Gun Use, and targeting, training and self defence

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The purpose of a gun (and that attack) remains: to kill another person (Accidents happen, and sometimes thats a good thing, obviously).
All i'm saying is that if you insist that you own a gun for "personal defense", owning a non-lethal weapon would decrease the chances that whomever you are defending yourself against dies. If all you want to do is to stop someone from doing something (stealing, vandalism, rape, murder), you do not need to kill them to do that.
There is technology available to achieve the same effect, except chances of survival for everyone involved are increased drastically. (There really should be a lot more money into research into widely available non-lethal weaponry)

No there is no such technology available that guarantee's 100 percent effectiveness at stopping a human being in it's tracks like live ammunition fired from a gun does.

You're talking out of your ass.

Also "personal protection" is a business about safeguarding your own life. It's not about stopping someone from breaking into a car. Now if personal protection is about protecting yourself from getting killed WHY IN THE HELL are you supposed to concern yourself with the life and wellbeing of the one trying to kill you?

 

[DanielDeFig]

The purpose of a gun (and that attack) remains: to kill another person (Accidents happen, and sometimes thats a good thing, obviously).
All i'm saying is that if you insist that you own a gun for "personal defense", owning a non-lethal weapon would decrease the chances that whomever you are defending yourself against dies. If all you want to do is to stop someone from doing something (stealing, vandalism, rape, murder), you do not need to kill them to do that.
There is technology available to achieve the same effect, except chances of survival for everyone involved are increased drastically. (There really should be a lot more money into research into widely available non-lethal weaponry)

(yeah i suppose capitalizing always was a pretty bad move. I was trying to point out that guns are built for killing, i just ended up wording it weirdly)

It seems you aren't looking at these situations in a realistic manner. If someone is inside my house swiping my stuff, I'm not going to take my chances with a close-range or one-use thing like a taser or mace. I don't know if they are armed or not, and I'm not going to wait and find out. I doubt you would, either. Because at that point I'm not worried about whether or not they die. I'm worried about MY safety, because I know they sure as hell aren't worried about me.

The fact is criminals have guns, and they always will until something even more dangerous and effective hits the market. How is it "safe" "logical" or even "ethical" to say that everybody shouldn't have guns? Because criminals will always have access to guns--and that is a definite and irrefutable ALWAYS. Washington DC is proof of that, and that is why they repealed their gun ordinance. Taking away guns from regular citizens only puts the criminals at an advantage. They KNOW when they walk into a store or break into a house that nobody there will have a gun, and they can take their time thinking up all of the ways they can exploit that for its full effect.

It is safe, logical, and especially ethical to say no-one should have guns. When civilians have guns. they escalate crimes, because now everyone has a gun, and crimes turn into shootouts.

Look, you ppl from the USA have to realize this: Gun legislation is not an issue in most first-world countries (not including USA). Guns are illegal for civilians without a license, it's difficult to even get a hunting Rifle (but possible, if you are actually interested). The black market for guns is small, so if anyone is seen with a gun in public, police are informed and the person in question will be asked to show proof of licence.

Guns are not really an issue outside of the USA. In most third-world countries, it's still illegal, but the black market is bigger because the police is easily bribed (low wages, due to low government budgets, etc.).
Guns are an issue, in that a lot of criminals can easily get a hold of them. But i don't think iv'e ever heard of third-world countries proposing introducing gun ownership as a solution. Why? Because its not a solution to the problem, only an escalation of it. Both the civilians and the political officials seem to know this.

A country where some states have legalized civilian gun ownership, and others have banned it, is obviously going to have some problems. What most of us outside the USA don't get is: Why would a civilian need a gun in the first place? We just don't understand why you would feel the need to use one, unless you were a criminal (so you can get what you want by force). Stopping criminals is a job for the police.
If most ppl in the USA had a gun in their house, of course simple burglar will bring guns to meet that threat. Most burglaries are just opportunistic, they're not there to kill you. So why would you feel the need to kill them? You can simply call the police, while locking yourself up in a room somewhere.

 

[DanielDeFig]

The purpose of a gun (and that attack) remains: to kill another person (Accidents happen, and sometimes thats a good thing, obviously).
All i'm saying is that if you insist that you own a gun for "personal defense", owning a non-lethal weapon would decrease the chances that whomever you are defending yourself against dies. If all you want to do is to stop someone from doing something (stealing, vandalism, rape, murder), you do not need to kill them to do that.
There is technology available to achieve the same effect, except chances of survival for everyone involved are increased drastically. (There really should be a lot more money into research into widely available non-lethal weaponry)

No there is no such technology available that guarantee's 100 percent effectiveness at stopping a human being in it's tracks like live ammunition fired from a gun does.

You're talking out of your ass.

Also "personal protection" is a business about safeguarding your own life. It's not about stopping someone from breaking into a car. Now if personal protection is about protecting yourself from getting killed WHY IN THE HELL are you supposed to concern yourself with the life and wellbeing of the one trying to kill you?

No there is no such technology, which is why i suggested more money should be put into the technology.

You are supposed to be concerned of the well being and survival of all people. Unless your life or the life of someone else is in direct danger, you should always think of the well being and survival of all human beings around you.

Most crimes involving the average civilian are not murders, they are thefts. IF someone is trying to kill you, they will probably have a reason to do so. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are worried about people going out of their way to kill you.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

So who in their right mind would use a round that can still kill but is vastly less effective?

in all fairness, rubber bullets and bean bag rounds weren't meant for use by civilians for self defence purposes to begin with

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No there is no such technology, which is why i suggested more money should be put into the technology.

Your suggestions don't help people having their life threatened right now, and they certainly don't provide ample justification to prevent non-criminals from owning weapons either.

You are supposed to be concerned of the well being and survival of all people. Unless your life or the life of someone else is in direct danger, you should always think of the well being and survival of all human beings around you.

Says who?

I have no reason what so ever to be concerned of the well-being of anyone else. I have a reason to not directly threaten their lives as long as they do not threaten my life, but that's it.

Most crimes involving the average civilian are not murders, they are thefts. IF someone is trying to kill you, they will probably have a reason to do so. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are worried about people going out of their way to kill you.

Clearly you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I've had a guy planting a sharp object in my flesh for the sheer "crime" of trying to walk past him on the same side-walk as he walked on. I had never seen the person before in my entire life and I still have a scar left from the incident.

Thankfully I had a weapon of my own on me at the time (more by accident at that time, but since then I always carry) and the asshole who attacked me didn't seem to count on expecting armed resistance, since it scared him off.

So that's it. No provocative action on my part and no "Gimme your wallet!" on his part, he just jumped me. And you're telling me that I should "ask myself" why someone suddenly decided to use deadly force on me? Are you serious?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

It is safe, logical, and especially ethical to say no-one should have guns. When civilians have guns. they escalate crimes, because now everyone has a gun, and crimes turn into shootouts.

Which is utter bullshit since statistics show that countries and states with the more liberal gun-laws actually epxerience A LOT less violent crime where guns are used than more restrictive states and countries do.

So your statement isn't logical or even realistic.

The black market for guns is small, so if anyone is seen with a gun in public, police are informed and the person in question will be asked to show proof of licence.

My my, you most probably be one of the most naive debaters in this thread...

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

Oh yeah, in riot control circumstances they're a good idea. The problem is that the OP wants them using for self defense, which means close range. As I'm sure you know you could fire practically anything from a gun at close range and have it kill. Even fragments of casing will kill at close range so I was more contesting the idea (based on magical thinking) that a rubber bullet was inherently non lethal.

speaking to the converted mate, but i see the point you were trying to make now, may bad missinterpreting your earlier post

 

[DanielDeFig]

I've had a guy planting a sharp object in my flesh for the sheer "crime" of trying to walk past him on the same side-walk as he walked on. I had never seen the person before in my entire life and I still have a scar left from the incident.

Thankfully I had a weapon of my own on me at the time (more by accident at that time, but since then I always carry) and the asshole who attacked me didn't seem to count on expecting armed resistance, since it scared him off.

So that's it. No provocative action on my part and no "Gimme your wallet!" on his part, he just jumped me. And you're telling me that I should "ask myself" why someone suddenly decided to use deadly force on me? Are you serious?

This is why i don't consider USA a first-world country. It clearly has a lot of social issues involving crime, lack of education, and weapons. Maybe your logic is still valid, considering you live in a country with widespread fear and crime. But for those of us who live in stable, developed countries, this is not a problem.

I would like to put USA on the same level as China and India: Large population under poverty line, very limited middle-class, and a super-rich elite that include the best and the brightest scientific and medical minds.

If you are not from the USA, please let me know so i can try to address that.

 

[DanielDeFig]

The black market for guns is small, so if anyone is seen with a gun in public, police are informed and the person in question will be asked to show proof of licence.

My my, you most probably be one of the most naive debaters in this thread...

How am i naive? I know that the black market here in Kenya is significantly larger than in Europe. A group of people with guns came and robbed a restaurant my family frequents, in the middle of the day. This stuff happens all the time here. It doesn't happen all the time in Sweden, or any other European country i am familiar with.

Nonexistant? no. But significantly smaller. And it has a clear impact in lowering the amount of armed crime.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

This is why i don't consider USA a first-world country. It clearly has a lot of social issues involving crime, lack of education, and weapons. Maybe your logic is still valid, considering you live in a country with widespread fear and crime. But for those of us who live in stable, developed countries, this is not a problem.

I would like to put USA on the same level as China and India: Large population under poverty line, very limited middle-class, and a super-rich elite that include the best and the brightest scientific and medical minds.

If you are not from the USA, please let me know so i can try to address that.

I don't live in USA. Im from Sweden.

And if you are to dismiss Sweden from being a first world country and convince others of that, then you're in for a real challenge.

 

[DanielDeFig]

This is why i don't consider USA a first-world country. It clearly has a lot of social issues involving crime, lack of education, and weapons. Maybe your logic is still valid, considering you live in a country with widespread fear and crime. But for those of us who live in stable, developed countries, this is not a problem.

I would like to put USA on the same level as China and India: Large population under poverty line, very limited middle-class, and a super-rich elite that include the best and the brightest scientific and medical minds.

If you are not from the USA, please let me know so i can try to address that.

I don't live in USA. Im from Sweden.

And if you are to dismiss Sweden from being a first world country and convince others of that, then you're in for a real challenge.

I was going to ask if we can continue this some other time (not in the mood to keep arguing). But unfortunately, i'm Swedish too. So that was embarrassing. But also hilarious (brought my mood back up)!

My standpoint on the US still holds. Yeah i actually know a guy in Sweden who was close to getting himself knifed in the subway after returning from a football match (I think he got away by pretending to be from their team, he wasn't wearing team colours). But he doesn't feel the need to carry a gun to protect himself. He might want to go in big groups instead of going alone to these matches, to prevent this from happening again. But brining in a gun seems like overkill, especially in predominantly mild-mannered Sweden (I don't live there anymore, and i'm glad). And since guns are the issue here, then yes: guns are unnecessary in developed countries, where the police will actually respond to an emergency call and investigate violent crimes (Yes, i know. Even in Sweden, anything less than murder get a very low priority, but they do try to address as much crime as possible)

 

[Goldeneye1989]

It's been interesting seeing this go back and forth, myself the op, im not even from America, Im an Australian. For what it's worth, i am for the advancement in technology for non lethal or less lethal protection.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

I was going to ask if we can continue this some other time (not in the mood to keep arguing). But unfortunately, i'm Swedish too. So that was embarrassing. But also hilarious (brought my mood back up)!

My standpoint on the US still holds. Yeah i actually know a guy in Sweden who was close to getting himself knifed in the subway after returning from a football match (I think he got away by pretending to be from their team, he wasn't wearing team colours). But he doesn't feel the need to carry a gun to protect himself. He might want to go in big groups instead of going alone to these matches, to prevent this from happening again. But brining in a gun seems like overkill, especially in predominantly mild-mannered Sweden (I don't live there anymore, and i'm glad). And since guns are the issue here, then yes: guns are unnecessary in developed countries, where the police will actually respond to an emergency call and investigate violent crimes (Yes, i know. Even in Sweden, anything less than murder get a very low priority, but they do try to address as much crime as possible)

Listen, there is no excuse for the lack of initiative on the part of the police. Should a woman in the process of becoming raped just think: "Oh well, I understand why I can't own a gun for my own protection, because some people could be frightened by it. And those policemen all work so hard and with so little resources, so I guess I'll just take this strangers penis inside of me and just hope it will all go over quick and then not make such a fuss about it."

If she had a gun, she could've shot the bastard and hopefully killed him in the process so that we don't have to deal with that particular rapist scum.

Also why should she or anyone else for that matter be forced to travel in groups of friends whenever she wants to go anywhere? She's not breaking any laws, yet what you advocate is actually PROMOTING that law abiding citizens should be oppressed by criminals every single day.

You are creating a society in which only criminals have weapons and nobody else does. And that's supposed to make us all "safe"? :S

Gun restrictive laws don't have any effect. The only people who follow laws are people WHO AREN'T CRIMINAL. Criminals BREAK LAWS (hence the name) and they won't have any respect for laws concerning gun ownership. If they can get their hands on one (and they will) and it can help them to rob, kill and oppress law abiding citizens, then that's what a criminal would do. This is the only LOGICAL result of your reasoning, whether you like it or not.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

It's been interesting seeing this go back and forth, myself the op, im not even from America, Im an Australian. For what it's worth, i am for the advancement in technology for non lethal or less lethal protection.

I'd just like to say that im also for the development of such protection. But it has to be GUARANTEED as effective as the lethal force methods.

A weapon just being "likely" to stop an aggressor doesn't cut it.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Listen, there is no excuse for the lack of initiative on the part of the police. Should a woman in the process of becoming raped just think: "Oh well, I understand why I can't own a gun for my own protection, because some people could be frightened by it. And those policemen all work so hard and with so little resources, so I guess I'll just take this strangers penis inside of me and just hope it will all go over quick and then not make such a fuss about it."

If she had a gun, she could've shot the bastard and hopefully killed him in the process so that we don't have to deal with that particular rapist scum.

Also why should she or anyone else for that matter be forced to travel in groups of friends whenever she wants to go anywhere? She's not breaking any laws, yet what you advocate is actually PROMOTING that law abiding citizens should be oppressed by criminals every single day.

You are creating a society in which only criminals have weapons and nobody else does. And that's supposed to make us all "safe"? :S

Gun restrictive laws don't have any effect. The only people who follow laws are people WHO AREN'T CRIMINAL. Criminals BREAK LAWS (hence the name) and they won't have any respect for laws concerning gun ownership. If they can get their hands on one (and they will) and it can help them to rob, kill and oppress law abiding citizens, then that's what a criminal would do. This is the only LOGICAL result of your reasoning, whether you like it or not.

No there is no excuse for lack of initiative on the part of the police, and it should be adressed. My point remains though, people may need to stop criminals, and thus they require a tool to defend themselves with. They do not, however need to kill anyone. If current non-lethal weaponry is not enough, and there is a need for civilians to protect themselves, then obviously more money needs to be put into developing better non-lethal weapons.

The issue is about personal defense, and stopping someone from hurting/ killing you. You do not need to kill in order to achieve that. Thus, guns are unnecessary and only bring out more violence and death.

When you say that the woman should have shot her assailant and "hopefully" killed him, you show how little you value human lives. Personally i find it disgusting that someone "hopes" for someone else to die. I don't care who they are or what they have done, NO ONE deserves to die.

People die every day, none of them deserved it. There is no such thing as good and evil, and belief that there is makes it very easy for people to dehumanize others. And only once we dehumanize others can we feel anything but disgusted at killing other people (because we no longer see them as people, as a reflection of ourselves).

 

[The Lunatic]

Honestly, the idea that a good is to be used for "Self Defence" is just silly.

"Somebody is breaking into my house and wants to steals my insured $500 TV."

"I MUST END THEIR LIFE OR MAIM THEM CONSIDERABLY"

Seriously? Sure, I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself if you can, but, damn.

 

[Paksenarrion]

This is why I want dogs to defend my property and my person. Dogs with bees in their mouths, and when they bark, they shoot bees at you.

Either that, or a robotic Richard Simmons.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No there is no excuse for lack of initiative on the part of the police, and it should be adressed. My point remains though, people may need to stop criminals, and thus they require a tool to defend themselves with. They do not, however need to kill anyone. If current non-lethal weaponry is not enough, and there is a need for civilians to protect themselves, then obviously more money needs to be put into developing better non-lethal weapons.

But whose money is supposed to be invested in this superweapon that is both completely non-lethatl yet 100 percent effective?

You can't just ak for money to be spent if you have no idea of where these money are supposed to come from. Normally these money would come from private investors out to earn a profit through inventing, manufacturing and distributing a product.

But as of now, such a product that is clearly needed doesn't exist and we can't really tell when such a product will exist. So what are innocent people supposed to do in the meantime? Continue to get assaulted, raped and killed by criminals until the market is ready to grace people with that kind of product?

Or do we actually take some responsibility and ADMIT that the police is failing with it's mission to protect private citizens from criminals and thus let the citizens be armed with weapons like the police are in order to protect themselves from harm.

You can't prioritize the safety and well being of criminals ABOVE the safety and well being of their victims. It is the criminals who are doing something wrong, not the victims, hence the criminals are the ones who should be forced to accept the risk of death or serious injury if they decide to try and assault or rape someone.

The issue is about personal defense, and stopping someone from hurting/ killing you. You do not need to kill in order to achieve that. Thus, guns are unnecessary and only bring out more violence and death.

And you would know this because you're such an expert on the subject, yes?

Guns are necessary because they are EFFICIENT and EASY TO USE. Hence why they are appropriate for most citizens who don't have any real training in hand-to-hand combat or close combat weaponry (which takes years to master, as well as a particular fitness of the body to actually be of use).

Also, you do realize that there was a time in human history where pretty much everyone walked around with a gun in their holster (the Wild West era in the U.S being one), yet they weren't plagued by constant violence and death. Domestic disputes didn't get out of hand and escalated into shoot outs between armed civilians. How did they manage to all carry guns wherever they went and not stagnate into complete anarchy and chaos? Explain that to us, you who are so sure that letting people own guns will insure the destruction of civilization as we know it.

When you say that the woman should have shot her assailant and "hopefully" killed him, you show how little you value human lives. Personally i find it disgusting that someone "hopes" for someone else to die. I don't care who they are or what they have done, NO ONE deserves to die.

Yes there are plenty of people who deserve to die. And I don't value human lives higher simply because they possess no intristic value to begin with.

People die every day, none of them deserved it. There is no such thing as good and evil, and belief that there is makes it very easy for people to dehumanize others. And only once we dehumanize others can we feel anything but disgusted at killing other people (because we no longer see them as people, as a reflection of ourselves).

I never said I believed in good and evil. These are arbitrary concepts. But you know what else is an arbitrary concept? That bullshit idea about human life being "sacred" and "inviolable". It's just as arbitrary as "good and evil".

Im not interested in arbitrary idealism. Im interested in letting people have the chance to prepare themselves for the REAL world, not some wonderful fantasyland that idealists believe that we'll all reach if we just make it illegal for people to own firearms.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I'm noticing a trend where if one thread is started and gets big, there are a dozen copycats in the days to follow. What gives? Haven't we had this same discussion in the "Pro/Anti gun ownership" threads? It hardly seems different enough to justify a new thread.