Do you believe in guns?

[KenpoTex]

I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole. You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital.

Example, if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense.

Dude, you are throwing out a lot of questionable statements without providing any evidence to back them up...

Can you show us any instances where using deadly force against someone who was actively trying to committ rape resulted in a conviction of the actor?
Yes, our legal system is completely screwed up and criminals who should be executed are released after only a few years. That does NOT mean that we are not allowed to use any and all means to protect ourselves.

Deadly force is justified to prevent death or serious physical harm...I'm sure the ladies on the forum will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd consider rape to be pretty ****ing serious.

 

[Wishbone]

I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole. You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital.

Example, if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense.

How about this example:

I come home from work. I hear a scuffle coming from the bedroom. I go in there and find my girlfriend naked, being raped by a guy just as big John Coffey from the Green Mile. Only this one isn't really nice on the inside, he's a sick man imposing his will on my girlfriend. Well, she didn't own any guns because she's a 4th degree black belt in martial arts, so obviously she would be able to defend herself against anyone. Unfortunately, size is a factor in combat, and skills aren't going to overcome this attacker.

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore. I look around and see no weapon. Well, this guy is bare handed, I better not use my firearm, I might go to jail. I go hands on with this guy, he incapacitates me, rapes my girlfriend while I watch. Rapes me while she watches, kills us both.

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore. I look around and see no weapon. Well, this guy is bare handed, I better not use my firearm. I go hands on with him, he pulls out a knife and stabs me to death before finishing my girlfriend.

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore. I look around and see a gun. However, with the time it took for me to see that gun I lost the element of surprise and he saw me. As I start to draw my weapon he already has his pointed at me and shoots me.

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore. I pull out my firearm and shoot, with fast well place shots that take him down immediately.

Enter me, stage right.

I see this guy ravaging my girlfriend who looks to be in shock and isn't even 'there' anymore. I pull out my firearm and shoot. However, this guy is high on PCP and the initial shots do nothing. We have a fight as I continue to unload the magazine into him. This fight can end with him still killing me, running off or other ways.

The reason I mention that last one is because all of us people who carry guns for self-defense realize that they do not dictate that we will win everytime. Sometimes no matter what equalizer you have, the odds are too great against you. You just have to hope that you've trained enough to overcome most and that the ones you can't you avoid through luck or knowing where not to go.

The other point, which I hope you realized on your own through those examples, is that you don't have the luxury of time to figure out if someone has a better or equal weapon on themselves. In this thread you earlier advocated carrying a knife, because somehow you think that will be less likely to get you in trouble in front of a jury than a gun. That is mistaken in scenarios when both are used for self-defense. But everyone may be carrying a knife, and they are easily concealable, guns are easily concealable. So when faced with an adversary who is trying to hurt you or take something from you, you do not have the time to think what kind of weapons they may or may not have. You have split-seconds to get your mind past "Oh **** I'm in trouble" into "I'm walking away from this situation okay, and this guy may or may not".

Regarding your sarcastic comment - good luck with that defense. Remember that our juries are composed of our peers. Those peers are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters. Rape is just as heinous a crime as murder, depending on the circumstances of both, you can argue rape is more heinous. I would like to think that my peers would not fault me for being a good, tax-paying, law-abiding citizen who protected his family from a terrible fate. Maybe they wouldn't, but like Thesemindz, I will take that chance. If I see anyone, relative, friend or stranger, being raped, my first though is going to be fear for their life and mind, because even though a commonly used statistic is 2% of reported rapes end in murder, that 2% is enough to make me afraid.

I personally think you need to study more self-defense rather than arguing with people here because your line of thought, regarding use of knives versus firearms, and further how a violent conflict would occur (this is a conclusion of mine based on the fact that you seem to think that people would be able to discern exactly what weapons their attacker had based on your unarmed attacker comment) shows immaturity in a martial arts based lifestyle. You said you're a CJ major, haven't you taken classes yet where you see the brutality of violent conflict and how hectic it is?

Edited to add:

Of course the best case scenario of mine listed above is that my girlfriend knew how to use firearms too and when the would-be-rapist entered her home she lit him up starting with the mid-section and zippered to the brain. As we have the castle doctrine in Missouri she wouldn't have to worry about if he was 'bare-handed' or not.

 

[Glycerine0160]

Well elaborated. Well, honestly, for me it was a discussion. I was only playing devils advocate because for me, it is the best way to learn. The only reason I made that comment is cause I got some sarcasm from a previous poster but also of this one case involving the use of deadly force. Two burglars were robbing some guys house and he came out and stabbed one to death as they were fleeing out the window. The guy who stabbed that man to death received murder charges. It has been my perception that the CJ system does not view rape as atrociously as they should. That was just my induction of why I feel if you use "lethal force", I would imagine you will be fighting charges of murder.

Regardless, this thread has definitely changed my perspective on gun control and I no longer stand in the middle.

 

[Big Don]

Having seen first hand, how quickly and, by the way, nonviolently, a loaded and aimed firearm can diffuse a potentially bad situation, I certainly believe in guns.
IMO, aiming at the bad guy until he goes away isn't violence.

 

[tellner]

I agree with most of what you're trying to say, Don. A gun makes an excellent deterrent. But pointing a gun at someone is violence. It is a very simple statement "Do what I say or you will die." It's the threat of overwhelming, uncorrectable, immediate, deadly violence.

A gun isn't an evil magical talisman that turns men into monsters. Nor is it the Righteous Sword of the Lord. It's a machine tool which is designed to propel a small lead pellet at high speed for the purpose of causing death or serious injury. It has no will, no volition, no affection, no hatred, no capacity for good or evil. All of that and the character of the person on either end of it is a matter for human judgment.

 

[Sifu Chambers]

Yes, I believe in guns...all types. Well, I am a TEXAN.

 

[Sifu Chambers]

If guns were outlawed then only oulaws would have guns!

 

[Sifu Chambers]

I agree with most of what you're trying to say, Don. A gun makes an excellent deterrent. But pointing a gun at someone is violence. It is a very simple statement "Do what I say or you will die." It's the threat of overwhelming, uncorrectable, immediate, deadly violence.

A gun isn't an evil magical talisman that turns men into monsters. Nor is it the Righteous Sword of the Lord. It's a machine tool which is designed to propel a small lead pellet at high speed for the purpose of causing death or serious injury. It has no will, no volition, no affection, no hatred, no capacity for good or evil. All of that and the character of the person on either end of it is a matter for human judgment.

So when you use a pencil to write an essay and you get a failing grade, then it is the pencils fault?

 

[Touch Of Death]

Someone in another thread recently posted that he didn't "believe in guns."

So I have a question for those of you who don't "believe in guns."

Do you believe in self defense? Do you believe that people have any inherent right, seperate from the privileges granted them by their local authorities, to defend their lives against unwelcome aggression? Does anyone have the right to use violence to defend themselves under any circumstances at all? Is there any situation that you can think of where an innocent person has the right to defend themselves?

Since I'm asking, I do believe that people have the right to use violence to defend themselves. I believe that includes using whatever tools you have at hand, whether they are your hands, knives, a hammer, a baseball bat, or a firearm. I believe that if someone decides to do violence against me or my loved ones unprovoked, they forfeit their right to security. They buy the violence I will do in defense, and I feel no compunction or guilt over the consequences of their actions.

I mean this as a serious question. I'm not trying to set you up. I'm not trying to belittle you. I have my own opinion, I'm curious what yours is.


-Rob

I believe guns exist, but do they exist under your bed or on your person?
Sean

 

[Bruno@MT]

Yes, and no.

Guns exist. They can be observed. So from a theological point of view, there is not uch to discuss
The self defense aspect is more complex than that. I do believe that guns can be used for self defense. However, does make make the long term problems worse or not? In the US, it is a safe bet that many people have guns. Therefore criminals prepare themselves for armed people. And as a result, violence gets worse and people start to need guns as equalizer.

Now take Canada. Gun ownership is restricted. Yet for all that, they have much less gun (and other) violence than the US. So clearly it is possible to have a peaceful civilization without guns.

Then take switzerland. Most households have guns, but there are very strict rules about how ammo and guns should be stored, and what you can and cannot do with them. The 2nd amendment proponents like to point at switzerland as an example, but really the swiss rules would probably have them crying for revolution.

Then take the UK. gun ownership is very restricted. People have started using knives and the UK has an eer growing problem with knife violence with daily stabbings.

So I think it is safe to conclude that judging by the numbers in general, guns don't make a society safer or less safe, and they don't increase your personal safety. It depends on locality.

 

[Master Dan]

Yes absolutely!

But within the law and the right gun for the right purpose. Here we have real problems with Grizzly Bears that can atack with out warning from brush and while the official gun promoted by the feds and fish and game is a 12 guage mag with slugs caught off guard with any rifel on your shoulder you will not have a chance to fire on an animal charging from 50 feet.

For animals I like max power and max noise. The Smith and Wesson 500 or really 50 cal pistol 500 grain loads is the only tested hand gun that has penetrated a bull elephant skull 27 inches. In a quick draw shoulder holster you can react in time devestate anything in your path. They sell it in a self defense orange case with 2 1/2 inch barrel which I do not recomend the recoil I still have a scar from the first firing the 4 inch with fire suppression is much more acurate and you can control the recoil. Note most dogs they here this or any other mag gun they just turn and walk away.

For peopel close in grapling our quick take down I like a snub nose 38 revolver they don't jamb you use as an extension of your hand hit and shoot pick your spot depending on what is needed also I use self defense loads with phosporus does not matter where you hit burns but stops them right now. For longer distance acuracy counts and and I like red dot sites and something that you can be acurate under duress.

Note: Don't carry anything you do not intend to use? If you choke the atacker will take what ever weopon you have and use it on you. Armed Kid, thugs, criminals do not have any hesitation in using them. Alaska allows you to carry any hand gun concealed with out a permit except to a bar or school or womens shelter few others?

 

[Master Dan]

Dude, you are throwing out a lot of questionable statements without providing any evidence to back them up...

Can you show us any instances where using deadly force against someone who was actively trying to committ rape resulted in a conviction of the actor?
Yes, our legal system is completely screwed up and criminals who should be executed are released after only a few years. That does NOT mean that we are not allowed to use any and all means to protect ourselves.

Deadly force is justified to prevent death or serious physical harm...I'm sure the ladies on the forum will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd consider rape to be pretty ****ing serious.

Id like to point out that any atack depending on your health and age can be considerd life threatening from resulting injuries so deadly force is justified but sadly the elderly unless really practiced and commited mentally will likely just wind up arming the offender a big dog or two big dogs I can't say enough about just really give women and elders an edge and if needed the time to mentally decide to use the gun if needed. I think if you review FBI and other stats there is littel if ever successfull atacks that a good dog was present at home. Only preplaned atacks which included provisions for killing or getting rid of the dog. Also alarms and signage average criminal will pick somebody else

 

[Master Dan]

Trouble with these gun free homes is, when something goes down, and an emergency happens, in the middle of the night, the first thing they do is call 911 and all those people come over in a hurry, with all those GUNS. What is worse, is the turn the other cheek deal, when you run out of cheeks who do you call,

“bingo” someone with fresh cheeks and a “gun”. I feel bad for all the pacifist that don’t believe in violence’s but have no problem with someone else handling their problems. The meek will inherit the earth, but those darn people with guns, will have to see to it, that they can keep it. I’m a morning person, so I’m always good for a rant when it’s this early. Hold on, I hear a noise, me and rosco are going to check it out.........

Good post! but again peopel need to be trained and ready physically and mentally to actually use what they have or they just arm the bad guys with thier gun? Seniors are really a target in our society today and 911 by the time they get thier will be calling for homicide detectives. It time for people to band together to protect each other. Our older generations should not be living alone but with family or in protected communities. Large Dogs Large Dogs and alarms and post signs you will be shot and please what good is any weopon in a gun cabinet or triger lock your dead or raped by the time you get it out? Yes keep from kids know who is in your house and lock up as needed but depending on where I lived Id have my gun under my pilow? locked doors mean nothing rot iron your windows and secure doors.

Pacifist feed the criminal animals and they know worst case they get three meals and somebody to do thier laundry for life while you and yours are maimed and killed. why do we waste time and taxpayers money on these demons. We need to kill them all let God sort em out!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sukerkin]

So when you use a pencil to write an essay and you get a failing grade, then it is the pencils fault?

I think you misread Tellner, Sifu - he actually said the reverse of that i.e. that the choices in the use to which a firearm is put are not made by the gun but by the person.

 

[Bruno@MT]

For animals I like max power and max noise. The Smith and Wesson 500 or really 50 cal pistol 500 grain loads is the only tested hand gun that has penetrated a bull elephant skull 27 inches.

Got many bull elephants in Alaska?

 

[Bruno@MT]

We need to kill them all let God sort em out!!!!!!!!![/B]

You do realize that this phrase was used to justify indiscriminate killing, right? It had nothing to do with killing people who 'deserved it' but with killing everyone who happened to be in sight, on the assumption that if you killed everyone, then the persons you were looking for would be among them.

IIRC, a high level clergyman uttered these words after one of his soldiers asked how they could distinguish the couple hundred heretics from the twenty thousand other civilians at beziers.

Sometimes it helps to think before writing.
As an additional bonus It makes your writings more readable and coherent.
And while punctuation is subject to cultural influences, having 9 exclamation marks is a bit over the top.
Some would argue that five exclamation marks or more, is the sure sign of an insane mind. It's like saying: I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really mean it.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I don't believe in guns. I believe in my skills. For instance, I believe I am a pretty good shot when I need to be...

 

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

You do realize that this phrase was used to justify indiscriminate killing, right? It had nothing to do with killing people who 'deserved it' but with killing everyone who happened to be in sight, on the assumption that if you killed everyone, then the persons you were looking for would be among them.

IIRC, a high level clergyman uttered these words after one of his soldiers asked how they could distinguish the couple hundred heretics from the twenty thousand other civilians at beziers.

Sometimes it helps to think before writing.
As an additional bonus It makes your writings more readable and coherent.
And while punctuation is subject to cultural influences, having 9 exclamation marks is a bit over the top.
Some would argue that five exclamation marks or more, is the sure sign of an insane mind. It's like saying: I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really mean it.

He told the Soldier "God knows his own." meaning the heritics will burn in the fire and then in Hell, the faithfull will burn in the fire but go to heaven.

Kill'em All and Let God sort it out comes from Vietnam and is imortalised by T-shirts from Soldier of Fortune Magizine.

 

[elder999]

He told the Soldier "God knows his own." meaning the heritics will burn in the fire and then in Hell, the faithfull will burn in the fire but go to heaven.

Kill'em All and Let God sort it out comes from Vietnam and is imortalised by T-shirts from Soldier of Fortune Magizine.

Actually, the exact quote is Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius or Kill them all. God surely knows them that are his . It was Arnaud Almaric, Cistercian monk and adviser to the Albignesian crusade in 1204.

The one is pretty commonly believed to lead to the other.

 

[Master Dan]

You do realize that this phrase was used to justify indiscriminate killing, right? It had nothing to do with killing people who 'deserved it' but with killing everyone who happened to be in sight, on the assumption that if you killed everyone, then the persons you were looking for would be among them.

IIRC, a high level clergyman uttered these words after one of his soldiers asked how they could distinguish the couple hundred heretics from the twenty thousand other civilians at beziers.

Sometimes it helps to think before writing.
As an additional bonus It makes your writings more readable and coherent.
And while punctuation is subject to cultural influences, having 9 exclamation marks is a bit over the top.
Some would argue that five exclamation marks or more, is the sure sign of an insane mind. It's like saying: I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really mean it.

no one is promoting the indiscriminate killing of inocents, Insane? what is insane is that people like sheep will be led to slaughter like a group letting one man tie them up and kill them or worse after these sicafants kill and rape and torture children and women our society spends millions on protecting thier rights. We need to kill them quickly but in a horible manner so the other preditors will think before doing it themselves. Criminals know they can act and put off being caught or even punished for as long as they are clever. a few !!! is nothing compared of to pacifist drible which when trust me when put to the knife they call for someone with a gun or someone to put thier own lives on the line except for dumb few that allow thier whole family to be slaughterd.

And by the way the guy who asked if there are elephants in Alaska I think most the educated people realize that test was not conducted here the article was in Guns and ammo realted to the review of the wepon but by the way we do and they fly to feel better.