| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:54 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| From a Canadian perspective this belongs in the "Bizarre Stuff" thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | From a Canadian perspective this belongs in the "Bizarre Stuff" thread. |
But it might also give you some design ideas.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How so? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I started this thread with this quote:
| Quote: | | Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway. "Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization." |
So the facts are, that a gun at home makes one less, not more safe. This is not news, my dad would not let me buy even a bb-gun, because he was an engineer that paid attention to facts.
The recent portions of this thread are increasingly detached from facts, particularly the right wing posters, and particularly the snide and make-it-up comments from mrgybe. The Supreme Court has spoken, and expanded the right to own a gun from a militia under the direction of the state, to an individual right. But they left plenty of room for regulation of guns and their availability to those with criminal backgrounds and mental illnesses. This, of course, is at the heart of the tragic shooting of children.
Despite mrgybe's invented claims, most people I know of all political persuasions are aware of the right of sane, law abiding individuals to own guns, whether it diminishes their safety or not. I have defined gun nuts as those, who in their paranoia about government and eagerness to arm un-regulated militias, are opposed to the regulation of gun ownership by the mentally unbalanced. The vast majority of Americans support such regulation, and the GOP, in terror of the NRA, has blocked it. The rest is arm-waving. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| frederick23 wrote: | | ... before you get shot by the next guy properly trained in lethal force. |
He's the least likely threat. The more likely perp is a whackjob on drugs, which is what makes him so dangerous.
| frederick23 wrote: | | We are talking about that nano second decision, that could haunt you for the rest of your life. If you live. "should I start pumping leaded holes in someone"? |
We made those decisions well in advance ... in class, from the gold standard books on the topic, and from introspection. We listed and discussed by name the people we would defend with lethal force.
All that's left is the shooting. I am willing to shoot only someone threatening serious bodily harm to me or my wife (which any home intruder is doing) and only if we can't run away from a threat away from home. Anyone consciously unwilling to give up his or his family's life in order to preserve that of an attacker (I met one military officer with that mindset) is not rational, IMO.
| frederick23 wrote: | | If your not prepared to start putting bullets in someone properly I would not be carrying a concealed handgun. |
Totally agree. Otherwise you get shot with your own gun. I don't know whether I can, which is one of many reasons I don't carry on my person except in very rare and very explicit circumstances I'm not likely to repeat since my training.
| frederick23 wrote: | | why put yourself into that [CCW] thinking mode? |
Because it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Because I didn't have a smaller one at hand, I've had to use a 4,000-pound, 400-horsepower weapon to save my life. I also suspect the last person who leveled a gun at me and my wife ultimately shot someone else after we escaped him -- just one more reason we left Albuquerque.
| frederick23 wrote: | | maybe you go to jail, maybe you made the right decision, maybe it goes to court ... All in that nano second of a decision. Do they train you for that? |
Our courses and the books I'm still reading address those decisions at great length. I consider them indispensable to both training and deciding whether to carry. Just one factor among many in my decision: Even if thorough investigation and ten movie cameras prove a shooter's innocence, the perp's family WILL sue and the shooter's next 2 or 3 years WILL BE pure living hell. And that often goes for cops on active duty, let alone civilians.
| frederick23 wrote: | | More likely you feel it's a power thing... or cool |
With some people, sure. But those are not the people we saw in our courses. Our classmates were ordinary people who had experienced threats or crimes or felt they needed protection ... as I would if I were out and about in a city at night. At the very least, I carefully observe my environment when in town even in broad daylight. There are reams of guidance available on how to recognize and avoid threats in ways that take no time, effort, or paranoia ... just awareness, which I have used on a few occasions. Our instructors mentioned that they had spotted several concealed weapons in our classes being held in a retail store (many people were just renewing or expanding their permits, and MANY rural western states residents carry without permits). "That's fine with us, but we ask that you keep them where they are so there's no chance of an accident in class." "Keep it in your pants" was how I put it.
| frederick23 wrote: | | You pull that thing out and you will be the first one shot dead by law enforcement. |
The latter does happen, but not often. Cops are taught to discern the difference between perps and Samaritans/victims. We are taught in class how to act in that situation, but even the premiere SWAT officers teaching us will not try to "save the mall" when off duty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | I sometimes have a gun in my car. Mostly, to euthanize a deer if I injure one with my car. Do I think about it daily? If it is not in the safe, yes, otherwise that would be irresponsible. |
I realize that's not your purpose, but others should realize that a gun in a normal combination-lock safe is of no value for home protection.
I've used guns, mine and bystanders', to euthanize several fatally injured deer/dogs/coyotes, but always with the realization of the very real threat of major legal hassles and four-figure fines if prosecuted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carrying is definitely not for everyone, no matter who you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | From a Canadian perspective this belongs in the "Bizarre Stuff" thread. |
As I've said before, according to
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Assault-victims ,
Canadians are twice as likely as US residents to be assaulted. However, you have every legal right to let attackers kill you, to leave it up to the RCMP to catch the bad guys after you die. Many Americans, though, prefer to die an unavoidable natural death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well said Mike on all accounts. Right on Mac. NW, are you referring to SB's paranoia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | How so? |
Basements specifically designed for the survivalists, the gun nuts, the isolationists, the tin foil hat crowd. Gun vaults designed to look like wine chests, and wine chests designed to look like gun vaults.
All the comforts of home de rigueur, naturellement.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
