SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Pfff, you do not think even for a minute if I had a gun with me at that time the situation would have been any better, now do you? The greatest weapon you have in such a case is psychology, pure and simple. Had I tried to draw a weapon there you can bet the seriousness level would have been driven up threefold. It at least would have become way more unpredictable. Here we had a teen who only had a gun at his disposal to defend his pride.

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. 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.

He was small, weak, without that gun I just could have punched him in the face and that would have been that. One reason why I can't stand guns, because they make the greatest whimp a "strong" man. Pathethic.

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.

And the end result of a development of this kind would be that not one Marrokon, but many more would have a gun. You seem to forget that even nuclear weapons resulted not in one side backing down, but an arms race to the very end, with all the costs that involved. Also, the US does not exactly prove your predictions right.
You gotta think outside the individual sitation, Stern. Just because it may be preferrable to have more options in one situation that does not mean that it improves your or your relatives life in the long term. In fact, it may make life much more dangerous in general.

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"...

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.
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.

[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.

[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..

[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.

[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'.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

I understand you perfectly, but personally I will never accept to give up my guns because someone tells me I'm safe or because it will make my country a safer place. I know I'm fit to own and operate firearms, and as long as I have all my marbles and behave according to certain standards (i.e. frequenting gun clubs), I pose no threat at all to the rest of the society, and surely not more than the drunk driver or the average criminal. So no, I won't let the government get my guns and destroy them for their political agenda. When I was told the horror stories of what happened here in the 90s with the seizing and destruction of thousands of pistols.. man what a sad day for democracy that must have been...

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.

sorry Beo, but if short term solution means saving lives, I'll stick to owning guns. I'm not ready to become a martyr nor I would want anybody else to be one. You had a shocking experience, but don't think for a minute that gun control would actually mean you or your loved ones wouldn't live the same experience again. Even in this gun-freak-control country they regularly seize assault rifles, because criminals do not abide by the rules of our society.

This article is from 2008, but a friend that works at the London Metro told me things haven't improved at all, and that during last year's riots there was the serious fear that some police officer would have been shot in retribution, that's why many watched as the thugs destroyed the shops...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I understand you perfectly, but personally I will never accept to give up my guns because someone tells me I'm safe or because it will make my country a safer place. I know I'm fit to own and operate firearms, and as long as I have all my marbles and behave according to certain standards (i.e. frequenting gun clubs), I pose no threat at all to the rest of the society, and surely not more than the drunk driver or the average criminal. So no, I won't let the government get my guns and destroy them for their political agenda. When I was told the horror stories of what happened here in the 90s with the seizing and destruction of thousands of pistols.. man what a sad day for democracy that must have been...

sorry Beo, but if short term solution means saving lives, I'll stick to owning guns. I'm not ready to become a martyr nor I would want anybody else to be one. You had a shocking experience, but don't think for a minute that gun control would actually mean you or your loved ones wouldn't live the same experience again. Even in this gun-freak-control country they regularly seize assault rifles, because criminals do not abide by the rules of our society.

This article is from 2008, but a friend that works at the London Metro told me things haven't improved at all, and that during last year's riots there was the serious fear that some police officer would have been shot in retribution, that's why many watched as the thugs destroyed the shops...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

Now we are moving into Pathos? Sad day for democracy?

You want to safe lives by keeping up the conditions that take so many lifes to begin with? What?

You like guns? Nothing wrong with that, so do I. You want to keep them? Fine, I know decent folks who own guns. We disagree, but we disagree on other things as well. Politics and majority voting will have their say here.

But please don't come up with such desperate arguments. I nearly spilled my Apple Juice when I read that.