If you want to learn spiritualism, learn karate. If you want to learn to fight, find someone who teaches army cqc. Or possibly learn jeet kune do which being based in no small part around 'whatever works' is also probably quite useful in a fight. Guns can get you into trouble however, while practical in theory, you are far less likely to get your fists taken off you.
Not massively useful for personal defence however as shooting everyone who comes into range can often offend.
Would you believe I actually got into an "argument" (more like a discussion) with someone about this point regarding guns. Dopey that I couldn't say it anywhere near as succinctly.
I beg to differ. The FBI requirement is being able to draw and fire when a person is 21 feet away from you and running at you. I own a Glock 21 (.45 ACP) that's pretty much a hand cannon; I keep it loaded with hollow point rounds, 220gr. When you start talking about that caliber in an expanding round, the need for a "double tap" disappears. One round will take any non-armored target down. So assuming I can put rounds on target, the whole engagement ends pretty fast. In my state (WA) if someone comes at me and I have reason to believe they mean to cause me bodily harm, then killing them doesn't offend. Killing them falls within my state's laws. There is no flight before fight clause. If I feel that the best way to protect myself or others is to fire my gun, then I should do so. Likewise, your car is YOUR property, so if someone tries to invade my car, just like if they try to invade my home, I am in the right to use lethal force. Moreover, anyone coming at me, if I draw a gun on them, will likely flee. If someone gets the drop on me...martial arts, gun or whatever, I'm going to have a hard time defending myself. Finally: the very fact that people have guns around my area leads to a lower rate of crime. Just like you wouldn't walk into a gun range and try to murder someone...you won't try to commit a crime in an area where someone is liable to pull a gun on you. Some bullshit still happens like the cops that were killed in Tacoma a year ago....which is a shame; had I been there I damn well would have drawn my gun to defend the cops. The ONLY downside to using a gun for defence is knowing what is downrange from you. If you miss, or the round goes through your target and keeps moving downrange, what will it hit? If you killa bystander while defending yourself...you are charged with involuntary manslaughter (bullshit when you realize cops do NOT face the same issue. If they kill someone else trying to stop a criminal, the criminal is charged with the death as if THEY had been the one to kill the bystander. Love the double standard.) I see your shitty gatling gun and raise you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu3BSafGK9I I love you, GE
I was more thinking that most criminals don't advertise their presence, so either you shoot everyone, as in every living thing that enters the effective range of your firearm, or you forfeit the advantage somewhat. I'd still prefer a gun to a knife, but for self defence purposes I'd rather be able to just punch a guy into oblivion, or kick, or otherwise bludgeon with my body. Guns generally have to be kept holstered and you can't use them non lethally, punches are always handy and can be turned down if you happen to be in a situation where killing the person might be inappropriate. Of course you could also do both and learn martial skills as well as how to shoot, which would give you the advantages of both, and guns aren't too hard to use so you could learn how to use them if you can learn hand to hand fighting skills.
Guns are not as easy to get in Germany as in the states. Guns used for sports nowadays are stored at the range and you need two persons to open the armory non violently. They also use a very small caliber which is mostly non-lethal in the first shots. Hunters carry repeaters which are rather difficult to hide and to shoot in a fast pace and are not allowed to carry around in populated areas. So in order to get or use a gun (you don't own the gun you shoot with in shooting sports here) you need a arms license and in order to get it you have to proof your sanity you have/do a profession/sport that requires you to shoot guns you have no connections to a criminal/illegal group you got no criminal record So the only people allowed to carry guns in public here are policemen and soldiers. Also it's not adequate to defend your property by killing the offender. Human life is worth more then any worldly belongings. Wouldn't keep me from shooting somebody's legs or feet though which is not necessarily lethal.
In America you had best hope you do kill someone if you shoot them. Shooting someone with a gun is taken as intent to kill, because guns are lethal weapons. So if you shoot someone but explicitly state that you don't feel the need to kill them, that's assault with a deadly weapon. Kind of unusual logic, but quite neccesary, because guns are not reliably non-lethal, you can't shoot someone and have any real guarantee it won't kill them unless you happen to be both a very good shot and in a hospital.
Well since you are here not allowed to own weapons in general you will at least be charged for owning one when you use it. Policemen and Soldiers are ordered to shoot at non-lethal spots when they have no other chance to catch an offender (and a crime justifying the use of arms). Sure they will have some vacation after doing so, but usually they will not face any more serious consequences other then an investigation to proof the acceptability of their use of arms.
Uhhh, what the fuck? No. Firing to defend yourself is NOT intent to kill. And assult with a deadly weapon is something VERY different. Like I said: in my state, someone comes at me with a knife, I fire my gun. It's not taken as a "did I need to kill them" it's taken as a "did I feel my life (or the life of someone else, as I can fire to protect someone else in WA) was in danger?" If yes, then I'm in the right. Assuming the guy was actually coming at me with a knife. Doesn't matter if I kill or maim. Moverover, your first sentance makes no sense. If you shoot and DO kill them (and you're not defending yourself) you are worse off than if you shoot and DON'T kill them. One is actual manslaughter; the other is attempted manslaughter. How SURE are you that you'll win a fist fight? If they come at me with a knife, I'm drawing a gun. If they come at me and try to beat me down - cause bodily harm - I pull a god damned gun. YOu try to harm me, I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to aim for center of mass. If you die, your fault for coming at me, you had it coming. As for guns being holstered; if someone comes at me, the first thing i do is draw the gun and unsafe it (well, if your gun HAS a safety. My glock has no active safety.) I likely have to also chamber a round, given I don't keep one chambered. If they keep coming after they see the gun and hear me chambering around, they're asking for it, and I'm unleashing hell upon them. Also, in WA I CAN open carry; police will hound me citing city laws, and I'll tell them to fuck off citing state laws that supersede city laws. I can also conceal carry. Hard when you have a full sized .45 with a 13 round mag, but doable.
Jeez, this is the same argument I had. I've heard the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Meaning that a certain type of person will always kill, the gun doesn't really matter, right? So what happens if that killer, those guys with intent come up to you, those guys who would shoot you anyway? Because you are walking around without intent, they can pull a gun and shoot you before you respond, right? If they don't, then we can assume their intent was much much less than to kill you. It's logical to conclude that they are enabled by the guns they carry, rather than them being killers and getting scared because you have a gun. If they kill, if these "people kill people", then a personal defence gun should do nothing. Hmm...maybe it's because you have more stupid criminals. 'Cos I was certain that if I was going to kill someone or mug them, or beat the crap outta them, i'd get close then go for a crippling strike - be that a knife to the guts or a shot in the gizzard (or a proficient punch, but i'd have to be sure of it). If someone takes out a gun like 10-20 feet in front of you, in an area where people are allowed to use guns, that's just stupid, isn't it? Wouldn't it be much better to walk passed you then shoot you in the back, or take out the gun in close, or hold it behind their back or summat? And if they got that close, wouldn't they just press the muzzle against your chest and relieve you of your weapon/pat you down, then mug/kill you? I really don't understand the personal defence weapon thing. At least not for walking around where people say "if someone comes at me"...wtf, what kinda retard "comes" for you. And it's not like you can hold your gun in your hand and point it at people who look suspicious as they go passed...or can you? Is that what you end up doing? Drawing your gun on suspicious people until they go passed? Frankly, the whole idea confuses me. What's the difference between everyone having guns and everyone having just knives :confused: Edit: Remove all the "guns are stupid" connotations from your mind from this post. I'm not here to argue that shite anymore, just tell me... how can someone without intent best someone with intent, if you both have guns? I don't understand that idea at all...!
Because not every person with intent has a gun. Because plenty have knives. Because plenty have bad aim. And because plenty are dumb. Because one tried to beat my door down in April. Because I had warning and could draw my gun, chamber a round and wait for the police to show, or for him to get through my door and enter my apartment, and then I could fire once he was inside. By your logic, if the enemy can carry a gun, I should resign myself to death and wait for it to come. Right? That being the case, your entire post is pointless because I disagree entirely; I'm going to try to survive; the best way for me to defend myself is with a handgun. And if I die to someone attacking me - however unlikely - I'll go out trying to survive.
Not all burglaries happen on the streets. AFAIK, concealed permits extended to carrying in your car. Some people rob people in the driver seats of their car because it gives them less of a chance to fight back. If the victim had a gun, he could pull it out and stick it in his face. Having a gun by itself isn't a sure safety measure. Awareness also plays a large role in self defense. Use common sense and be more prepared if you are walking through a bad neighborhood, or an isolated area. Not many people will rob you in broad day light with a lot of people nearby. If you think someone is following you, wait for them to pass, be prepared to draw if he initiates on you.
i think im going to buy a nuclear bomb if some oppressive goverment wants to bust in my door, at least il go down in a fight right android? i mean its my right to endanger others for my own benefit
Well, concealed carry permits apply to wherever, though businesses CAN say no guns allowed. The gray area becomes defending oneself in their car. If the state has a castle clause, does it apply to the car? Some states say no; some yes. This really comes into play when talking about acceptable force. Under a castle clause, someone found in your home not fleeing , you can shoot. Does this apply to someone entering your car? WA says yes. More liberal states...no. Concealed carry permits and whether you can use force are two very different things. Random aside: CA's gun laws stem not from there being a liberal government, but rather from an attempt to prevent the black panthers from killing more police officers and standing outside of polling locations brandishing guns. Gotta love them black panthers. And Reagan helped pass the laws.
