Volitions Advocate on 20/5/2016 at 14:55
Quote Posted by faetal
This is something I've yet to understand - since only the assailant knows there is going to be an assault up until the moment it happens (unless for whatever reason they decide to telegraph it), how does anyone ever have time to get their gun into play before the assailant?
Further to this, how does having a concealed gun do anything other than increase your chance of getting shot if you do anything other than comply? If every civilian is potentially armed, then every assailant has to be too. If the civilian makes any sudden moves, then it's safer to assume a concealed carry, open fire and run away. Doesn't everything just normalise to the default level of threat? Removing guns from that possibility surely just downgrades the default level of threat. Sure, there's still always the risk of knifepoint, but I can run from a knife.
Simple answer is, you're not a cop. So don't act like one. If you can see somebody with a gun and you know they're up to no good, you might be able to do something about it, but I think anybody who runs into a cafe or a school shooting people will always have the element of surprise. If you're lucky enough not to get shot first, maybe you can do something about it.
There is also the question of the criminals' intentions. You cannot trust them when they say they wont shoot you while they're holding a gun in your face. Home invasions don't typically end well. If a somebody tells my wife that they'll let her go after they rape her while holding a gun to her head... I don't anticipate he has any reason whatsoever to keep his word. Rape is not really an honorable pastime, so I would never expect somebody so violent not to cause harm. If you get the drop on them, and make sure they know you will shoot them if they do anything other than put their weapon down and lie on the ground, If they do anything other than exactly what you say than they are the one who made the decision. And my first comment in this post does not hold the same for you if you're the good samaritan, because they know they are criminal and you aren't.
There is a trial going on right now in Calgary where a young person killed 5 people at a house party a couple of years ago. All with a kitchen knife. Knives are scary as hell.
PigLick on 20/5/2016 at 14:57
the thing is, where is the documented evidence that having a gun has saved lives?(in a civilian scenario, not police or military) I come from a rural family background, where having a gun was fairly common, but only for the use of killing feral animals or putting down livestock that had been seriously injured, and only a single shot rifle or the like.
Volitions Advocate on 20/5/2016 at 15:25
I guess it depends on what you mean by documented evidence. Media outlets? Peer-reviewed studies? Recorded national statistics? What about the times there was no bombastic incident? A gun drawn but no shots fired, and no police involvement?
I could spend an afternoon looking around in the academic databases that I have available, but it's a small university and pickings are slim. I certainly don't pay attention to "articles" that come in my FB feed, Not from gun nuts or from the anti-gun people.
PigLick on 20/5/2016 at 15:31
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
What about the times there was no bombastic incident? A gun drawn but no shots fired, and no police involvement?
.
Well, has this ever happened? Have you or anyone you know ever defused a life-threatening situation by drawing a gun?
TheDarkOne93 on 20/5/2016 at 15:35
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
Mostly because in Canada, the AR-15 is deemed restricted no matter what length of barrel you have, It's only legal to shoot at a range. Not even legal to shoot at your buddy's ranch at some pop cans.
Honestly its' a 10" barrel because gun crap is expensive and I found it online by a guy who was selling it for cheap. (I was building my AR from parts) I wanted a 16 barrel, which would not be considered an SBR in the states, not that it makes any difference up here.
Shorter barrel = less muzzle velocity and lost accuracy. So to answer your question. It isn't really what I wanted, but it was a good deal.
SBRs here in the U.S. are restricted and have to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives having going through a background check and paying a $200 tax stamp. It is almost on par here in Texas where to get your License to Carry you have to go through the state mandated class and then pay $140 to the state and go through federal, state, and mental background checks before they send your LTC in the mail. Thankfully I got mine way before the open carry law (which I testified before the legislative committee) went into effect because now there is a backlog on applications because of the new law.
Volitions Advocate on 20/5/2016 at 15:37
With people I know or acquaintances of people I know: Only heard anecdotes. But are those less believable? I think it's an impossible thing to metric, unless we can guarantee almost total reporting. I know police who have done it. I've read peer-reviewed studies that say there is no corollary between civilian gun ownership and violent crime, and I've seen peer reviewed studies that demonstrate gun ownership is dangerous based on statistics. What viewpoint is more popular? What gets reported more? What parts are sensationalized in the media? Hollywood?
It's a complex issue with many facets. That's why I like to talk about it, rather than scream about it. And why one solution does not fit all, on either side of the debate.
Volitions Advocate on 20/5/2016 at 15:41
And I would be completely fine with going through all sorts of tests and training to be considered certified. I say heap it on. The thing about gun people is that they will do it. They want to be safe, want to be proficient, and will spend the money required. I get upset when people make assumptions about those types of people, especially when the assumers are politicians.
I've heard so many arguments against sound supressors that I can only fathom came from watching too many John Woo movies. I realize you can get one in SOME states in the USA with a $200 tax stamp. They are so illegal up here it's an automatic prison sentence. They are so "Dangerous" yet in the UK it's illegal to hunt without one. Nobody can agree on anything it seems. Even a safety device that helps you avoid hearing damage and makes you a considerate neighbour.
faetal on 20/5/2016 at 19:40
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
If you get the drop on them, and make sure they know you will shoot them if they do anything other than put their weapon down and lie on the ground...
So ignoring everything else which addresses none of what I said and going back to my original point - at which point does it become statistically likely that you'll get the drop on the person who
planned the situation you're in, to your complete ignorance until it's already in motion?
Volitions Advocate on 20/5/2016 at 19:52
I already addressed that question. the answer is, you don't. You're not a cop. Police investigate, single people out, and arrest them. Or otherwise somehow preempt the situation if they can. A CCW holder doesn't do those things. If they can, they do something about it, all factors considered, in all likelihood AFTER the aggressor starts whatever he or she is doing. It's not a perfect scenario, nothing ever is. Seeking to have a perfect model of some scenario or another is a fools errand. Considering all of those factors is what the training is for, trying to be prepared for anything. Any sane person would agree that the day you get into a gunfight is a bad day regardless of the outcome. I already said, even the most statistically insignificant situation is not a good enough reason to write off a persons life. Statistics be damned, every situation is a singularity.
I was addressing Piglick and you both in those posts.
I am not okay with being a fraction of a percent that gets harmed because it only happens a fraction of a percent of the time. I don't think that mentality makes me a fetishist.
To be clear. If I were told that tomorrow I could CCW, I wouldn't do it just because I could. I would get more training. I would pay to learn from the experts.
Phatose on 20/5/2016 at 20:22
I'm curious - if you're not okay with being harmed because it only happens a fraction of the time, shouldn't you also be not okay with it when the faction of a percent being spoken of is trained gun owners acting in defense and missing, causing harm to bystanders?
