Very interesting article

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I've never even met a victim. I've never met anyone who's actually been in one of these situations, and it's not like me or any of my friends try to avoid them. I've never lived more then 10 minutes from downtown in two of the continents biggest cities, and never once have I been mugged, or even threatened. I literally walk through some of these cities "worst" neighborhoods, and do so without fear.

I live and work in Center City Philadelphia. I haven't had any problems (knock on wood). Not the highest crime rate area of the city by far. But I know 3 people that I work with that have been mugged in Center City (one of them twice) and a friend that I don't work with that was also mugged.

I own a gun, but keep it at home. I don't carry it. I've thought about getting my carry permit, but if I ever do get mugged, I'm going to hand over the money. Why? Because of those 5 muggins that I know about, only one involved violence and that was because my friend ran. The guy chased him down and pistol whipped him. He's lucky he wasn't shot.

On the other hand, if some of these muggers started getting blown away by their victims, they might think twice before commiting that crime.

Years ago I was stabbed at a Beastie Boys concert. I got in a fight with someone in the mosh pit and they started punching me. After security dragged me outside and I saw the blood all over my shirt did I realize he had a box cutter, or other small blade, in his hand while he was punching me in the chest. But, again, gun wouldn't have done any good because even if I carried, I wouldn't take it somewhere prohibited like a concert.


So, in other words. I'm wishy washy and undecided on the whole issue. But I am glad that I have the option to own and carry a weapon to protect myself if need be.

[scl 0]

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that in this story, which is supposed to convince us of the necessity of firearms for protection, that the victim was attacked with a handgun? The very rights which the author is fighting for are the ones that put him in such great danger in the first place.
No, I don't think that right should be taken away, but to assert that more citizens having guns will make the world a safer place is a little backwards, to say the least, and this story illustrates that quite well. Actually, as I got into the article, I thought maybe it was an anti-gun piece. Ask any ghetto mother if she thinks her dead son would have been better off if his gang brothers had only had more and bigger guns than their rivals.
Also, in thinking about one's own personal protection, we can't forget that whatever weapon we carry has the potential to be turned against us. In my short time working with police and security, I heard many stories of criminals using someone else's weapon for an assault, but no successful stories of victims turning a situation around with their own weapon. For this reason, every cop I asked about how to protect myself suggested non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray, and good training in "how to kick somebody's butt who's bigger than you."
Oh yeah, don't forget, if you own a gun and use it against somebody who's assaulting you, and you wound or kill him or her, you could be the one doing serious jail time if you can't prove that it was your last resort in saving your own life. The bottom line is, the more guns that are out there, the more shots are likely to get fired, and that's never good.
I don't see anything wrong ith shooting for sport, and I have enjoyed it myself; but there is a HUGE difference between that and having a handgun on the ready at all times for any possible "attack." I'm sorry for what happened to the man in this article, and I hope restrictions on handgun laws are not lifted so that this does not happen to more people.

[PhillyKev 0]

Ah yes...just remembered an incident that a gun would have made a difference. A friend of mine (small girl, maybe 105lbs at the most) was outside her office in Center City buying a soda from a street vendor. Some huge guy that was mentally unstable or hopped up on something walked down the sidewalk yelling about "the bitches" punched an old woman, knocked her down and then proceeded to kick her. My friend grabbed her cell phone and starded dialing 911. Before she could actually dial, the guy was on her, beat her and she was in the hospital for 3 days.

If she had grabbed a gun instead of a cell phone, could have been a different outcome...but who knows.

[kallend 2,032]

Let's assume he had his handgun when the assault took place. What would he have done differently, given that the assailant's gun was pressed to his head?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Let's assume he had his handgun when the assault took place

Reread my previous posts. I said if he had prepaired himself for something like that, he wouldn't have been sitting in the car, awaiting his attacker, he would have already been out of the car, assessing the situation, from the front diverside corner of the car. In a postition to evade (duck behind car, then escape), in a postition to fight if he saw a need to (the perp walking up with a gun) or exchange insurance information. That just seems like common sense to me.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AggieDave 6]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

Heres one example, they have a lot of links to news stories involving people defending themselves. Yes, that is coming from a very biased site; however, it has links to "real" news stories from other sources. Take it as you will.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[billvon 3,009]

>You can pull up real truthful stories about people being killed with
>legally obtained Ice Picks too . . .

Of course. No one here has suggested outlawing ice picks (or guns) but it would be silly to suddenly feel safe because one bought a dozen ice picks, even if your right to own an ice pick is constitutionally protected.

>He would have been out of his car, immediately . . .

And here is why having a gun means you are more likely to be killed. An armed man bolts out of a car towards you and clears his jacket for access to his holstered gun. You, being the super-aware non victim, draw your gun. He sees a weapon in a confrontational situation, draws and fires. To your dismay, he can put 10 rounds in a 10-ring in 8 seconds.

A traffic accident becomes a double fatality because two people are gun-toting, take-no-shit 'non victims.' Not opening the door would have saved him just as easily, and not have exposed him to attack; being behind the wheel of a car puts you in control of a much better defensive weapon than a gun. However, a "I'm in charge of the situation!" attitude will remove that option, since only victims flee.

Again, I fully support gun ownership, subject to restrictions (no children, criminals or mentally defective owners.) But once a gun is used in a situation like the above, it's already too late to prevent a serious confrontation. Many cops I jump with have told me that, once their gun comes out, it's an indication that they've lost control of the situation, and they try to avoid that scenario at all costs. It's worth following their example, I think.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Alright, for the two people who think that he would have been SOL since he had been attacked. Maybe, maybe not, that depends a LOT on where he kept/carried his weapon and if it was locked and loaded, one in the chamber ready to go; moreover, if he had had the proper training/mindset, he wouldn't have been in a victum situation. He would have been out of his car, immediately, since that would give him the advantage against an attack. He would have also been armed on his person (not visably, that's illegal, but concealed). If he's anything like me, he can draw from his concealed carry rig, chamber a round and empty a 10-round magazine into the 10-ring in well under 10 seconds.

So you have the mindset that if you apply your brakes real hard to avoid an accident when you're cut off in traffic, and the car behind rear ends you as a consequence, you will spring out of your car, with your concealed weapon ready to draw, to greet the other driver. Cool, but has it occurred to you that maybe 99,999 out of 100,000 collisions of this nature are just normal accidents and the motorist is merely coming to exchange insurance information and that your action would be viewed as hostile and aggressive.

And once the other guy has his revolver to your head, what do you think he will be doing during the 10 seconds it takes you draw and load? Whistling "Dixie"? 10 seconds does not sound like the fastest gun in the West.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Here's what I do, maybe this will clarify what I'm talking about, since you obviously don't understand my point.

When something happens similar to being rear ended I will, if possible, pull off the road/into a parking lot/etc. Get out of my truck and stand by my door/front corner of my truck with my hands grasped in front of me, all in a very unalarming manner. Well, unalarming except for the fact that I'm a big white guy who lifts a lot of weights, has a shaved head and a long goatee...

From that position I am able to draw, load and fire very very quickly. What I said about being able to do that in under 10 seconds was talking about firing all 10 rounds and its probably closer to 5 seconds, but I've never had it timed. It is faster then it takes the computer controlled target at the range to "run" at me from 15ft, though.

The first couple seconds of a situation like that determine what will happen, by reading a person's body language, as they approach your vehicle, you can more then likely determine how things are going to go. So far this has only happened to me once (not bad for driving around Houston, damned H-town drivers...), and what I said I do, I did, the guy approached me and had the proper body language for me to percieve him as a non-threat. We determined that there was no damage to my vehicle and only minor damage to his, since it was his fault and all the damage was on his end, he decided to just take care of it himself. We shook hands, wished each other a good day and went along our ways.

Yes, I understand that 99% of the time, what happened to me is what will happen, no threat of violence to me, but there is that 1% and that 1% got me into a fun hobby (shooting, tactical scenerio shooting, etc) that may one day actually save my life or the life of a friend/loved one.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[miked10270 0]

Quote

A friend of mine (small girl, maybe 105lbs at the most) was outside her office in Center City buying a soda from a street vendor. Some huge guy that was mentally unstable or hopped up on something walked down the sidewalk yelling about "the bitches" punched an old woman, knocked her down and then proceeded to kick her. My friend grabbed her cell phone and starded dialing 911. Before she could actually dial, the guy was on her, beat her and she was in the hospital for 3 days.

If she had grabbed a gun instead of a cell phone, could have been a different outcome...but who knows.

Yeah... I suspect the significant part of this story is "before she could actually dial".

Had she drawn a handgun, then the story could have been "before she could actually aim, the guy was on her, beat her, and now had possession of her gun... ...".

Personally, I'm against the "universal right" to bear arms. That said, I'm also vehemently opposed to the grossly excessive gun control we have in the UK.

So... My manifesto.

I believe that bearing arms is a privelege, not a right. It is a privelege of the largely law-abiding population and should not be unreasonably with held.

ANY person should have the right to apply for a licence to hold a firearm, with the firearms being specified on the licence and consequently ALL firearms held by members of the public being registered in their name.

Grant of a licence to an individual automatically confers on them the right to carry a firearm (whether concealed or not) in public (subject to their also carrying the licence on their person).

Grant of a licence cannot be unreasonably with held (just how do you spell that?). Examples of reasonable reasons for refusal (or revocation) of a licence would be convictions for crimes of violence, certain crimes of dishonesty, certain crimes of public disorder (I.E. those crimes that could have been exacerbated by use of a firearm in their commission). Each individual application must be considered on it's merits, and while the routine grant or refusal of a licence would be handled by the local police, there would be recourse to appeal against refusal through a court of law where a judge would re-consider the application.

There is no limit on the number of firearms that can be held with a licence, but each weapon must be specified and identified on the licence. The licence MUST be carried by the holder if he is carrying a firearm.

Ammunition for firearms can only be supplied to a licence holder and the ammunition supplied must correspond to a weapon held under their licence.

Licence holders must notify the police if they acquire or dispose of any firearm, disposal of a firearm or ammunition may only be made to another licence holder or dealer.

A licence holder should take all reasonable steps to secure the weapons and ammunition when not in use, and MUST report any loss or theft of a firearm to the police immediately on discovery.

A federal agency will maintain a national database of licence holders and weapons held by them which is searchable and viewable by the local police and firearms dealers to ensure that firearms and ammunition are only supplied to licenced persons.

This is not the "thin end of a wedge", this is a mechanism to allow the law abiding majority the right to bear arms if they wish, while making it more difficult, and unlawful, for unsuitable persons to bear arms. While the specific wording of the law may be modified, the spirit of this proposal must remain intact.


(Time to return the hired soapbox).

Mike.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

believe that bearing arms is a privelege, not a right. It is a privelege of the largely law-abiding population and should not be unreasonably with held.

In the US it is a right to have firearms, it is NOT a right to carry a firearm. I had to go through training and even have background checks by the FBI and the DPS (Texas State Police) to recieve my carry permit. Even then, there are very very strict laws as to what CCWs are allowed to do, carry, etc.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[miked10270 0]

Hi Dave,

Doesn't the US Constitution specify the "Right to bear arms"? Not the "right to own arms"? Certainly NOT the "right to arm bears" ('cos then they might shoot back at you).

As you say, you had to pass certain checks to be allowed to CCW. Would you see it as unreasonable to have to submit yourself to those checks to possess a firearm (or firearms) and if you pass the checks, then the CCW is a given?

Should someone who hasn't been subjected to these checks (or has failed them) be allowed to go out and obtain firearms and ammunition?

As a law abiding citizen who has been positively vetted, should there be any problem with you openly carrying an M-16 with M-203 in the local Wal-Mart? (No... I'm NOT being sarcastic, how else would you take it back for exchange?).

I must admit that when I've "done my 30 years" my intention is to obtain the B-12 and move to the states. I WILL then purchase and carry a firearm or firearms - I object to criminals having that same privelege, they have forsaken it by their actions!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

M-16 with M-203 in the local Wal-Mart? (No... I'm NOT being sarcastic, how else would you take it back for exchange?

God, if only Wal-Mart did carry those...that would be pretty nice...



Alright, admittedly I miss worded my last post, the right to bear arms adhears to the right to have firearms, not to carry them concealed on your person. I can drive around all day with no special permit, with a shotgun in the back window of my pick-up, but if I put it under a trench coat and walked around, *then* I'd be breaking the law.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

M-16 with M-203 in the local Wal-Mart? (No... I'm NOT being sarcastic, how else would you take it back for exchange?

God, if only Wal-Mart did carry those...that would be pretty nice...



Alright, admittedly I miss worded my last post, the right to bear arms adhears to the right to have firearms, not to carry them concealed on your person. I can drive around all day with no special permit, with a shotgun in the back window of my pick-up, but if I put it under a trench coat and walked around, *then* I'd be breaking the law.

Seems to me than an M16 would make a nice weapon for a militiaman. The right to bear arms is predicated on the need for a well regulated militia. Let's not forget that 226 years ago the militia was subject to military regulation
and could be called upon in time of emergency.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Let's not forget that 226 years ago the militia was subject to military regulation
and could be called upon in time of emergency.

I don't know about you, but I registered for the draft when I was 18.

[jfields 0]

Quote

Let's not forget that 226 years ago the militia was subject to military regulation
and could be called upon in time of emergency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about you, but I registered for the draft when I was 18.

And if they call you up, then they'll give you training and the weapon you need. Until then, the supreme court has generally said that owning a weapon is a privilege, not a right.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

And if they call you up, then they'll give you training and the weapon you need. Until then, the supreme court has generally said that owning a weapon is a privilege, not a right.

I have to differ. I always saw that part of the constitution as a right to carry arms with you (after all, you never know when King George III might rise up from the grave, and choose to order America invaded again).

From the dictionary:

bear1 [bair] (plural bears) noun
1. ZOOLOGY large furry animal: a large strong omnivorous four-legged mammal that has thick shaggy fur and sharp claws and walks on the flat of its paws. Family: Ursidae

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999, 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.


Err... Ok, maybe not...

bad-tempered person: somebody who is surly or ill-tempered (informal)

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999, 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Nope? How about...

transitive verb carry: to hold or support and transport somebody or something

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999, 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.


Yeah... that's it. Actually carry arms. That way, when The Duke of Wellington's Redcoats turn up in your town, then you can shoot them right there and then! NOT run down to your local National Guard Depot and ask "Can you fit me in for 6 weeks of infantry training, and kind of squash it all into the next 15 minutes, 'cos the British have re-invaded and are chasing me in my cousin Elmo's pickup!!!"

Seriously, the practical reason for a RIGHT to bear arms has disappeared into history. The British will not invade the US, especially Texas 'cos our boots would melt! (and there are other reasons for not invading Texas). In that case, then the RIGHT to bear arms has disappeared, and in modern America, in fact in ANY country bearing arms should be a privelege held by the lawabiding part of the community.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[jfields 0]

All joking aside, I agree with you.

The right to bear arms (mental picture of all the armless bears wandering around) is and was tied to the defense of the country. It has been debated on the forums before, and I'm sure it will again, but the facts remain the same. The privilege of bearing arms is one that the government can take away from individuals.

In a world of stealth bombers, nukes, chemical weapons and such, the revolutionary era equality of "citizen soldier" to that of a foriegn invading army is gone. Unless of course we give in to the NRA and let everyone that wants buy all the weapons of mass destruction they want.

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

Let's not forget that 226 years ago the militia was subject to military regulation
and could be called upon in time of emergency.

I don't know about you, but I registered for the draft when I was 18.

You won't be much good to anyone unless you're trained, and a time of emergency is a bit late for that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

You won't be much good to anyone unless you're trained, and a time of emergency is a bit late for that.

Well, I'll be a lot of good to myself if there is some catastrophic event that results in a breakdown of the government infrastructure and massive civil unrest. Me and my gun will be in a much better position to survive.

[Schroeder 0]

lol, this may be a little off topic, but we think we're so damned civilized yet most people still figure that in the absence of government or "massive civil unrest" everyone around them will revert to a criminal way of life. You can have your gun and stay where you are, but I'll take my axe, and go for a long walk in the woods for a while.

[PhillyKev 0]

Hell, I'll be right behind you on the way to the woods. But I might need a little help getting out of the megalopolis that I live in.

I've personally been caught in the middle of two riots. I KNOW that a large mob of them will revert to a criminal way of life.

[Jib 0]

If you're a single guy who's looking to get laid, every encounter with a woman is more likely to be seen with "will I get some" eyes. If you're carrying a gun for self-defense, then situations are more likely to be seen from that perspective.

[wmw999 2,461]

I was basing that on the number of people I know (more than a couple, but not a comprehensive set) who seem to have found reasons to feel as though they had been in situations since getting a gun where one was useful, or might have been useful.

They seem to see a lot more through "I might be in danger" eyes.

Obviously nothing generalizes to everyone. But neither does an exception invalidate the people who DO feel that way. And the analogy to getting laid wasn't really to try to trivialize gun ownership -- it was to just show how filters can affect how we see things.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[bobsled92 0]

In reply to unlikely scenario:
The dead foriegner would be shipped back to his home country free of charge due to it be fiction.
I in fact was shot by a high way sniper when I was 11 years old. I own No hand guns.
My father was Chief of Detectives at the time and he returned to the scene of the crime in case he was hidding. To this day I wish "Dad" had put one shot through that guy's head. He was arrested and fined after putting a hole though me and shooting at 2 other people prior(he was 17).
If I am ever confronted by an assailent, I intend to be stabbed/cut/shot and I will kill him with my car in the act or take a hit so I still have one good arm to F@ck him with his gun/knife/do-rag .
LOve always,
-Grant

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/