Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Which is why you go down fighting in that particular situation. It ain't action movie heroism, but if they aim to kill you, you may as well make sure one or two of them die with you.
edited 18th Dec '12 3:32:47 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyAnd fighting back is not a "distraction?" It might be the best distraction. As, I guarantee you, if the people you're shooting at don't just stand there and let themselves be hit, they will try to get out of the way and hide behind cover, allowing yourself or your loved ones to get away.
Followup on CeCe
a few months later.
edited 18th Dec '12 3:39:47 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I'd be glad if Walmart stopped selling guns, personally. For my general area it would mean more business for the locally owned sportsman shops that are worlds better anyway. Though that's somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand. . .
Touching back on risk to others and controlled substances, I wonder if a better comparison could be made to cigarettes (the guns=cars is something of a Godwin variant by now)? While I'm less than sold on how they acquired the data (how do you definitively attribute cause of death to second hand smoke effects?) the CDC attributes aprox. 46,000
deaths to diseases caused by exposure to second hand cigarette smoke. I can't get a solid figure on firearm fatalities, but the CDC states over 31,000
in 2011. Keep in mind I'm kinda rambling on different things popping into my head though, so I'm trying to avoid making any sort of false equivalency.
—
Back on general gun control, around my area any sort of talk about it falls on deaf ears. Western NC and the surrounding Appalachian areas have a curious mix of old-time farmers and hunters living alongside nutter doomsday preppers and the odd klansman. It's something of an initiation ritual to buy a child his/her first gun, and just about everyone I know owns at least one or two. For a meaningless personal anecdote, my family has a variety of firearms ranging from semi-auto military weapons to antique shotguns. We take a more utilitarian approach to the weapons; small caliber rifles and shotguns are for hunting and animal control, while the military arms are only used for sport shooting.
Overall I'd consider them to be responsible owners, but I cannot say the same for many others in the area. We have a good share of violent and paranoid individuals who are more than ready to shoot any soul who strays too close. Compounding this is the rather corrupt police force in the area; many are more than ready to help the crazier individuals cover up a crime, and if let's say a hypothetical assault weapons ban were to be put into effect they would be more than willing to help them hide the guns. This has me wondering if this attitude extends to other areas, maybe? I've been rather isolated when it comes being exposed to viewpoints found in other areas of the nation, so I can't really say if the behavior would extend passed the mountains.
—edit, on tobacco vs firearms, I wonder if some simple statistics can be found on regulation vs victims. Say, annual number of victims by month or year following implementation of regulations?
—edits for grammar, sometimes I feel like kicking myself for still making these mistakes.
edited 18th Dec '12 3:50:31 PM by carbon-mantis
If they do have the "drop" on you, are cornered, and you or your family is not at physical risk, your best bet is to comply in that situation. There are also situations where if you're backed into a corner, having a concealed weapon will still be a good deterrent.
Having a gun is not a license to shoot indiscriminately. It is for self-defense and the hope that you will never need it.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Devil: Yeah but if the people think you have a gun they're going to have theirs out and pointed at you as soon as they make themselves known. You could, in theory, grab your gun and pull it out and, if you're really fucking lucky, aim before they shoot you but you're still getting shot, gun or no gun.
edited 18th Dec '12 3:52:38 PM by Kostya
I think the flawed logic is stemming from the "I need a gun to protect my family from guns" instead of thinking "we should limit access to guns so that my family will not need to worry about gun violence"
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"You could also, in theory, run, and hope that a criminal (or his own bullet) is not faster than you. This is not always going to be a reality.
There are a lot of things that could happen. The point of an armed populace is to have another option other than rolling over and giving up.
The flaw in this argument is assuming that it is only gun violence that a person is worried about. It is -all- violence. Guns are simply the most effective means to that end.
If guns simply did not exist (bans do not get rid of the existence of guns) or were otherwise made ineffective by practical means such as better non-lethal deterrents, there would be no discussion on whether to prevent access to potentially lethal arms of any kind. But since they are the best way of protecting oneself right now, it will still be looked on as being more beneficial.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:03:58 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I'm wondering why almost nobody in a hypothetical mugging or attack situation wouldn't simply try to run away. Do Tropers live by some code where they have to stand their ground if attacked on the street? I have self-defense training, and one of the first things I learned in class was that if you can run away, you should fucking run away. Do may people here honestly and truthfully believe that they could take a life, even if they had to?
edited 18th Dec '12 4:05:30 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.![]()
![]()
Running just means they'll shoot you.
My argument is that even with an armed populace you will still get killed. Criminals are not stupid. If tons of people have guns they'll either shoot you and quickly loot your corpse or point their guns right at the start and shoot you if you try to grab yours. It will solve nothing.
If someone has a gun they could just shoot you in the back. I'd say it's a better idea than trying to fight them but if they want you dead you are going to die.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:06:12 PM by Kostya
![]()
The problem is you have to turn around leaving your back facing armed criminals. obviously if some guy down the street yells "give me your money!", you can run. if they're feet away from you with their own gun, your fucked.
plus, what if their faster?
edited 18th Dec '12 4:07:43 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackGetting shot in the front vs. getting shot in the back? What's the difference? Besides, you don't know if you're faster than somebody or not, or if a mugger is going to chase you down or not, or if they're going to shoot if you run away or not, if the gun is loaded or not, or if they're able to hit a moving target or not. Running gives you a chance to get away.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.A misguided attempt to be a hero can be just as dangerous as any other course of action, if not moreso. All it takes is one idiot who thinks that he's John McClane to turn a dangerous situation into a tragic one.
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)Honestly I think hypothetical "person x accosted by hostile Y" scenarios rely on too many variables to accurately predict the outcome.
Someone breaking into my house? Where are they entering from, are they in the house, how startled am I, etc etc. I'd like to think that I'd quickly grab the shotgun, give a clearly audible warning, and call the authorities, but I really can't say that it would happen like that for certain. Locally a lot of the crimes involving muggings or burglaries have been committed by people intoxicated on alcohol or methamphetamine, so I can't really judge how they would react either.
edit- Ah, still I think there are a lot of things to consider if you're being accosted on the street. Factors about the assailant, distance, time, and location are pretty important. I'd agree that if options are exhausted I'd consider running a viable strategy, but if I clearly had the choice between running and getting shot in the back and fighting and getting shot, I'd honestly prefer fighting.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:21:20 PM by carbon-mantis
@ Kostya: So, again, are you going to roll over and die if you're going to die anyway? Or would you prefer a fighting chance?
With your passion for life, I would think you would do everything you could.
Yes, I would like to have more options that are not lethal.
Myself, I like the idea of less-than-lethal ammunition like beanbag rounds in shotguns. It may not be as effective, but it is far less likely to kill someone. The problem is that US law is FUBAR with that, and it turns you into the criminal even if something like that is used for self-defense.
To which, there's several incidents of people doing this right, and almost none to do this wrong. The recent Oregon mall shooting involved a man armed and ready to engage the shooter. Upon seeing him, the shooter decided to run instead and this prevented more shots being fired.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:16:53 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I thought we were talking about some people jumping you while you're walking through a bad neighborhood. Breaking into a house has too many variables to properly discuss although I still think a gun wouldn't exactly help the situation.
You are completely missing the damn point. Gun or no gun if they want you dead, you will die because I can guarantee they'll get off a few shots before you can aim and fire. If you run you will probably die. I'm sorry but it's just the way things work. Yeah I'd probably prefer fighting but in this scenario (multiple people with guns aimed at me) I know damn fucking well that I will die if I try and fight them. This is why I'm saying the gun will do nothing so it's pointless whether or not you are allowed to have it.
edited 18th Dec '12 4:16:25 PM by Kostya

And if what they want is killing you and then raping and killing your wife or daughter?
Are you going to just roll over and die, then?
As they say, a small chance is better than no chance. Aren't you a supporter of "Pro-life"?
edited 18th Dec '12 3:30:09 PM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!