Hand Guns - Yes or No
- Thread starter sderenzi
- Start date
Er Baron, pay attention, the argument made by Solidus was;
SoLiDUS said:
I countered this argument saying I have direct experience verified with practice that this wasn't the case.
If someone approaches you from behind, walking faster than you, at some point they are going to pass you, so what do you do, start fondling the pan handle in case, draw and tell them to back off, when all they are guilty of is walking faster than you? You are a joke, Max, living in a society means allowing people within proximity, you can't start showing a gun at people within striking range, that makes you the criminal. For a gun to be effective, you have to pre-judge people's intentions at close range. I fear this is what T W Scott was doing all those times in Gary, Indiana, reaching for his piece every time he lost his nerve. That just makes him fearful, it doesn't mean he was in actual danger.
Except the bad guy has the drop on you, he initiates the conflict. You assume you are focussed, and in control, and not trying to recall your grocery list, or some other distraction.
Riiiiiight, you have eyes in the back of your head then? Go look out in the street. See if you can run backwards over six feet from any position in the sidewalk without hitting a wall, lampost, kerb etc. Even on a flat surface, in a dojo, with nothing to trip over, experience says this doesn't work anyway. Do you think we didn't try that?
Exactly, and your defense is hampered with exactly the same obstacles!
Which makes my point nicely, that you are paranoid and think the worst of people, so see and experience the worst. You are scared of people that get within 12feet of you!
I thought I was a fast draw and good shot until I couldn't tag a guy just 12 feet away. Try it, don't rely on what you percieve your skill to be, go test it.
In this scenario he is initiating the conflict and may be expecting you to reach. Whether it's for a gun or knife, you are telling him where it is by reaching, and removing one of your natural grappling weapons, your hand, from the melee, giving your assailant the edge. Practice it, don't talk from under yout hat.
Kleck's gun defense stats imply that people who own guns are invloved in attempted crimes more often than non gun owners. So either he's wrong, or you are!
I agree here, but that was rather a tangent, and this point has been extrapolated a little too far. My response was to SoLiDUS, who said;
"Any moderately-trained and conditioned weapon wielder owns your supposedly superior male ballet dancers."
Which is just not true in the majority of urban situations. I re-iterate, for your gun to be any use you have to pre-judge peoples intentions, and that make you paranoid.
RenegadeSith
Registered Member
Yes, but any martial artist knows that you are supposed to mentally prepare yourself for conflict at any given time, which includes knowing your surroundings. I confess that I do not do this 100% of the time, but I try to stay focused on defense.
I am not paranoid, just defensive... there is a difference. I've read to many police reports to not be this way.
I DO go test it! I go to the range every other weekend, and plink in my backyard all the time! I point shoot (starting with concealed draw) my pistol at 5, 10 and 25 yards. I sight shoot my pistol at 25 and 50 yards.
I'm not talking from under my hat, are you assuming that I'm some teenager with no training? LOL!
I do practice a fluid move to unholster my pistol quickly. So what if I lose a melee weapon? I do not want a melee confrontation with a criminal. Each situation is different, and you have to evaluate quickly before you move - but I'll pull my piece if I have a chance.
"The Kleck (and Gertz) study on frequency of defensive gun uses" does not include non-gun related crimes in its statistics... so I really don't see how they are implying anything about non-gun owners. However, this study does make a point for me... "In 79.7% of gun defenses, the defender used a concealed handgun." This implies that the criminal is in fact, not going after a guy with a pistol holster on his belt.
I agree that I have to be defensive. Paranoia is a mental state that I do not suffer from.
It's kind of like when you ride a motorcycle... you have to assume that from every driveway or side-street will come a car at high speed - and you have to always be ready to avoid it or you're toast... this is called defensive driving.
Any other questions?
RenegadeSith said:
????
"In 79.7% of gun defenses, the defender used a concealed handgun."
Means that people with guns in the street are targetted just like people without one do. All it means is that in the USA, gun owners are more likely to get robbed outdoors, than at home. Says nothing else.
Doesn't say carrying one stops people attacking you, or that you are less likely to be be attacked. In fact, if the gun defense stats are taken literally, gun owners are targetted 4x more often than non guns owners, according to reported crimes! Although I think gun owners, being slightly paranoid, over-report. Seems you just have to look at TW Scott and he'll show his rod! He says he showed what was it, nine times in two hours, in Gary, Indiana? And didn't report a single attempt. That ain't being a good citizen, he's letting the bad guys get away.
As long as we have guns in our world.
People who always think/assume the best in others are the ones that we usually call "victims".
There's a big difference between "paranoia" and "reasonable precaution". And while I'm sure you'll pretend to not agree, we all check out/pre-judge people in every moment of our lives. Those who don't do it well are often called "victims"!
Baron Max
That's such a good point, and not just with gun crimes. When I first started having other people buy stuff for me, I got hustled so many times, and got into so many fights over it.
RenegadeSith
Registered Member
Yes, I posted that in response to you posting this...
This statement can't be true, think about it! If 79.7% of gun defenses are with a CONCEALED handgun, how does the criminal know who's who? I don't understand, how is it the gun owners are targeted more? And WTF does Kleck's have to do with non-gun owners?Then you say...
WHAT?!? You're trying to tell me that criminals are intentionally going after people with guns that might kill them, instead of soft unarmed targets??? LOL! WTF kinda BS is that? PLease sight the source of THAT statistic... my mouse trigger finger is itching to click the link you have coming!And here you start contradicting yourself, but at least something you said makes sense...
That's exactly my point, but the criminal never really does know if he's robbing someone armed or unarmed, does he?
I never for a second believe that I am somehow safer from crime by carrying a gun, only that I'm more prepared to potentially prevent it... you know, let the criminal be the victim for a change.
If more people were armed, there would be more cases of criminals being killed... less criminals + more deterrent for the ones who are left = less crime... EVERYONE GO BUY YOUR GUN TODAY!
Please visit Renegade's BS
Last edited:
Well, what you actually said was;
RenegadeSith said:
Implying that criminals avoid people carryng guns. BUT, the Kleck figures turn that upside down. If you take the number of gun defenses reported by gun owners in the Kleck study, they are four times more likely to get robbed, than and 'average' citizen, according to reported crime stats. Which part if this don't you understand? It's quite simple, the Kleck figures thay attemtp to justify concealed carry are totally bogus, that's what!
That's simple to explain, if in fact those are factual statistics .....gun owners are much more likely to report attempts than is the average citizen.
Many victims of robbery know that they aren't likely to get anything back or that the criminal will be caught. Reporting crimes such at simple robbery, is usually a lot of hassle and effort, and the chances of anything being recovered is slim-to-none.
The Kleck study didn't take that into account at all.
Baron Max
That is impossible Max! To whom are these reports being made? Not to any reputable statistics gathering organisation, like the FBI, or they would count as crime figures, but they don't. If the Kleck figures are taken seriously, the USA has a higher rate of robbery than the UK, alongside a four fold rate of murder, and a 13 fold rate of rape. So I think Kleck's study is deeply flawed. I think he uses too small a sample size, and extrapolates too much from it. I also think gun carriers, like TW Scott, are prone to exaggeration. Do you really believe he would have been robbed nine times in two hours in Gary, Indiana? Really? Come on, the guy is a fantastist.
This shoots one of your arguments in the foot Max, that burglaries in the USA are fewer because criminals fear armed home owners. What you are saying, is that US citizens don't bother reporting the crime, and that's why reported crime is lower. Actual crime could be equal, or higher then? In the UK, to make an insurance claim, you have to have a crime number from the Police, so by far the great majority of burglaries are reported!
BANG! There goes your argument!
You're a lost cause, Phlo. I'll cut my losses now...
Good luck getting through to that brick wall, Baron and Ren: you'll need it.
Nope, not at all. I'm not against gun ownership, I'm just pro 'regulation', registration, and mandatory training. The USA is no longer the Wild West, about time you cowboys woke up and noticed the place doesn't smell of beans anymore.
Huh? I never made that claim!! Where did you get that???
In fact, one of my "claims" is that there IS a low of crime in the USA, and therefore we need to protect ourselves more! Thus, we need personal weapons to do it.
You should also check on the rates of crime in Florida .....before they enacted the carry-permits, then check the rates of crime AFTER they enacted the law. You'll see that crime went down, DOWN, after the law was enacted.
Yes, that's what I said. Especially home burglary or even robbery (say of men grabbing women's purses, which is a growing crime here in Dallas) are not reported to the police because of the low, VERY low rate of solving those crimes and recovering anything. Why report it ...when nothing can ever be done to get stuff back?
And again, it's just more evidence that the average citizen needs to protect themselves. And thus they need to carry a gun!
Well, no .....'cause evidently you read my "argument" wrong!
Pholg, you keep spouting registration and training to carry a gun. And in Texas, we do have to register our guns and we do have to undergo a training class prior to obtaining a permit to carry. I think that's the case in most states.
But, Phlog, you'll not that none of that registration and training is going change anything for the criminals ....they carry guns whenever they want to and nothing your registration or training is going to apply to them!
Phlog, get rid of the criminals, get rid of the guns the criminals use, and then you can start on the innocent civilians, okay?
Baron Max