Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Bowser, Oct 13, 2016.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Be passive at the intruder until he's dis-conjunctured by his own misfortune.
i said criminal, not robbery. criminals are a bit more diverse than just robbery. look at that again
and i specifically used vague terminology to insure accuracy.
by advantage, i didn't specifically state a gun, but i will point out that the easiest and cheapest way to have an advantage over a criminal really is a gun, which is one of the primary reasons why cops are always carrying one. it's far cheaper, easier and more effective to train on a firearm than to train the cops in being capable of success in physical combat (although this is also taught, it isn't the primary focus due to the many factors that can cause failure at any specific time - and it is far superior to subdue from a distance for the sake of safety and security, hence the effectiveness of the gun).
not everyone can (just sayin')
Can you elaborate?
OK. I have the same issue - most criminals do not kill.
Agreed. It is also the easiest way to turn a robbery into a homicide; guns are easy for unarmed criminals to get a hold of when an inexperienced gun owner starts waving one around.
the fight or flight stress response is automatic. there isn't always the choice to be passive at the intruder
it is not easy to kill...
you could say that it's the easiest way to accidentally turn a robbery into a homicide, but...
even with my experience and training i wouldn't try to disarm an armed opponent unless there wasn't any other choice.
so the criminal, especially the typical opportunist, would be far less inclined
and then consider the fight-or-flight stress response exacerbating the situation and that adds a whole lot of mess to the situation
That's likely because you understand the risks. Most people do not.
It may be that you are overestimating the intelligence of your typical criminal. He may not weigh risks the same as you do - and he may think that just grabbing that gun from you neatly turns the tables. He wins, gets to rob you, ensures you don't live to tell the police about it - and he walks off with a useful and untraceable (to him) gun.
There are ways, of course, to avoid such a scenario. Thus the value of training.
yeah... also from experience. i've had to do it in the past and i've had it go bad once. still have the scars too.
criminals are typically dumb. they can be savvy, quick or instinctive, but they're typically very, very stupid
definitely the case... most of them don't think at all, especially about the ramifications of their actions. that is the typical response from the criminal element, anyway... and considering the history (overall and taken individually, on a case by case basis) i gotta say the evidence points towards it being true
it is rare, indeed, to meet a "thinking" criminal, IMHO
this doesn't happen as much as you think - and it's more instinct than thinking
more often than not the firearm stolen from the individual is from the criminal acquiring it during a robbery without the owner present
rarely does a criminal disarm anyone, statistically speaking.
aint saying it doesn't happen, though. it does happen, it just isn't common
i use the term "thinking" in a broad sense, not in the specific sense. typically the criminal element is aware of the ramifications of their actions, but take the risk for various reasons. they consider the payoff worth the risk, even when they're not aware of the payoff (like mugging person [x] and only getting a $5 bill because they don't know if said person is holding cash)
this isn't intellectual thinking or logical planning so much as it's an instinctive or some other "thinking", hence my clarification with this edit
personally, criminals, overall, are stupid. on an individual bases you can find some intelligent ones, but that is another topic entirely IMHO
Threads such as these always strike me as peculiar—specifically, that certain parties simply fail to acknowledge the vast differences between handguns and rifles (or shotguns, for that matter). Differences in form and function and capabilities aside, more pertinent are the statistical differences re: accidents and deaths.
There are vastly fewer accidents involving the aforementioned non-handguns—and again, suicides are not “accidents.” As far as the particular American aspect to these discussions goes, people in rural areas the world over have rifles and shotguns. So the prevalence of guns and gun incidents is hardly a uniquely American phenomenon; rather, the prevalence of handguns and handgun incidents is. Moreover, when global stats are considered, prevalence of rifles and shotguns amongst certain populations simply doesn’t seem to bear much relationship to the number of accidents and deaths involving such in said populations.
As to purposes: rifles are largely used for hunting. I personally don’t much care for that, but if one is hunting for sustenance, I have a whole helluva lot less problem with that than with the masses of genocidal idiots who rely solely upon concentration camps for their sustenance. (As to trophy hunters: fuck them. I wish the most slow, agonizing, and excruciatingly painful of deaths upon them.)
Stumpy might have failed to bold the salient point, which is a fighting chance. But you just wanted to argue I suppose.
Edit: Sorry, I didn't see the responses before quoting..
I'm being apprehensive when it comes to guns, so I shall say no... For some reasons , maybe I would try other means of security.
i will also caution you to insure that your source for statistics be only the following:
National Institute of Justice - http://nij.gov (which includes the bureau of justice statistics - http://www.bjs.gov/)
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - https://www.atf.gov
Uniform Crime Reporting at the FBI - https://ucr.fbi.gov/
Center for Disease Control - http://www.cdc.gov
the reason is simple: any other source is biased and you cannot guarantee the result isn't tampered with unless you take their original source material and compare it to their source, which is the above 4 agencies anyway
relevant statistics published:
personally, i am with you on this one. hunting is how i feed my family, so trophy hunters take food from them and waste it for no reason
i don't like poachers either
but that is offered IMHO only
one thing i would like to mention that a lot of people avoid talking about. when you apply for a federal firearms license, be it as a collector, gunsmith or a dealer, your name, physical and mailing address, and more is available to the general public... and no one seems to understand how that not only directly violates the privacy act but also makes you a target for really stupid people.
think about that a moment
for those who don't believe me that the licensee name, location etc are public access to anyone who has a computer, feel free to validate it yourself: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/listing-federal-firearms-licensees-ffls-2016
considering this and that it is a requirement per the law that you give up that privacy when you apply for a federal license, even if you're a collector or a gunsmith and nothing more... i find it hard to believe that the gov't will "protect" anyone's information if there is a universal background check per the arguments of certain political candidates or existing congresspersons. more to the point, a background check is redundant and unnecessary. and did i mention redundant? redundant redundant redundant redundant reeeeeeedundant
don't mind me: toooooooooo much caffeine
Damn that's scary! Why can't you get motion sensors and install by garage door so if someone trips them you are alerted audibly. Get a security system not a gun! To much legal liability
mostly because this is easily defeated - sonic detectors can be easily scrambled. you can also simply just move slowly.
optical sensors can be defeated even easier, dependent upon how it's set up.
infrared sensors can be defeated by a window pane
this also means your safety is dependent upon the response of others. how instantaneous is that going to be?
even under perfect circumstances of a gated community with it's own cops you have to wait to get a response... a lot can happen in seconds, especially if a criminal is armed
Sometimes I transport very expensive items that do not belong to me. I dress down, go stealth, appear regular street, drive a nondescript car and carry that S&W stainless steel .357 magnum revolver in my pants pocket...just for luck. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We will recall that I am doing all of this in Detroit (where the weak are killed and eaten).
I had a friend one time who did the same job sometimes, only he didn't believe in carrying a piece. Also looked pretty snazzy...fancy car, nice suit & briefcase. It was still handcuffed to his wrist when they found him bled out in the middle of the street.
A gun is a tool and like any other tool, it will not harm you unless you get lazy, sloppy or stupid. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Who cares if a gun owner gets hurt by his own gun? Natural selection. I assumed that the problem with guns is that they were there to hurt other people. If there were no guns, people would not get shot. I hate stating the bleeding obvious.
so... since we know that more people are killed by hammers, cars, or screwdrivers than guns, and it's bleeding obvious, then the same logic would be applicable, right?
if there were no hammers and screwdrivers, no one would get killed. (by stabbing or hammering with a blunt heavy object)
hmm... that sure aint true
the top 15 cause of death statistics in the US - none of it applied to those top 15...
so lets look at gun ban countries: if it were bleeding obvious then there would be no shooting deaths in places where guns are illegal.
oops, looks like banning guns didn't stop shooting deaths in AUS... maybe it's because only the criminals have guns?
so lets look at Britain (UK): http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom
still have shooting deaths in the UK
what about felons here in the US? i mean, it is illegal for felons to own firearms, but i am willing to bet that you can head to gang central in L.A. and find more felons packing heat than a typical deep south gun rally...
so banning and or making laws only applies to those who are willing to actually obey the law. we actually have laws in the US that prohibit felons from owning guns. we also have laws prohibiting a lot of other things that people ignore.
i hate stating the bleeding obvious but...
You are absolutely right! The number of firearms in circulation per capita has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the number of gun-related deaths per capita . It was utterly stupid of me to suggest such a thing.
so... you are intentionally misrepresenting the point and changing the goal posts from your original claim?
fascinating - but also expected
perhaps i should re-quote what you said
so i used places where guns are illegal and banned to make a point: so who is doing the shooting?
oh wait... i think i also made that point too!
but lets look at your quote again:
getting shot doesn't specifically mean it is a gun, either
roofers, bows, sling's, tasers and other regular non-firearm items also "shoot" people every day. and it is being "shot" without a gun being present (though you can argue the semantics for a pneumatic nail gun being a "gun")
Separate names with a comma.