Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

#177 Jan 10 2013 at 7:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Intruder breaks into front door of home. I point pistol at him. He runs away (or stays until the cops arrive, kinda his choice). Odds of anyone being physically injured? Very small.


Assuming the home invader is unarmed and you are there with your pistol waiting for him to bust your door down.

Otherwise, he just shoots you as you go for your gun hidden away in the side table of your bedroom or the drawer in the desk of your in home office.


What do you suppose happens if he sees me blocking his path with a shield and he has a gun? You know, if we're going to fairly compare the two methods of defending my home from an intruder.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#178 Jan 10 2013 at 7:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Oh. And if we're assuming that I have time to get to my shield and strap it on before confronting the intruder, isn't it fair to assume I have time to get my gun as well? And since it's my house, I know the layout, and I know where he is and he doesn't know where I am, I've got a huge advantage on him even if he is armed. Advantage gun. Every time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Jan 10 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,908 posts
I'm not saying the shield gives you a better chance of surviving. I'm saying that unless you are paranoid and sit in your living room chair with a gun ready to pounce, that armed guy who just kicked in your door has the advantage, and you can run to get any weapon you want, rifle, shotgun, handgun, shield, hammer, jart, if he really wants to kill you it's too late. And having the gun doesn't make the chance of anyone getting injured "very small".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#180 Jan 10 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I'm not saying the shield gives you a better chance of surviving.


Sure. But the whole "shield versus gun" thing came out of Stupidmonkey finding the idea of a gun being used for defense amusing (as opposed to armor and/or shields). I was simply illustrating that while it may seem counterintuitive, a gun is actually a vastly more effective means of defending yourself, your property, and even other people, than anything we might traditionally think of as "defensive".

Quote:
I'm saying that unless you are paranoid and sit in your living room chair with a gun ready to pounce, that armed guy who just kicked in your door has the advantage, and you can run to get any weapon you want, rifle, shotgun, handgun, shield, hammer, jart, if he really wants to kill you it's too late.


If we assume conditions in which I'm unable to use a gun to defend myself, then you are correct that the gun wont help me defend myself. Kinda pointless, but I suppose you're technically correct. Most of the time though, people don't burst into other people's homes. They attempt to open windows, and doors, and whatnot, seeking a means of entry into the home in a manner that will allow them sufficient time in the home to actually steal something of value. There's usually plenty of time for the occupant to retrieve a firearm if they have one.

Quote:
And having the gun doesn't make the chance of anyone getting injured "very small".


In your contrived case where the intruder bursts in guns blazing? No. But most cases of home defense with a firearm do not involve the firearm being fired. Intruder is working a window or door open. I make him aware I'm armed (lots of ways to do this). Intruder runs off. This happens all the time (not to me personally of course). The problem is that this doesn't show up in the news or in crime statistics because the crime was prevented. But this does happen a **** of a lot more often than most people realize.

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 6:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#181 Jan 10 2013 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But the whole "shield versus gun" thing came out of Stupidmonkey finding the idea of a gun being used for defense amusing (as opposed to armor and/or shields).


Actually, I would say that the gun is great as an intimidation tool, not a defensive tool. And intimidation, to me, seems to be an offensive style, not a defensive style.

In my head, when people talk about guns for defense, for some reason I see people blocking punches with bullets, which I understand is very effective, but it still makes me giggle.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#182 Jan 10 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But the whole "shield versus gun" thing came out of Stupidmonkey finding the idea of a gun being used for defense amusing (as opposed to armor and/or shields).


Actually, I would say that the gun is great as an intimidation tool, not a defensive tool. And intimidation, to me, seems to be an offensive style, not a defensive style.


I think you're getting caught up on some kind of treatment of "type" of weapon or whatever (or combat styles, like in a game). If intimidating your opponent prevents him from attacking you, then it was an effective defense.

Quote:
In my head, when people talk about guns for defense, for some reason I see people blocking punches with bullets, which I understand is very effective, but it still makes me giggle.


I can see that!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#183 Jan 10 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
I think you and I just see it differently, and will have to leave it at that. If I intimidate someone out of attacking me, that was an offensive move. The fact that they didn't attack me is because I "Attacked" them first, with my intimidating gun.

EDIT: Also, "Weapons" are not "Defensive". Their sole purpose is to "Attack". I see defense like a wall, armor, or a moat, or some other non damaging impediment that has no offensive power.

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 6:44pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#184 Jan 10 2013 at 9:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I think you and I just see it differently, and will have to leave it at that. If I intimidate someone out of attacking me, that was an offensive move. The fact that they didn't attack me is because I "Attacked" them first, with my intimidating gun.

EDIT: Also, "Weapons" are not "Defensive". Their sole purpose is to "Attack". I see defense like a wall, armor, or a moat, or some other non damaging impediment that has no offensive power.


/shrug. And I think you're being a bit narrow in your interpretation. You're trying to classify things based on what they physically are, rather than how they may be used. Every offense can be used defensively, and every defense can be used offensively. A wall doesn't defend anything unless there are people manning it. They man it by "attacking" those who are trying to get through/over/under the wall. One can easily argue that a defensive position increases the number of opponents you can kill by a factor far greater than any "offensive weapon" will.

I guess it's really about what aspect of the issue you're trying to look at. I "defend" the wall by shooting arrows at the folks trying to attack it. So it's somewhat of a pointless distinction to make to arbitrarily decide that one thing is defensive and the other offensive. Sure, the wall itself only serves to defend those manning it, but that in turn gives them greater offensive advantage against those who are attacking them. All kinda depends on how you look at it.


But in the context of "defending your home/self against an intruder", an weapon like a gun is quite effective. I think that's more important than quibbling over the label we apply to the object itself.

Edited, Jan 10th 2013 7:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#185 Jan 10 2013 at 11:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
/shrug. And I think you're being a bit narrow in your interpretation. You're trying to classify things based on what they physically are, rather than how they may be used. Every offense can be used defensively, and every defense can be used offensively. A wall doesn't defend anything unless there are people manning it. They man it by "attacking" those who are trying to get through/over/under the wall. One can easily argue that a defensive position increases the number of opponents you can kill by a factor far greater than any "offensive weapon" will.



The Walls are defensive because they allow the men on them to attack without being attacked. Walls directly defend the people they mean to protect. Always have. Before siege weaponry Walls defended cities without even needing men, because they were impossible to counter...until offensive weaponry allowed for others to destroy those walls.

Armor is defensive and it revolutionized combat. It made stone weapons obsolete, it forced crasftmen to forge bronze and iron weapons so people could effectively kill others. Heavy Armor required men to devise a way to assault from long range, so the Long Bow was devised to rain destruction down on armor clad knights from a great distance.

The gun was developed to kill people en masse from great range. The gun evolved over the years with one objective, to be capable of eliminating as many people as possible. Gattling Guns, Tommy Guns, AKs. Guns designed for one purpose...killing people as quickly as possible.

The gun is 100% an offensive weapon. At best it provides intimidation to negate a negative act. Then again Intimidation is also an offensive gesture. A gun does not protect you from anything...it is a security blanket mentality, guns are designed for one purpose. Killing period.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#186 Jan 11 2013 at 3:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,404 posts
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I think you and I just see it differently, and will have to leave it at that.


/shrug. And I think you're being a bit narrow in your interpretation.


Just couldn't leave it alone, could you. You had to continue the offensive. Whatever, ******** If you only want to argue, you will need to find a new participant.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#187 Jan 11 2013 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
In regards to Guns being used defensively and protecting people. I raise you confrontation with words and the results were but a few injuries from yesterdays high school shooting in Cali.


Quote:
The 16-year-old boy had allegedly wounded the teenager he claimed had bullied him, fired two more rounds at students fleeing their first-period science class, then faced teacher Ryan Heber.
"I don't want to shoot you," he told the popular teacher, who was trying to coax the teen into giving up the shotgun he still held.
Recounting the suspect's words, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood said the confrontation was enough of a distraction to give 28 students time to escape their classroom Thursday at a California high school.


Quote:
The suspect arrived after 9 a.m., and video surveillance cameras captured him looking nervous as he entered through a side door, Youngblood said. He made his way to the second floor of the school's science building, where Heber's class with 28 students inside was under way.
The suspect walked in a door close to the front of the classroom and shot his classmate. When the shots were fired, Heber tried to get the more than two dozen students out a back door and engaged the shooter in conversation to distract him, Youngblood said.
"The heroics of these two people goes without saying. ... They could have just as easily ... tried to get out of the classroom and left students, and they didn't," the sheriff said. "They knew not to let him leave the classroom with that shotgun."


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/calif-student-shot-classmate-gave-gun-teacher-saying-092331839.html

Of course guns work too, I mean that armed guard certainly provided enough of a deterrent to prevent the Columbine incident from happening....oh wait no it didn't.

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 12:03pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#188 Jan 11 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
gbaji wrote:
I honestly find it strange that someone wouldn't realize the innate defensive properties of firearms.


gbaji wrote:
Sure, but that's really just semantics.


Pretty much; deterrent =/= defensive in my mind at least, but it's merely one of those wording things.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#189 Jan 11 2013 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Listening to Limbaugh for a few minutes today, that dude has finally lost his last banana. He was ranting about how liberals want to take away assault rifles but they don't care about handguns because there's been a bunch of handgun deaths in Chicago and no one has tried to do anything about it.

Sure, Rush. Aside from, you know, the handgun ban the city had until 2011 when it was struck down by the Supreme Court Smiley: laugh The same one conservatives think the city still has since they always have to say "Bans won't work, cause lookit Chicago and someone was just shot there yesterday!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190 Jan 11 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Listening to Limbaugh for a few minutes today, that dude has finally lost his last banana. He was ranting about how liberals want to take away assault rifles but they don't care about handguns because there's been a bunch of handgun deaths in Chicago and no one has tried to do anything about it.

Sure, Rush. Aside from, you know, the handgun ban the city had until 2011 when it was struck down by the Supreme Court Smiley: laugh The same one conservatives think the city still has since they always have to say "Bans won't work, cause lookit Chicago and someone was just shot there yesterday!"


Contradictory data is culled during mandatory 24 hour self-parsing cycles of the conservative hive mind's core.




Y'all will be assimilated.
#191 Jan 11 2013 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

Conservative philosophy: enact policies that increase income inequality and poverty, which are the main causes for violent crime. Then claim we all need guns as protection against violent crime. Additional guns increase the severity of violent crime, which also helps to exacerbate poverty problem. Etc.
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#192 Jan 11 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
In regards to Guns being used defensively and protecting people. I raise you confrontation with words and the results were but a few injuries from yesterdays high school shooting in Cali.
[...]
Of course guns work too, I mean that armed guard certainly provided enough of a deterrent to prevent the Columbine incident from happening....oh wait no it didn't.

From what I hear, Taft High School has an armed guard... he was just taking a snow day.

No doubt this kid was just waiting for the day there was a heavy snow so he could be sure the armed guard would stay at home. Or maybe he's some sort of snow wizard. No one would ever try bringing a gun into a school where you thought there'd be a guard there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#193 Jan 11 2013 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
#194 Jan 11 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts


Huffpo wrote:
"Ratliff was known as an outspoken gun advocate. In a message posted to Twitter on Aug 11, 2012, he wrote: "I went to the movies with my pistol in my pocket the whole time I was praying that somebody would try to pull a Batman!"


The problem, in a nutshell.



Also: To me, "Pull a Batman" means screaming "WHERE'S THE TRIGGER?" at people in a husky voice....

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 4:27pm by Eske
#195 Jan 11 2013 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
In regards to Guns being used defensively and protecting people. I raise you confrontation with words and the results were but a few injuries from yesterdays high school shooting in Cali.


The kid had no intention of hurting anyone other than the one other kid he was targeting. Not sure what you think this proves other than maybe that people who don't want to hurt other people can easily be talked out of hurting other people?

Quote:
Of course guns work too, I mean that armed guard certainly provided enough of a deterrent to prevent the Columbine incident from happening....oh wait no it didn't.


Yes. The armed and uniformed guard, who the shooters knew about and waited until he was on the other side of the campus before beginning their shooting. Great job making my point. I get that there are some idiot conservative pundits (yes, there are as many idiots with airtime on the right as on the left) who make silly short term points like "let's put armed security guards at every school", but miss the larger and more important issue. What demonstrably works at stopping shootings short of becoming mass shootings is when there are regular looking people in the area with weapons that the shooter doesn't know about.

This is why concealed carry is so effective. The potential shooter doesn't know who might have a gun and thus can't as easily avoid armed opposition. Putting a uniformed and armed guard on duty doesn't do anything other than make the shooter come up with a plan to deal with the obvious obstacle.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Jan 11 2013 at 4:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I get that there are some idiot conservative pundits (yes, there are as many idiots with airtime on the right as on the left) who make silly short term points like "let's put armed security guards at every school"

Pundits, nothing. This is the stance of the NRA.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#197 Jan 11 2013 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I get that there are some idiot conservative pundits (yes, there are as many idiots with airtime on the right as on the left) who make silly short term points like "let's put armed security guards at every school"

Pundits, nothing. This is the stance of the NRA.


Not the only stance though. There's nothing wrong with putting those security guards in there if schools want. But the bigger issue (although admittedly harder to get people to accept) is that by creating gun free zones around schools we're disarming our best chances of stopping shootings from becoming mass shootings. That's what we should be addressing. Guards at schools might make some people feel like their kids are safer, but it really is at best a perception change. Anyone seriously contemplating shooting up a school isn't going to be deterred by that guard. Just like in Columbine.

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 2:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Jan 11 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I get that there are some idiot conservative pundits (yes, there are as many idiots with airtime on the right as on the left) who make silly short term points like "let's put armed security guards at every school"
Pundits, nothing. This is the stance of the NRA.
Not the only stance though. There's nothing wrong with putting those security guards in there if schools want.

Backpedal faster Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#199 Jan 11 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I get that there are some idiot conservative pundits (yes, there are as many idiots with airtime on the right as on the left) who make silly short term points like "let's put armed security guards at every school"
Pundits, nothing. This is the stance of the NRA.
Not the only stance though. There's nothing wrong with putting those security guards in there if schools want.

Backpedal faster Smiley: laugh


Not backpedaling at all. I disagree that armed uniformed guards at schools will make students significantly safer from mass shootings. If that's actually the proposed solution by the NRA, then I disagree with them. It's a short term point that sounds reasonable, but really doesn't address the issue at hand. That's not to say that putting armed guards at school is a bad idea. There are lots of other problems at schools that they might be useful dealing with. Just not mass shootings.

I don't happen to agree that that's the sole proposed solution by the NRA either though. Hence why I said "not the only stance". Does the NRA think armed security at our schools is a good idea? I'm sure they do. Heck. I think so too. Just not as a response to the need to do something to prevent future mass shootings. My issue is with people who try to play it off like that's the solution to the problem, and I disagree with them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#200 Jan 11 2013 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not backpedaling at all.

I'm happy to let the record speak for itself on that one Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Jan 11 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes. The armed and uniformed guard, who the shooters knew about and waited until he was on the other side of the campus before beginning their shooting. Great job making my point. I get that there are some idiot conservative pundits (yes, there are as many idiots with airtime on the right as on the left) who make silly short term points like "let's put armed security guards at every school", but miss the larger and more important issue. What demonstrably works at stopping shootings short of becoming mass shootings is when there are regular looking people in the area with weapons that the shooter doesn't know about.

This is why concealed carry is so effective. The potential shooter doesn't know who might have a gun and thus can't as easily avoid armed opposition. Putting a uniformed and armed guard on duty doesn't do anything other than make the shooter come up with a plan to deal with the obvious obstacle.


Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Not backpedaling at all.

I'm happy to let the record speak for itself on that one Smiley: grin


Yeah. Me too. See how my statement about putting armed security guards in schools was specifically in the context of mass shootings? I love how you quoted what I said was a silly statement by conservative pundits, but then left out the critically important *why* to what I was saying. I don't think it's a bad idea to have armed guards on school. I just think that this does not address the problem of mass shootings. Did you really fail to grasp what I was saying?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 3 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (3)