Fml

Yes to self-defence, no to lethal force tbh. If it was allowed to be carried by civilians, I'd get myself a nice Pepperball pistol or -gun (for at home). Use a mix of those glass-breaking balls for extra pain and normal pepperballs and I would feel pretty safe without the ability to cause lethal harm

 

yes, this

 

I'm talking about on the streets. But if your argument is the criminals are dumb, then I can't really contest that. If you have a gun and they have knives, i'd think that's pretty dumb tbh.

I guess the phrase "criminals always get guns" doesn't really hold water in that case then.

Where do you get that from? My point is that people always say the criminals have intent and everyone else is happy and not-paranoid. But if you're saying it's more like you all live by the law of the gun, well that's different. If everyone had a gun on them, then people would be unwilling to have confrontations because someone will be bound to die.

Let's put it this way, we have something called "hoodies" over here, they go around knifing each other. They're probably like a really really watered down version of the american gangs, mostly because they don't have guns. The casual criminal on the streets doesn't have a gun here, the guys who mug you etc will do so at knifepoint. The guys who are a bit more serious will ofc carry guns, but if you're running into those guys it's pretty much like you're outta your depth anyway.

That's really the difference. The majority of the populace here doesn't carry anything on themselves, relying mostly on not running into that and whatever their body can do, as well as the protection provided by the police. Over where you live...I assume the majority carry guns? Relying on being able to shoot any aggressor?

Is that better, do you think? Or is it just how it is and how you deal with it?

 

The difference between a gun and pepperspray is the message it sends to the attacker. A pepperspray sends a message of weakness firmly establishing the attacker as a higher force. Even if you hit them with a pepper spray, or pull it out in a threatening manner, it does not do much to stop them from actually attacking, especially if you miss.
A gun on the other hand, sends a message of strength. Many times just the presence of a gun will deter potential attackers.
But not everyone is capable of using somrthing with lethal force. You have to have conviction if you want to use guns for self defence.

 

its not hard to make a pepperspray or tazer look like a gun, its better then having a fake gun or a gun that kills people

in fact

 

Lets just say that everyone knows the sound of a pistol or a shotgun having a round chambered. That sound ALONE is enough to scare MOST people off. Those who aren;t scared off by that....well, pepperspray won't save you. Pepper spray does NOT really stop the person in one go. A bullet stops all but those wearing armor.

I'll reply to beerdude and Ikalx when I have time later

 

Don't mind me too much; we've had this conversation before and i'm getting tired of trying to do this anymore. I think the next time someone says guns are good for personal defence i'll just say "depends where you live" and end it at that.

Depends where you live. And possibly how bad your media is, but that's another story.

 

I worry somewhat for your sanity if your response to anything you percieve threatening is to wave a gun at it and then shoot it.

I hope you are extremely good at judging intent.

As in I hope you have the required psychic powers to spot all the people who are going to mug you or kill you when they aren't being obvious about it.

Over here criminals don't advertise themselves, because they get arrested if they do that, a gun would be rather useless to me because it's not going to help me if I'm walking around the streets at night, unless I shoot every group of 3+ indiviudals I see on sight, I really wouldn't be able to guarantee my safety. And I think the police might have issue with that strategy.

I find it hard to believe that police in america are that far behind the rest of the civilised world, or that your criminals are entirely void of brain function and self preservation senses.

 

Because I totally stated that as my course of action. It's pointless even debating with you if you'll just distort anything I say.

 

Actually, and don't take this as a criticism, but generally if you refute what he's said and point out just how he's a retard, you win.

Ofc we all know about arguing on the internet, but that's the only way.

 

Fuck pepperspray, I want a Pepperball Gun:


Pictured: AMERICAW FUCK YEA

But nooo, all you can get is this crap http://www.hotshotdefense.com/ or this http://www.pepperball.com/pdf/Flash_spec_sheet.pdf

I mean jesus the last thing looks like a goddamn vibrator, just allow me to buy something a *little* more high tier so I actually stand a slither of a chance against an actual gun

 

I find it hard to see how any other course of action would bring the benefits you pointed out.

A gun is a weapon, like any weapon it allows you to harm people easier. A gun is such an effective weapon that it helps you harm people so much that it becomes hard to avoid killing people with them.

However, a weapon is only as useful as its operator. The advantages of a gun are ease of use, and the ability to kill people at a distance.

The problem arises when you are forced by law and general human decency to forefeit your range advantage. A gun is perfectly suited to killing people who 'come at you' as you put it, but aside from someone breaking into your house, I don't see that as being a very common activity for criminals. Out on the street a criminal is probably more likely to just stab you or whack you on the back of the head with a brick, or some other method of incapacitating you without telegraphing it in advance. Why would they make themselves obvious if there's a chance you'll shoot them or even just beat them up? Why would the make themselves obvious if it makes them more likely to get arrested?

You make it sound either as though every criminal in the world will helpfully telegraph their criminality to you and give you time to shoot, or that you simply shoot everyone who you think is vaguely threatening.

For home defence, sure, use a gun. For out on the streets, I would suggest that physical fitness and resiliance, along with trained fighting ability and a gun would be far more useful. If someone starts a drunken barefisted scuffle with you outside a pub, I'm pretty sure the police would object to you putting three rounds through his chest. They might look more favourably on you restraining him with your fighting ability. If someone out of the blue stabs you in the back, you would probably be better served with some hand to hand skills and the physical fitness that goes with them than just a gun, of course if you took both you could survive the initial attack, knock your attacker off balance for a few seconds and then draw your gun and shoot them.

A gun is not the answer to everything, fighting skills have their place. If forced to pick between the two I would say fighting skills are the more useful option, although using both is a good idea.

 

Awareness and preparedness.
Don't get in a situation where you are likely to get attacked.
Walk away from the drunk. He can't catch you. Hand to hand fighting is an unnecessary risk. The situation is either small enough to just walk away from, or serious enough to warrant the use of a gun.

 

I have to agree with FH here. When I've got a gun on my person, I am FAR more aware of my surroundings. I notice the sound of people behind me, I watch behind me...I see people coming. Walking though a bad area of Seattle I saw someone obviously high coming towards me. Looked pissed off as hell, and ready to try to beat someone down; I steered clear of him. But I had my hand on my gun at the same time, ready in case something DID happen. If I have a gun on me, it's because I'm in undesireable areas; that being the case, I'm going to be more aware of what's going on around me. I don't walk into a upscale restauraunt with a gun concealed. Hell, I'm not even allowed to normally, given that I cannot walk into a bar with a gun on me.

long story short: you attack me and I feel threatened - unable to turn and run from you - I'm not going to resort to hand to hand; I'm:
a.) not going to devote my life to training for hand to hand combat, I have a real life I'd like to live and
b.) even if I did devote my life to it, the chances the other person is stronger are quite high; hand to hand combat means they are close to me; with a gun, I can keep the person at range and be at a much lower risk.
c.) By your earlier arguement, you mention "what if they have guns" - well, I'll use your own arguement against you. If the criminal attacking you has a gun, he will be at range - out of range of your fist, meaning combat training can very easily be rendered worthless.
d.) a firm believer in Locke. You invade my land and threaten me, you risk very grave injury and death. You attack me on the street, I'll defend myself as best I can. Having a gun on me means my self defense is going to be deadly as well.

Moverover, I believe in the idea that if you attack me, you're a criminal; I'm not - I'm just trying to live my own life. You threatened me, so your own life may now be forfiet, and it's your fault. If one person dies trying to mug someone armed with a gun and word gets around, other people will be less lifely to do it. You make an example. The British understood that 100 years ago quite well.

Do most criminals here have guns? No. The gun violence rate in the US isn't that bad. Statistically...chirst, how do I say this without being called racist? Statistically, blacks are victims of gun violence at greater than 10x than whites. And no, the KKK isn't running around with guns. The matching statistic is that blacks are also guilty of causing gun violence at a much higher rate.

That said, not many people walking around looking to mug you have a gun. They have a knife or their fists. And my Glock 21 is more than just a "one up" of that. It's effectively a "Do ya feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?!" response to them. Because in WA they know that there is a decent percentage of people with CPLs, and they need to gamble on trying to mug someone, hoping the person they pick to mug does NOT have a CPL. You go ahead and carry a knife, I'll carry a gun. I think Sean Connery had something to say about that

 

Guns aren't legal in Britain and they're a nightmare to get hold of. Gun crime is also incredibly low. Coincidence? I think not. There's a reason America has the highest amount of serial killers per population in the world.

 

its cuz we have more of them damn monkey scum niggers

 

Finally someone who also sees the stupidity of having guns at disposal like they were groceries!

 

The correlation between Gun crime in Britain and gun control doesn't prove America's gun crime is caused by lack of gun control. Germany has very strict gun control laws, yet their gun crime rate is very high.

In Switzerland, all males are forced to keep and maintain an rifle as part of their forced conscription, yet their gun crime rate is lower than US.

Gun control makes no sense since the guns used in crimes are not legally obtained.