Firearms are for sporting and hunting

[BStrong]

It seemed to be a pretty rough neighbourhood when the woman and her children immediately fled to a crawlspace because someone rang their doorbell.

In my neighbourhood, I feel safe answering the door. I have no expectation that the person ringing the doorbell intends to do me harm, and I feel no need to run for the crawlspace when it happens. Apparently this woman fears the doorbell so much that her immediate response is to run and hide, rather than to answer the door.

This suggests that either she is living in a very rough neighbourhood, or there is more to the situation than we are being told. Was she perhaps expecting a person intent on harm to come visiting? I can't think of any other circumstance where a simple ring on the doorbell would send me fleeing. The fact that the intruder pursued her to the crawlspace rather than just grabbing the TV and running suggests that he had intentions other than simple theft.

I once bought a home in a neighborhood where when a cop found out where I lived he shook my hand, wished me luck and asked me out of the side of his mouth "you carry, right?"

I'll acknowledge that your neighborhood is as you describe.

You need to acknowledge that your perception of U.S. crime isn't improved by distance or bias.

I'm still interested in hearing your opinion on an anti-2nd Amendment group coming up with a figure of 240+ defensive gun uses per day, over a three year period.

You've thrown the yellow card on pro-2nd numbers, how about the antis?

ETA: All the more reason for him to assume room temperature.

 

[Noztradamus]

One of the cool things about guns is that they can make any sort of tense situation a lot more interesting.

I dunno, I think arthwollipot's program match of an average sized woman with a baseball bat against a large man with a crowbar would be exceptionally interesting.

 

[BStrong]

I dunno, I think arthwollipot's program match of an average sized woman with a baseball bat against a large man with a crowbar would be exceptionally interesting.

In a gladiator sense, maybe.

I just can't get over how many folks that haven't ever faced a high stress situation involving violence can determine with crystal clarity what some other (unknown to them) person could have/should have done in a violent encounter.

My policy otj was at least to wait for all the evidence and interviews to be on my desk before I started writing the summary on an OI incident, but that's just me.

The other thing, is that I know some folks that if they were confronted by someone with bad intent, armed and up close, they'd have a hell of a chance of surviving, even unarmed, but those folks (including some women) are few and far between, and no, at this age and in my health I am for sure not one of them. If I ran into a bad situation my choices would be few, and street fighting or running is out of the question.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm still interested in hearing your opinion on an anti-2nd Amendment group coming up with a figure of 240+ defensive gun uses per day, over a three year period.

You've thrown the yellow card on pro-2nd numbers, how about the antis?

They came up with a figure of, what, 88k per year? I'd say that absolutely agrees with, supports, and confirms my statement that the gun advocates' claims of millions per year is vastly overestimated.

 

[arthwollipot]

I dunno, I think arthwollipot's program match of an average sized woman with a baseball bat against a large man with a crowbar would be exceptionally interesting.

Where the hell do you get off attributing such a hypothetical to me? That's your scenario, not mine.

Stop making **** up and attributing it to me, or I'll put you in the "pants on fire" camp along with whatsisface.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post

I dunno, I think arthwollipot's program match of an average sized woman with a baseball bat against a large man with a crowbar would be exceptionally interesting.

Where the hell do you get off attributing such a hypothetical to me? That's your scenario, not mine.

Stop making **** up and attributing it to me, or I'll put you in the "pants on fire" camp along with whatsisface.

Sugar drawers, you were the one who posted

Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hiding With Her Children

The man allegedly broke into the house and rummaged around before making his way to the crawl space, where he found the mother and children hiding.

"The perpetrator opens that door, and of course at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman to WSB-TV.

Melinda Herman shot the intruder five times, hitting him in the face and neck. Chapman said she told the man if he moved she would shoot him again, although she had run out of bullets.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/story?id=18164812

That is an example of firearms being used for self-defence. Was it necessary to use the firearm? Could she not have defended ]her home and family with a baseball bat instead? Or maybe a better lock on her door? Any other nonlethal method could have been used. There are literally dozens. But no, she had a gun. And when you have a gun, everything looks like a target.

And who, when hearing someone ring the doorbell, immediately goes and hides in the attic? What if it was, say, a travelling salesperson? If they live in an area where every ring on the doorbell was an armed attacker intent on doing them harm, then there are social and economic problems in that neighbourhood far beyond mere gun ownership, and they ought to be addressed first.

....

Now, unlike your imagined scenario, it took me just two minutes find what your laservision has still not detected: That the woman "panicked" , not because he rang her doorbell, but because after ringing, went away and returned with a *********** CROWBAR.

So how do you think? "she only needed a baseball bat would turn out."

As a second think, explain how taking the gun out of the picture would have helped her?

 

[arthwollipot]

Sugar drawers, you were the one who posted



Now, unlike your imagined scenario, it took me just two minutes find what your laservision has still not detected: That the woman "panicked" , not because he rang her doorbell, but because after ringing, went away and returned with a *********** CROWBAR.

So how do you think? "she only needed a baseball bat would turn out."

As a second think, explain how taking the gun out of the picture would have helped her?

Well, once again, I must take responsibility for drawing the discussion down an obviously nonproductive path - that of arguing about what she could or should have done in that one specific scenario, about which we have not been given all of the information.

In fact, I'm not going to talk about that one very specific situation at all, since it's done and gone and unable to be changed. I wasn't the one who initially brought it up, after all, though I did choose to make a comment on it at the time. I respectfully withdraw from that conversation. We all are very well aware that it is utterly pointless to continue it.

I will instead continue to talk about the economic and social issues around the use of firearms, and repeat my agreement with the title of the thread - firearms are indeed for sporting and hunting.

What is your opinion on the idea of the use of firearms for armed uprising?

 

[theprestige]

If the uprising is legitimate, then it's legitimate to use firearms for the purpose.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Trump or Hilary will be your president. I think you know what to do Murrica.

 

[arthwollipot]

If the uprising is legitimate, then it's legitimate to use firearms for the purpose.

What makes an uprising "legitimate"? Who decides?

I'll tell you who decides. The people who are rising up will always say that it's legitimate. Those against whom they are rising say it's not legitimate. That's kind of the definition of an uprising. Hence, with your logic, the people who are rising up will always say that their use of firearms is justified.

 

[theprestige]

Trump or Hilary will be your president. I think you know what to do Murrica.

Get a hunting license and bag the seasonal limit of the game animal of your choice?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Get a hunting license and bag the seasonal limit of the game animal of your choice?

Seems legit.

 

[arthwollipot]

Get a hunting license and bag the seasonal limit of the game animal of your choice?

A perfectly valid use of a firearm. Unless all you want is "trophies". Killing animals solely for the thrill of killing them is not a valid use of a firearm, in my opinion.

Though I guess it's marginally less heinous than shooting humans.

 

[Jules Galen]

This wouldn't seem to be putting words in anyone's mouth.... Not even remotely necessary?

Just in the case in discussion, you have a single woman, with young children, being confronted by a male individual armed at least with a crowbar.

Of course there are times when less-than-lethal weapons will suffice. I carry a bunch of them. But I'm highly trained, and I have backup as well...Not only on my person but in the form of other officers.
The civilian cannot count on this....There's no "continuum of force with civilians as there is with us.. The civilian cannot be expected to have available a variety of tools with which to address various kinds of threats.

Oh, and burglars ring the doorbell all the time, and knock, and even call if they have the number... They don't want a confrontation for the most part.
But if confronted, if lines of escape or blocked or the individual is on drugs or just has a violent disposition.... Things can get dicey.
We recently had a case where a woman "walked in" on a pair of burglars who were looting her home. She was shot dead. We had another case within the last year where home invaders forced their way in to an elderly couple's home and demanded money. They had heard the old man had money on the property. They held the wife while the old guy went for the cash. The old guy was a WWII veteran and returned with an M-1 rifle and killed both of the robbers. Both the couple would likely have been killed otherwise, that's fairly typical with home-invasion cases.

I believe these are the kinds of situations that "Self-Defense" training should concentrate on helping people avoid. However, while there are some programs that do this and bill themselves as "Self-Defense Programs (and good for them), the majority of "Self-Defense programs I've seen are based on the use of violence to get people out of bad situations (i.e., Karate, Krav Maga, Gunsite....etc..).

The overall philosophy that seems to be sold by most self-defense programs is that what is effective for cops and soldiers is also best for the citizen....and nothing could be further from the truth. Even with what little I know about self-defense for the common citizen, I could easily work up a 3-day seminar that mainly covered self-defense topics and applications that aren't even touched upon by he vast majority of self-defense programs. And I think what I would have to say would be ten times more effective than any (violence based) self-defense system currently taught now. And none of it would involve violence: no hits, no punches, no strikes, no use of mace or guns, etc...

Of course, many people who go for the Self-Defense mythos really wouldn't give a damn about what I've got to say - even though I could prove it effective. What they care about is not self defense...but "Fear Management". Somewhere along the line, someone has made these people feel helpless and they resent it...so there way of solving the problem is not to make sure it doesn't happen, or to resolve it without fighting, but to have the bleeding corpse of their advesary at their feet in a moment of blazing self righteousness (or such seems to be the fantasy). And with these fantacizers it's all Black/White, non-nuanced thinking. For example, I had a guy tell me that my thoughts on non-violent self defense were wrong because on very rare occassions I carried a pistol. OK...so on very rare occasions I carry a pistol...so what? Sometimes there are some people - psycopaths - that can't be bargained with or avoided (should you choose to go to that area)...no matter what.

If you want to know - know for sure - whether someone is a "self-defense fantacizer" as oppossed to someone who really knows a little self defense, then ask him who is the most dangerous type of person he is bound to meet on the street and why that is so. Really...the question totally exposes a person as being sensible - or some idiot day dreamer.

In closing, I share with you a video of the awesome techniques of Krav Maga disarms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4S-7gH6xqI

 

[Bikewer]

Unfortunately, many people, very likely a majority of people, give very little thought to these things since on averages, the actual incidence of crime is quite low.
Folks go blithely about their business, paying little attention to what's going on around them, and spending very little of their mental energy on "situational awareness".

Our kids get robbed at a relatively constant rate. We tell them, constantly, not to do this, and not to do that, and to avoid this situation and that....
But they are young and invincible and busy with their studies and so they ignore all those warnings. They walk alone down dark alleys, half-drunk, headphones in place.....

With my first deparment, burglary was the # 1 crime problem in the county. I probably handled at least dozens and perhaps hundreds of cases in my 10 years. The number of people who made any effort at all towards home security was very small. Modern tract homes are ridiculously easy to break into. The contractor will use the cheapest possible security hardware and it all comes down to the homeowner to try to make the residence secure.
I don't see this improving anytime soon.... Again, the actual incidence of crime is quite low and the chances of being victimized are low.

However, one of my favorite quotes still stands... "You don't need a gun very often, but when you do, you need one really bad."

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... But I really do want to unpack the "armed revolt" question. Do you legitimately think that you might need to engage in armed revolt during your lifetime?

Armed revolt against tyranny, legit. How to define tyranny, that's the problem. One thing it is not is having a minority opinion under majority rule, providing there are free elections, and there is a real, practical possibility of acting freely to persuade others. So tyranny isn't taxes, or regulations, or social programs, or big government.

The problem today is that this is not understood, quite the opposite: freedom is understood as "me and mine getting our way, and not a penny for the commons, unless it, too, is reserved to and for us alone. Anything else is damn tyranny." Deeper, there is the idea that others are the other, so persuasion among equals is not even a goal (cf current election cycle).

 

[Jules Galen]

Unfortunately, many people, very likely a majority of people, give very little thought to these things since on averages, the actual incidence of crime is quite low.
Folks go blithely about their business, paying little attention to what's going on around them, and spending very little of their mental energy on "situational awareness".
Our kids get robbed at a relatively constant rate. We tell them, constantly, not to do this, and not to do that, and to avoid this situation and that....
But they are young and invincible and busy with their studies and so they ignore all those warnings. They walk alone down dark alleys, half-drunk, headphones in place.....

With my first deparment, burglary was the # 1 crime problem in the county. I probably handled at least dozens and perhaps hundreds of cases in my 10 years. The number of people who made any effort at all towards home security was very small. Modern tract homes are ridiculously easy to break into. The contractor will use the cheapest possible security hardware and it all comes down to the homeowner to try to make the residence secure.
I don't see this improving anytime soon.... Again, the actual incidence of crime is quite low and the chances of being victimized are low.

However, one of my favorite quotes still stands... "You don't need a gun very often, but when you do, you need one really bad."

This is true. Somehow, folks get so inured to bad behavoir (the #1 pre-assault indicator) that they should be concerned with and by that time...it's too late.

Here's a classic. A guy gets randomly sucker-punched in Brooklyn by a real 2-bit miscreant. What is so bad is that the guy ignored the danger signs that were there long before he got whacked. namely, he ignored the rudeness of the attacker and his friends and this gave them the opportunity to position easily themselves to commit the crime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcXSN-PiAHc

The video starts out with people walking down a sidewalk - a very WIDE sidewalk. But the miscreant and his thug buddies can not walk to the right like everyone else - they choose to walk on the left-hand side thus limiting everyone else's options. This action - this act of effectively limiting the sidewalk for everyone else in Brooklyn is a blatant public display of inconsideration and disrespect: the kind of thinking so associated with violent people.

Had I been that in that poor victim's shoes, I would not have denied for a millisecond that I was walking into the midst of arses - most likely dangerous arses - and I would have moved over very quickly. But...like I said, people get inured to bad behavoir like this and forget to view it as an indicator of something much worse.

 

[Cain]

Unfortunately, many people, very likely a majority of people, give very little thought to these things since on averages, the actual incidence of crime is quite low.
Folks go blithely about their business, paying little attention to what's going on around them, and spending very little of their mental energy on "situational awareness".

Our kids get robbed at a relatively constant rate. We tell them, constantly, not to do this, and not to do that, and to avoid this situation and that....
But they are young and invincible and busy with their studies and so they ignore all those warnings. They walk alone down dark alleys, half-drunk, headphones in place.....

With my first deparment, burglary was the # 1 crime problem in the county. I probably handled at least dozens and perhaps hundreds of cases in my 10 years. The number of people who made any effort at all towards home security was very small. Modern tract homes are ridiculously easy to break into. The contractor will use the cheapest possible security hardware and it all comes down to the homeowner to try to make the residence secure.
I don't see this improving anytime soon.... Again, the actual incidence of crime is quite low and the chances of being victimized are low.

However, one of my favorite quotes still stands... "You don't need a gun very often, but when you do, you need one really bad."

Statistically speaking, if someone is going to victimize you, it will be a complete stranger, and he'll be out for blood! Better to have a gun and not need it, then need a gun and not have it. You have a God-given right to use lethal force in your home to protect your iPad.

 

[BStrong]

They came up with a figure of, what, 88k per year? I'd say that absolutely agrees with, supports, and confirms my statement that the gun advocates' claims of millions per year is vastly overestimated.

So the 240+ instances of DGU then have what significance for you?

You've made it very clear you disapprove of the use of firearms in self defense, but specifically cited the use of a baseball bat.

In your pov, is a bad actor injured or killed by a would be victim somehow less of a issue if done by an impact weapon instead of a firearm?

More individuals are killed in criminal acts with blunt objects (impact weapons) per year than rifles

https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

Does that figure into your pov at all?

 

[Cain]

One of the cool things about guns is that, unlike children, you can never have too many of them. As an added bonus, you don't need to pretend you love all of your guns equally.