|
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 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85
On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
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.
21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun.
If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse.
Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc....
And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late.
Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well.
I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about.
Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights.
|
Well that's certainly a good anecdotal example of why carrying a gun can sometimes cause good outcomes. I think to be fair I will provide an example of why having a gun could cause more harm than good:
Recently this teen guy who had just moved into a neighborhood of similar-looking homes tried to sneak out one night. He succeeded. However, upon coming home, he failed to sneak back into the correct home. What an embarrassing mistake. Except... it wasn't just embarrassing for him, because unfortunately, the homeowner of the wrong house was a gun owner, and decided that he would shoot the teen fearing it might've been a burglar. What would have been an embarrassing and perhaps even painful mistake ended up being fatal. Should teenage boys be more careful and make better decisions? Certainly. But...does making that mistake really deserve death? Nope. The wrong house gun owner wasn't in the wrong, legally, but there being a gun on his premises ended up contributing to the tragedy, in a way.
The point is that using specific examples to promote or attack gun ownership isn't too useful, because there are many examples on either side.
|
On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
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. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights.
Pulling out your gun doesn't constitute murder. What if she pulled the gun out because she was threatened but was a safe distance so she didn't shoot. Brandishing a firearm with no cause is illegal so if I or you are in that situation it would be smart to have a very good cause other then, "he looked like a rapist" or "he was a scary black man".
|
United States24736 Posts
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.
Missing the target applies to both, unless you think it's much easier to hit a target with pepper spray than with a gun. This is probably unlikely since a gun is designed to be aimed much more precisely, and because it's much easier to go to a gun range and practice shooting a gun than to go to a pepper spray range and practice shooting pepper spray. I mean in theory you can practice it but I assume nobody does.
Whether or not a gun will kill an innocent bystander or accidentally detonate a random nuclear bomb is not relevant specifically to what I was talking about, which was which item is less likely to defend you successfully from a rapist.
|
On April 23 2013 10:37 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Well that's certainly a good anecdotal example of why carrying a gun can sometimes cause good outcomes. I think to be fair I will provide an example of why having a gun could cause more harm than good:
Recently this teen guy who had just moved into a neighborhood of similar-looking homes tried to sneak out one night. He succeeded. However, upon coming home, he failed to sneak back into the correct home. What an embarrassing mistake. Except... it wasn't just embarrassing for him, because unfortunately, the homeowner of the wrong house was a gun owner, and decided that he would shoot the teen fearing it might've been a burglar. What would have been an embarrassing and perhaps even painful mistake ended up being fatal. Should teenage boys be more careful and make better decisions? Certainly. But...does making that mistake really deserve death? Nope. The wrong house gun owner wasn't in the wrong, legally, but there being a gun on his premises ended up contributing to the tragedy, in a way.
The point is that using specific examples to promote or attack gun ownership isn't too useful, because there are many examples on either side.
Yeah I'd heard that one too. I think it was in this thread even although it may have been a hundred pages back. However I think its a stretch to say the gun contributed. What if the neighbor had a baseball bat instead and smashed the poor kids head in when he came around the corner. What if the home owner stabbed him with a kitchen knife cause that was all he had to defend himself. This comes back to guns are just a tool. They happen to be the most efficient tool for self defense/killing. I want to have the most efficient tool for the job that I hope I never have to confront.
|
guns are no problem noooo ! PC games are the problems i mean most people smash someones head with a gta4 cd box.
|
On April 23 2013 10:49 Mantaza wrote:
guns are no problem noooo ! PC games are the problems i mean most people smash someones head with a gta4 cd box.
Guns are a problem. Guns are a problem when the wrong people have them. There just happens to be far more right people who have them that don't deserve to have their right to self protection taken away.
|
On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote: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 keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake.
On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
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. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights.
It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea.
|
|
|
On April 23 2013 10:54 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote: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 keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
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. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights. It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea.
Self defense is a terrible reason against gun control. There are MANY forms of self defense that don't include guns--guns are simply one of the many forms of self defense. The 2nd Amendment is also a terrible "argument" against gun control because, taken literally, it says (very specifically) "REGULATED militia." In other words, the 2nd word of the 2nd amendment is regulation ie--the 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control if read literally. The reason it is used against gun control is recent and old interpretations of the sentence with the understanding that taking it literally would produce an amendment that both allowed ownership of guns as well as allowed heavy regulation of guns. The 2008 case (Heller I think) made it so that the *current* (but not only) reading of the amendment to be an emphasis on the word *infringe* instead of placing emphasis on the word *regulated;* but this is merely a recent interpretation of the law and it might change in the future as well.
So no, "self defense" and "2nd Amendment" is a terrible argument against gun control. The right to property ownership unproven to be any more dangerous than most household products is a more appropriate and fitting argument against gun control. When people stop dying to hammers more often than they die to sniper rifles--then you can argue that sniper rifles need to jump ahead of the line of dangerous property items that need regulation.
|
On April 23 2013 10:40 micronesia 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. Missing the target applies to both, unless you think it's much easier to hit a target with pepper spray than with a gun. This is probably unlikely since a gun is designed to be aimed much more precisely, and because it's much easier to go to a gun range and practice shooting a gun than to go to a pepper spray range and practice shooting pepper spray. I mean in theory you can practice it but I assume nobody does. Whether or not a gun will kill an innocent bystander or accidentally detonate a random nuclear bomb is not relevant specifically to what I was talking about, which was which item is less likely to defend you successfully from a rapist.
You'll be surprised to learn that in fact, even at close range, and even with trained police officers exclusively accounting for all the data points in the study, accuracy is well below 50% -- and even much lower depending on the range (note: accuracy doesn't correlate linearly with distance from target, for whatever reason -- it's what's observed).
Engaging a stationary target at the range, according to just about every warfighter you ask or every account you read, is nothing at all like engaging a hostile target in a real situation. Even experienced shooters find striking targets relatively difficult in real scenarios. I strongly disagree with the assumption that a gun will be employed more accurately than a can of pepper spray.
|
United States24736 Posts
On April 23 2013 11:12 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:40 micronesia wrote: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. Missing the target applies to both, unless you think it's much easier to hit a target with pepper spray than with a gun. This is probably unlikely since a gun is designed to be aimed much more precisely, and because it's much easier to go to a gun range and practice shooting a gun than to go to a pepper spray range and practice shooting pepper spray. I mean in theory you can practice it but I assume nobody does. Whether or not a gun will kill an innocent bystander or accidentally detonate a random nuclear bomb is not relevant specifically to what I was talking about, which was which item is less likely to defend you successfully from a rapist. You'll be surprised to learn that in fact, even at close range, and even with trained police officers exclusively accounting for all the data points in the study, accuracy is well below 50% -- and even much lower depending on the range (note: accuracy doesn't correlate linearly with distance from target, for whatever reason -- it's what's observed). Engaging a stationary target at the range, according to just about every warfighter you ask or every account you read, is nothing at all like engaging a hostile target in a real situation. Even experienced shooters find striking targets relatively difficult in real scenarios. I strongly disagree with the assumption that a gun will be employed more accurately than a can of pepper spray.
I don't see why you disagree. You have not provided any reasoning. If I was claiming it's easier to strike a nearby enemy with a gun than a wet squid, then a discussion about how it's difficult to hit a moving target that's charging you with a gun is not reasoning for how a wet squid is just as likely to land on the enemy as the bullet from a gun. The same applies here.
|
On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun.
I learnt that 21 feet thing from watching Walker Texas Ranger - quite frankly unless you're attacked in a way that you can't get the gun out you'll probably be fine. I think it's very situational and each case of it happening needs specifics.
|
On April 23 2013 11:24 sUgArMaNiAc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun.
I learnt that 21 feet thing from watching Walker Texas Ranger - quite frankly unless you're attacked in a way that you can't get the gun out you'll probably be fine. I think it's very situational and each case of it happening needs specifics.
And unless you're looking at every single human walking down the street as a possible threat you won't see them charging at you until they are already charging at you assuming they're not hiding behind something or are in the darkness.
So you have two options.
A.) A woman walking around willing to pull her gun at the slightest provocation at all people 21 feet away.
B.) A woman walking down the street gets attacked by a hidden attacker and gets raped while her purse about 1-2 feet away from her holds her gun uselessly while she gets ravaged and beaten. The attacker then grabs the purse to steal her money and is happy to find that now he has a gun that can't be traced back to him. He uses this gun to rape another woman at gun point later that year.
Both sounds like a shitty situation doesn't it?
|
On April 23 2013 11:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 10:54 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:23 kmillz wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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 keep confusing people, sorry that was my mistake. On April 23 2013 10:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 10:09 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I apologize for not making example black and white enough, because according to Rhino85 On April 23 2013 09:35 Rhino85 wrote:
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. 21 feet is the distance someone can close before you can pull your gun so you'll have to decide to shoot them from about 22 feet away or you just don't have time to actually pull out the gun. If he pulls out a gun before she does she's already dead by time she's trying to flip the safety. If he has a knife she's already gutted by the time she's reached in her purse. Now in that scenario I'd rather have a gun than pepper spray--mostly because at least a gun can be used as a club. At that point I'd be happy with a flashlight, a cane, a rock, etc.... And this is when I just use common sense. If you're in the same room as another person, you don't have enough time to pull out the gun unless you already are pulling out your gun. If you're pulling out your gun before they charge you then you're a murderer with intent, if you try to pull out the gun before they charge you then it's too late. Assuming she doesn't pull out the gun, miss, and then have the gun taken from her and now she's raped at gun point and then shot afterwards. She could also reach for her gun and in her panic forgetting to take off the safety in which case the attacker takes the gun and beats her to death with it. So many possible scenarios both good and bad! A lot of scenarios where the person has to preemptively pull the gun on someone before danger is present as well. I mean, if we're going to base gun control on whether women should shoot possible racists, these are things we need to talk about. Or we could just look at the 2008 Supreme Court case and then keep the discussion about property rights. It is only one reason why gun control will backfire if it's goals are to prevent violent crimes. Self-defense, the fact that you don't have any good reasons why to take them away, and the reasons the 2nd amendment was created are pretty solid arguments for why gun control is a bad idea. Self defense is a terrible reason against gun control. There are MANY forms of self defense that don't include guns--guns are simply one of the many forms of self defense. The 2nd Amendment is also a terrible "argument" against gun control because, taken literally, it says (very specifically) "REGULATED militia." In other words, the 2nd word of the 2nd amendment is regulation ie--the 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control if read literally. The reason it is used against gun control is recent and old interpretations of the sentence with the understanding that taking it literally would produce an amendment that both allowed ownership of guns as well as allowed heavy regulation of guns. The 2008 case (Heller I think) made it so that the *current* (but not only) reading of the amendment to be an emphasis on the word *infringe* instead of placing emphasis on the word *regulated;* but this is merely a recent interpretation of the law and it might change in the future as well. So no, "self defense" and "2nd Amendment" is a terrible argument against gun control. The right to property ownership unproven to be any more dangerous than most household products is a more appropriate and fitting argument against gun control. When people stop dying to hammers more often than they die to sniper rifles--then you can argue that sniper rifles need to jump ahead of the line of dangerous property items that need regulation.
Gun control is a terrible idea because it won't actually save lives, it is pointless.
|
I guess what we're really asking is whether or not you can trust the judgement of an average person, with a gun, when placed in a situation where they feel threatened (real or imagined).
I think I've made it pretty clear I'm in the just barely column. What I hate about US gun laws is that standards for owning one are far too low. You can't trust or assume gun owners are responsible when literally anyone can get one.
|
Yea I'm agreeing it's a shitty situation, but there is no easy fix in sight...
|
On April 23 2013 11:59 Defacer wrote:
I guess what we're really asking is whether or not you can trust the judgement of an average person, with a gun, when placed in a situation where they feel threatened (real or imagined).
I think I've made it pretty clear I'm in the just barely column. What I hate about US gun laws is that standards for owning one are far too low.
I suggest you read up on gun laws before you make such ridiculous generalizations.
All of the proposed laws would not have stopped what happened in Connecticut. I'd like you to get this through your head.
Adam Lanza, under the current laws nationally and in Connecticut was denied purchase of a firearm. He proceeded to kill his mother, steal the firearms and then perpetrate the acts. The reports also show that he hardly fired any ammunition out of the magazines he was using before reloading.
The amount of ammunition fired out of each magazine was by all reports I have seen, less than all but the strictest magazine capacity limits proposed.
The proposed legislation had it been enacted prior would not have stopped what happened either. Mrs. Lanza had no prior criminal record and nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have flagged her on a background check and stopped her from purchasing firearms.
The idea that what has happened in Conetticut and other locations across the U.S. is anything but the acts of deranged individuals and that people who are already following the laws as they are written should be punished by a judicial system that is falling apart and overtaxed is laughable at best. At worst it is the idea of someone who looks to what the Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China, Cuba and other Communist and Socialist states did and say "We need to do that here." when the lens of history looks on and shows that those ideals fail and collapse. Why else would the Chinese have grabbed onto capitalism and changed to fit it, why else would the Soviet Union have collapsed?
Forgive me I went off on a bit of a tangent there but the point is that our country was not founded on such ideals. The ideals the U.S. were founded on were that each person is free to choose their own destiny up until they effect the lives of others in a negative way.
More laws are not the answer. Enforcing the ones we currently have is and clarifying them the correct answer.
Capiche?
|
On April 23 2013 12:03 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:59 Defacer wrote:
I guess what we're really asking is whether or not you can trust the judgement of an average person, with a gun, when placed in a situation where they feel threatened (real or imagined).
I think I've made it pretty clear I'm in the just barely column. What I hate about US gun laws is that standards for owning one are far too low. I suggest you read up on gun laws before you make such ridiculous generalizations. All of the proposed laws would not have stopped what happened in Connecticut. I'd like you to get this through your head. Adam Lanza, under the current laws nationally and in Connecticut was denied purchase of a firearm. He proceeded to kill his mother, steal the firearms and then perpetrate the acts. The reports also show that he hardly fired any ammunition out of the magazines he was using before reloading. The amount of ammunition fired out of each magazine was by all reports I have seen, less than all but the strictest magazine capacity limits proposed. The proposed legislation had it been enacted prior would not have stopped what happened either. Mrs. Lanza had no prior criminal record and nothing in any of the proposed legislation would have flagged her on a background check and stopped her from purchasing firearms. The idea that what has happened in Conetticut and other locations across the U.S. is anything but the acts of deranged individuals and that people who are already following the laws as they are written should be punished by a judicial system that is falling apart and overtaxed is laughable at best. At worst it is the idea of someone who looks to what the Soviet Union, Peoples Republic of China, Cuba and other Communist and Socialist states did and say "We need to do that here." when the lens of history looks on and shows that those ideals fail and collapse. Why else would the Chinese have grabbed onto capitalism and changed to fit it, why else would the Soviet Union have collapsed? Forgive me I went off on a bit of a tangent there but the point is that our country was not founded on such ideals. The ideals the U.S. were founded on were that each person is free to choose their own destiny up until they effect the lives of others in a negative way. More laws are not the answer. Enforcing the ones we currently have is and clarifying them the correct answer. Capiche?
Having less ammunition does not stop you from hunting or for rape victims to shoot their attackers. How does smaller magazine sizes prevent that?
|
On April 23 2013 11:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 11:12 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 23 2013 10:40 micronesia wrote: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. Missing the target applies to both, unless you think it's much easier to hit a target with pepper spray than with a gun. This is probably unlikely since a gun is designed to be aimed much more precisely, and because it's much easier to go to a gun range and practice shooting a gun than to go to a pepper spray range and practice shooting pepper spray. I mean in theory you can practice it but I assume nobody does. Whether or not a gun will kill an innocent bystander or accidentally detonate a random nuclear bomb is not relevant specifically to what I was talking about, which was which item is less likely to defend you successfully from a rapist. You'll be surprised to learn that in fact, even at close range, and even with trained police officers exclusively accounting for all the data points in the study, accuracy is well below 50% -- and even much lower depending on the range (note: accuracy doesn't correlate linearly with distance from target, for whatever reason -- it's what's observed). Engaging a stationary target at the range, according to just about every warfighter you ask or every account you read, is nothing at all like engaging a hostile target in a real situation. Even experienced shooters find striking targets relatively difficult in real scenarios. I strongly disagree with the assumption that a gun will be employed more accurately than a can of pepper spray. I don't see why you disagree. You have not provided any reasoning. If I was claiming it's easier to strike a nearby enemy with a gun than a wet squid, then a discussion about how it's difficult to hit a moving target that's charging you with a gun is not reasoning for how a wet squid is just as likely to land on the enemy as the bullet from a gun. The same applies here.
Tbh both would be easy to hit someone with at close range. A gun has a larger target area, but pepper spray has an area of effect and a constant stream, compared to pretty much a single point and one shot at a time. It doesn't take much pepper spray to effectively stop someone from being a threat either, it's pretty harsh stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
