapon.
Just imagine the attacker is GWBush. They'll need a vacuum to clean up the peices after you are done with him.
Also I worry that, like a sheriff's deputy here, I would be disarmed and killed by my own weapon.
Handgun Magazine once did a survey on cops' ability to hit a moving target with a hand-gun under stringent time and space limits, firing only at body mass (the easiest human target.) I don't recall the results now but they were not very impressive. And these are guys who must spend at least one hour a week or month (I forget which) on the firing range.
And then you have also to consider the quality of available ammo. Unless you plan to use hollow-points (which I understand are illegal in most states) you can't count on stopping your man even if you hit the body mass once or twice with anything less than .45 cal. ammo.
And then you have also to consider the quality of available ammo. Unless you plan to use hollow-points (which I understand are illegal in most states) you can't count on stopping your man even if you hit the body mass once or twice with anything less than .45 cal. ammo.
I know of no states where hollow point ammo is illegal. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Hollow point is an excellent ammo to use for self-defense. It has the property of stopping in the first object it hits, so it prevents "overpenetration" - shooting through your target and hitting something behind it. It also prevents shooting through a wall (and possibly hitting someone in another room) if you miss your target.
<<Tee, with all due seriousness, it seems that you have concluded that anytime "any" person possesses a firearm, it mutates their way of thinking, turning them into some aggressive maniac, if not worse. >>
I don't think I went that far. I postulated an incremental change - - a little less ready to leave the scene, a little more adventurous in venturing out into bad-guy territory, a little more willing to take the next step in a gradually escalating confrontation. I didn't claim it caused a quantum leap from Dr. Jekyll to Mr. Hyde or from Mr. Rogers to Rambo.
<<The point that Plane, Ami, Professor, and so many others have made, is that those who have gone thru significant firearms training & safety, are in large part MUCH safer in their handling of firearms than the punk kid on the street, who might not think twice in killing you or your loved one. >>
Firearms training makes a huge difference in how effectively a gun owner can use his weapon. That I will concede and it's a good point. If you ARE going to get a gun, invest in some heavy-duty training and don't skimp on it. And then practice what you learned. And practice and practice and practice. Don't let your skills get rusty.
However once you've received what you feel is the maximum benefit possible from your training, you should make a realistic assessment of your own reflexes, speed and accuracy in firing. Unless you're reasonably confident that in most scenarios, under real-life pressures in various environments you can draw in about a second or less and hit your target's body mass four times out of five in two or three seconds, I would give serious thought to leaving the gun at home when you go out.
Handgun Magazine once did a survey on cops' ability to hit a moving target with a hand-gun under stringent time and space limits, firing only at body mass (the easiest human target.) I don't recall the results now but they were not very impressive. And these are guys who must spend at least one hour a week or month (I forget which) on the firing range.
And then you have also to consider the quality of available ammo. Unless you plan to use hollow-points (which I understand are illegal in most states) you can't count on stopping your man even if you hit the body mass once or twice with anything less than .45 cal. ammo.
<<I can't count how many stories of lives that were saved by the presence of a firearm, as well as the many other tragic scenarios where a person with a firearm would have prevented some mass carnage/killing by some crackpot.>>
Well, as you probably know, we have some radically different gun laws up here in Canada and I haven't heard any such stories at all. I know for a fact we have a lot less gun violence and whether or not that's due to your own Second Amendment rights, I can't say.
<<The ones who are much more likely to stop said punk killers, if the police aren't around, are precisely those who have been trained to handle a firearm, and are carrying a concealed weapon.>>
I think they're just as likely to get themselves killed, especially if the punks are faster, better coordinated or better shots than they themselves are. Or more numerous - - you might kill one and the others will get you.
are the referencing of countless stories I've read where the mere brandishing of a firearm saved many a familys' life
Quoteare the referencing of countless stories I've read where the mere brandishing of a firearm saved many a familys' life
Out of curiosity Sirs, Ami, et al - where do you all live and/or find all of these "countless" stories?
So where the hell are all of these horrible break-ins, home invasions, muggings happening in such a high percentage that I should carry a concealed weapon or put one within arms reach at night?
It seemed to make a lot of sense to me at the time, because I figured the real "point" of hollow-point was to maim or kill, as opposed to sport shooting, and so it was outlawed for that purpose. I stand corrected. Thank you
are their states that allow concealed guns permit to the general public?
concealed gun??...it`s extremely hard and not profitable to have one very few jobs require it.
are their states that allow concealed guns permit to the general public?
unless it`s for work,I just don`t see a need for one.
are their states that allow concealed guns permit to the general public?
Yes, most states in fact. There are fairly hefty training regimines involved, appropriately so. Some states/locales are very restrictive, such as DC & NY. And certain counties are more stringent than other counties. AND, funny thing here, violent crimes are less in areas with more permissive CCW laws, than those with very strict gun regulations. It's like ami said before, criminals are more likely to hang around locales where the populace is less likely to be armed and shoot them as they commit their crime.
"General public" implies that no standards or training requirements need be met. Anytime you are required to meet certain qualifications, it is no longer available to the "general public."
I had a gun permit because of my job but If I apllied for one for personnel reason, I will be denied in california.
AND, funny thing here, violent crimes are less in areas with more permissive CCW laws, than those with very strict gun regulations. It's like ami said before, criminals are more likely to hang around locales where the populace is less likely to be armed and shoot them as they commit their crime.
QuoteAND, funny thing here, violent crimes are less in areas with more permissive CCW laws, than those with very strict gun regulations. It's like ami said before, criminals are more likely to hang around locales where the populace is less likely to be armed and shoot them as they commit their crime.
By the same reasoning you provide, I could also argue that areas with low violent crime rates are more likely to allow permissive gun regulation. Therefore it isn't that criminals are more likely to go where they won't get shot, but that violent criminals were never in those areas in the first place. See?
By the same reasoning you provide, I could also argue that areas with low violent crime rates are more likely to allow permissive gun regulation. Therefore it isn't that criminals are more likely to go where they won't get shot, but that violent criminals were never in those areas in the first place.
Except that there are areas where the violent crime rates shifted after gun regulations changed. It seems that the criminals respond to the legislation, not the other way around.
And all other variables remained constant or were accounted for?
This was true across a wide swath of area, for a diverse group of people?
There was no common national trend of declining violent crime?
The rates shifted to a significant degree and the correlation was statistically significant?
May I see the studies?
Surely you can see why your argument fails Sirs?
My problem here is that you and Ami are presenting a correlation as causation. You can act the fool, but the reality is that you are making the logical error.
No. since it's absolutely logical to conclude that criminals don't want to get shot. Criminals, will more than likely traverse regions and areas where their victims are less likely to be armed and can shoot back. "Gun Free Zones" are big bold proclaimations to criminals, "come here, we can't defend ourselves"
Do you see where your attempt to diss the stats falls, Js?
I absolutely concur that stats can be made to say pretty much anything a person wants, by what stats are used. We hear it everytime someone claims there are more gun crimes in the U.S. than the UK, all the while ignoring each country's population #, and violent crime rates as a % of the population vs sheer #'s. Point being that the FACT remains there are largely less violent crime in regious where there are more permissive CCW laws. That not only is a factual stat, but is suppoted by absolute logic.
QuoteNo. since it's absolutely logical to conclude that criminals don't want to get shot. Criminals, will more than likely traverse regions and areas where their victims are less likely to be armed and can shoot back. "Gun Free Zones" are big bold proclaimations to criminals, "come here, we can't defend ourselves" Do you see where your attempt to diss the stats falls, Js?
No, because you are making an argument from emotion and not proper reason with the correct use of a statistical study.
You even make another logical error in trying to infer what takes place in the mind of a criminal (who we're told are avid followers of legislative news).
I took classes to get one and it stated only people of certain occupation may get one
Why would you be? Or is that too personal a question? I had one in Califonia
it`s not work related is the reason my question how did you get one?
I remember the range requirements pretty sad
oh this wasn`t for the CCW it was for the exposed gun permit
laxed? he failed
May I see the studies?
"THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: AN OUNCE OF EVIDENCE OUTWEIGHS A TON OF SPECULATION"
Words you could practically live by
Words you could practically live by
I remember the range requirements
pretty sad
I`ve always been a decent shot but some of my co-workers
uhhh
some people really shouldn`t have guns
it really does require some minimul ability.
broadside of the barn is the term I believe
QuoteWords you could practically live by
So why don't you?
Plane, I appreciate the stats, but those have little relevance on the sociological conclusion drawn by Sirs. For example, where prison inmates obtained a weapon has nothing to do with it. Y'all seem to be under the impression that I'm some left wing nutter out to take your guns. I just dislike seeing conclusions drawn through logical fallacy, which is exactly what Sirs did.
it appears you're going to completely ignore the studies that Ami & Plane referenced, that took into account multiple variables, that demonstrated a logical correlation, between decreased violent crime rates & more permissive CCW laws
no one's claiming specifically that ONLY A leads to B. There are likely some minor causitive factors that helped influence the results
Singleing out gun ownership as a causitive factor in crime prevention and ignoreing the plethera of other factors is a mistake .
Singleing out gun ownership as a causitive factor in crime and ignoreing the plethera of other factors is a mistake also.
This doesn't make discussion impossible , but you get to pick your facts from a shelf full of opinion slanted studys.
Quoteit appears you're going to completely ignore the studies that Ami & Plane referenced, that took into account multiple variables, that demonstrated a logical correlation, between decreased violent crime rates & more permissive CCW laws
Not at all. Actually, I find Plane's last two studies rather fascinating. Kleck especially as he challenges some generally accepted criminology standard models (which is the mark of a thinking scholar, even if his own approaches are not entirely without flaw themselves).
Quoteno one's claiming specifically that ONLY A leads to B. There are likely some minor causitive factors that helped influence the results
Again you make an assumption that you honestly are not certain about. Are the other factors minor? Do you know?
I think that some of it is because of my own experiences and let's face it there is a lot of anecdotal evidence in gun ownership arguments. I've been to some European cities and of course American cities. In Europe (and I'll grant that I have not been real recently) there is rarely a sense that one needs to be armed or that crime is an inevitability. Walking around Munich or Nuremberg late at night, looking for a nice beer hall offers no sense of impending fear. I think the same is true of many European cities from Rome to Munich to Madrid to London to Oslo.
Quote
The error is as sirs infers.
I think I am the one who inferred that error and not Sirs!
What _JS infers ,the same as sirs, is ,sans symmetry ,sentient consideration slips, sliding into self serving sophistry.
Jeez. kimba's getting flak because people are bugging him about being asian and possibly having a gun and you guys advise him to GET ONE.