Win one for us gun-totin' Gippers! :-))

:headbonk: LOL

 

Nevertheless I still wonder why the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is swept under the carpet and never never quoted, always the 2nd part of the sentence but...

Funny thing is that in the several instances quoted, you always describe situations where YOU have the greater firepower or the only firepower available. As the 2nd Amendment does not preclude the "other side" from the Right to Bear Arms, now What-IF (ahhhh, whatifs! ) in each instance the perp were the one carrying a firearm, already loaded and on hand ready to fire, precluding you from reaching for yours, rendering you effectively disarmed?

It appears you have been mugged by such crummy buggers with nothing stronger than a nail clipper but if they were real hardened criminals, duly equipped and in the circumstances I said above, how would this affect your view. Or are only the law-abiding citizens who carry guns?

 

I've been steering clear of this thread, but here goes!

I grew up around guns, rifles and shotguns mostly. I don't like handguns, they were designed with one purpose in mind. To kill someone. I don't hunt with a handgun, I see no use for them. But then the area I live in is not that dangerous at all. Also, I don't put myself in a spot where I might need a handgun!

There are some crazy buggers out there, and the thought that some of them are carrying handguns is not comforting! It would not be comforting to me if if I was carrying one as well.
I wonder what the true, which we will probably never know, numbers of handgun deaths are here compared to those of of country that doesn't allow handguns.
I'm all for collecting historical items, but I don't really see the need for brand new guns! But, again, I guess I live in a very peaceful area! Also I live in a state that prohibits concealed handguns.

 

The part you mention is not swept under the rug. It's a subordinate clause which justifies, but in no way modifies the main clause. The advocates of gun control always (incorrectly) point it out in their arguments. Besides, my point was that the US Supreme Court has now ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms; membership in a "militia", whether organized or not is not a requirement to exercise that right. An historical study of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the writings of the Founding Fathers (not to mention just plain logic) strongly suggests that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, but the Supreme Court has now made it official.

It happens, but fortunately, not very often. You are incorrect that the Second Amendment does not preclude the "other side" from the right to bear arms. Nothing in the Second Amendment guarantees someone with a criminal record the right to have a gun, 99.9% of the criminals in this country have records which, if they are caught suing a gun in the commission of a crime, increase the potential penalties. Even if they are not committing a crime, a convicted felon does not enjoy the right to possess a firearm and, if caught with one, can go to jail. So a lot of the criminals who commit the muggings, burglaries, and robberies would rather use other methods to intimidate their victims.

However, armed citizens do occasionally encounter criminals armed with firearms. The citizen must then make a decision; is it worth risking his/her life to attempt to stop the criminal? Sometimes it is because the criminal intends to kill anyway to eliminate the witnesses, or just for the hell of it. Frequently, the citizen decides to shoot it out, and ends up winning, but it's life and life gives no guarantees. Years ago, when I lived in LA, there was a story in the LA Times about a shopkeeper who had been robbed on five different occasions, and had killed six different robbers who had threatened him with their guns; it seems there were some pretty dumb crooks in LA back then.

One thing that should be noted, no matter what the law says, the exact same thing can, and does, happen in any country in the world; a peaceful citizen can be assaulted by an armed criminal. The only difference is that, in the US, that citizen has, if he/she chooses, the right to arm him/herself and use that weapon to defend his/her life. A few weeks ago, in Japan, a man ran a rented truck into a group of pedestrians, and then got out and proceeded to stab the injured to death with a knife. I believe he killed seven people. In my state, there is a good likelihood that one of those people would have pulled a gun and shot him.

As I've stated, I've never been mugged, and have never even had to draw my gun. The one encounter I've had was with a "hardened" criminal who was carrying a large sheath knife. The police, who later apprehended him, told me he had a record of at least a dozen criminal assaults and had actually killed a man for which he was convicted of manslaughter. If he had had a gun instead of a knife, I still would have resisted and, if necessary, would have pulled my weapon and fired it. The point you, and Miguel, just don't seem to get is that criminals who make their living by mugging people know that armed citizens are likely to resist and avoid them because they know it is just not worth risking their lives every time they rob someone.

My wife and I both practice with our handguns at least once a month and we can both consistently hit what we aim at, though my wife is much better than I am with a handgun. If you are going to carry a weapon, it is incumbent upon you to learn to use it well and practice with it to maintain your skill. It also requires that you use it responsibly; neither of us would think of firing our weapons if there is much chance of hitting innocent bystanders, nor would we think of using deadly force if such force is unnecessary to thwart a criminal. The rule of thumb is that one must be in fear of one's life or great bodily harm before one can use deadly force. Obviously, if someone is standing ten feet from me and brandishing a knife, while I am armed with a .45 auto, I'm not going to be in fear of my life, so, unless the criminal comes at me with the knife, I'm only going to show him that I do have a gun and let him draw his own conclusions.

If I were to be put in a position where the criminal was armed with a gun, my view would not change; I would have to make a decision whether to resist or simply let the criminal have his way. But if I am also armed, at least I have a choice to resist or not; An unarmed person has no choice and must let the criminal do as he wishes, even if it means that the criminal commits an unprovoked murder and kills him. Personally, I'll take having a choice every time.

 

For the carry thread as well.
Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pay special attention where it says...
"Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population."
States vary

 

Actually if you've never been at gunpoint you cannot say that. People react more stupidly then they think. If he has a gun pointed at you my advice is give him what you got. If he suspects you are armed, as I said earlier and Za reiterated, he won't be taking you easy and you are most likelly to get shot. unless you have super speed, you're not faster than a guy pulling a trigger.

that argument has a falacy in it. What is your choice?
As I said if you're at gunpopint with your weapon sheated you can't do a thing same as an unarmed person. Really, most criminals prefer not to kill as that will lead him into trouble. Quite frankly a person who disregards human life as simple as that (I know they exist but they are a really small minority) should belong in a mental institution.


When I was at gun point from a kid, even if I had a gun with me it would be rendered useless as I had no chance to draw before he fired. You start to think about stuff you know? it's like you die that is IT. Is it worth dying trying to play the hero just to save some bucks wich when the cops catch him would return to you? Even if you believe in heaven are you sure it exists? Are you prepared to die for a few bucks? Are you ready to leave your family and friends? Have you tought about what your death might bring them?
This all pops into your head really fast and your heart will be trying to get out from your ears...



Cheers...

 

Yes, I can say that because I didn't know at the time whether he was armed with the knife alone, or might have also had a gun on him. I had made up my mind that, if necessary, I was going to resist the robbery no matter what happened. And I don't want the advice of someone who thinks it ois OK to let criminals get away with crime.

If he already has a gun pointed at me, then I will draw my own gun and fire it at him. I may get shot, but that is not certain; the news media prints stories every week where citizens resist at gunpoint and frequently badly wound or kill their assailants while emerging unscathed. Criminals seldom practice marksmanship and gun handling; Hell, I have read stories of criminals trying to use guns that aren't even functional, or are unloaded, or have the safeties engaged. I once saw a security camera film clip where a shop keeper shot it out at a range of six feet with a robber. The robber fired five rounds from his pistol and missed very time (the shop keeper shot him in the head before he could get off more rounds).

No fallacy; your choice is whether to resist or not. If you are at gunpoint, it is more difficult, but never impossible. The circumstances are that the criminal committing a crime, has to watch lot of things, not just you, so sooner or later, you will get an opening. As for most criminals preferring not to kill, maybe, maybe not, but why take the chance on a criminal's good will? A criminal who is committing a crime has already been "led into trouble", they may easily decide to get rid of any potential witnesses. And quite frankly, a person who disregards human life by committing a violent crime will probably not end up in a mental institution, it's better to permanently remove any future potential for his committing more criminal acts.

I guess we have entirely different philosophies about life. I don't let any strangers get so close to me as to be able to pull a gun and hold it to my head. But even if someone does, it impossible to pull the trigger fast enough to avoid being disarmed. I learned that in the service; we were taught to keep our distance from detainees while holding a gun on them.

I do not try to "play the hero", but neither will I meekly submit to some sleaze ball who wants my hard-earned cash. Even though it wasn't a criminal attack, I've been shot at and know exactly what goes through one's mind at such times. If you think about the possibility before hand, are prepared with some simple tactics, and armed with your own weapon, you can defeat a criminal attack almost every time. Here in St. Helens a little more than a year ago, a couple of armed punks attempted to rob a citizen. They pointed guns at him and demanded his money; he promptly pulled a money clip out of his pocket and threw it on the ground at their feet. Both men started to bend down to grab the money. While they were distracted doing that, he pulled his pistol from an SOB holster and shot both of them. One died at the scene and the other was arrested and charged with murder under the felony murder rule. He was just recently convicted and sentenced to 35 years in prison without possibility of parole. The citizen was not hurt and did not lose his money.

 

Look, you're talking about your every day junk headedthug. If you went to Rio with that attitude you'd return feet first. Over there you have 13 year old pointing a gun at you (and they have war experience btw.) If you're about to trust their aim is lousy, you might get out of luck. Seriously I don't know how you contemplate resisting at gun point based on some stories. What about the guy who tried to get smart and got shot in the head? You say you'd let no stranger get near you but a good "thug" would apear normal enough for you to be on the same sidewalk and when he asks you for directions you'll be more than willing to help the nice fellow. That's all it takes. And even the SAS advise never to resist at gunpoint and well, even the USMC says "There are Special Forces. And then there are the SAS". Are you saying your reflexes and marksmanship are better than a guy from the second best elite unit in the world?
I'm not trying to pull your chain here seriously I'm enjoying this debate I just can't understand how you're able to risk everything just to protect your hard earned cash .

Oh people have tried to mug me more than three times but only succeded twice (the gun point and the fellows with sticks).
that doesn't make me wanna carry a weapon on the street.




Cheers...

 

Consider dressing "Down" quite a bit, get rid of the "Bling", don't shower or shave for three days before you go out on the street, and put your money in your shorts. Then you'll be one of them.
or...
Think about moving. I hear the border is still wide open (Congress, is working on that)

 

Well, the criminals in Portugal must be something else. Over here we don't have ex-SAS, Special Forces, or USMC personnel, or 13 year old combat veterans, doing mugging gigs. The muggers here are just people, most of them too dumb or too lazy, or both, to get a real job and make their own living. Some use guns and are dopers who might try to kill you no matter what you do, so it makes sense to resist them, if at all possible.

The SAS is good, but no better than the SEALS. And the person who taught us how to disarm a person holding a gun to your back or head was a US Navy hand-to-hand combat instructor who made his living training SEALS units. It was amazing; he let his opponent, who had a loaded gun, point it at any part of his body, just so long as it was within a couple of inches, and invited him to try to pull the trigger before he was disarmed. In EVERY case the opponent had his LOADED gun taken away from him before he could pull the trigger. At first everyone was reluctant to actually pull the trigger because no one wanted to hurt the guy, but after every one was disarmed at least once, we all tried in earnest to kill the instructor, no one even came close. The amazing thing is that practically anyone with normal reflexes can pull it off. We were all advised never to close with a person we were detaining, and to stand of several feet, at least. Incidentally, that is why so many police officers are disarmed and shot with their own weapons each year; They have to get near the suspect to handcuff them, whereas citizens don't.


I

That's because you have the wrong idea about crime and criminals in this country. It's not that big a risk in most cases to resist them, if you are armed. Really vicious criminals are fairly rare. And, in any case, if you should encounter the really hard cases, they may just kill you whether you try to resist or not, so what do you have to lose?

With your attitude, it's probably better that you don't carry a firearm because you clearly have no confidence in your ability to defend yourself, and that alone can get you killed.

 

Just a question: Is it true in the US that if somebody is in trouble you should shout "fire" and not "help" because in the latter case everybody knows there is a gun involved? Or is this another modern myth?

 

Thanx Jeff! Thought so!

 

Well the 13 year old is in Brazil not Portugal and they'll leave you alone if you give him some "prata" (a few bucks). I n POrtugal those criminals are rare too (not so rare in Brazil tough) but you only need to find one.

Don't make me start on the Seals really don't go there they are really no big deal. They are way down in the ladder of best SpecOps teams. Your army Rangers are better positioned.
I can tell you I can "clear" a room better than the Navy Seals.
Now SAS, GOE, BOPE, Mossad, GROM,... They are all batter and better trained. At least they know how to carry a weapon
I know and I've too learned how to dodge a gun close to you. The thing is, a good criminal will always be more than a few inches from you with the gun. Even the kid that pointed the gun at me didn't left the required distance and quite franckly even if he had I probably would give the 20 odd euros I had with me. Why risk it?

I have more confidence in my ability to defend myself than you apparently. That's why I don't carry a gun Don't need one.
And as I said, criminals especially vets, won't kill you unless absolutelly necessary. There is an even smaller minority of people who'd kill you anyway.


Cheers...

 

I think you are missing the point, the advice given by the SAS to soldiers and civilians alike is that if someone points a gun at you at moderately close range and you aren't already pointing one at him, there is little point resisting because unless you are some martial arts ninja with reflexes that would make a cat look sluggish you are FKT. Incidentally, I start to wonder about your sanity if you genuinely were trying to 'kill' this instructor chap. You might also notice that you had to hold the weapon within a couple of inches, that is a pretty big qualifier don't you think?

It does make me laugh that most of these threads the world over are inhabited by paranoid people saying 'I've always carried a gun and never had to use it' as though that is some sort of testament to their effectiveness. By all means carry firearms for protection but don't try to justify them with this sort of rubbish.

 

I see you''re not only a martial arts expert, but an expert on special forces, LOL!

Bully for you! There are those of us who feel we do.

To be frank, I have about as much confidence in your psychological expertise as I do in your knowledge of special forces; I'll arrive at my own conclusions on these matters, thank you.

 

He is right though, according to most authorities the SEALS are waay down the list compared to the SAS, hell, SAS train Delta which is quite some achievement.

 

Nope. Not missing the point. Miguel originally claimed that someone if someone had a gun at your head you couldn't react; that is wrong and you are misunderstanding my pointy. If somebody is standing several feet away that's a different story and now that is what Miguel is talking about; he has changed the situation. And yes being within a few inches is a qualifier, but one that is pertinent.

As for trying to "kill" the instructor, those were his instructions, no one wanted to, but he was trying to drive home a point that even if the intent was here it was impossible to act quickly enough under those circumstances. Apparently Miguel has now shifted his position and now agrees with me on this point.

Your comment simply demonstrates your ignorance. The need for a gun is not justified by it's actual "use" (although being able to show a potential assailant that you are, in fact, armed is a form of "use"). It's the fact that you, and many other citizens, actually carry the gun that constitutes a risk to criminals and acts as a significant deterrent to violent crime. The fact that any given individual has been fortunate enough not to have to actually fire his gun does not prove he has no need of it, or that carrying it is not a deterrent to crime in a collective sense. I suppose you would call a fighter pilot "paranoid" for wearing a parachute even though he never actually has had to use it?

 

Right, so you are relying on either having the skills of a USNAVY SEAL instructor there are you? Or indeed your assailant getting in really REALLY close. Again, two massive qualifiers both leading to the conclusion that you are probably not going to win.

Sounds like a pretty daft demonstration, I take it there were rounds going everywhere as people pulled the trigger in attempts to 'kill' the chap?

Have you had cause to USE it? If not you have not needed it. I do like the fighter pilot comparison though, I take it you live in an area that is as dangerous as engaging in fast jet combat then? My advice to you wouldn't be 'buy a gun' so much as 'move house'

Sorry, I'm all for the right to own firearms, it's vigilanteism that I don't like.

 

Try reading the entire post, not just the part you want to see. I made it clear that practically any individual can use the technique successfully. And the original proposition posed by Miguel was that of somebody who had a gun to your head, meaning very close. that is the only situation that I was addressing. Now you are trying to invalidate the point by expanding it to a general set of circumstances which I never claimed. Different circumstances require different tactics and I have never claimed otherwise. Stop trying to set up a strawman argument.

You take it wrong. No one actually managed to pull the trigger before being disarmed, as the instructor knew would be the case. Yes, it did appear at first to be a crazy demonstration, that's the way the instructor got and held our attention; damned effective at impressing us with the details, too.

So in your opinion, if you don't actually have to fire a gun in self-defense, it's "useless"? Sorry, but that opinion just doesn't accord with the facts. Just carrying a firearm has proven to be an effective deterrent to crime as demonstrated by the precipitous drop in the crime rate in jurisdictions where "Shall-issue" laws have been passed. I know you don't like that since you don't like the idea of people being able to defend themselves, but it's a fact.

No offense, but I'm not surprised that you'd rather move than defend your life and property. Trouble is, once you make the decision to run, you have to keep on doing it.

Trying to label self-defense as "vigilantism" is an old debater's trick; if you can't come up with a logical argument against something, change the definition of the term. Using a term that has a negative emotional connotation is also a neat trick. Vigilantism is taking the law into one's own hands, and actively and aggressively seeking out mal-feasors in order to impose a punishment. That is a long way from carrying a gun to protect one's self, family and property. Any CCW holder that engages in vigilantism will not only have his CCW revoked, but will face other serious charges, as well, Out of the millions of CCW's issued in this country, I have not heard of a single case where a CCW holder has taken it upon him/her self to engage in vigilantism, But if you can find a case, I'd be interested in hearing about it.