Can you use a gun for self defense?
Yes
63.2% (357)
63.2% (357)
No
26.5% (150)
26.5% (150)
other
9.9% (56)
9.9% (56)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Let's settle something right now, can you defend yourself with a gun?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

A Smooth Criminal:
I can, however I prefer to use something lighter that's not only easier to aim with, but is also more capable of doing non fatal damage to my target, while also being more likely to just incapacitate them. Something like a pistol is a bitch to aim properly with and in my opinion, they're generally finnicky and not suited for the purpose of defending yourself.

I prefer something in my house like you know, a bat or a knife...

I've a pretty big dagger on display in my room, considering how the blade is curved, hooked and quite sharp I think that I can use that more effectively than I can use a pistol.

aiming a pistol is a simple procedure:
1. line up gun with dominate eye
2.put the front post so it is equidistant between the rear posts and in such a way you could draw a straight line across the top
3. put the top of the front post over what you want to hit
its better if you do this process with both eyes open creating the illusion of the gun being centered and also allowing you to judge distance better

Since when have pistols been finicky? I've seen a 1911 left in mud fire without being cleaned. The only jams I've experienced with pistols were with, a .22 that was factory new and hadn't been oiled yet and, when the follower in one of my magazines got cocked at a weird angle and caused the second to last round not to chamber correctly after i put roughly 2,000 rounds through it.

gufftroad:

A Smooth Criminal:
I can, however I prefer to use something lighter that's not only easier to aim with, but is also more capable of doing non fatal damage to my target, while also being more likely to just incapacitate them. Something like a pistol is a bitch to aim properly with and in my opinion, they're generally finnicky and not suited for the purpose of defending yourself.

I prefer something in my house like you know, a bat or a knife...

I've a pretty big dagger on display in my room, considering how the blade is curved, hooked and quite sharp I think that I can use that more effectively than I can use a pistol.

aiming a pistol is a simple procedure:
1. line up gun with dominate eye
2.put the front post so it is equidistant between the rear posts and in such a way you could draw a straight line across the top
3. put the top of the front post over what you want to hit
its better if you do this process with both eyes open creating the illusion of the gun being centered and also allowing you to judge distance better

Great, and after all that you still only hit your exact target 1/10th of the time.

Don't know why you're arguing this... I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that pistols are made to be compact, not accurate.

There's plenty of cases here in the UK where people have started grumbling because someone shot a burglar in their own home. It's legal to now though, so that's fun.

Therefore, in light of clear evidence in support of it, anyone who says it's impossible to defend yourself with a gun is obviously delusional.

Aaron Sylvester:
The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.

Frankly I think USA is full of weapon fanatics who would happily plant landmines around their homes and store grenades in their dishwashers if it meant they could feel "safer", hahaha.

It is nice that you view us Americans in such a way. You need to remember our countries were formed in much different ways the United States was born in conflict. The first shot was fired in Lexington when the British tried to disarm them. although initially out numbered they held off three companies of British forces. Gun ownership is part of our heritage.

If i remember correctly New Zealand was only given representation because of rebellions in Canada and granted sovereignty some time in the early 1900s.

A Smooth Criminal:

Great, and after all that you still only hit your exact target 1/10th of the time.

Don't know why you're arguing this... I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that pistols are made to be compact, not accurate.

I can damn well hit more then 1/10th of shots. in the action shoots I have to hit a six 6' wide targets that move 10 meters away i can usually do this in 7-8 shots I've done it a few times in 6 shots

gufftroad:
It is nice that you view us Americans in such a way. You need to remember our countries were formed in much different ways the United States was born in conflict. The first shot was fired in Lexington when the British tried to disarm them. although initially out numbered they held off three companies of British forces. Gun ownership is part of our heritage.

If i remember correctly New Zealand was only given representation because of rebellions in Canada and granted sovereignty some time in the early 1900s.

I don't view all Americans that way unless you're seriously implying that every single American is a paranoid shut-in who collects assault rifles in order to keep themselves safe. Just...quite a few people within the American population.
I consider a lot of you quite sane and reasonable, it's always the minority who make everyone else look bad right ^_^
For example it's the minority of psychotic murderers who make gun owners seem dangerous, and it's the minority of psychotic gun owners who make the normal people seem dangerous. Snowball it up and end result as far as the rest of the world is concerned is..."lol, stupid fuckin Americans."

I know your country is far older and has had a far more violent past compared to NZ, but I think it's time people put the past behind them and focus on the present/future. If Wiki is to be believed the "US Constitution" or whatever it's called was adopted in 1780-1790. Those guidelines were made for a completely different world and era, and it boggles my mind how people can still defend the 2nd amendment today.

This reminds me of that incident where an Aussie broke shot a guy for entering his backyard because he was of the indigenous population (aka Aborigine), and then he produced a 100-year-old license which legally allowed him to do that (back then shooting Aborigines was considered a sport)...some kind of loophole which completely slipped past the government.

I consider the 2nd amendment similar to that 100-year-old license...a remnant of the old past which may have seemed vaguely relevant back then, but makes fuck-all sense today.

Aaron Sylvester:
I know your country is far older and has had a far more violent past compared to NZ, but I think it's time people put the past behind them and focus on the present/future. If Wiki is to be believed the "US Constitution" or whatever it's called was adopted in 1780-1790. Those guidelines were made for a completely different world and era, and it boggles my mind how people can still defend the 2nd amendment today.

the first ten amendments to the US constitution are the bill of rights. the bill of rights doesn't grant rights it recognizes them as what the government is intended to protect.

if the 2nd amendment is a remnant of the past so is the 1st because there is no way they could have imagined the internet and the 4th because it keeps police from enforcing laws

comparing gun ownership to killing is wrong on more levels than you can imagine and is deeply insulting

I've always been taught to never point a gun at someone unless you have the intention of shooting them - don't make idle threats with deadly weaponry.

Over here in the UK however, guns aren't exactly commonplace in most households so "can I" becomes moot as I lack a weapon. If I had a gun and someone broke into my house though... its hard to say. Having not been in that situation personally I have no concrete idea of how I'd handle that. I'd like to think I'd only fire if I felt my life or my partner's life was in danger.

Aaron Sylvester:

Seconded. Alright so NZ population is very low, but nevertheless it is an example of a place that is doing damn fine without people owning guns. Hunting is a popular sport here given all the lush forests we have here, but I would still say less than 1% of the population here own firearms - and probably 0.00001% of that 1% are stupid fuckin' nutters who feel they need a firearm to "defend" themselves.

The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.

it is rather cute that you dont seem to know your own nations firearm statistics yet you try to whine about the US. xD

Really? Only 1% of your population owns firearms?

I suppose the fact that there are about 22.6 firearm owners per 100 citizens missed your notice huh? and that out of 179 nations surveyed that NZ ranks 22nd in number of personal firearm ownership?

Whoops

FelixG:

Aaron Sylvester:

Seconded. Alright so NZ population is very low, but nevertheless it is an example of a place that is doing damn fine without people owning guns. Hunting is a popular sport here given all the lush forests we have here, but I would still say less than 1% of the population here own firearms - and probably 0.00001% of that 1% are stupid fuckin' nutters who feel they need a firearm to "defend" themselves.

The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.

it is rather cute that you dont seem to know your own nations firearm statistics yet you try to whine about the US. xD

Really? Only 1% of your population owns firearms?

I suppose the fact that there are about 22.6 firearm owners per 100 citizens missed your notice huh? and that out of 179 nations surveyed that NZ ranks 22nd in number of personal firearm ownership?

Whoops

Can you give me a source on that? Wikipedia implies that there are about 230,000 gun owners and 1.1 million actual guns in New Zealand. With a population of 4,451,017 according to the latest census, that would be a little above the 5% mark that actually own firearms.

I'm happy to admit that it's not the best source of up to date, factual info though so I'd like to know where your statistics came from for comparison.

If you're trained to effectively deal with stress and use a weapon defensively the only person who's going to get hurt is your attacker. So I couldn't defend myself with a gun, my only experience with projectiles is paintball and that in no way prepares me for the use of a real gun.

That Hyena Bloke:

FelixG:

Aaron Sylvester:

Seconded. Alright so NZ population is very low, but nevertheless it is an example of a place that is doing damn fine without people owning guns. Hunting is a popular sport here given all the lush forests we have here, but I would still say less than 1% of the population here own firearms - and probably 0.00001% of that 1% are stupid fuckin' nutters who feel they need a firearm to "defend" themselves.

The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.

it is rather cute that you dont seem to know your own nations firearm statistics yet you try to whine about the US. xD

Really? Only 1% of your population owns firearms?

I suppose the fact that there are about 22.6 firearm owners per 100 citizens missed your notice huh? and that out of 179 nations surveyed that NZ ranks 22nd in number of personal firearm ownership?

Whoops

Can you give me a source on that? Wikipedia implies that there are about 230,000 gun owners and 1.1 million actual guns in New Zealand. With a population of 4,451,017 according to the latest census, that would be a little above the 5% mark that actually own firearms.

I'm happy to admit that it's not the best source of up to date, factual info though so I'd like to know where your statistics came from for comparison.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

This is where I got my info, though their source is a hard copy book that you would have to send away for from another group as its not available online.

FelixG:

That Hyena Bloke:

FelixG:

it is rather cute that you dont seem to know your own nations firearm statistics yet you try to whine about the US. xD

Really? Only 1% of your population owns firearms?

I suppose the fact that there are about 22.6 firearm owners per 100 citizens missed your notice huh? and that out of 179 nations surveyed that NZ ranks 22nd in number of personal firearm ownership?

Whoops

Can you give me a source on that? Wikipedia implies that there are about 230,000 gun owners and 1.1 million actual guns in New Zealand. With a population of 4,451,017 according to the latest census, that would be a little above the 5% mark that actually own firearms.

I'm happy to admit that it's not the best source of up to date, factual info though so I'd like to know where your statistics came from for comparison.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

This is where I got my info, though their source is a hard copy book that you would have to send away for from another group as its not available online.

No problem, the statistics are actually nearly identical anyway. Kudos on finding such an unbiased source by the way, definitely much more so than any wiki.

The confusion I think was that it's not saying 22.6 firearm OWNERS per 100 people, just firearms. New Zealand seems to have a fairly small percentage of owners, but the ones who do have them own about four or five each and are enough to put NZ on the map when it comes to ownership.

Of course this is me being a layman when it comes to these sorts of statistics, which tend to be a lot more complex and probably shouldn't be broken down into one or two factors like I'm doing.

Can you? Yes. Should you? No. Are there far better ways? Yes.

I picked no; it's illegal to own guns here without a license and/or reason (see: farmer). I can't shoot one, but in the event that I had to bludgeon someone to death with one... probably.

Xan Krieger:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.

My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.

Using a gun to protect yourself means using said gun after you were attacked first. If you were attacked with a gun, you will probably have a severe case of "the deadsies", which means you cant really fight back anyway. If you use said gun without getting attacked first, you were the one initiating it and thus, you didnt really "defend" yourself.

Fact is that the US have the most guns per capita and the most gun related deaths per capita. Denmark who has strict gun control, has a number of gun related deaths of 1.45/100,000capita/year. Compared to that, the US has a number of gun related fatalities of 10.3/100,000capita/year. In other words; gun restriction lowers gun fatalities. Even if we rule out all the suicides (many of which would have been prevented because it takes a lot longer time time to kill yourself with pills for instance than with a gun - giving you opportunity to regret your decision), it is still a death count of 6.2/100,000/year - which is more than 4 times the number of deaths in countries with gun control.

The number of crimes involving guns is extremely low because they are so hard to get a hold of and when guns are involved in crimes, the police sets them as a very high priority which makes it much easier and faster to solve said crimes.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that "if you were burglarized in the middle of the night, would you not want a gun to defend yourself?" to which I can only answer that less than 1% of all burglaries end up in fights because thieves will almost always try and escape if discovered rather than fight. And even if they did stay and fight, gun control would prevent most of that 1% of even having a gun, making it much less likely that it will ever come to that.

Gun laws are the product of a time when invading bandits were a real danger and when politics meant "who has the superior firepower" rather than actual negotiation. It was in a time just after a civil war when invasion was a very real possibility and when they could not know if England would suddenly go to shore and attack. That is why it was considered a right to bear arms because it was a right to defend your country or your self against marauding bandits. Invasion from England now a days seems a tad far off and marauding bandits are, as far as I know, not a concern either apart from the occational gang which the police hopefully takes care of. So what is left besides complaining about "my rights"? It doesnt seem to be an issue when it comes to full body cavity searches in airplanes so why is it a problem here?

Edit: I guess I will be demanded to provide sources so here you go:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/denmark

That Hyena Bloke:

FelixG:

That Hyena Bloke:

Can you give me a source on that? Wikipedia implies that there are about 230,000 gun owners and 1.1 million actual guns in New Zealand. With a population of 4,451,017 according to the latest census, that would be a little above the 5% mark that actually own firearms.

I'm happy to admit that it's not the best source of up to date, factual info though so I'd like to know where your statistics came from for comparison.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand

This is where I got my info, though their source is a hard copy book that you would have to send away for from another group as its not available online.

No problem, the statistics are actually nearly identical anyway. Kudos on finding such an unbiased source by the way, definitely much more so than any wiki.

The confusion I think was that it's not saying 22.6 firearm OWNERS per 100 people, just firearms. New Zealand seems to have a fairly small percentage of owners, but the ones who do have them own about four or five each and are enough to put NZ on the map when it comes to ownership.

Of course this is me being a layman when it comes to these sorts of statistics, which tend to be a lot more complex and probably shouldn't be broken down into one or two factors like I'm doing.

Hm I can see how it can be read both ways, they certainly could have done a bit better in writing what they meant on the website.

TopazFusion:
Well, for whatever reason, home invasions are rare here (New Zealand). In a country of 4.5 million people, we get a home invasion, maybe once a year or so.

I can only assume that it's because guns are scarce here, and difficult to get your hands on.
Launching a home invasion with a knife, sword, machete, axe, etc, just takes too much effort.
Not having the ability to point a metal barrel at someone and pull the trigger (or threaten to pull the trigger) is apparently enough of a deterrent for most people to not bother trying to 'home invade'.

Giving everyone here guns would be an extremely bad idea. It would only lead to more gun violence, accidental shootings, guns falling into the wrong hands, etc.
This "solution" to home invasions would actually be worse, and end up with more deaths, than the problem it's trying to solve.

Ah! The fairy wonderland of Braindead/Dead Alive and other Peter Jackson fare, then.

I know nothing about your country except that your handling of the English language always felt like a proper time machine trip to me. I haven't met a single badly behaved citizen of New Zealand and just the notion of wanting to picture any of them getting into whatever legal trouble seems pretty ludicrous to me.

OK, sorry, I was somehow under the impression you hailed from Australia, so I think it's obvious as to why I got instaconfused proper.

The first thing that sprung to mind was Martin Bryant, but that was in Tasmania. Googling a bit revealed the Aramoana incident. Anything better than watching Out of the Blue to get a clear image of what happened there? It looks like that one was the decisive moment that lead to stricter laws and radical changes in counter terrorism.

EtherealBeaver:

Xan Krieger:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.

My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.

Using a gun to protect yourself means using said gun after you were attacked first. If you were attacked with a gun, you will probably have a severe case of "the deadsies", which means you cant really fight back anyway. If you use said gun without getting attacked first, you were the one initiating it and thus, you didnt really "defend" yourself.

Fact is that the US have the most guns per capita and the most gun related deaths per capita. Denmark who has strict gun control, has a number of gun related deaths of 1.45/100,000capita/year. Compared to that, the US has a number of gun related fatalities of 10.3/100,000capita/year. In other words; gun restriction lowers gun fatalities. Even if we rule out all the suicides (many of which would have been prevented because it takes a lot longer time time to kill yourself with pills for instance than with a gun - giving you opportunity to regret your decision), it is still a death count of 6.2/100,000/year - which is more than 4 times the number of deaths in countries with gun control.

The number of crimes involving guns is extremely low because they are so hard to get a hold of and when guns are involved in crimes, the police sets them as a very high priority which makes it much easier and faster to solve said crimes.

One of the main arguments against gun control is that "if you were burglarized in the middle of the night, would you not want a gun to defend yourself?" to which I can only answer that less than 1% of all burglaries end up in fights because thieves will almost always try and escape if discovered rather than fight. And even if they did stay and fight, gun control would prevent most of that 1% of even having a gun, making it much less likely that it will ever come to that.

Gun laws are the product of a time when invading bandits were a real danger and when politics meant "who has the superior firepower" rather than actual negotiation. It was in a time just after a civil war when invasion was a very real possibility and when they could not know if England would suddenly go to shore and attack. That is why it was considered a right to bear arms because it was a right to defend your country or your self against marauding bandits. Invasion from England now a days seems a tad far off and marauding bandits are, as far as I know, not a concern either apart from the occational gang which the police hopefully takes care of. So what is left besides complaining about "my rights"? It doesnt seem to be an issue when it comes to full body cavity searches in airplanes so why is it a problem here?

Edit: I guess I will be demanded to provide sources so here you go:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/denmark

the statistics you used are wrong due to the gun deaths including suicide and justifiable homicide the actual number of gun related homicides is about 8.5 per 100,000

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

recently i was on a jury here that involved self defense, now i don't have the exact penal code with me but its along the lines of a person may use any force they feel is necessary to stop the perceive threat even if no threat currently is present

I've only ever seen real guns a few times in my life, and I've never held one. I have basic knowledge on how to use one, yeah, but as for if I could shoot someone, unless I really have no choice, I can't say I could.

Yes of course you can use a weapon for self defence. It is no different than any other weapon ever invented by mankind. A gun is just the premier and best weapon we've developed. Before we had guns we used swords and bows. Are those in some manner inherently more righteous and moral than a gun? Before swords we had clubs, before clubs we had fists. You can easily kill a man with your barehands. A single bat strike to a man's head can kill him in an instant. Shall we ban all weapons besides fists? Do you know what that means? It means the tyranny of the strong.
You know what guns do? Guns level the field. Firearms give the weak small nerd a chance against the strong tall thug. Guns don't care if you can bench 300lbs and smash a man's face in with a bat. A gun doesn't care if your exceptionally wealthy and can afford the best sword and years of training on it. The gun is the weapon that secured freedom and equality for the common man. A gun allows the 100lb woman to protect herself against the 250lb rapist. Before firearms she didn't stand a chance. Now that assailant must think twice because his life can be ended swiftly and shortly.
Also there is no such thing as a purely defensive weapon. You can wear armour but without an offensive weapon to retaliate you will loose eventually. Armour only prolongs the conflict. To end a conflict the threat must be removed. The determined assailant will continue to attack until they get past your armour.

Waffle_Man:

Ok, let's do a realistic simulation of what it's like to be in a active shooter situation. First, we're going to have the students engage a threat from a seated position, never mind the fact that this is something that most cops would have trouble doing. Second, since safety gear is trendy these days, we should give everyone the most cumbersome eye protection money can buy and introduce a threat before the student can orient themselves to it. Lastly, we'd better prepare for a worst case scenario, so the shooters will be informed of both the presence and location of the only armed individual in the room, and we will have them completely ignore the dense flow of students out of the room. Sounds legit.

The safety gear is the same stuff that SWAT officers use during their operations and while nonlethal, these are still rounds that could blind a person. Even assuming no headgear, you still don't get to decide the terms of engagement and even then, the test subjects had an advantage in knowing they're going to be in a public shooting simulation (if not immediately). The whole "oh, but if this variable was changed, the bad guy would be the only casualty!" reasoning doesn't work in the real world. The shooter is not going to call in saying "I'm going to burst in and shoot all of you in five seconds. All you concealed carriers, please draw your weapons and prepare to gun me down before I can kill any innocent people."

What makes public shootings like this so bleak and devastating is that nobody can ever be prepared for it. It's an extremely rare event (as in literally one out of a trillion when you consider every new person entering or leaving a crowd), the shooter is the only one that knows this is going to be the time when shots will be fired (also known in the military as "taking the initiative"), and all control over who or what gets hit immediately goes out the window. And if you did know with 100% certainty this is going to be the time a shooter is going to start a massacre, why the hell didn't you call the authorities to go arrest that guy long before the incident?

The only way I can imagine a shooting being averted with no innocents harmed is if every gathering has armed guards with high-powered weapons drawn and pointed towards all entrances and at each individual person... and who the fuck would ever feel safe with paranoid guards watching them for the slightest suspicious move with their finger on the trigger? The death toll from misreading threats would make the actual massacres look like a joke in comparison.

gufftroad:

EtherealBeaver:

Xan Krieger:
snip

another snip

the statistics you used are wrong due to the gun deaths including suicide and justifiable homicide the actual number of gun related homicides is about 8.5 per 100,000

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

recently i was on a jury here that involved self defense, now i don't have the exact penal code with me but its along the lines of a person may use any force they feel is necessary to stop the perceive threat even if no threat currently is present

Wait so your counter argument is that gunrelated homicides in the US are "only" 8.5 per 100.000 which is 580% of the Danish example? The Danish example also includes every and all the gun relatd deaths so they are very much comparable even without the US counter "only" being 480% higher.

Ignoring every single other argument I made, that still makes it almost 6 times as likely to die in the country with no gun restrictions compared to the country with gun restrictions. If guns really did make it all safer, should those statistics not be reversed?

I don't understand the nature of the question.
Like just a gun? It helps if you have some bullets to, and a clip. Unless you're just going to pistol whip the attacker.
An operational loaded gun is pretty much the best way to defend your self.

I have a friend who's probably alive today because she always carries a loaded gun.

Mikeyfell:
I don't understand the nature of the question.
Like just a gun? It helps if you have some bullets to, and a clip. Unless you're just going to pistol whip the attacker.
An operational loaded gun is pretty much the best way to defend your self.

I have a friend who's probably alive today because she always carries a loaded gun.

I have a friend whos dead today because it was so easy getting a gun. So yeah, there you go.

A Smooth Criminal:
Great, and after all that you still only hit your exact target 1/10th of the time. Don't know why you're arguing this... I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that pistols are made to be compact, not accurate.

No insult intended but you really don't know what your talking about. The majority of handguns are very accurate out to about 50-100 yards, of course a good deal of that accuracy depends on the person using it. But your average person should have little trouble hitting a 10 inch target at 25 yards using lets say a full sized 9mm glock with little training or practice. I have personally taught a few novices who had never handled a gun in their lives to shoot handguns and within a few hours they were hitting 10 inch targets at 25 yards with little difficulty. Yes there are some handguns that are really only accurate a few dozen feet but that is reserved to the ultra compact guns like derringers, pretty much if the entire gun is small enough to lay in your open hand then it's probably not going to be very accurate but those are the exception not the rule.

australian and i refuse to take up arms and this is despite being on the recieving end of a home invasion once.
the only time ive touched a gun was when the gun amnesty was on and my grandfathers old gun was handed in.

Xan Krieger:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.

My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.

Well i could, but i would get 3 times the time in jail as the guys i was defending myself agents.

We don't all live in the United States of America, buddy.

Raytan941:

A Smooth Criminal:
Great, and after all that you still only hit your exact target 1/10th of the time. Don't know why you're arguing this... I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that pistols are made to be compact, not accurate.

No insult intended but you really don't know what your talking about. The majority of handguns are very accurate out to about 50-100 yards, of course a good deal of that accuracy depends on the person using it. But your average person should have little trouble hitting a 10 inch target at 25 yards using lets say a full sized 9mm glock with little training or practice. I have personally taught a few novices who had never handled a gun in their lives to shoot handguns and within a few hours they were hitting 10 inch targets at 25 yards with little difficulty. Yes there are some handguns that are really only accurate a few dozen feet but that is reserved to the ultra compact guns like derringers, pretty much if the entire gun is small enough to lay in your open hand then it's probably not going to be very accurate but those are the exception not the rule.

No, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm just not exaggerating to be completely "HUURRRPIDURRR, GUNS ARE ALWAYS SAFE AND EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE ONE!" or "GUNS ARE BAD AND THERE SHOULD BE A LAW SO EVERYONE WILL THROW THEM AWAY!!"

I go shooting quite a bit when I'm in Nevada and mostly shoot pistols and revolvers. And even if I had no experience with them, it's still common knowledge that handguns aren't as reliable in terms as aiming as people might want them to be. If you're going to say otherwise then I see no reason to disregard you and say "No insult intended but you really don't know what you're talking about", because at that point, it's clear that you don't.

AlexanderPeregrine:

The safety gear is the same stuff that SWAT officers use during their operations and while nonlethal, these are still rounds that could blind a person. Even assuming no headgear, you still don't get to decide the terms of engagement and even then, the test subjects had an advantage in knowing they're going to be in a public shooting simulation (if not immediately).

The point wasn't that such circumstances don't have uncontrolled variables. Rather, it was that the entire simulation was set up specifically to put the student at the greatest disadvantage. If the NRA had set up a circumstance that was designed to give the defender greater intelligence and preparedness than the shooter, would you not have call foul? I would have.

The whole "oh, but if this variable was changed, the bad guy would be the only casualty!"

Please point out where I wrote that the bad guy would have been the only casualty.

reasoning doesn't work in the real world. The shooter is not going to call in saying "I'm going to burst in and shoot all of you in five seconds. All you concealed carriers, please draw your weapons and prepare to gun me down before I can kill any innocent people."

No, but would the simulation have gone the same way if the shooter had been given the instructions to burst into the room, shoot the teacher, and then shoot as many students as possible and hadn't been told both that there was an armed student and their exact seating?

Maybe it would have, but I have doubts.

What makes public shootings like this so bleak and devastating is that nobody can ever be prepared for it. It's an extremely rare event (as in literally one out of a trillion when you consider every new person entering or leaving a crowd), the shooter is the only one that knows this is going to be the time when shots will be fired (also known in the military as "taking the initiative"), and all control over who or what gets hit immediately goes out the window. And if you did know with 100% certainty this is going to be the time a shooter is going to start a massacre, why the hell didn't you call the authorities to go arrest that guy long before the incident?

You're trying to get a point across that I'm already well aware of. Haven't a defensive weapon isn't about certainty, it's about probabilities. If you have a weapon, there is a very low probability of you being in a situation where you will be required to use it. If you find yourself in an active shooter situation, the probability of successfully neutralizing an active shooter is much much higher. Trying to argue that not being able to stop anyone but the shooter from being harmed in an active shooter situation is reason for concealed weapons being useless is like saying that airbags are useless. They can't save people from every type of incident and have been known to kill people needlessly.

I suppose you could argue that my chances of dying from an airbag are much lower than from dying from a handgun accident, but the government doesn't force me to use a handgun.

The only way I can imagine a shooting being averted with no innocents harmed is if every gathering has armed guards with high-powered weapons drawn and pointed towards all entrances and at each individual person... and who the fuck would ever feel safe with paranoid guards watching them for the slightest suspicious move with their finger on the trigger? The death toll from misreading threats would make the actual massacres look like a joke in comparison.

Again, the point isn't to stop one hundred percent of fatalities in a shooting. Rather, the point is that it makes shooting far more abrupt than they otherwise would be. Of course, all of this is based on the idea that guns are only useful when they are actually fired when the knowledge of weapons being present in an area is a massive deterrent in and of itself. Is there another explanation for the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones?

Of course you can defend yourself with a gun.
It happens pretty regularly around here.

And yes, you can use deadly force if they break into your house and you consider yourself in imminent peril, without having broken any laws. (Castle Doctrine)

In most states you can likewise use deadly force, regardless of if you are on your own property or not, if you believe yourself to be in imminent peril. (Stand Your Ground Law)

"Yes" to all possible interpretation of the question
.
.
.
Except the one where "self-defense" is analogy for anal masturbation
In this case it's "maybe"

I'm not sure if the question is asking "am I, personally, able to" (in which case, no, I've never handled a gun in my life) or "should you be allowed to". To the latter I have to go with a qualified "yes"--you should be allowed to use a gun as a last line of defense. I.E., stand your ground laws are bullshit, because if you can escape a situation or resolve it nonviolently (or non-lethally), you should. Shooting someone should be the absolute last resort when your life is in immediate danger and there are no other options. It should NOT be the resort you go to because of some "look, I shot the bad guy, I'm now the hero" or "I put that scum in his/her place", etc. mentality.

Can you? Yes. Does it happen anywhere near as often as gun advocates think? No.

Kind of vague there OP. Are we talking home defense strictly? If so then yes, if someones broken into your home you have a right to defend yourself, and your property. At least that's my opinion on the matter. Regarding fire arms though, personally I own an 80lb draw compound bow which I would much rather have on me than a firearm. Also as to it never happening, I've actually heard of a couple instances of intruders shot and killed while entering a home. Also, this one is kind of relevant, but I remember a story in which a man saw someone looting his recently burned down home and confronted them. The looter made a break for it with his belongings, and the man shot him in the spine with an arrow. Karma if I ever heard of it, but I doubt the legal system held the same opinion.

I held a gun in my hands once, didn't even fire it. That's the extent of my gun wielding experience so nope, i'd totally miss my target and end up shooting either myself or something i wasnt aiming for in this hypothetical scenario.

So big no from me.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked