SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

So pepper spray doesn't work? I work with these sprays and used it several times. The effect is immediate.
If the criminal is drugged and the spray does not affect him, well, then a bullet in a non vital area won't stop him either. That's were we come to skill again. Most people won't be able to hit a vital area under stress and in the dark. So I disagree when you say that less lethal weapons are less protection.

NOWHERE did I say pepper spray doesn't work. I said that it is not always effective.

If you truly work with such sprays then you are surely aware of the many cases where they have not stopped an attacker. A simple google search will turn up many.

You must also be aware of the many cases where police officers have been incapacitated by their own sprays. A situation that would amplified HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN A ROOM.

It is obviously true that a single hit may fail to cause an attacker to cease his criminal behavior, however, only an idiot fires a single shot in a life or death situation and then takes time to evaluate an attacker's state before firing again. Mozambique is the way to go.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

An other problem is, that many people will also shoot criminals who "just" want to steal money in their houses.

The above is the most overused and asinine statement possible in this argument. Prisons are FULL of murderers who, "didn't mean to hurt anyone". The INNOCENT people they killed are still just as dead. I could care less why anyone breaks into my house. They make that CHOICE at their own risk.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

That's a problem. I can imagine that a scared person who doesn't have training, will fire at every person which is not supposed to be in his house.

I will certainly be scared and I will certainly try to kill EVERYONE who is not supposed to be in my house.

Once again, THEY CHOSE TO BE THERE AND THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE RISK.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Also there is a great chance of shooting because of the stress. You know the problem: finger on the trigger and before you know it the gun fires. Especially single action pistols with a light trigger pull.

That will always be the case, but, only the most expensive handguns have really light trigger pulls without additional trigger work. IMO, it's a minimal risk.

Originally Posted by JG4_Helofly

Imo a gun is a to complicated system for an untrained individual. And therefore dangerous for him and others.

I disagree. When it comes to defensive use in your home it's not very complicated at all.

You have spoken in ridiculously vague generalities throughout your posts but I would like you to answer my question...

Why should I, individually, be forced to die because, in general, strict gun control would result in fewer gun deaths?

Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED when three individuals forced me to use a firearm defensively. The fact that NONE of the 3 attackers had a firearm would not have saved myself, the 3 year old child, or her mother THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE I HAD A HANDGUN.


--Outlaw.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The first thing you're taught when handling a firearm is that you don't have to draw it out at any given occasion, if you do is only because you need to use it.

IF you are taught to begin with. That means you have been part of a shooters club, are a hunter, working with the police or have another special reason for having training. But we are talking free gun ownership here, with every redneck able to go to the gun store here.

You dealt with a small thug, plain and simple, and the only thing you could have done is disarm him (Krav Maga is one of the finest forms of self defence for this), and as much as he might have felt strong behind his gun (provided it was real), you did the right thing.
The point is that if he had the doubt that you, your friends or anybody around you could have been armed, he would have thought twice before drawing his gun out.
Only fools and thugs draw pistols out to attack, good guys always use them in defence.

Certainly I did the right thing, it is not that there were a lot of alternatives. I am not the backing down kinda guy, especially when people try to force me into anything.

But no, I do not buy your theory. If that were so, gun crime in the US would not be as high as it is. Or in any other country with high gun crime. Reality just does not support your point. All it does is making people more agressive and tense in general.

that is true, but it's also true that there are weaker people like women and elderly that could benefit from the "strength" of a gun. You understand what I mean? I don't think it's nice, but either you play the card of denial and accept that the violent society might strike you at some point, or you cope with it and give yourself a chance.

Stern, can you really imagine an old lady pulling a gun and pull the trigger? Do you even want to imagine it being nessecary that an old lady has to carry a gun in the first place? I have a completly different image of the eldery and I myself intend to carry some sweets to give away instead of a gun, that is a given (and that the mental image coming up with this immidiatly connects with pedophiles is another sad marker for society these days).

I know, it still remains though that the coward had a mean of being superior to you, and if he was on drugs or had nothing to lose you could have died there and then, and there's no trial, death penalty or apology that would resuscitate you. In Italy we say "It's better to have a bad trial than a good funeral"...

He was the exception, however. That happend only once in my life and I dealt with all kind of people since then. And I like that to stay that exception.

I am not talking the concrete situation here. That means, yes, I may find myself in a situation that would cause me to wish I had a gun. And yes, it also means close friends, relatives, maybe even future children could be killed.
But chances for that, at least over here, are lower then the chance to die in a car crash.
If everybody has a gun, then I "might" be able to defend myself, but chances to get into the situation in the first place rise expotentially with that. This means you get into a state of mind of constant siege.
I mean I am not putting on a full body kevlar vest for fear of being hit by a car, either. And I doubt you are.

I live in a society that prohibits the ownership of most handguns, but this doesn't make me feel any safer, gangs and thugs are more aggressive here, and in two different situations I had to thank my Krav Maga training (once in London and once in Liverpool).
People tend to avoid bothering me cos I'm quite a big bloke, but it happened that three or four black teens came at me with a knife demanding my wallet and watch. In a way you're right, psychology is very important (they're often more scared than you). I simply said "oh is that all you have? You're gonna need something bigger with me mate"...
I dunno where it came out from, probably because my brain was confident enough to assess the situation and know I would have got away with the situation if the S**t hit the fan.

That probably works more often then folks might realize. You hit it here, these guys are more scared then you are. Espeically when they appear in groups it's often some bravery ritual. Just give them a bit of confidence and their world crumbles. Just supports my theory that gun advocados (obviously not you) actually have an Ego problem if they think they can't deal with these situation the old fashioned way.

The first time (in London) the guy actually came too close for comfort, and I disarmed him (his arm made a horrible snapping sound when I twisted it), the second time (in Liverpool, it was 3 white druggies), they simply turned around and fled..

I didn't need a gun and had I had one I wouldn't have pulled it out, because the situation didn't require it, that's the difference.

And I compliment you for acting this way. What also makes me wonder that you feel the need to carry a gun in the first place.

All that said, I will repeat what I said earlier. When you have to face somebody serious with a gun, you hardly will have the possebility nor the time to get your own. These folks shoot first and ask for money later. There won't be a high noon like situation.

When old ladies need a gun in their daily lives, I think we can agree that this is a society that has already sunken into the drain.

Guns won't make guns redundant. They quanify. And that means bigger chances a gun will find it's way into the wrong hands.

Guns are there for killing. When you have a gun, then it is quite obviousy that you are ready and willing to kill. I yet have to find the point in time when this became a positive attitude to have in the first place.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

The above is the most overused and asinine statement possible in this argument. Prisons are FULL of murderers who, "didn't mean to hurt anyone". The INNOCENT people they killed are still just as dead. I could care less why anyone breaks into my house. They make that CHOICE at their own risk.

--Outlaw.

And you know what? I actually believe them that they didn't want to hurt others.
Do not misunderstand me, this does not excuse what they do, they deserve punishment.
After that you can become all emotional, sophisticated ape style, raging about guilt and how they deserve their fate and all the usual rightousness. Its modern fashion to be that simplistic, I would not blame you.

Or you can try to be a bit more rational, you know, that bit of brain capability that once used to differ us from the common animal, even against emotions, and ask yourself why these ppl became murderers despite their stated intentions. And once you developed a clue, you could try to make people aware of the circumstances involving the issue and thus not improve the lives of the people surrounding you, but actually give those people enough perspective to get some real goals in life. Ppl with a goal won't go killing.

This is not about nandy pansy nanny understanding, this simply is about putting away your stomach for a moment.

The latter once was an upheld virtue of western societies and culture. That intellectual decline has a lot to do with the decline of the west in general.

[Sternjaeger II]

Beo, my friend, I suppose the point of disagreement is that you see only the negative aspects of gun ownership, whilst I'm trying to demonstrate that there are indeed positive aspects to it, and often they're the one that can solve a situation against all odds (or be useful for other things like hunting).

In reply to the question whether an elderly woman could defend herself:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/very...ome-intruder/#

and there are many other cases of old men too. A .38 is an ideal gun with little recoil and extremely portable, and I believe that yes, some societies are rotten and decaying enough to justify the carry of a firearm.

I am lucky enough to have an alternative, and I'm always avoiding confrontation, it's not in my nature and I only snap when I'm attacked, but this is me, other people might not have the skills or simply the capacity to physically or semantically defend themselves, this doesn't mean that they don't have less of a right to defend themselves by means of an object that can balance things in their favour if need be.

Again the solution is to be found in the education and values of society, but you'll be waiting a loooong time before this is sorted out.

I have legally carried concealed weapons whilst still in Italy because of my job and it didn't make me less worried or more confident, it was just a necessity to respond to a threat in an adequate manner, but it didn't change the fact that carrying a Glock in my jacket didn't make me bulletproof.

I agree, there are a lot of people that should stay well far from firearms, because they're a VERY serious thing to deal with, but it's also true that there should be some sort of balance and adequate ways to allow everybody to defend themselves. Maybe Tasers or similar devices could offer an adequate non-lethal alternative (because in the end of the day nobody really likes to kill someone, no matter how good or bad that person is).
So don't get me wrong, I'm not for the "a gun for all" policy, but I'm not gonna sit down and watch our government disarm us so they can control us better, whilst they cannot provide us all with adequate protection from crime..

[JG4_Helofly]

@ outlaw For your, taking a life doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is in your house: fire at will. What do you make of all the people who died because of the use of a gun in a defensiv situation? I am talking about unarmed burglars, people standing near by etc.
You can't just kill anything that might want to attack you. I don't know the law in the US, but here your life must really be treatened in order to use deadly force.

For the pepper spray I learned that there is a small percentage of people who are not affected by it. That's true, but as I said, hitting a target in a high stress situation without training, will have no effect if you miss. I saw people shooting 10 rounds at a static target in training situations without any round in a vital spot. Remember the FBI statistic. And what if the attacker manages to take your gun from you and shoot you with it? Especially in close quarter (like a house) a gun is not the best option.

As for your question, I can only say this. I didn't advocate the interdiction of guns. But as I wrote earlier: using a gun for defense is not the way to go for many reasons I mentionned before. It will ony result in more death.

You must be a very scared man. Maybe you should think about the fact that you have a greater chance to die in a car accident then to get shot.

As you see we won't agree on this topic. So let just agree to disagree.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Beo, my friend, I suppose the point of disagreement is that you see only the negative aspects of gun ownership, whilst I'm trying to demonstrate that there are indeed positive aspects to it, and often they're the one that can solve a situation against all odds (or be useful for other things like hunting).

In reply to the question whether an elderly woman could defend herself:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/very...ome-intruder/#

and there are many other cases of old men too. A .38 is an ideal gun with little recoil and extremely portable, and I believe that yes, some societies are rotten and decaying enough to justify the carry of a firearm.

I am lucky enough to have an alternative, and I'm always avoiding confrontation, it's not in my nature and I only snap when I'm attacked, but this is me, other people might not have the skills or simply the capacity to physically or semantically defend themselves, this doesn't mean that they don't have less of a right to defend themselves by means of an object that can balance things in their favour if need be.

Again the solution is to be found in the education and values of society, but you'll be waiting a loooong time before this is sorted out.

I have legally carried concealed weapons whilst still in Italy because of my job and it didn't make me less worried or more confident, it was just a necessity to respond to a threat in an adequate manner, but it didn't change the fact that carrying a Glock in my jacket didn't make me bulletproof.

I agree, there are a lot of people that should stay well far from firearms, because they're a VERY serious thing to deal with, but it's also true that there should be some sort of balance and adequate ways to allow everybody to defend themselves. Maybe Tasers or similar devices could offer an adequate non-lethal alternative (because in the end of the day nobody really likes to kill someone, no matter how good or bad that person is).
So don't get me wrong, I'm not for the "a gun for all" policy, but I'm not gonna sit down and watch our government disarm us so they can control us better, whilst they cannot provide us all with adequate protection from crime..

Sometimes it is frustrating to argue with you, Stern. It is as if you intentionally misunderstand me.

What I am argueing about is not the individual situation. I actually agree, in many ways a gun, in the modern world, helps out in certain situations. Though I think it is quite obvious even here that people overestimate their ability to actually use a gun when it "really" counts. It is much more about "feeling" safe, not about actually being so.

However, my big problem here really is that those situations arise in the first place.
And all immidiate situation solutions you laid down are counter productive to longterm solutions.
You prefer the quick fix over the, argueably more beneficial, long term perspective.
I am not so sure that this has proven a good course of action in any category over history.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

NOWHERE did I say pepper spray doesn't work. I said that it is not always effective.

If you truly work with such sprays then you are surely aware of the many cases where they have not stopped an attacker. A simple google search will turn up many.

You must also be aware of the many cases where police officers have been incapacitated by their own sprays. A situation that would amplified HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN A ROOM.

It is obviously true that a single hit may fail to cause an attacker to cease his criminal behavior, however, only an idiot fires a single shot in a life or death situation and then takes time to evaluate an attacker's state before firing again. Mozambique is the way to go.



The above is the most overused and asinine statement possible in this argument. Prisons are FULL of murderers who, "didn't mean to hurt anyone". The INNOCENT people they killed are still just as dead. I could care less why anyone breaks into my house. They make that CHOICE at their own risk.




I will certainly be scared and I will certainly try to kill EVERYONE who is not supposed to be in my house.

Once again, THEY CHOSE TO BE THERE AND THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE RISK.



That will always be the case, but, only the most expensive handguns have really light trigger pulls without additional trigger work. IMO, it's a minimal risk.



I disagree. When it comes to defensive use in your home it's not very complicated at all.

You have spoken in ridiculously vague generalities throughout your posts but I would like you to answer my question...

Why should I, individually, be forced to die because, in general, strict gun control would result in fewer gun deaths?

Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED when three individuals forced me to use a firearm defensively. The fact that NONE of the 3 attackers had a firearm would not have saved myself, the 3 year old child, or her mother THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE I HAD A HANDGUN.


--Outlaw.

I'd love to see you trialed for second degree murder in such a case, cause that is exactly what you would commit. Killing someone who poses no imminent threat to your life, while you are under control of the situation with your gun drawn and intent to kill.

[BH_woodstock]

i am a well armed hippy.i own several firearms and i used to avg around 10-20 hours a week shooting until it got to expensive.i can even do bullet art."most" gun owners are trained early in life the rights and the wrongs of handling a fire arm.i have guns dating back to the 1700's and have been an avid collector for 30 years.Those who choose to do wrong eventually pay for their crimes in the end and if a responsible gun owner is present during a crime you can be assured they will do what needs to be done to protect an innocent life.I know i would.

I am a 'Peacefull Warrior'.

[nearmiss]

Is there any dictatorship in the world that allows it's citizens the right to own and bear arms legally?

Wouldn't you say there is a direct correlation with the right to legally own a gun and despotic government?

Mexico has gun control and the Drug cartels have killed over 50,000 citizens in the past six years. Maybe this is an extreme situation, but who knows how things can escalate out of control when people have no enforcement power to protect themselves.

------------------------

Note: There are some you that have posted personal attacks. You need to go back and edit or delete your inflammatory postings or you may receive infractions or ban.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Is there any dictatorship in the world that allows it's citizens the right to own and bear arms legally?

Wouldn't you say there is a direct correlation with the right to legally own a gun and despotic government?

Mexico has gun control and the Drug cartels have killed over 50,000 citizens in the past six years. Maybe this is an extreme situation, but who knows how things can escalate out of control when people have no enforcement power to protect themselves.

------------------------

Note: There are some you that have posted personal attacks. You need to go back and edit or delete your inflammatory postings or you may receive infractions or ban.

The Nazis did not have a lot of problems with private firearms. In fact, hunting and shooting clubs came to new heights during the Nazi era. Gun banning laws were only introduced after the war.

What you fail to realize is that Dictatorshhips develop out of the midst of a society, its hardly ever fringe groups forcing their will on the majority of people.

I also did not see a rise of the american people when the Patriot act came into being, argueably the largest assault on basic rights in the US ever. This is how dictatoships develop, quitely, with hardly anybody noticing at first and with a lot of initial support.

So can that argument.