|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:
i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it!
So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? [/QUOTE]
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me.
|
United States24571 Posts
On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray.
Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though.
|
On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though.
if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours"
in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help
|
On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though.
Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready.
|
United States24571 Posts
On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help
And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim.
Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit.
I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male.
On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready.
If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically.
|
On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me.
Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_>
As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him.
On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:
[quote]
Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide.
In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens.
The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion).
You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero.
Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves.
As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged.
|
On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically.
Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless.
This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment.
Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster.
So which one is preferred being pointed in public?
|
On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:
[quote]
i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged.
How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder?
Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her.
|
On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged. How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder? Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her.
Unless the rapist doesn't know about the gun and she has it hidden on her person. You can hide a gun in your purse your pockets or on a strap and the rapist wouldn't know about it and wouldn't be looking for it giving her an opportunity to use the gun.
I don't know how fast you think it takes to pull out a pistol or how small one is that you can use for self defense is. 10 feet is far more then enough space 5 feet probably is.
|
United States24571 Posts
On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public?
Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills?
|
In my CHL (concealed handgun license) class the instructor said that at 21 feet an attacker can close the distance by the time you draw your weapon out. So if you're unsure of a situation do your best to keep further away then that. Obviously if someone surprises you there isn't much that you can do about it. But if you give me a choice of being jumped and having pepper spray or a handgun to defend myself, I'll take the handgun every time.
|
I have withheld comment from this thread for a very very long time. That being said, I feel as though there are some seriously dangerous thoughts being passed around as fact in the last several posts.
Firstly, the notion that pepper spray can effectively stop an attacker reliably is downright silly. Pepper spray is an extraordinary tool and is very effective. However, it will, by no means, "drop" a determined attacker nor will it always work. Shielding the face, not breathing, wearing glasses, a badly aimed spray or just pure brute force are all effective ways to negate a large portion of pepper sprays effect. There are even those that are immune to pepper spray and can eat it like candy. (NOTE: The percentage of people that are immune is EXTREMELY small. Either 2% or 0.2%, honestly don't remember off the top of my head at the moment.) And, after all that, there's a statistic out there somewhere, I don't know the exact number but it reads, more or less, that >50% of all pepper spray users use their entire can of pepper spray pretty rapidly. Very few people are able to emit short controlled bursts once human panic mode sets in. So, what happens when you spray an entire can at someone and they keep coming? All that being said, I am not knocking OC Spray at all, but you have to recognize its weaknesses and take it for what it is and its place in the escalation of force.
Secondly, the majority of all attacks happen within 10 feet. So, there's a sobering reality that you will very possibly be taking bodily harm. This is where training comes into play. It has been proven, and we've even done the test ourselves using a variety of people from different walks of life. Essentially, if you have a holstered weapon, you cannot draw and fire/spray/stab someone inside of a 21 foot radius without them reaching you and possibly dealing damage. Yes, you can shoot them, spray them, stab them. However, the time it takes to draw and effect fire is enough time for them to reach you and deal damage with their knife/bat/hands, whatever they may have. Now, take into account the fact that most fights occur in a 10 foot radius.... You can do the math.
Are there people out there that beat this test? Yes absolutely. Are you one of them? Maybe, but please don't find out the hard way. The 21 feet is also given level unobstructed terrain, if you throw obstacles, steps, uphill etc into the mix then the results are obviously quite different.
I am a combat veteran United States Marine and I am a weapons instructor. My entire goal in life is teaching police, military and law abiding citizens how to manipulate and fire more or less any weapon. Pistol, Shotgun, Carbine, Rifle, Knife, Baton, OC Spray etc. I teach the entire circle of life, I or my company can teach you most of the skills to take a life and most of the skills to save a life in terms of EMT/EMS/Medic skills.
Obviously my opinion on whether should people be allowed to own and carry guns is a very stout "Yes." I just wanted to chime in and hopefully break some of these thoughts that could literally get someone killed or hurt.
Carry on 
|
On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:17 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. if the rapist is armed he would have the advantage anyways in that kind of situation; besides exceptions can't be the base for deciding if people in general should be allowed to carry guns.
for example in my country (Italy) exceptions do exist and i'm fine with them exactly because precise requirements have to be met and i don't have to worry about the fact that in a car accident some random dude can freak out and pull a gun on me. Ugh please edit and fix your post because I was not the one who said the part in bold, I was the one who responded to it >_> As far as using pepper spray to stop a rapist? You have to be fucking kidding me, must be nice to live in such a closed society where pepper spray saves lives and prevents rapes. The real world envies you. If the man has a knife and the woman has pepper spray she would be extremely lucky if that is enough to subdue him. On April 23 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened. I'm using a hypothetical too. Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people? The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero? Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens. The fact that you hate them is irrelevant, what an absurd assumption of anyone's position on the matter. The fact that they rapd somebody is why it would be okay to murder them (in my opinion). You're hypothetical scenario where a woman has a gun and walks into an alley and sees a known sex offender from tv is even MORE absurd. If she shoots a man she thinks is a sex offender she is a murderer. If he tries to rape her and she kills him then she would be a hero. Guns can be used for self defense, be it attempted rape or attempted murder. Just because we criminalize rape doesn't mean we should take away anyone's abilities to take matters in their own hands and defend themselves. As far as the outcome after a woman shoots someone who attempts to rape her, obviously she would go to trial for murder and plead self-defense. If it is proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was no rape attempt and she murdered him, then she deserves to be charged with murder. If it was proven she did it in self-defense, then she doesn't get charged. How much time must the woman give to the attacker before it's no longer murder? Once he's about 10 feet away (or the length of a standard sized room) she's already too late and is now raped before she can pull out her gun. So she either shoots him when he's in the other room or waits until he's already on top of her--in which case her gun is useless and most likely will be used against her.
Such black and white logic is useless. She could pull the gun on him if he approaches her in a threatening manner, hopefully this is enough to stop him and the entire attack is prevented. If he pulls a gun on her, shooting him is now justified as her life was in danger. If he pulls a knife or other weapon and charges her, she is also justified in shooting him. If they both end up on the ground with him on top of her, if possible to access her gun and shoot him, she is, again, justified in shooting him. It isn't just as simple as well she either shoots him from 10 feet away or she is raped. Anything can happen.
Why can't you just use common sense (common sense being that there are more than 2 or 3 possible outcomes in any dangerous situation) and look at any instance of self-defense and apply it to this type of scenario?
|
On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills?
In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target.
|
On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target.
If you fire your gun in self defense and hit an innocent bystander you're still held accountable for that person.
|
On April 23 2013 10:18 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target. If you fire your gun in self defense and hit an innocent bystander you're still held accountable for that person.
How is that a response to what I said? No offense, I'm just not sure how to reply. In response to the poster's focus on why a gun might be more preferred over pepper spray due to hypothetical scenarios, such as pepper spray not hitting the eyes of the target, etc., I wanted to have some attention put onto why a gun might be worse than pepper spray, based on other hypothetical scenarios, just to keep things honest. I was not implying that someone would not be accountable for hitting an innocent in self defense...in fact I thought it was clear I implied the opposite, heh
|
As a guy who works with guns for a living, I can tell you education and safe handling are the hallmarks of a professional. They can and should be owned and used by professionals and civillians alike. Safety comes first, however. Hypotheticals involving rape or the like are not as important as the bottom line question: how do you ensure responsible gun ownership is taking place in your country? The answer lies in culture, not government.
|
On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target.
Some Piers Morgan logic right there, and this just opens up a can of worms of even more hypotheticals I can counter your instance with. So the risk of someone having poor aim justifies me not being able to defend myself? I guess we need to ban cars because some people suck at driving and might run over people because they can't stay on the damn road.
To use your own logic against you, what if guns get banned and someone who would have shot 12 kids in a school now decides to use a car to kill people, possibly running over 50 children playing in a playground? It's just pointless logic and it doesn't justify anything.
|
On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 09:34 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:15 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 08:07 Warheart wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. if you get sprayed in the face you won't be in the mood of raping people for a good while: " It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray but the average full effect lasts around thirty to forty-five minutes, with diminished effects lasting for hours" in short it means that you can have all the time to escape and call for help And if the assailant covers his face with his arms, holds his breath, closes his eyes, and bull rushes the victim, the pepper spray suddenly becomes much less effective. Alternately, in a successful use of pepper spray sometimes the target lashes out violently which depending on the location could be a very big problem for the attempted rape victim. Compare these two situations if a gun is used instead of pepper spray. Guns cannot easily be blocked, nor is a target as likely to remain a threat after being hit. I'm not specifically advocating gun use in this situation... I'm just pointing out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for say, a small woman, to defend herself from a tough male. On April 23 2013 08:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 08:00 micronesia wrote:On April 23 2013 07:52 Warheart wrote:
the same could be accomplished by using a pepper spray. Without taking a specific stance, I want to point out that pepper spray and guns do not have the same potential for preventing rape. If there is some guarantee that pepper spray will be successful at repelling a rapist permanently, then that is far preferable to using a lethal weapon like a gun. This is not realistic though. Can't you just bum rush a person that is 13 feet away or less before they can pull out a gun? By that standard, anything less than a weapon you can already have up and ready is useless to sneak attacks making pepper spray and its ilk the only valid forms of self defense unless you're okay having everyone carrying guns out by hand, safety off and at the ready. If you can get rushed before drawing the gun then you can also get rushed before drawing the pepper spray. Once again I'm not advocating gun use here, specifically. Bum rush means ANY and all restrained weapons are useless. This means that the only relevant weapon for self defense are weapons that have to be at the ready, safety off, weilded by someone already prepared to shoot/strike at any moment. Which do you think will lead to more accidental kills in these circumstances--guns, or pepper spray. Both are useless with the safety/cap on and both are even more useless in the purse/holster. So which one is preferred being pointed in public? Why are you completely missing my point? I'm just comparing the potential of different items for certain defensive purposes. Why are you asking me about what the public prefers or which leads to more accidental kills? In your hypothetical conjectures, I think it would be nice to also include some "what ifs" not in favor of carrying a gun. Example: Missing your target. A gun might kill an innocent bystander who wasn't visible to the shooter. Pepper spray does not create the risk of killing someone if it misses its target. Some Piers Morgan logic right there, and this just opens up a can of worms of even more hypotheticals I can counter your instance with. So the risk of someone having poor aim justifies me not being able to defend myself? I guess we need to ban cars because some people suck at driving and might run over people because they can't stay on the damn road. To use your own logic against you, what if guns get banned and someone who would have shot 12 kids in a school now decides to use a car to kill people, possibly running over 50 children playing in a playground? It's just pointless logic and it doesn't justify anything.
Was I the one who started by raising hypothetical situations? No, so I'm not sure why you are attacking me and my "something to sound smart" logic. I noticed the one guy was saying, "well, see here's why pepper spray isn't as good as guns for preventing rape...pepper spray might miss the target's eyes, etc." To which I replied... "OK, let's be fair and think about the situations that could arise in which a gun would do more harm than good".
Hopefully you understand now. I admit, I did chuckle a bit from your response 
|
I don't think its my right or anyone else to tell someone they're not responsible enough to carry a firearm. If he or she chooses to and goes through the proper training/classes then I don't have a problem with them defending themselves. My point was that if you accidentally shoot someone you're going to jail. If you accidentally pepper spray someone you won't be punished as severely. CHL holders know they're held to a higher standard. At least in my state (TX) there is a zero tolerance for alcohol while carrying. If you register at all on a breathalyzer while carrying you're going to jail.
It was either right before or shortly after Newtown there was a shooting in a mall in Oregon. A normal citizen happened to be carrying his pistol and went towards the shooter. He pulled out his gun and aimed it at the shooter. There happened to be people behind the shooter running to take cover so he didn't fire. The shooter had seen someone pointing a gun back at him and his next shot the shooter took his own life. I know this anecdotal but at least it happened and not a hypothetical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
