or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Guns? (do you carry?) revived
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Guns? (do you carry?) revived - Page 6

post #76 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homme
As far as i know, in Sydney, knives are a lot more common than guns amoungst the masses. Licencising is very strict, especially with pistols; and the police do random checks at people's houses to make sure they are being stored correctly. The percentage of aussie citizens carrying a firearm is miniscule.

Wow, that wouldn't fly AT ALL in the US haha.
post #77 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
Mute,

the first thread that I took part in on style forum was about this subject. I feel pretty strongly about the subject. I am sure that you believe that you are right. I don't believe that you are. I spent a little chunk of my life making my living as a gunman, and training people who made their living as gunmen. this type of discussion usually boils down to a dick contest - and I don't feel any need to start discussing with you who is more qualifiied to make a judgment on this matter, but I would be very very suprised, if it wasn't me.

and let me put it this way - I am willing to stipulate that if we were both standing 20 meters in front of paper targets, with what ever weapon either of us chose, you may very well outshoot me each and every time. using a firearm to influence a situation is not about being able to shoot well at paper, it is a wide basket of skills and capabilities that I don't believe is that common among civillians.
Globe, you seem to be implying that using a gun for self defence entails some kind of Delta Force tactical showcase. In order to deter a mugger, you don't need to be able to rappel from a Blackhawk and clear a wharehouse in pitch darkness.
post #78 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Appleby
Globe, you seem to be implying that using a gun for self defence entails some kind of Delta Force tactical showcase. In order to deter a mugger, you don't need to be able to rappel from a Blackhawk and clear a wharehouse in pitch darkness.


Oooh but it helps!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saMMKKmOpEk
post #79 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
The bit where the woman's talking an the guy jumps through the window is fucking classic.
post #80 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by drizzt3117
Fair point about the DE, I'll probably end up getting one but probably wont carry it on a regular basis cuz of the weight.
And the fact that it's a foot long monstrosity. You aren't seriously thinking about carrying a Desert Eagle as a weapon, are you? It's mechanically interesting, but it's really not much more than a big, expensive range toy. You can hunt with it, but that's about as practical as it gets.
post #81 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Appleby
The bit where the woman's talking an the guy jumps through the window is fucking classic.

Who would you rather face, the guys in my previous post (the "ground" or Army part of the JSDF)

Or these guys:

The "Navy" part of the JSDF...

Click the picture of sailors!
post #82 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

post #83 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim
Who would you rather face, the guys in my previous post (the "ground" or Army part of the JSDF)

Or these guys:

The "Navy" part of the JSDF...

Click the picture of sailors!

jesus, admiral yamamoto must be spinning in his watery grave.
post #84 of 200
post #85 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Appleby
Globe, you seem to be implying that using a gun for self defence entails some kind of Delta Force tactical showcase. In order to deter a mugger, you don't need to be able to rappel from a Blackhawk and clear a wharehouse in pitch darkness.


EA, let me tie this in with what mute, D, and huntsman said

1. I don't think that you need to be able to rappel to use a firearm I think that the ability to store a firearm safly, draw it under pressure, and use it under pressure, while achieving what you would like to do, without hitting any unwanted targets, is a lot harder than most people think.

2. after having this discussion a number of times on SF, I would say that people like D and Kai who take things seriously, are certainly at a level that I admire in terms of training and safty.

3. I believe that most people would be better served in trusting at less than lethal weapons for their defence, not because I care about the lives of bad guys, but because they are easier to train with, they are safer to carry, and they force you to know how to use them.

4. I believe that it comes down to risk assesment - if you are in serious risk of being held up by pistol bearing assailants, I am not sure that you are going to be able to use a handgun to influence events in your favor. if you are most likly to run into a large mean unarmed guy, then you probrably don't want to shoot him, anyway.

5. what ever you want to say, there are a lot of people getting killed and maimed by gun mistakes. just as importantly, most people who get killed by criminals are falling victem to guns that were stolen from people who didn't keep them securely.
post #86 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter
EA, let me tie this in with what mute, D, and huntsman said 1. I don't think that you need to be able to rappel to use a firearm I think that the ability to store a firearm safly, draw it under pressure, and use it under pressure, while achieving what you would like to do, without hitting any unwanted targets, is a lot harder than most people think. 2. after having this discussion a number of times on SF, I would say that people like D and Kai who take things seriously, are certainly at a level that I admire in terms of training and safty. 3. I believe that most people would be better served in trusting at less than lethal weapons for their defence, not because I care about the lives of bad guys, but because they are easier to train with, they are safer to carry, and they force you to know how to use them. 4. I believe that it comes down to risk assesment - if you are in serious risk of being held up by pistol bearing assailants, I am not sure that you are going to be able to use a handgun to influence events in your favor. if you are most likly to run into a large mean unarmed guy, then you probrably don't want to shoot him, anyway. 5. what ever you want to say, there are a lot of people getting killed and maimed by gun mistakes. just as importantly, most people who get killed by criminals are falling victem to guns that were stolen from people who didn't keep them securely.
I don't disagree with any of the above except perhaps that a lot of people are getting killed or maimed by gun mistakes. I'm sure the number isn't small, but I don't think people are as irresponsible on inept with guns as they are with a great many other consumer products, a good number of which are actually responsible for more deaths than guns. As to training with non-lethal means, absolutely. One should not rely on just a gun to defend oneself. It needs to be a complete picture. One caveat with that is that based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, when criminals attack, the victims reactions are broken off into three categories: 1. Those who comply 2. Those who resist with a gun 3. Those who resist by any means other than a gun According to FBI statistics, those who resist with a gun are less often injured or killed than those who respond in the other two manner. Those who resist with any other method actually are injured or killed the most often. IIRC, almost three times more than when they resist with a gun. Now here's the real stinker. Even those who comply are twice as likely to be injured or killed than those who resist with a gun. I will guess though, that most of those in that last category were as untrained with those non-lethal responses as many are with guns, hence the larger number. Let's be clear. I don't advocate anyone defending themselves with a gun just because they don't want to give up their hard earned money. But the fact is, sometimes a criminal will still decide to hurt you even if you do exactly as they say. When that does happen you can't just stand there and take it. You need to do your best to break away or fight back. If the latter is the only option, then a gun is still the best way to do it. As for the stolen guns issue, I don't see how that relates to concealed carry firearms. If you're carrying your gun most of the time, I would think that the number of stolen firearms would actually decrease as opposed to when you leave them at home unattended.
post #87 of 200
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mute
I don't disagree with any of the above except perhaps that a lot of people are getting killed or maimed by gun mistakes. I'm sure the number isn't small, but I don't think people are as irresponsible on inept with guns as they are with a great many other consumer products, a good number of which are actually responsible for more deaths than guns.

As to training with non-lethal means, absolutely. One should not rely on just a gun to defend oneself. It needs to be a complete picture. One caveat with that is that based on the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, when criminals attack, the victims reactions are broken off into three categories:

1. Those who comply
2. Those who resist with a gun
3. Those who resist by any means other than a gun

According to FBI statistics, those who resist with a gun are less often injured or killed than those who respond in the other two manner. Those who resist with any other method actually are injured or killed the most often. IIRC, almost three times more than when they resist with a gun. Now here's the real stinker. Even those who comply are twice as likely to be injured or killed than those who resist with a gun. I will guess though, that most of those in that last category were as untrained with those non-lethal responses as many are with guns, hence the larger number.

Let's be clear. I don't advocate anyone defending themselves with a gun just because they don't want to give up their hard earned money. But the fact is, sometimes a criminal will still decide to hurt you even if you do exactly as they say. When that does happen you can't just stand there and take it. You need to do your best to break away or fight back. If the latter is the only option, then a gun is still the best way to do it.

As for the stolen guns issue, I don't see how that relates to concealed carry firearms. If you're carrying your gun most of the time, I would think that the number of stolen firearms would actually decrease as opposed to when you leave them at home unattended.

A lot of it depends on the situation too. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you're going to cap anyone that steps up (well, at least not in my case) I have a lot of nonlethal weapons as well including area pepper sprays, stun guns, and a tazer in case a lower threshold of force is necessary.
post #88 of 200
Ok, by no means am I interested in guns or owning one but I recently was left a hand gun by an old friend who is getting rid of his estate. It is a Walther P.38 ac43 with serial # 1015F. Can anyone tell me if this gun is worth anything and how much should I sell it for, should I find an interested party.
Thanks for any information.

Gary
post #89 of 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arethusa
And the fact that it's a foot long monstrosity.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
post #90 of 200
Im suprised to see most people on SF support carrying guns. Or maybe the enthusiats are just the only people responding? Most of the folks I associate with would look at me like Im crazy if they knew I packed heat.

Despite my last name, I chose a Rohrbaugh over a Glock. This little gun is so invisible that my girlfriend never even knows when I carry it.

I got my carry permit as soon as I turned 21. Id be willing to bet that the university I attended has most students victemized per capita than any other in the nation. Every kind of kidnapping, car-jacking, and mugging you can imagine I read about in my school paper. Not long ago some poor little engineering girl got shot in the leg right in front of my apartment as some thugs were in the process of robbing another kid's car!

Anyway, I think of guns as catostrophic insurance. I did a little math piece on it a few years back. Basicialy, if you dont mind carrying a pistol, and arent incompetent, it can be shown that carrying a gun is a good insurance buy. If I had some time Id think about writing a proper paper on the subject. Ive never heard of anyone approaching the issue from an actuarial standpoint. Even with some very conservative number, my model showed packing heat as a very good buy.

Big picture issues aside, I would still be for carrying guns even if few people people were effectly defending themselves. I just think it's an individual's natural right to be able to protect his life. The main way criminals kill people in our society is with weaponry, and if they are determined to harm you, you are at their mercy unless you have a weapon of your own. Unless you are some kind of ninja... Obviously avoidence and awareness are your first line of defense, but there are still plenty of people taken by suprise every day. Im kind of rambling, but I just wanted to say I think the individual's right to self-defense trumps any collectivist concern for society (though I do not believe legal use of guns has a net negative effect on society.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Guns? (do you carry?) revived