June 4th, 2009 09:11 AM
Other view points.... long
So I am a member of another online community that has an off topic forum page....
This post was made and I found it truly interesting to try and understand the logic behind the OP and others. The thread is 5+ pages long... so I'll abbreviate where I can. OP I would guess is a European white male age 18-25. Sorry if this is long... I found it very interesting. If its too much my apologies. BTW I was surprised at a strong pro gun response.
response 1-semi pro gun
this is in response to a post by diceman in another topic in which he implies that training people to use guns and bringing more of them onto the street will somehow make things safer for people.
First things first. lets anylize the situation.
Caroline is walking down the street and jeff218 appears out of nowhere holding an ARMED AND LOADED GUN AIMED DIRECTLY AT caroline and demands that she hand over her handbag.
Caroline has 2 choices here, she can comply, hand over the bag and jeff218 dissapears.
she can make the stupid choice by TRYING to pull her gun out, and in the process before her hand has even reached the place where her gun is concealed, she gets shot and killed by jeff and he takes her bag anyway.
What is the point of this scenario?
being trained to use a gun and carrying one around because you have been taught when a situation calls for it, caroline has an incredibly false sense of security and not only insures that she gets shot but dies as well.
point is, if you get mugged at gunpoint, no matter how much training you have in regards how to use a gun and when a situation calls for its use, you are at a disadvantage because unless you are some kind of super ninja with lightning fast reflexs you will die if you make any sudden moves.
I'd also like to point out that most people go into a state of shock and panic when a gun is pointed at them causing some of them to make rash decisions. Which not only puts their life in jeopardy but others as well, because assuming they were able to pull their gun, they will wind up in a western style shootup with bullets flying everywhere and potentially hitting any passers by.
That may well be an extreme example but u get the point
I will simplify it further
Is $50 in you wallet, really worth your life and potentially other peoples as well?
Response 2- anti gun European age 20ish
Almost everything is essential in moderation. I agree that for the most part carrying a gun around on the street is wholly unnecessary unless you need to be protecting something such as an extremely large amount of money or other valuables. In that instance however, you would be wise to give yourself the added security of others or trained professionals.
I used to have a different view about this issue but have seen the points of fire arms as defense weapons.
I would feel a lot safer knowing that there was at least 1 person in a room who was responsible and trained in hand gun use. Think of that guy that busted into a church and started shooting people. He was taken down by a woman that carried a hand gun in her purse. Had she not been there, the situation could have been a lot worse resulting in more injuries and deaths. He was bent on killing and there was no escaping the necessity to take extreme actions.
I bet that woman had wished that she never needed to use her gun, but has to feel better that she had the knowledge and the tools to defuse the situation.
It's better to have the knowledge and not need it than to need the knowledge and not have it.
Diceman- guy who evidently made a comment that started the thread...
if there weren't guns in the first place.... the crazy dude wouldn't have a gun to do such crazy stuff thus no1 would need guns to defend themselves...
all guns can do is defend you from other ******* guns. guns SUCK!!!
people make mistakes .... guns can make their mistakes much much worse.
It is a direct deterent to crime to know that anyone could be armed. I specifically said they should be well trained too because often when this issue is argued those pro control will argue minority possibilities without considering the greater picture.
In the scenario of someone robbing you, with a gun, pointing at you, no one in the entire world whatever side of the argument would claim your best move is to reach into your purse to pull out your little snubbie.
Here are a couple things to mull over. Firstly, where CCW (concealed carry weapons licensing) is allowed, crime is lower - in areas of heavy gun control crime is higher, much higher. Secondly, i think here in the UK we have proven banning guns doesnt stop criminals getting guns.
For the record im pretty anti gun. Id happily ban the entire existence of hand guns if i could, but im also a realist who has come to realise you cannot wish up a dream world and there will always be bad guys and there will always be guns. Id rather have more guns in the hands of good guys so that when someone walks into a restaurant and tries to rob it, he is alone and of the 20 customers a significant proportion are waiting for the right chance to shoot him.
As a fun scene to consider, in Pulp Fiction when Hunny Bunny and Pumpkin rob the restaurant they did so because its a soft target (compared to liquor stores where the owners were armed) and they were entirely neutralised when two people had guns in the restaurant. This, once you remove the hollywood glamour, is pretty realistic. Criminals dont want to get into shoot outs and as the percent chance of the victim being armed increases so does the chance of them deciding to prey on that victim decrease.
Jjtphila very anti guy
I can see the argument for having more guns in the belief it will have a stalemate effect by detering people from robbing you if they know u can be potentially armed.
Howver dont u think that will force an aspiring house burglar for example to become alot more sneakier, what I mean is, actually plan the robberry for example follow and survey you, determin if you have any sort of daily routine and then wait for the "oppotune moment"(yes that is a reference to pirates of the carribean)
thereby rendering having the gun to begin with pointless, unless u have it cleverly hidden, u have just given another weapon to a dangerous criminal which of course can be used on u should you come home while he is there and not be quick enough to pull out another weapon to use assuming he sees u first.
Jaconda smart girl
i despise everything about guns
having a gun is asking for trouble, if i have to feel more secure by owning a gun for protection then i'm doing something wrong in my life
how to live life without a gun = don't get into sketchy situations
these are my opinions and sleep very well in my home with a 14 lb. dog who is our watch dog that is so damn cute a robber would just walk out of house feeling guilty
Actually, yes, I would rather he rob my house while I'm not there than while I'm home defenseless without a weapon. As a young woman who is often home alone (and has once had the house broken into while I was home), there are few things scarier than the idea of someone breaking into my house to steal stuff while I'm home and potentially getting other ideas because he sees me there. If me having a gun would mean that he breaks in and steals stuff while I'm away, that is a far superior scenario.
Jaconda smart girl
i have faith in the human race that unless i provoke someone in trying to kill me they wouldn't just want to aimlessly kill me...if they want some material possession and they have a gun it's my opinion the likelihood of a gun being used goes down dramatically if i don't have one
i honestly don't like to talk about this subject and realize everyone is going to have their own opinions and was silly to think i could sway someone into thinking not to own a gun..i'm done with the subject as i am secure in my own thinking with guns..i literally get an empty feeling in my gut thinking about guns
i just know my kid is going to be taught if he see's or knows of a gun no matter what the situation, get out as quickly as possible
The simple fact is that the U.S. has a higher firearm death rate than any other developed country in the world, in most cases much higher. Underlying that fact is that those other countries have stricter gun control laws than the U.S.
For the Americans in the audience, if you believe this is unacceptable, then it's your right to lobby your congressman and/or senator, vote for pro gun control candidates, and join gun control advocacy groups. If these facts dont convince you to give up your constitutional right to bear arms, then you should be free to do so under the law until the People decide otherwise.
If you have a fervent opinion on either side of the issue, you should yell it from the roof top as that too is your right as a U.S. citizen.
someone suggests martial arts are the way to go
Jtphila, the problem is that if we outlaw guns only the bad guys will HAVE guns. Just because there is a correlation in other countries does not mean that it will apply retroactively to America.
And learning a martial art, to whoever said that, is just a horrible suggestion for the vast majority of people as a real means of self defense, especially women. As someone who did karate very seriously for many years, let me tell you that a)even serious, trained reflexes often fly out the window in a real attack situation. b) For most people, a gun allows them to keep distance from the attacker and not have to close with them to begin with, instead of trying to grapple with an attacker.
A small woman, no matter how well trained, is at a massive disadvantage vs the vast majority of relatively fit men in any kind of physical confrontation, and telling her that she's safer by learning a martial art than by having a firearm that, simply by pointing, she can keep the attacker from getting within 10 feet of her to begin with is just ludicrous.
Don't point a gun at someone if you're not willing to pull the trigger, and don't point a gun at someone if all they want is stuff. But if someone wants to actually attack you, I fail to see any way whatsoever that a gun is going to make you LESS safe unless you're the kind of idiot that'll pull the gun, point it, and let the attacker walk right up to you slowly and grab the gun away.
Sorry, I don't care what martial art you choose, a few years of training once or twice a week will not make an average woman able to beat up an average man. The size and strength difference is just too big. A single blow will disorient most women, especially those not used to REALLY taking a blow (and believe me, the level of martial arts instruction you're talking about that most people would be able to devote time/energy to will NOT teach you to take a real blow, to the face or any other body part). One hit to the face and you're done. On the other hand, the woman will very rarely have the physical strength to disorient her male opponent the same way.
You can call karate lame all you want, I don't really care, but I do know a decent amount about physical fighting and how it affects you. The amount of training required for a woman to be able to have a solid chance of taking on even an average sized man is not an amount that is reasonable for your average person to get. It may be good for your self confidence (which can deter crime on the street - don't look like a victim and all that), and it's certainly great exercise, but it's not really useful in a fight. Among other things it's damn near impossible to get it to be sufficiently reflexive even if you have the physical strength necessary.
Much as I hate it, a man will win a physical fight with a woman 90% of the time. Even with a modest amount of training on the woman's part. Men are bigger, stronger, and more resilient physically, and 10 years of self defense classes once or twice a week won't change that. You'll just end up with a really pissed off guy with a broken nose who now has something extra to beat you for.
A gun would let you stay 20 feet away and back out of your house (or back HIM out of your house). On the street your best bet is to scream and run like hell, hoping he won't want to chase a screaming woman in public. Fighting is just a stupid option.
hmmm.....not a very good reflection on a society if a women feels she has to carry a weapon in order to feel safe while taking a stroll in the park.
Fairly naive to think there are no bad guys in the world. And it’s fairly naive to think that a bad guy only wants the $50 in a person's wallet.
I carry b/c it is my right. The insightful folks who understood tyranny a lot better than me who founded the great nation I live in, felt it an important enough issue to guarantee my right to posses.
I carry b/c I don't care about $50 in my wallet but I do care about my life, my family’s safety, and my ability to defend them.
I carry b/c an armed society is truly a civil society.
I respectfully submit, that regardless of how you "feel" about this issue, it is not your place to impose your kumbaya feelings on a matter that may have life or death significance to me and my family.
It's not the law abiding folks who carry legally you need to worry about. Restricting them is not going to restrict criminals from doing what they do.
You do realize that those insightful folks are dead and times have changed a little bit since that document was written? No longer are the British a threat to invade us, there is no Mexican American War, nor is there a Civil War. You don't live in the projects. You don't "need" a gun.
Anti Constitution guy
Tell that to the family of a man in my community who lost his life this past winter when a man broke into his store, stole the money in his cash register and shot him... two days before Christmas. Instead of opening presents on Christmas morning his wife, his children, and his family were deprived of their husband, father, son, brother, and friend. Two days after Christmas though they did get to go to his funeral.
It is not the law abiding citizen that needs to be restricted in gun ownership. It is not the law abiding citizen that you need to worry about using a gun in an irresponsible manner. It is the person who intends to do harm that you need to worry about and you need to be able to protect yourself from that person.
So again I respectfully disagree with you and your position. And I would encourage you to make comments that are a little more logical than the one about where I may or may not live.
Yes those folks are dead and gone, but the need to defend yourself is still as pertinent today as it has ever been.
And in regards to the armed society/civil society.... when I am carrying I make a point to avoid confrontation. I do not want to be anywhere near a situation that could escalate. I carry for defense and most law abiding people who do carry understand that sentiment.
So you think that if he had a gun he would not be dead? Because the robber was stupid enough to walk in with the gun out and not check to see if the guy behind the counter might have had a gun... maybe he had the gun over his shoulder perusing the magazine rack before he decided "hmm... i wonder if i can get money from the register?" Sorry kid but I doubt it, most times the clerks having a gun induces MORE violence than if he just put his hands up and said "take it man, i don't give a ****." So while I feel bad for their losses I don't think that everyone having a gun makes things right, there are deeper rooted problems that need to be addressed in our society and owning a gun does not change these things. Also your theory about the founding fathers allowing us to have guns does hold up to a certain extent, I highly doubt that 200 years later the same rules apply, just as the Bible does not apply nowadays do some of the Constitution hold up. Next up, blacks back to 3/5 of a person!! What % shall we make Mexicans? canadians are easily 1/10,000 of a person.
anti constitution guy
do you have something other than your personal opinion to support your theory that a clerk with a weapon induces more violence? There are, however, numbers of accounts of armed clerks turning away the violence initiated by the criminal. Criminals tend to look for a quick easy target and not resistance.
The store owner was trying to comply with the murderer by giving him the money in the register. Per the Police report and the murderer’s own account he never tried to resist the robbery.
But regardless… he or anyone should have the right to defend themselves. I carry for the defense of my life and my family's life. Not the defense of my property.
I do not understand your logic of the US Constitution. It is the law in our society if you disagree with it and times change then it can be modified, as was the 3/5 compromise. So that point imo is fairly moot. The fact that you cite a perfect example of a clause in the Constitution that was flawed and was superseded by a later amendment undercuts your argument that the document is archaic and out of touch with modern society. The very ability of this document to adapt underscores its relevance today.
The really great and amazing thing about freedom.. you can choose to not own or touch a firearm ever. And I can choose to own and carry so long as I don't infringe upon your rights.
I remember reading about but of course google keyword search is not going to give me the study I'm looking for very easily. Obviously, robbers are going to look for easy targets but once you walk in a place with the intention of robbing it you're not going to know whether it's easy or not until your almost into that situation. Also they tend to be skittish so if it even looks close to you reaching for something they are going to shoot first, not care later as they are already committing a felony so tacking on a murder charge is w/e.
My argument is that just because something was written a long time ago it is not necessarily true today, like the fact that everyone should bear firearms, it's nice, i'm not opposed to it for a legitimate reason but there shouldn't be uzi's and ak-47's and **** on our streets. There should also be a little more stringent methods of obtaining weapons as it's obviously far too easy to obtain weapons illegally. Also the Constitution is NOT as easily mended as you would love to think it is as pretty much all but 2 amendments after 1920 are pretty "no-brainer" type things.
And I can choose to own and carry so long as I don't infringe upon your rights.
And there are a lot of people who don't give a s&*t (edit) about your rights, and therein lies the problem.
Finally something we agree upon. Therein does lie the problem and that is the very reason our individual rights need to be defended. Therein is the very reason the US Constitution is such a vitally important document.
You say the people who wrote the US Constitution are no longer relevant in a modern society and that the crisis they faced has no correlation to the world in which we live today.
I say they understood the absolute necessity of freedom. They did understand a Government that saw the people as its subjects and not a government subject to its people. They understood how vital individual liberty is to a free society. They understood a government’s role should be to protect these rights and freedoms. A government’s role is not to be a paternalistic entity.
Granted they did not understand how that philosophy should be applied to all people. They were constrained by a society that was tainted with racism and sexism and many other ism's. I make no argument they were perfect nor is the document they created perfect. But the pursuit of their ideal of freedom and liberty for all people is what makes the Constitution essential. Freedom and individual rights belong to us... Freedom cannot be given or granted by a Government. A Government does not posses our freedom to give or take. It can only do so through the usurpation of freedoms and subjugation of individual liberties.
Personally I do care very deeply about your freedom and your rights. I trust you as a human being to be able to make decisions that are in your best interest and I trust you to live your life in a way that best suites you. I do not wish to impose my views on you or make you live your life a certain way. As long as you live your life in a way that does not infringe upon my rights then live and let live.
whew sorry this was long. I just find it very interesting to understand where people come from and the logic behind what they believe.
June 4th, 2009 09:30 AM
Well done, you did your best to state a pro-2A postion to those that either oppose or who don't understand the constitution. As with many liberals, it was all opinion with little research to back it up. Its too bad that this exchange did little to change the opinion of those whose stand in the way of our rights.
By BrunetteMP in forum Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments
Last Post: March 6th, 2010, 01:54 AM
By ClosetCaseNerd in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: September 22nd, 2007, 09:53 AM
By Lochinver in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: August 24th, 2006, 01:19 PM
By RidemCowboy in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: December 6th, 2005, 02:35 PM
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors