"The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals."

[denuseri]

As a survivor of a very violent crime myself having been raped and much worse at the hands of some very bad people who by the way cared less if I submitted to apease them or not:

If given the choice, if I had possessed a gun I at the time, I would have been more than happy to shoot kill maim and or otherwise or blow the hell out of them a hundred times over to prevent what was done to me and I am sure I woundnt be bothered by any lack of sleep compared to the nighmares I still have to this day.

You may laud us who were forced to submit to survive the horror our perpetrators commited against us, all you want, but I can tell you with all sciencerity your praise sounds hollow and empty to the ninth degree.

As far as claiming to like "us" Americans so much it is rather obvious when all of one's posts speak otherwise.

I believe to "hold your hands up and scream please dont hurt me" to be farcical in it's naivety.

[Matin]

That seems insane! It's like giving criminals carte blanche to commit crimes, as long as they don't use a weapon!

At least here, in the US, any person who commits a felony is responsible for all outcomes during the commision of that felony. So if a criminal breaks into my home and I use reasonable force to stop him, any damages which he incurs are his own responsibility, since they occurred while he was committing the felony.

Even so, lore has it that, if you are going to shoot a criminal breaking into your home, make certain you kill him. You can always claim that he threatened the lives of your family. If he's dead it's hard for him to contradict you.

Perhaps not the most ringing endorsement of American law, but at least I don't have to fear being sent to prison for defending my person and/or property.

lol you should. if you live in washington state, and several others - i'll get back to you with their names.

no self defence law, no defence of property law. none. zip. that crazy junkie in your house with a gun threatening your kids? run away.

your america, people. not mine, due to gang mentality in my younger years i'm no longer considered a citizen, and have no civil liberties

here's an ex-con's opinion, and one who went down for armed robbery; i didn't rob anyone who might be packing. and thats the truth. an armed populace tends to be a politer one.

and the problem with gun control, as i see it. the only people who lose their guns are the decent people and the collectors - crooks can get anything anywhere.

because lets face it; red tape doesn't bother the criminally minded segment of the population lol

[MMI]

denuseri,

I do not take that as an invitation to reply, and if it was one, I cannot, because I do not and cannot know what you went through. I'm truly sorry that you had to endure such a horrific crime.

I'm sure that I don't hold the views I have expressed to encourage things like that, however, but if you blame the anti-gun lobby for what happened to you, then, as one of them, I apologise.

I do like America and Americans. That doesn't mean I have to approve of everything they do or say, nor does it prevent me from speaking frankly. Besides, I think there are enough liberal-minded Americans who support my point of view to demonstrate I am not anti-American. I just find the entrenched views of right-wing reactionaries distasteful.

I know I'm just as obstinate and most right-wing Americans will detest what I say, but, so long as we don't draw weapons on each other, the argument is healthy and makes us justify our own points of view to ourselves, even if we have no hope of changing each other's minds.

We might just persuade the waverers.

[Matin]

i have to say something concerning self defence.

i see plenty of women encouraged to go buy mace or pepper spray or a gun, keep it in their purse, then go about secure in the knowlege that they can handle anything.

what i don't see is a great deal of training in the use of self defence measures. the human body responds instinctively to panic situations, and will only respond with the correct measure of violence if properly trained.

i don't mean the gun range.

set up the drill like sparring in a dojo; one person attacks, the other defends. drill in every manner you can concieve of until the responses come without thought. be sure to have a partner who is larger or at least stronger, to adequately simulate an attack.

a good knife with the skill to use it can save a person's life; without skill it's less than useless.

guns are different. a good loud bang, even if you can't hit an elephant at ten yards will often stop a potential attack, and during a struggle you don't have to worry about hitting anything - they're so close.

still the best defence is actual self defence. take martial arts, because your body is the only thing you can almost totally rely on in a stress situation. there are bones one can break and holds one can execute with very little strength brought to bear.

it all comes down to the preparation.

i am a huge proponent of martial arts because it will also train your mind to handle the overload during a combat situation. because in my experience, and this is just me, by the time i've ever known it was a fight or flight thing, flight was already out the window. so the mind must be trained to respond proactively, agressively, and with the utmost violence.

obeying marquis of queensbury rules when i was a boy got me hospitalized.

do whats necessary to live with the least amount of injury to you, and let the jury sort it out later.

sorry this is so long, as you can tell its an issue i feel very strongly about.

-matin

[denuseri]

<<has taken martial arts before, it helped lil ole me about as much as shooting rubber bands at godzilla

realistically speaking my skill level would have to equal or exceed bruce lees to be able to take down guys that are litterally twice my size even if they had no training

physics are physics

I see many many women told to take matial arts and after a couple classess go about naively with the same sence of security as if they had a gun.

I have also personally heard far too many stories from those same women survivors of rape and other viloent crimes attesting as to how little if any effectivness thier training had in a real life situation defending themselves from single let alone multiple attackers intent on raping them or worse.



Some facts available on statistics if you bother to look them up:

Department of Justice victim studies show that overall, when rape is
attempted, the completion rate is 36%. But when a woman defends herself
with a gun, the completion rate drops to 3%.

For all rapes, woman who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist, and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun.”

Overall victimization studies show that for all violent crimes, including
assault, rape, and robbery, the safest course for the victim is to
resist with a firearm.

The second safest course is passive compliance
with the attacker, but this tactic approximately doubles the probability
of death or injury for the victim.

All other tactics (mace, whistles,
hand-to-hand combat, screams, and so forth) have even worse outcomes.

(Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000)



So why is the anti-gunners' answer to violence is to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, or the right to bear them for self-defense?

??hummmmm??

Could it be thier agenda isnt about defending the law abiding people of the nation from the criminals at all?

Could it be perhaps that they are more conserned with defending thier government from an armed populace and are will to stoop so low as to play on the naivety of the well meaning massess to do it?

Sounds far more likely to me.

[Thorne]

denuseri, I'm with you. Defending yourself with a gun is far more effective than not. But trying to defend yourself with a gun can be difficult, especially if the gun is not readily accessible. I believe that learning some other form of self defense can be just as important. A knee to your attacker's groin just might give you enough time to get that gun. And if you can break his kneecap he's not likely to be able to chase you if you run.

Against multiple attackers, though, all bets are off. Unless you are ready to open fire immediately and shoot to kill you're not likely to survive the attack.

An AK-47 might help!

[Matin]

as i hope you can tell from my posts i'm all for guns, but considering that they are getting harder to obtain for law abiding citizens i felt that the martial arts plug was appropriate.

i was never a big guy (6' 130lbs soaking wet lol) until a couple years ago when i became a gym rat out of boredom. so i can tell you and anyone else and i will defend this till i turn blue that size doesn't matter. its all in the mind, the willingness to be trained and a capacity for physical violence. also choosing the right martial art matters. some are good, some are useless. all i can say on that is do the research.

i agree theres no substitute for a gun, and also emphatically with your point about the gov't disarming a potentially restless populace. i would say take that one step further and look at how this country is in general becoming a society of victims. children are encouraged to never fight, never confront, avoid conflict, seek out an authority figure for help, no matter how small the problem. we are fostering a culture of weakness.

[denuseri]

As previously stated I allready did do the "reaserch". I also took akendo first hand from a japanese sensei with an emphasis in jujistu/akido (the style known for using the opponents size against them etc), 3 years worth in okinawa with my father who also taught force recon marines hand to hand combat.

THANK GOD he also taught me to shoot.

I will certianly agree that soceity as been transvaluating values and twisting morality to "pussify" and emasculate each generation. It has been happening ever since the supposed "reniesance" and continues to this day.

[hopperboo]

soceity as been transvaluating values and twisting morality to "pussify" and emasculate each generation. It has been happening ever since the supposed "reniesance" and continues to this day.

Hahaha.

I agree. And it's working.

Sadly enough.

[Matin]

i'm a product of the pussification of america lol. i learned 'strength from an odd source; a book called zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance. (it also pushed me into my current field of work) and just one little paragraph did it. it talks about a greek word/concept - arrete, meaning excellence. meaning that one strives to run like a wolf, fight like a bear, argue like a lawyer, spout poetry like led zepplin, sing like, well, led zepplin (lmfao), etc, because to do anything less than excell in all that one does would displease the gods.

books change lives. strange... and completely OT. sorry.

[moosehunter]

Anti-Gun Laws

Just how many do we need?

If you check the laws on the books you will find that most of these laws are not enforced because they are confusing to both the public and lawenforcement.

Maybe we should ban Legal E's so laws can be written and understood.

[Muskan]

Does it Make sense to you??


“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” — The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

[Muskan]

as i hope you can tell from my posts i'm all for guns, but considering that they are getting harder to obtain for law abiding citizens i felt that the martial arts plug was appropriate.


Have you ever thought what a persons all skills in martial arts will do if a terrorist with AK 47 enters the mall in which he is shopping and starts shooting at Innocent people?

What will you do no matters you have all specialties of martial arts?

But if i have a simple hand-gun, I can shoot at the terrorist firing with the AK47 killing 100's of innocent. My little handgun may not kill him nor it will be of any match with his AK47 or handgrenades, but it will certainly reduce his power and madness and stop him from shooting the innocent further.
I will again promote this site Does it make sense to you?

[voxelectronica]

I'm sorry but I completley disagree with MMI and a lot of this will be from my own personal experience so I apologize for not having links at this point.

It is an undeniable fact (at least, I've never seen anyone deny it convincingly) that anyone who purposely acquires a gun, or who decides to keep one that comes into his possession, contemplates killing.

When it comes to humans I contemplate stopping. Every time that I have held a gun, been taught to use a gun or gun safety (and that's been several times). I think about stopping. Stopping someone from hurting me or my loved ones. Killing has never crossed my mind as I do not wish my human attacker any permanent harm. No I want them to live, in jail.

Apart from the "self-defence" defence, in civilised countries, only the government has the right of life or death over its citizens.

My country does not decide my fate nor does it decide the fate of people who do horrible things. They make that choice. Breaking into someones home in a state such as AZ is a life or death decision. Az. is an open carry state. Going to the grocery store you see guns. If someone decides they want to pull out their gun when others are around then they are deciding their own fate.

In the much more civilised countries, governments will give up that right.

I don't believe in more "civilized countries". One country is not inherently more civilized than the next. They're just different.

Self-defence is the use of minimum force sufficient to save your own life or that of another, which must be under real and immediate threat (not "possible" or "eventual" threat, for then you can take other avoiding actions).

I have never heard that definition of self-defense. Actually what I do hear is the act of defending one's self. There is no minimum effort. Only defending.

For most intents and purposes, if you don't happen to be carrying your gun at the time (and why would you be?), but you have time to (say) go upstairs to find it before confronting the "threat", you are not going to satisfy the "imminent threat" requirement. If the threat was "imminent" you would already be dead. If you had time to get your gun, load it, and kill your assailant, you murdered him in all probability.

Being that it's been a long time since I've lived with children around the top two people I've lived with who have been really into their guns were both involved in law enforcement. Only adults came over and there guns in easy to get to places. Also intruders take much longer to get in than what you are describing... For instance...

When I was living in Az a man was watching t.v. in his living room when someone started to kick at his locked door. He immediately went to the door... not opening it and yelled at them. They refused to enter and kicked at his door some more with the obvious intention on getting inside. He then went into his bedroom. Got his gun from his gun safe, loaded it, went back into the living room and yelled "I am trained to use the firearm in my hand and if you enter I will use it". He shot them both when they managed to kick down his door. They were high on meth. He didn't even get arrested which is usual protocol for those situations.

Gun are killing machines. They have no other purpose or function. If you have a gun, and you are not a frivolous person, then you are an actual or intending killer.

Well first of all... cars are killing machines. Let's really think about what else guns kill though... like animals for food. I carried a gun with me when I walked to the store in Az, because even in Tucson there are wild animals... everywhere. There are a lot of people whose livelihoods are based around guns... like hunters. They're a tool like any other tool. I could kill someone with a wrench but it would be a lot harder to feed people with the animal that I killed with that wrench.

Most likely the unarmed person will comply, and (in a mugging, for example) loose a watch, a mobile phone, or his wallet, but keep his life and his body whole, or (in a sexual assault) be raped.

In answer to the first post, the woman who submits to rape is infinitely superior to the woman who attempts to kill her attacker. Chances are she will survive to take her revenge later. The chances are also that the attacker will kill any woman who attempts to find her weapon, make it ready, point and fire.

Well I have problem with this on two fronts. First of all it's a myth that complying with the person who is ordering you to hand over your belongings is going to let you live. There was a case in Memphis were a man at a convince store complied completely with the robbers demands and was then shot in the face. Cases like this are increasing every year.

Second of all. You're body is not kept whole when you are raped. It's actually taken from you in several ways. Though a watch can be replaced and your credit cards stopped it takes a lot of time to be able to look at yourself and not remember someone touching you like that. If it ever really goes away. Considering the number of people who take their own life after being raped I can't even really justify how it would be better to be raped then to have to deal with the emotional aftermath of rape. So I'm sorry if I don't see the court trial and having to relive what happened to you so someone might get convicted as parallel to actually stopping the attack.

Usually she will die long before she has the opportunity to kill him.

You've never actually fired a gun have you? A properly trained person and a gun will win against a violent sex crazed maniac. It is point and click technology.

I'm sorry if i didn't fully understand the scenerios you had laid out after that and thus will not respond to them.

But people who kill for recreation? How despicable is that?

Those people don't legally own guns anyway.

A thief does not deserve to die at the hands of an American vigilante any more than he deserves to be mutilated on the orders of a Sharia court.

Again that person makes their own fate. What he deserves is less important than what someone who has committed no crime deserves.

But if you kill an innocent visitor, or a passer by, how can you make up for that?

Again those crimes are committed by people who illegally own guns. The person who owns again for their safety in my experience is properly trained on it. Is skilled in using it and will use it only in self defense. That's why people go to target practice. To ensure accurate use.

Still worse, if your child finds your gun and shows it to his friend, and one of them innocently shoots the other, how would you cope? Could you bury your child knowing you were responsible for its death - or would you rationalise it by saying it's the cost of an imprtant right? Could you attend your neighbour's child's funeral - assuming you were allowed to?

The opposite of this is how could you let your child die at the hands of an intruder? Is it not the same horrible loss?

In the UK, we have relatively few incidents where someone "freaks out" and goes on a killing spree.

Actually there are a few that come to mind off hand. They just don't happen to be with guns.

The issue really is this and it's simple. You can still buy a gun in the UK, you're just a criminal for doing it. Most likely you were a criminal before you bought it too. Here people are law abiding people and buying a gun does not change that fact at all.

[voxelectronica]

So why is the anti-gunners' answer to violence is to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms, or the right to bear them for self-defense?

??hummmmm??

Could it be thier agenda isnt about defending the law abiding people of the nation from the criminals at all?

Could it be perhaps that they are more conserned with defending thier government from an armed populace and are will to stoop so low as to play on the naivety of the well meaning massess to do it?

Sounds far more likely to me.

thanks for the stats!

I totally agree with this. I have no idea why someone would want to submit to their government. Why they would be so willing to hand over their defenses to a group of people who can't deliver a simple message effectivley.
I have yet to see a government "save it's people".

I have also yet to see a convincing argument for gun control as well.