THE WISDOM OF ARMING IN SELF DEFENSE

@MontereyJack,

If none, it would be equally accurate to say that all of the none involved firearms.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

This would make a great movie . We could call it "FLAKES ON A PLANE"

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:
Ok, here's what I think:

Quote:

The statistics DrewDad posted are probably correct and accurate
as reflected by the general population. However, I would point out
that owning, using and maintaining a gun responsibly is not
something which everyone is capable doing.
The statistics reflect the fact that a high percentage of the general population
are not very good owners for various reasons (a lot of people are morons).

Note that history does not record that before the advent of gun control laws
there was much trouble; bullets were not flying everywhere. Blood did flow thru the streets.

Quote:

Bottom line for me is that if you want to be a responsible owner,
learn how to shoot, protect your gun carefully and learn to react
with discipline, I suspect you would not fit into the standard
statistical model for firearm accidents, and the benefits might outweigh the risks.

Yes; this is very wise, and its enjoyable.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The statistics reflect the fact that a high percentage of the general population
are not very good owners for various reasons (a lot of people are morons).

Interesting. The choice to keep a gun could be considered a type of intelligence test, then.

Think of it as evolution in action.

Welcome, DrewDad.

OK, let 's start with this example of the wisdom
of preparing to control predatory aggression:

There was a lady in Florida, Susan Gonzalez, who feared n detested guns.
She requested her husband not to have any guns in their house,
especially with their children there. One night, 2 criminals broke down
their front door. They entered her home, shot Mrs. Gonzalez twice,
and shot her husband as he lay harmlessly in his bed.

Franticly, she scrambled to get the OBJECT OF ABHORENCE:
her husband's 9 shot .22 caliber revolver.

She grabbed it up and killed one of the criminals.
The other fled, after she shot him too.

Altho it is possible that the criminals might have allowed
Mrs. Gonzalez’ 5 children to live (if they did not care that the
children'd complain to the police and testify against them in court)
Mrs. G was not willing to confide the lives of her children
to the discretion of the men who shot both of their parents.

This attack was STOPPED by the presence of an UNLOCKED gun
in the home. Without it, the murders of the parents and children
probably would have continued until all the children were dead.
That gun was the INSTRUMENT OF LIFE for the Gonzalez family.

After hospitalization, the Gonzalezes recovered from their wounds.
She became a public speaker in support of the right to keep and bear arms,
and takes her .38 Taurus revolver everywhere with her.
Wise is he who learns from his mistakes, but wiser is he who learns from the mistakes of others.

David

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

No, it would guarantee well armed terrorists on board.
Remember, the advantage is to the one who is ready to use the gun,
and the fastest draw in the world is the gun that is already in the hand.

If large numbers of the passengers defensively drew their handguns,
the terrorists woud be hopelessly overwhelmed.

David

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Do u deny that woud work ?
It woud be impossible for a terrorist to get control of a plane.

And how many shootings would there be?

I frequently read of passengers that had to be restrained
because they got drunk and disorderly,
or were mentally unstable and tried to open the door in flight.

Let's give 'em guns, too!

The first skyjacking to Cuba was in the 1970s,
if I remember -- a criminal trying to get away from police.

Accordingly, before then, no one was searched.
Any number of passengers carried their personal weapons
with them uneventfully -- not as u seek to describe.

In other words, the inflamatory situation that u seek
to raise never existed from 1903 when the Wright Bros.
got into business, until the 1970s. Its sad that no one shot him at the time.

If his sky jacking had failed
then it woud not have been a beacon to other violent criminals.

David

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Do u deny that woud work ?
It woud be impossible for a terrorist to get control of a plane.

And how many shootings would there be?

I frequently read of passengers that had to be restrained
because they got drunk and disorderly, or were mentally unstable
and tried to open the door in flight.

Let's give 'em guns, too!

Note that I have not recommended
that we "GIVE" anyone guns.

I just object to INTERFERING with them insofar as defensive guns are concerned.

People who have proven to be intolerably dangerous
by a history of recidivistic violence, shoud be isolated from decent society,
for many decades or permanently.

Of course, those who have committed capital crimes,
can be killed in reprisal after conviction. That will isolate them enuf.

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Did u read HELLER ?

Quote:

I did, as well as Stevens And Breyers dissenting opinions and the 2nd Amendment is seemingly held prisoner
by the majority's leanings. I know that its not over and as civilization proceeds, we shall have some sorts of limits on 2A.

WHERE did Justice Scalia go rong ?
We know what the Founders intended from their writings, which still survive.
The Founders woud accuse the NRA of being a bunch of Quislings,
giving away the store, instead of fighting against despotism.

Quote:

HELLER seems to forrget about PA's guidance from our own constitution and,
by voting HELLER the way the USSC did,
there appears to be some potential conflict (in my mind at least).

U have referred to this several times.
Will u explain what u mean about Pennsylvania ??

David

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Always being practical.
Reminds me of how to prevent airline hijackings=ARM EVERYONE ON BOARD.

Do u deny that woud work ?
It woud be impossible for a terrorist to get control of a plane.

I'm picturing a plane in flight suddenly riddled with bullet holes from hundreds of panicked passengers who saw a "creepy looking guy" with something in his hand.

Nothing like a giant pressurized flying tin can full of panicky unpredictable people for an entertaining end to a long trip.

That has never happened.
People are afraid of being prosecuted for murder.

Obviously, nothing shoud be done if no one has tried
to take over the plane.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Note that history does not record that before the advent of gun control laws
there was much trouble; bullets were not flying everywhere. Blood did flow thru the streets.

If you are going to ignore the statistics, you might as well ignore history as well.

1 Reply

Well, it's good to see that common sense and intelligence were abandoned at the outset of this thread. That would have considerably lessened the entertainment value.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Note that history does not record that before the advent of gun control laws
there was much trouble; bullets were not flying everywhere. Blood did flow thru the streets.

If you are going to ignore the statistics, you might as well ignore history as well.

I don 't believe that crime statistics were kept
from the 1790s thru until the advent of gun control in the 1900s.

Am I in error on that point ?

However, the history as passed down both in writing
and by word of mouth is not that bullets were flying
like mosquitos in a swamp.

Pre-gun control life in America was fairly quiet n peaceful, for the most part.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

How many highjackings of American planes have there been since 9/11? None, I think. How many of those none involved guns? None? Trust David to come up with a solution that's worse than the non-problem.

Its not "worse";
again, I refer your attention to the vast expanse of time
between 1903 and the 1970s hi jackings to Cuba
when searching passengers began.

However many armed passengers there were caused no trouble.

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

This would make a great movie . We could call it "FLAKES ON A PLANE"

I am saddened, perplexed and mystified
as to the reason that anyone woud wish to expose to ridicule
people who wish to be prepared to cope with an emergency.

It is as if someone scoffed at u
for choosing to carry lifepreservers on your boat.

David

0 Replies

it seems to have escaped david;s notice that if no one has a gun on a plane, then no one can use a gun to highjack the plane

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

And for every time a gun is successfully used in home defense, a gun in the home is used to murder, wound, or accidentally injure someone 20-30 times.

This isn't about heartwarming stories, David, it's about the cold, hard fact that having a gun in the home make it more likely that the people living there will kill or injure each other.

You may continue your rationalizations.

0 Replies

And may we remind you once again, David, that the number four or number five source of guns used in crimes is burglaries from homes of "ligal" gun owners. Your guns are far more likely to be used by someone else in commission of a crime than they are to be used by you in prevention of one.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

it seems to have escaped david;s notice that if no one has a gun on a plane,
then no one can use a gun to highjack the plane

It seems to have escaped Jack 's notice
that no one had any guns on any of the planes on 9/11.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

That's exactly why I think all of the post-9/11 airline "security" rules are useless.

The problem wasn't that the terrorists were so well armed, but that they did something that no other hijacker had done. Pre-9/11 the response of passengers was to sit tight and wait for rescue. Post-9/11 no group of passengers can take that chance. They'll swarm any hijackers. Jabbing them with pens, swinging cameras like flails, and using laptops as clubs.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

That's exactly why I think all of the post-9/11 airline "security" rules are useless.

The problem wasn't that the terrorists were so well armed, but that they did something that no other hijacker had done. Pre-9/11 the response of passengers was to sit tight and wait for rescue. Post-9/11 no group of passengers can take that chance. They'll swarm any hijackers. Jabbing them with pens, swinging cameras like flails, and using laptops as clubs.

Yes. That happened on United Airlines Flight 93.
Their weapon of choice was a food cart that thay used as a ram.

David

0 Replies

THE WISDOM OF ARMING IN SELF DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know