THE WISDOM OF ARMING IN SELF DEFENSE

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The only real difference is that my lottery ticket is not likely to go off and kill someone by mistake; nor is it likely to be stolen and used to kill someone else.

But your car is more likely to than his gun, so that should lower your horse.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The only real difference is that my lottery ticket is not likely to go off and kill someone by mistake; nor is it likely to be stolen and used to kill someone else.

But your car is more likely to than his gun, so that should lower your horse.

Good thing I don't own a car, then. I'm the ultimate in safety!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@mm25075,

mm25075 wrote:

Quote:

I don't need a gun to defend myself.

Thay are HELPFUL.
That 's the reason that soldiers, Marines, and police use them.
Its better HAVE a gun and NOT NEED it,
than it is to NEED a gun and NOT HAVE it.
That can be very embarrassing.

mm25075 wrote:

Quote:

I think guns provide people with a false sense of security
where they may otherwise put themselves in a position
of needing/depending on it when there may be
other less deadly [???] means of defense.

Less deadly = LESS good; less effective.
"Less deadly" = Bad Guy lives; Good Guy (but not smart guy) is slaughtered, at the discretion of the Bad Guy.

mm25075 wrote:

Quote:

For example, keys placed between your fingers and your hand in
a fist can do a heck of a lot of damage to someone's eyes, throat
or other sensitive area.

With all respect:
that is TERRIBLE reasoning, in that it requires close-in fighting.
U coud even get sliced up with a knife.

Your safety requires that u STOP him
at a good distance from u. Stopping power counts for a lot.
For that purpose, after research, I recommend
a .44 caliber revolver loaded with .44 special hollowpointed slugs.
U shoud practice, practice and practice with it for proficiency.

Not only that, but:
if u leave Bad Guy alive, with
". . . a heck of a lot of damage to someone's eyes, throat
or other sensitive area" he may very well SUE u civilly,
and tell lies against u in court. (Not all Bad Guys r honest.)
Even assuming that u WIN all civil and criminal litigation against u:
it will probably cost u many $1000s in legal fees.

mm25075 wrote:

Quote:

But frankly better self defense includes
not allowing yourself to be put in a position where you might
need to protect yourself in the first place.

I re-iterate:
see Susan Gonzalez story set forth hereinbefore.
She was minding her own business at home when
2 criminals violently broke in and shot her 2ice.
Was SHE guilty of:
"not allowing yourself to be put in a position
where you might need to protect yourself in the first place" ???

Will u tell me that ?

David

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

The first 3 pages of Google results for "Accidental Home Shooting" yielded exactly 2 hits that didn't involve spouses, teenagers, or children. This indicates there are serious problems involving living with other persons, especially spouses, teenagers, and children. That being the case, I am not going to qualify the question by age, criminal record, or firearms training and experience.

If you come up with something better, let me know and we will look at the other side of the question, including neighborhood demographics.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Good thing I don't own a car, then. I'm the ultimate in safety!

I should have listened to that voice in my head, that said (and I swear it gave me pause before I posted) "he's a Bay Area hippy! He already said he bikes to work and may not have a car."

But the point stands, even if you don't have a car yourself. Roger having a gun is less of a danger to society than so much that nobody gets uptight about.

I'd rather Roger have a gun than let pretty much any teenager drive, for example.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Sometime, I should tell you all about the altercation my bicycle got into with a car, and why I quit commuting after three weeks in the hospital. Not a ding, not a scratch on the bike, you'll be happy to know, but we did wipe out a windshield and mirror. Novara Randonee is a tough little piece of hardward. Probably shouldn't be allowed on the same streets with those flimsey little cars.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Good thing I don't own a car, then. I'm the ultimate in safety!

I should have listened to that voice in my head, that said (and I swear it gave me pause before I posted) "he's a Bay Area hippy! He already said he bikes to work and may not have a car."

But the point stands, even if you don't have a car yourself. Roger having a gun is less of a danger to society than so much that nobody gets uptight about.

I'd rather Roger have a gun than let pretty much any teenager drive, for example.

Well, it's not like we're that far apart; after all, I own and keep rifles in my house. I just don't pretend that they are not dangerous.

I agree with you, however, re: the danger of cars; People take these massive Bullets for granted, when there really should be a much more stringent test for driving rights.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Sometime, I should tell you all about the altercation my bicycle got into with a car, and why I quit commuting after three weeks in the hospital. Not a ding, not a scratch on the bike, you'll be happy to know, but we did wipe out a windshield and mirror. Novara Randonee is a tough little piece of hardward. Probably shouldn't be allowed on the same streets with those flimsey little cars.

What do we do when we fall off the horse?

We Get Back Up!

Never too late to mount up again, my friend.

The last altercation I had with a car, was a dent my fist left in the front left quarter panel of a Lexus SUV. Apparently they make those things out of tin foil, I was shocked my punch was so effective.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it's not like we're that far apart; after all, I own and keep rifles in my house. I just don't pretend that they are not dangerous.

Who's pretending they aren't dangerous? If they aren't dangerous they wouldn't have them. It's pretty much the whole point.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I got back up. Two months later, with the aid of a small stepladder. Fractures of the pelvis definately slow you down.

0 Replies

Its a good idea for everyone who has access to your firearms
to receive competent training qua how to use properly them.

David

0 Replies

Stated most elementarily the question presented
by a predatory event is:
who will bring the most power to bear
upon the situation, thereby controlling it: the predator or the victim ?

I 'm rooting for the victim, the innocent guy.
As a matter of practical effect: DrewDad wants to help the Bad Guy, by disarming his victim.

David

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

But your car is more likely to than his gun, so that should lower your horse.

I don't pretend that driving my car makes me safer than staying at home, though.

Further, that's a red herring. The discussion isn't about whether guns are safer than cars; the discussion is about whether being armed actually increases one's safety.

I do agree that a single person with a gun in the house is a very different prospect from a gun in a family residence.

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

Here's a website that let's you look at the top 20 causes of death in various age groups.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

Somehow I doubt many of those injuries were from home invasions....

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Whoever has access to the gun
shoud take proficiency lessons.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

solid advice, dave.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Its fun, too, Rocky

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

As a matter of practical effect: DrewDad wants to help the Bad Guy, by disarming his victim.

As a matter of practical effect, you are in favor of arming the bad guy. Because family members are more at risk of having the gun turned on them.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

In the interest of avoiding being a nasty spot in more than one thread at a time, I'll say that I agree with both sides to a point.

folks not good with a gun have zero business having them handy. kids and guns don't mix. and I don't want dave as the spokesperson for gun ownership.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
As a matter of practical effect: DrewDad wants to help the Bad Guy, by disarming his victim.

As a matter of practical effect, you are in favor of arming the bad guy.
Because family members are more at risk of having the gun turned on them.

That 's ridiculous,
but I do admit that u have the responsibility
of blasting him before he can disarm u and of
using a weapon with adequate STOPPING POWER.

David

0 Replies

THE WISDOM OF ARMING IN SELF DEFENSE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know