Shug on 22/2/2009 at 20:14
Can we get any input from people that have actually used a gun in self-defence?
Might take the attention off embarrassing statements like how practicing a martial art is just because you want to hurt people
Starrfall on 22/2/2009 at 20:18
Quote Posted by Vivian
People still get robbed in the US, right?
People get robbed in the UK too but I bet there are more stories of victims successfully defending themselves with guns in the US than there are in the UK.
But there are also probably more stories of victims getting killed because they tried to defend themselves with guns in the US so I'm not sure this gets us anywhere actually.
edit: if someone is trained to use guns in self defense, believes they are capable of defending themselves with a gun, and feels safer having a gun for the purposes of self defense why shouldn't they be able to?
june gloom on 22/2/2009 at 20:24
jesus christ what the hell happened did a claw shrimp get loose in here
Chimpy Chompy on 22/2/2009 at 20:46
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Anyways what I'm on about is that when you start talking in terms of "hiding a piece of military fucking killing hardware" you just sound hysterical and it's kind of hard to take any of your other points seriously.
I could just as easily say the "ehhh it's just a tool" attitude is too silly to take seriously. Is your kinda arms-folded harrumph "i see no good reason" any better than the "hysteria" you accuse viv of?
Big cultural differences at work, I guess.
I don't really claim to know any answers tho. Guns for home defense is great, and the mental image of scumbags running in terror for their lives pleases me. But does that just push the criminals to get armed themselves? Is the concept of deterrent going to work so well if they're desperate?
Rifles and shotguns are one thing, but a handgun seems a weapon for someone who doesn't want their armed status known. ie, someone who's up to something criminal.
Does gun ownership maybe make nice areas safer and bad areas worse? Is that an improvement?
Starrfall on 22/2/2009 at 21:04
my apologies i was forgetting how utterly unreasonable it is for me to ask them to provide reasons for the position i understand them to be arguing
Nameless Voice on 22/2/2009 at 21:12
Quote Posted by Starrfall
People get robbed in the UK too but I bet there are more stories of victims successfully defending themselves with guns in the US than there are in the UK.
But there are also probably more stories of victims getting killed because they tried to defend themselves with guns in the US so I'm not sure this gets us anywhere actually.
edit: if someone is trained to use guns in self defense, believes they are capable of defending themselves with a gun, and feels safer having a gun for the purposes of self defense why shouldn't they be able to?
What about stories of 'victims' shooting relatively harmless criminals in 'self defence' over minor issues - is someone trying to steal a little bit of money or a mobile phone justification for their 'victim' to kill them in cold blood for?
Starrfall on 22/2/2009 at 21:17
Well, using anything other than reasonable force in self-defense is already not allowed so I don't see where you're going with that one.
If you want to say that some "castle laws" are too protective I won't disagree.
Chimpy Chompy on 22/2/2009 at 21:17
Quote Posted by Starrfall
my apologies i was forgetting how utterly unreasonable it is for me to ask them to provide reasons for the position i understand them to be arguing
Isn't that what's been going on for the past few pages?
Starrfall on 22/2/2009 at 21:20
No the last few pages have been about whether or not it's silly to say "piece of military fucking killing hardware" instead of "gun"
Muzman on 22/2/2009 at 21:22
Quote Posted by Starrfall
if someone is trained to use guns in self defense, believes they are capable of defending themselves with a gun, and feels safer having a gun for the purposes of self defense why shouldn't they be able to?
We have people like this. They're called off duty police officers.
That's not entirely entirely snark. It is fairly reasonable, but also falls a good deal short of a right to bear arms wouldn't you say? (perhaps beside the point, but tends to loom large over any discussion like this).
Alternatively; what about if his/her inability to possess such a thing is a direct result of everyone else having a really hard time getting them. Thus generally reducing the risk of projectile weapon fire, changing the rules of engagement and cheering people like the cops up no end. Is John/Joan Q Minuteman's inconvenience not worth it?
Doesn't sound like much but I can point to a few places where it sure seems to work pretty well.
(Not saying legally mirroring such places would necessarily make any difference. I think we're simpatico on this being an irreconcilable culture clash and why discussions don't get all that far. Still, good for laugh now and then).
(also, Weed tag please, k thnx)
