|
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 May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes.
It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet.
Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size.
The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant.
For example
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.html
The criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked.
But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered.
|
On May 01 2013 05:53 FallDownMarigold wrote:What does the CDC stand to gain by reduction in gun possession apart from the possibility of lower gun violence? I can understand why NRA and its groupies DON'T want that -- there would be a great loss on money for them. + Show Spoiler +
Fuckit, at this point I'm not going to bother going back and fixing all my typing errors. Been doing this all from iPhone, excuse any weird errors
The problem is not what they want,
but that they are doing a scientific research with a politcial/not scienctific aim.
Thus they are biased, not objectivly enough, to make this research sciectific relevant.
also, fuck the NRA
|
So then if scientists repeat the exact same studies following the same methodology and recapitulate the results, but the money is derived from, say, Harvard University, or some other non-CDC institute, then it is fine, correct?
|
On May 01 2013 06:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So then if scientists repeat the exact same studies following the same methodology and recapitulate the results, but the money is derived from, say, Harvard University, or some other non-CDC institute, then it is fine, correct?
There's always some level of bias in science? No way!
https://twitter.com/search?q=#overlyhonestmethods
|
On May 01 2013 06:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So then if scientists repeat the exact same studies following the same methodology and recapitulate the results, but the money is derived from, say, Harvard University, or some other non-CDC institute, then it is fine, correct?
yes
|
On May 01 2013 07:16 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:
So then if scientists repeat the exact same studies following the same methodology and recapitulate the results, but the money is derived from, say, Harvard University, or some other non-CDC institute, then it is fine, correct? yes
It's sort of correct.
At the end of the day all science costs money--who funds said endeavor will cast a shadow on the research no matter what.
Its hard to trust NRA research on guns because objectivity comes into question. The science *could* be sound--but I'm certain there are a few creationist scientists out there with their own "scientifically backed" conclusions. If you follow the money, you see the possible bias. Whether bias is there or not is irrelevant--it's about how much we as outsiders trust the conclusions and methodology of the work.
|
On May 01 2013 05:53 FallDownMarigold wrote:What does the CDC stand to gain by reduction in gun possession apart from the possibility of lower gun violence? I can understand why NRA and its groupies DON'T want that -- there would be a great loss on money for them. + Show Spoiler +
Fuckit, at this point I'm not going to bother going back and fixing all my typing errors. Been doing this all from iPhone, excuse any weird errors
It's not just a loss of money. It's a reduction in personal freedoms.
Personally, I have no financial interest in gun control whatsoever. However, I support legal firearm ownership as long as it is strictly regulated, because I do not want the government taking away personal freedoms without good cause.
By contrast, you can see when certain groups really do have a vested financial interest, because these groups not only support gun ownership, but oppose safety regulation that might reduce the number of customers.
Closing the gun show loophole is a classic example. The people who spearhead opposition to this usually have a financial interest to protect, despite misleading some of their followers with slippery slope fallacies.
|
On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered.
Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes.
|
On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes.
You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc.
Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns.
|
On May 01 2013 05:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 03:31 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury. I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon? If someone is attacking you, at 21 feet you don't have time to pull out your gun. This leaves two options of shoot someone from a distance--Travyon case. Or get attacked. he suggested you can pull out your gun while they're on top of you--in which case you have no hands to defend yourself and you're fucked. In either case--self defense classes would be a better way to protect yourself than trying to brandish a weapon and hope you don't shoot someone who was just walking around. George Zimmerman was on the ground, getting his head bashed in when he shot Trayvon Martin. He wasn't just "Walking around". Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 04:37 Nachtwind wrote:
If weapons and all are so good for the society then why they need to whitewash or hide numbers the studies would have gathered? I don´t understand. Because the news gets ahold of statistics, and plays them off as saying things they don't all the time. Hence the terms "Assault Weapon", and "Gun-show loophole".
People who don't really know the issue latch on to the terms, vote for representatives who are support uninformed positions, and end up making stupid legislation.Look at NY. People who know nothing about guns have banned most rifles, and practically all pistols with their new "SAFE Act". The rifles, even old, bolt-action hunting rifles, were banned because they could mount a bayonet, which somehow makes it an assault weapon. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Mosin-Nagant_M1891_-_Ryssland_-_AM.032971.jpg/800px-Mosin-Nagant_M1891_-_Ryssland_-_AM.032971.jpg) This gun, a bolt-action rifle capable of holding only 5 rounds invented over 100 years ago, is an assault weapon in NY. Now, this invalidates the statistics because the polls often ask "Do you believe we should ban Assault Weapons?" and the person being polled assumes that assault weapons are machine guns or grenade launchers or something.
That´s your argument that disallow scientist and journalists to collect data?
The result is for example ".. devastating for the field of gun violence prevention," So you´re against gun violation prevention? You people must be kidding me that you think it´s something good when you disallow science, journalists to even collect date. Because that´s the problem - not how different groups evaluate this data if it would be accessible to the publicity.
Sure, if you fear the outcome because the negative aspects could objectively outweight the positive aspects, it´s clear why. But you must allow people to gather this data and access to this data if you want a honest discussion about this matter.
|
On May 01 2013 09:56 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 05:12 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 03:31 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 03:13 stevarius wrote:
Hearing someone break into your house giving you time to pull out your gun and prepare yourself is another matter--but in the hypothetical woman is about to raped scenario--the gun won't help much unless you pull it out early--in which case you'll get into the stand your ground case in Florida where a guy shot a defenseless kid in self defense because he was wearing a hoodie.
Look what we have here guys.... Another backseat news-watching judge and jury. I don't even know what to make of his comparison of a woman rape scenario and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Is the woman rape victim supposed to be Zimmerman and is the rapist supposed to be Trayvon? If someone is attacking you, at 21 feet you don't have time to pull out your gun. This leaves two options of shoot someone from a distance--Travyon case. Or get attacked. he suggested you can pull out your gun while they're on top of you--in which case you have no hands to defend yourself and you're fucked. In either case--self defense classes would be a better way to protect yourself than trying to brandish a weapon and hope you don't shoot someone who was just walking around. George Zimmerman was on the ground, getting his head bashed in when he shot Trayvon Martin. He wasn't just "Walking around". On May 01 2013 04:37 Nachtwind wrote:
If weapons and all are so good for the society then why they need to whitewash or hide numbers the studies would have gathered? I don´t understand. Because the news gets ahold of statistics, and plays them off as saying things they don't all the time. Hence the terms "Assault Weapon", and "Gun-show loophole".
People who don't really know the issue latch on to the terms, vote for representatives who are support uninformed positions, and end up making stupid legislation.Look at NY. People who know nothing about guns have banned most rifles, and practically all pistols with their new "SAFE Act". The rifles, even old, bolt-action hunting rifles, were banned because they could mount a bayonet, which somehow makes it an assault weapon. This gun, a bolt-action rifle capable of holding only 5 rounds invented over 100 years ago, is an assault weapon in NY. Now, this invalidates the statistics because the polls often ask "Do you believe we should ban Assault Weapons?" and the person being polled assumes that assault weapons are machine guns or grenade launchers or something. That´s your argument that disallow scientist and journalists to collect data? The result is for example So you´re against gun violation prevention? You people must be kidding me that you think it´s something good when you disallow science, journalists to even collect date. Because that´s the problem - not how different groups evaluate this data if it would be accessible to the publicity. Sure, if you fear the outcome because the negative aspects could objectively outweight the positive aspects, it´s clear why. But you must allow people to gather this data and access to this data if you want a honest discussion about this matter.
Did you not read any of the other posts about the research? Him, I, and a few others made it pretty clear why the agenda-based research was disallowed. (Hint: see bolded letters)
|
Yes and you did so by providing two agenda-based explanations for why the research is agenda-based and unusable -- one from a staunchly conservative Op/Ed writer at Forbes, one from the Washington Times -- the bastion of exaggerated conservative reporting. This agenda business goes both ways, at least, to be fair
Even conceding that the research may not be used to inform policy due to conflict of interest via funding source, it is still not demonstrated that the studies are flawed from a methodology standpoint, and that the findings don't reflect honest scientific work. If you are familiar with science, you won't be quick to assume that every researcher is willing to fake data in order to please a source of funding. The process of peer review generally frowns upon it (and indeed discredits those found guilty of faking work), and reviewers aren't embedded in the initial research process.
On May 01 2013 15:46 oneofthem wrote:
i see no problem with something similar happening with guns
With respect to the recent discussion, the issue for some is something along these lines:
1) One of the CDC's stated aims is to reduce gun prevalence
2) The CDC funded research into gun prevalence and homicide/suicide rates
3) The research produced data that troubled the NRA
The conclusion accepted by some here is that this research is unacceptable because it resulted from an agenda
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this view that science cannot have a political valence is rather limited. if quality, accurate research shows that we have a problem with, for instance, global warming. then it's perfectly fine to make a political issue out of it.
science is allowed to contribute to social progress too. if we learn that childhood nutrition education is very important, for instance, then that'd be a good basis for a campaign to improve childhood care and provide poor families with those resources. if scientists lead those efforts, they are being good citizens etc. i see no problem with something similar happening with guns
|
On May 01 2013 08:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 05:53 FallDownMarigold wrote:What does the CDC stand to gain by reduction in gun possession apart from the possibility of lower gun violence? I can understand why NRA and its groupies DON'T want that -- there would be a great loss on money for them. + Show Spoiler +
Fuckit, at this point I'm not going to bother going back and fixing all my typing errors. Been doing this all from iPhone, excuse any weird errors
It's not just a loss of money. It's a reduction in personal freedoms. Personally, I have no financial interest in gun control whatsoever. However, I support legal firearm ownership as long as it is strictly regulated, because I do not want the government taking away personal freedoms without good cause. By contrast, you can see when certain groups really do have a vested financial interest, because these groups not only support gun ownership, but oppose safety regulation that might reduce the number of customers. Closing the gun show loophole is a classic example. The people who spearhead opposition to this usually have a financial interest to protect, despite misleading some of their followers with slippery slope fallacies.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT this is the first time me and sunprince have ever started at the same position on a single issue. Wut!
|
On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns.
And, as I have said, at that close range combat training an any weapon would work. Combat training plus knife, plus rock, plus fucking keys would work. The gun is not relevant since it would be more useful to have close combat training and be adaptive with weapon use. Yes, you could reach for your gun. Or your baton. Or your knife, or your brick, or your anything. Pretty much any weapon with a similar range as your fist would work--it doesn't need to be a gun. WHICH is what I said! Please read before pretending to "refute" by stating what I already said.
|
On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns.
well actually, there are police forces in the world that by and large don't use guns.
Most prominent example is the police in the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
When no one has guns, there's no particularly good reason for the police to have them either.
The whole "freedom" part of this gun-owning argument is pretty much bullshit. I don't think you would argue that people have the right to own bombs, or nukes, or anthrax, or drones, or tanks, or flamethrowers. All of these things can be used the same way guns can be used-in self defense, but it doesn't change the fact that they all (in general) were designed for one purpose: to inflict harm upon other humans.
Obviously the U.S. will not ban guns any time in the near future, or maybe even the next century, but certainly it would be nice to see some stricter regulations in place. I imagine the country would be much better off if guns were restricted solely for hunting purposes, but even so, I think game hunting (for sport) is pretty much out of the question too. Hunting for sport IMO is barbaric.
|
The easier it is for people to get hold of a gun the easier it is for some maniacs to do these school massacres we see every now and then. If guns wasn't as easy to obtain as it is now then we probably would see less of these types of massacres.
And also the death by gun rate would go down if there wasn't that many assault rifles or guns in general that anyone could obtain.
|
On May 01 2013 22:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. And, as I have said, at that close range combat training an any weapon would work. Combat training plus knife, plus rock, plus fucking keys would work. The gun is not relevant since it would be more useful to have close combat training and be adaptive with weapon use. Yes, you could reach for your gun. Or your baton. Or your knife, or your brick, or your anything. Pretty much any weapon with a similar range as your fist would work--it doesn't need to be a gun. WHICH is what I said! Please read before pretending to "refute" by stating what I already said.
The idea that any weapon would work is not necessarily true. A knife, or especially a rock or keys, do not necessarily provide sufficient stopping power. A person can smash your head into the pavement long before a stab wound stops them, while this is far less likely in the case of a firearm.
You're also acting as if bum rushing is the only form of attack. In reality, your opponent can come at you with a weapon of their own, most commonly a bludgeoning tool like a two-by-four or piece of pipe. In those cases, other weapons would serve only as parity or even leave you at a disadvantage, whereas a firearm would give you the advantage. Plenty of street confrontations also involve multiple attackers, in which a knife or rock are highly insufficient.
Finally, firearms have a deterrent effect that other weapons do not. You can point a handgun at someone, and tell them to walk away. By contrast, you cannot safely do the same to someone with a knife or other melee weapon; you must remain within range to ensure that they do not deploy a longer ranged weapon at you. This is even more true when there are multiple attackers in play.
|
On May 01 2013 23:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 22:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 09:32 sunprince wrote:On May 01 2013 09:19 kmillz wrote:On May 01 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 01 2013 05:22 Millitron wrote:On May 01 2013 05:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Can we stop shitting up this thread debating the Trayvon Martin murder thing? There is an entire thread devoted to it. Would make more sense to take that discussion there where there are plenty of interested people Totally agree, but Magpie was using it as a bludgeon to argue against gun rights. Its related as far as that goes. It's an anecdotal quip showing an example of some neighborhood watch guy being too nervous around black youth. My argument has been that it doesn't matter what weapon you have--you don't have time against anyone 21 feet from you and most of the time it's a lot less than 21 feet. Say you're a 120 lb woman and some 200 lb man bum rushes you. No amount of gun training will allow you to pull the gun out in time and once he's on top of you no amount of "struggling" is going to allow you to pull out your gun and flick the safety, during a panic, when someone is on top of you that is double your size. The gun is useful if you're already at the ready, and keeping people at a distance. Which is why house break ins make sense. But at that point--a bat would also work. A katana as well if you really want to kill them. But saying some random person walking down the street is safer because they have a gun? No, not at all relevant. For example http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/man-turns-tables-shotgun-wielding-attacker-141851442.htmlThe criminals had the gun out at the ready--but once he got close it simply took fast hands to disarm him. Why? Because guns are useless at close range like that. If the robber had kept his distance, and didn't allow the man to get near him, then the gun would have worked. But close proximity situations is pointless if you're already overpowered. Proper self-defense coupled with a concealed weapon can save your life. What if the 120 lb woman knows basic escapes from positions on the ground such as the mount? Do you know what "shrimping" is in ground-fighting terms? Say she gets a knee between her and the aggressor and then pulls her weapon out. I really hate getting into these finer details but your just saying "You either shoot someone from ~20 feet away or it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to shoot them" and anytime someone says "but what about x, y, or z" circumstance you just repeat yourself and ignore other outcomes. You can also sprawl hard on the bum rush and push them away to draw your weapon, pull closed guard and control them while you draw your weapon, sweep them and draw your weapon, etc. Funny how only people completely ignorant of combat think that firearms are useless. By that logic, I guess police officers should stop carrying handguns. And, as I have said, at that close range combat training an any weapon would work. Combat training plus knife, plus rock, plus fucking keys would work. The gun is not relevant since it would be more useful to have close combat training and be adaptive with weapon use. Yes, you could reach for your gun. Or your baton. Or your knife, or your brick, or your anything. Pretty much any weapon with a similar range as your fist would work--it doesn't need to be a gun. WHICH is what I said! Please read before pretending to "refute" by stating what I already said. The idea that any weapon would work is not necessarily true. A knife, or especially a rock or keys, do not necessarily provide sufficient stopping power. A person can smash your head into the pavement long before a stab wound stops them, while this is far less likely in the case of a firearm. You're also acting as if bum rushing is the only form of attack. In reality, your opponent can come at you with a weapon of their own, most commonly a bludgeoning tool like a two-by-four or piece of pipe. In those cases, other weapons would serve only as parity or even leave you at a disadvantage, whereas a firearm would give you the advantage. Plenty of street confrontations also involve multiple attackers, in which a knife or rock are highly insufficient. Finally, firearms have a deterrent effect that other weapons do not. You can point a handgun at someone, and tell them to walk away. By contrast, you cannot safely do the same to someone with a knife or other melee weapon; you must remain within range to ensure that they do not deploy a longer ranged weapon at you. This is even more true when there are multiple attackers in play.
Road ragers in Russia regularly pull knives and axes and baseball bats on each other as a means of deterrent. It works just fine :p
|
United States24734 Posts
Again, without taking an actual stance I want to point out:
To get good enough at hand-to-hand combat that a 90 pound woman can defend herself from a 200 pound determined attacker takes years of rigorous training. To get competent enough at carry and use of a personal firearm takes many times less training (although I admit many people have too little in this regard).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
