Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    "guns aren't only for crazed killers!"
    "Indeed, they are ideally and generally used as deterrents"
    "Wow what kind of nonsense is that"
     
  2. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Vault Fossil

    Nov 26, 2007
    These are functionally the same thing.

    These are functionally the same thing.

    Why not also include, "while chained to a wall", or "Has their gun pressed to my neck". These are situations that wouldn't get that far if the defender was equally armed.

    Also, yes... People can shoot attackers before they shoot them (if they have a gun, that is ). The attacker might not even know how to shoot; might not know how to maintain or even fire the gun... much less aim it carefully and accurately. Their first shot(s!) might not hit; but you make sure that yours do.
     
  3. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I would be interested in the number of people that have been shoot by guns compared to the number of lives that have been saved by armed civilians.

    Sadly, finding reliable sources and surveys on that subject are extremly difficult.

    I guess the first initial reaction, would be a yes - discussions suggest that a small majority is in favour of "guns save lives" in the US. However I have my doubts if that is actually the case. Besides I personaly prefer a working government that ensures enough safety that you do not feel the need for a weapon to protect your self. If I would be living in the US though, I would probably get a gun as well. It's not very different from Somalia in some cases ...

    This is also true for many 'defenderes'. It seems that the number of trained gun users leaves a lot of room for improvements.

    However, I think the attacker has quite often the advantage when it comes to weapons, which is well kinda self explanatory. The element of surprise is pretty important. I think a weapon can be a pretty usefull tool to defend your home, since you have the advantage here, if you can surprise the criminal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2018
  4. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Vault Fossil

    Nov 26, 2007
    My grandfather once was looking out of his window when a man walked right past the sill... This is well within the property, and the intruder was just on the other side of the glass. He grabbed his shotgun and went out there. The guy was stealing his tools. He had the thief at unawares, and could have shot him; he was no match for him physically. He did not shoot him, because he realized that he didn't remember what the weapon was chambered with (bird-shot or solid slug). He went back in the house, and the man got away.

    He checked the gun, it had a slug.

    (Which is what he did not want to shoot him with.)
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  5. Lanfear

    Lanfear Mildly Dipped

    Jan 26, 2016
    Using a gun to attempt to pacify someone and using a gun to attempt to remove the advantage from someone who is trying to pacify you are in no way the same thing. Why do you think they are?

    Are you saying that someone chaining you to a wall and someone pulling a gun on you by surprise from a few metres away are equivalent?

    So in essence you would be prepared to bet your life on the chance of your assailant being inept?
     
  6. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Vault Fossil

    Nov 26, 2007
    Why do you think they are not?

    Of course not.

    I'm saying that the situation you posit is dependent on IFs, and that you might as well add further unreasonable disadvantages to even further reduce the effectiveness of having a gun in that contrived situation—as...evidence of inherent truth. You are trying to prove your assertion with manufactured circumstance.


    Inept relative to what?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  7. Lanfear

    Lanfear Mildly Dipped

    Jan 26, 2016
    I explained why not - because in one case you generally have the advantage of someone and in the other case someone else generally has the advantage of you. It completely changes the situation and therefore how useful your weapon is to you.

    You may assume that in almost any confrontation, the aggressor will have an immediate advantage over their target. I don't think I need to explain why this is, do I?

    But you're conflating the situation I posited, which is highly typical of a robbery, with a ridiculous situation that has no real relevance.

    To you, the hypothetical target of an assailant. Suggesting that your assailant might not know how to use the gun they're carrying is just creating a what-if clause in which you're an ice-cold super-soldier and your assailant is a bumbling idiot. This is really a less reasonable what-if clause than the one I posited above, in which somebody robbing you, an aggressor who should be expected to wish to put their target at as much of a disadvantage as possible when attempting to rob them, does exactly that. I'm not sure whether you'd really be prepared to wager on the remote chance of your assailant being too inept to successfully shoot you if you found yourself in such a situation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  8. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Vault Fossil

    Nov 26, 2007
    Yes, please do. We must not be talking about the same situations. Do you just assume that the robber is generally the more powerful individual? There are freshmen high-school students out robbing people; kids you could snap their ankle... but for the machine pistol—that they probably don't know how to use.

    "Virtually any confrontation", I assume also includes those without weapons? And in those, why would the aggressor have an immediate advantage? (He or she could just as soon get their butt kicked by their intended victim.)

    What situation is that? (What other situation are we talking about aside from your own aforementioned?)

    I would always assume them an idiot (more likely than not)—they are out robbing people. There are far easier (and less risky) ways to make a living than stealing bus fare from strangers... yet they are wandering the streets, looking for victims. Do I assume them incapable of hitting a target? No, but I doubt they are a trained marksman.

    **BTW, the debate has shifted to using the need for self defense as the targeted reason (to defeat) for owning a gun... But that ignores owning a gun for its own sake. (IE. For recreational shooting, among other things.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  9. Lanfear

    Lanfear Mildly Dipped

    Jan 26, 2016
    No, it has nothing at all to do with how powerful anyone is. It has to do with the fact that the aggressor in any confrontation is by definition the one responsible for instigating it. The aggressor knows and is prepared for what is about to happen, whereas their target more often than not has little or no such knowledge. The aggressor has the luxury of entering the confrontation armed and positioned advantageously, whereas the best their target can typically hope for is to have a weapon concealed somewhere on their person. The aggressor determines when the confrontation begins, they may have others available to support them and can choose a moment when the target is alone, etc - all of these things present an enormous advantage for the aggressor. What situations are you talking about, in which someone forced to defend themselves on the spot has any advantage at all over their assailant by virtue of being on the defensive? Are you imagining situations in which the target of an attack has some kind of training, or physical strength differential, or other advantage that (all things being equal) may just as easily apply to both parties, or neither?

    Even in a confrontation that involves no weapons whatsoever, an aggressor seeking to put their target down quickly can do so quite effectively by attacking from behind and without warning. It's called a sucker punch or King hit, and it's effective and common enough that the police where I live have had to campaign for awareness of it to decrease the use of it, as people have been critically injured and even killed by King hits in nightclub brawls and the like.

    The one where you're chained to a wall. Being attacked whilst chained to a wall and having someone assail you by surprise aren't in any way equivalent. One is very likely to happen, the other is never likely to happen.

    There is no reason at all for you to be drawing any of these conclusions. Criminals are not necessarily idiots. They are not necessarily inept. The fact that they are willing to take large risks does not necessarily indicate stupidity, it may indicate desperation. And they may well be much more proficient with a gun than you are. All of the assumptions you make here are very dangerous, and likely as not to get you badly hurt should you actually find yourself in a situation where someone is threatening you with a weapon.

    I'm not in any way in favour of owning a gun "for its own sake". That's no reason to own a firearm at all, IMO. I'm completely in favour of being able to own a gun if you wish to use it for hunting or recreational shooting, or if you need it as a primary producer or in some other professional capacity. And I am absolutely dead-set against people walking around with guns on their person in the mistaken belief that they will afford them any sort of personal protection, for all of the aforementioned reasons - it's an arms race that those on the defensive can never hope to win.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  10. YeeCop

    YeeCop Just a Sweet Irradiated Transvestite

    Jan 26, 2017
    So you listed the fruitlessness of owning a firearm for personal protection, because of the hypothetical scenarios of being unable to face a problem with a mere quick draw
    (i.e your assailant is more adept with a firearm, your assailant is stronger than you or has the advantage)
    Why the pessimism? Shouldn't you have a fighting chance? If I'm pointing a M1911 at someone, and they're aiming a Remington at me, it would be better than to not have anything to be defending myself with at all.
     
  11. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    Firearms having a +LCK , +AG and +PER passive bonus for just haveing them on you, apparently.

    Unless their intent is strictly to murder you, which is way more rare than thieves and several flavours of assailants, you're only putting yourself in more danger. For real, if they are stealing from you and you have an insurance it's a net positive to just stay put.
     
  12. Fins

    Fins It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 31, 2017
    It's true that it's better to have a firearm for self-defense than not. It's not true you do self-defense by pointing your firearm at someone, though. Life is not some Hollywood movie. I think self-defense in real life is done by surprising 'em with a sneak attack (if at all possible), and in general by trying one's best to shoot 1st - no time whatsoever being spent to "point" the gun at 'em. Good old Old West style.

    Why? Because i'm yet to see any real life M1911 owner who proudly makes some .45 holes in "someone" after getting shot by a Remington, center-mass. I hear shotguns usually knock people out real good even if the shot does not penetrate victim's vest and no pellets hit unprotected body parts.
     
  13. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Vault Fossil

    Nov 26, 2007
    No, though I don't see why not.

    It is that you seem to only imagine that the assailant is invisible to the victim (until they attack), and that the victim would not expect the attack.

    (Aside from using a rifle)...To get close to someone, the assailant would have to approach them; or be approached by them. In both cases the victim would see—or at least anticipate a possible attack. Absolute surprise would come from abject carelessness on the part of the victim... and what's any weapon going to do to help in that situation? Even so... having it is better than not; for then there is at least some potential for defense, and mistake on the part of the assailant.

    That is not a situtation that was posed. It is to be read as absurdist. In context, it implies that if you are going to go that far (with your example), then you might as well go all the way.

    Not necessarily; but more often than not.

    These are functionally the same thing.

    That is a disgusting (but admirably pragmatic) outlook IMO.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  14. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    If a civilan wanted to protect him self from the North Hollywood Bank Shootout, he would had to be equiped with a 50 cal sniper rifle - and also be professient with it. The idea, that you could actually protect your self sufficiently in every day situations with a weapon I think, is a bit of a fallacy.

    This really reminds me to my martial arts lesson that I took for a couple of years in Judo and Jujitsu. Our trainer never got tired to stress out that simply 'walking away/runing away' from a (possible) confrontation is always a preferable method to a fight - and this is what usually law enforcements give out as advice not to engage criminals if posslbe, as the risks are simply to high.

    People often can get a false sense of 'readyness' if they do martial arts, thinking that it prepares them for all situations and it is similar with guns in my opinion. A weapon, by it's very nature, is of course protecting you better than just your fists even Bruce Lee used to carry around a hand gun, since it happend quite often that people wanted to fight him. But I believe a gun that you carry under your jacket gives you more 'confidence' rather then real safety from attackers.

    The only way to actually garantue some sense of protection, is to live in a stable society where at least the need for crime is as low as possible.


    Itend to believe in most cases that's the reality. Any attacker would be stupid to attack you right from the front without the element of surprise. You're usually not charging at people guns blazing screaming "IM GOING TO MUG YOU, BITCH!".
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  15. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Vault Fossil

    Nov 26, 2007
    Does anyone here walk around oblivious to their surroundings? (...especially at a time and in a place that seems ripe for getting mugged?)

    When on a dark street alone—with no one else around, does anyone here give the benefit of the doubt to anyone they see on the street? What about those that happen to be walking directly toward you?

    As mentioned, an assailant would have to approach their target, or be approached by them (near to where they are hiding). Would anyone here walk that close to large foliage, or other places of obvious concealment? (Of course not)
     
  16. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Why are you walking around at night alone in the first place, and on your own in an area where you know that dangerous individuals might be around taking every opportunity to attack you? And you tell me right now that you're living in a place where you have to be ready at all times, day and night, protecting your self from people that might mug even kill you at any given oportunity?

    Are you living in Somalia?
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  17. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    It's pretty dark during winter here, you saying we should all carry guns? We just use like, lamps, etc.? Much nicer.
     
  18. Arnust

    Arnust Maybe you've seen it, maybe, in a dream...

    Feb 2, 2016
    It sure must be stressful to basically be playing miny miny moe with every individual you come across on the street, one must look like an agoraphobic from the outside.
     
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Well, since everyone could be armed ... it makes sense.
     
  20. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Vault Fossil

    Nov 26, 2007
    That's the just life in the city.

    Not long ago, (to pick a non-violent news item) there was a man who was seen exiting McDonalds with bagged food; (this all played out on security cam video). The man then entered an ice cream shop next door... where he dropped his food (an honest accident), and a few patrons helped him pick up his items, and then left. The man noticed what he thought was the nice patron's jacket, accidentally left behind. He picked it up, and walked out after them to return it.

    Try to guess what happened.
    Still on video... The man is next seen to have found a set of keys in the jacket; keys with a fob that opens a car; keys that he used in the car that opened, and off he went. They are still looking for him. The car belonged to someone else in the ice cream shop.