[split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2014, 03:03 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 02:52 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 02:38 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Unless you can take every single gun out of the population at one moment passing laws to disarm the people that follow the law is not going to do much good. I suspect if you are in a high crime area crime will go up since criminals will know the average joe is unarmed. If you are in a low crime area I suspect not much would change.

Keep in mind in dangerous areas many of those people are weak without there guns. In a crime ridden city, a small feeble man with a gun can take something from a large powerful man with no gun. Take away guns and that feeble man won't think about taking on anyone. Keep in mind robbers and murders do want to leave the area without being injured.

Since you consider guns to make absolute difference the invers is also true. Large men are no longer afraid that a small man might have a gun. Now that there are no guns large men have no fear of small men (or women) and take them on at will. Large men rob a smaller man or woman with little risk of death or sever harm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes wazzel's post
14-11-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:02 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 02:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us grant all that you've said.

How, then, do you take away all guns? That does not seem possible, to me, under any remotely plausible conditions...

That I don't know that yet, though force would be an option, or by law make people get rid of there guns.

Really by force? Today you are a law abiding gun owner, tomorrow you have the special police tearing your house apart to find your gun. That is a messed up stance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:11 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 02:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I can fire 1+ aimed shot per second from a pistol. At 25 feet, those are all within an 8" circle. Those are all likely fatal shots.

On moving targets in a 360-degree range? In the dark? In conditions you haven't set and controlled for yourself?

That's not a realistic home defense scenario. Nor is it a situation I am likely to confront.

I have trained for home defense scenarios.

Quote:
(14-11-2014 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  I can fire shots in the right direction much faster than that, and that may be plenty good enough. Those only have to disable or scare away the attackers.

Sure. That's where it matters what the actual situation is.

If it's incidental or opportunistic, yes, you just need to discourage people. Having any weapon at all will tell people they're not getting you without getting hurt, and even a warning shot or just showing you're carrying a gun can be that difference.

Firing a warning shot is not a good idea.


Quote:If it's specifically you our action movie henchmen are after - you're fucked anyway.
(unless you really are in an action movie, and you're not three days from retirement)

Depends on the number of henchmen and how they're armed. I'm pretty handy with a shotgun and an AR.

Quote:If the question is, "are firearms useful for self-defence", then the answer is obviously "yes". But the relevant answer for setting policy is "yes, and?"

True. I think the adults of each household need to make that assessment based on their own situation.

I'm not a big guy and I'm slightly handicapped, getting older, living out of sight of the street and neighbors, I'm usually alone and with no children in the house.
I am experienced in the use of firearms, I store them safely, and I've had some training. I am not a convicted felon.

I think reasonable policy would be that I get to have a gun.

Quote:As I said, it's theoretically possible to weigh the possible effect on personal safety against the possible effect on escalating domestic situations and rates of accidental injury or death. But without control groups we can only really compare different jurisdictions to each other, and what makes a reasonable social compromise is going to vary anyway.
(I'd call it a moral question, but I'd hate to put stevil into apoplexy)

Could I have a firearm accident? Sure, but it is unlikely.
Could my firearm be stolen? Sure, but it is unlikely.
Will I get angry and shoot my spouse? Nope - no spouse.

Firearms policy is probably not one-size-fits-all, but I don't really know what the parameters are.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:02 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 02:59 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us grant all that you've said.

How, then, do you take away all guns? That does not seem possible, to me, under any remotely plausible conditions...

That I don't know that yet, though force would be an option, or by law make people get rid of there guns.

[Image: Gun-Confiscation-300x300.jpg]

[Image: INDIANS-TURN-IN-YOUR-WEAPOINS-GOV-WILL-T...OF-YOU.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:03 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Since you consider guns to make absolute difference the invers is also true. Large men are no longer afraid that a small man might have a gun. Now that there are no guns large men have no fear of small men (or women) and take them on at will. Large men rob a smaller man or woman with little risk of death or sever harm.

Then you take flight and avoid places where someone can trap you. Also if you live in the U.S every one is a bit to lazy to actually do something that requires physical activity.

(14-11-2014 03:03 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Really by force? Today you are a law abiding gun owner, tomorrow you have the special police tearing your house apart to find your gun. That is a messed up stance.

That is one way yes, but the illegalizing and destroying guns is the better idea, seeing as gun owners do follow the laws(or at least one hopes they do.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:21 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 03:02 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  That I don't know that yet, though force would be an option, or by law make people get rid of there guns.

[Image: Gun-Confiscation-300x300.jpg]

[Image: INDIANS-TURN-IN-YOUR-WEAPOINS-GOV-WILL-T...OF-YOU.jpg]

I don't want the government to have guns either you know.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:21 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 03:03 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Since you consider guns to make absolute difference the invers is also true. Large men are no longer afraid that a small man might have a gun. Now that there are no guns large men have no fear of small men (or women) and take them on at will. Large men rob a smaller man or woman with little risk of death or sever harm.

Then you take flight and avoid places where someone can trap you. Also if you live in the U.S every one is a bit to lazy to actually do something that requires physical activity.

People who live in dangerous cities don't generally do so out of preference, but out of economic necessity.

Quote:
(14-11-2014 03:03 PM)wazzel Wrote:  Really by force? Today you are a law abiding gun owner, tomorrow you have the special police tearing your house apart to find your gun. That is a messed up stance.

That is one way yes, but the illegalizing and destroying guns is the better idea, seeing as gun owners do follow the laws(or at least one hopes they do.

If guns were made illegal in the U.S., many millions of people would hide tens of millions of guns and all the ammunition they could lay their hands on.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  People who live in dangerous cities don't generally do so out of preference, but out of economic necessity.

Flight means to run sir

(14-11-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  If guns were made illegal in the U.S., many millions of people would hide tens of millions of guns and all the ammunition they could lay their hands on.

Criminals maybe, but we would have to just watch and see what they do.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:45 PM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  People who live in dangerous cities don't generally do so out of preference, but out of economic necessity.

Flight means to run sir

What part of 'economic necessity' don't you understand?

Quote:
(14-11-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  If guns were made illegal in the U.S., many millions of people would hide tens of millions of guns and all the ammunition they could lay their hands on.

Criminals maybe, but we would have to just watch and see what they do.

Criminals already do this. Facepalm

Otherwise law-abiding people would do this. I don't have to wait and see, many gun owners I know would do this.

Legislation that so clearly violates the Second Amendment would be defied by millions of gun owners.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 02:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  On moving targets in a 360-degree range? In the dark? In conditions you haven't set and controlled for yourself?

That's not a realistic home defense scenario. Nor is it a situation I am likely to confront.

I have trained for home defense scenarios.

Most home invasions are for burglary. And if there's any plan at all, it's to wait until nobody's home, or failing that, to incapacitate whoever is before doing anything else.

Or is that just me projecting, because that's how I'd burgle?
Consider

(14-11-2014 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Sure. That's where it matters what the actual situation is.

If it's incidental or opportunistic, yes, you just need to discourage people. Having any weapon at all will tell people they're not getting you without getting hurt, and even a warning shot or just showing you're carrying a gun can be that difference.

Firing a warning shot is not a good idea.

Sure, but that's extremely contingent on legal particulars.

The obvious counterpoint is that "I feared for my life" is also pretty damn ambiguous and problematic.

(14-11-2014 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:If it's specifically you our action movie henchmen are after - you're fucked anyway.
(unless you really are in an action movie, and you're not three days from retirement)

Depends on the number of henchmen and how they're armed. I'm pretty handy with a shotgun and an AR.

Well, of course. The retirement clause doesn't apply to the already-retired. Never underestimate a grizzled, crotchety old man!
Tongue

(14-11-2014 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:If the question is, "are firearms useful for self-defence", then the answer is obviously "yes". But the relevant answer for setting policy is "yes, and?"

True. I think the adults of each household need to make that assessment based on their own situation.

I'm not a big guy and I'm slightly handicapped, getting older, living out of sight of the street and neighbors, I'm usually alone and with no children in the house.
I am experienced in the use of firearms, I store them safely, and I've had some training. I am not a convicted felon.

I think reasonable policy would be that I get to have a gun.

Of course. If anyone's knowledgeable and responsible, you are.

My view is that there is not a qualitative difference between types of weapons . Be it guns, knives, sticks, hands...

(14-11-2014 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:As I said, it's theoretically possible to weigh the possible effect on personal safety against the possible effect on escalating domestic situations and rates of accidental injury or death. But without control groups we can only really compare different jurisdictions to each other, and what makes a reasonable social compromise is going to vary anyway.
(I'd call it a moral question, but I'd hate to put stevil into apoplexy)

Could I have a firearm accident? Sure, but it is unlikely.
Could my firearm be stolen? Sure, but it is unlikely.
Will I get angry and shoot my spouse? Nope - no spouse.

Firearms policy is probably not one-size-fits-all, but I don't really know what the parameters are.

... but the law does not and cannot fit individual circumstances, either. Like I said, there are pros and cons to every aspect of policy, and there's no single way to decide what's "best".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: