2/17/13 10:00 AM

I read all 632 words...I figure if someone is willing to take the time to type them I might as well take the time to read them, otherwise why am I even here???

As far as "flashing" your weapon when out numbered, I couldn't think of a less appropriare thing to do, doing so will almost guarantee you get fucked particularly if the bad guys have any sort of weapons themselevs and are actually BAD guys. If they aren't why the hell are you "flashing".

I think this sort of idea (aka. "flashing") demonstarates a complete lack of understanding about violent situations. It is exactly this sort of simple minded thought which sells so many guns, people think they can get away without actually having to pull the trigger. Studies have proven that even in war time situations (kill or be killed) a large majority of soldiers have great difficulty taking another human life and thus pulling a trigger is not nearly as easy as you'd think, this is why "flashing" is such an appealing idea to the average person. And guess who's more likely to be able to pull the trigger, some bad ass criminal who really doesn't have much to loose or your average law abiding citizen who likes their life and doesn't want it to be changed forever???

If indeed flashing 'works' chances are very high it wasn't really necessary, this is the real world where violence is completely different from what you see on TV or in Hollywood. If you pull the trigger you better be prepared for the idea the other guy ends up dead (assuming of course you can actually hit him). Combine this reality with the reality that if the BAD guy knows you have a gun you better be prepared to pull the trigger and you'll begin to understand how serious having a gun for personal protection is. Of course if the alternative to NOT having a gun is your own death, then even I'd might be happy to have one, but I believe the probability of such a situation in a modern civilized society (even in the US) is virtually non-existent. I also believe a large number of Americans believe that this probability is significantly higher than I believe, the big question is whether this is reality or just good 'advertising' on behalf of the gun companies??? For example, Eric now says he lives in a safe place yet apparently needs to carry a gun on bicycle rides..maybe we differ on what is a safe place, but in my opinion IF you NEED a gun you can't be living in a very safe or nice place.

Lastly, I could tell you how to deal with multiple bad guys (I have done so successfully but it wasn't pretty) unfortunately I fear doing so would get me well beyond a 632 word count on this post. Let's just say that in any violent situation surprise is a powerful weapon, so intentionally giving up such an advantage just isn't a very smart thing to do.

2/17/13 11:52 AM

I never said I live in a safe place. I said I avoid the worst parts of my area.

Paul please leave any references to me out of this discussion. You have twisted my words and used me as an example to many times without having an understanding or respect of how I think or believe.

I dropped out of this futile thread quite some time ago.

2/17/13 3:38 PM

...that the "flashing" post wasn't mine. In fact, I agreed with you (Paul) that it's a really bad idea. I've never read anything from anyone with expertise in the field that refers to it as anything other than a mistake. It's also illegal in many areas, if not nationwide.

Daddy-O, what exactly is smug about the title of my post? It led right into the content, which based on what you said, you didn't bother to read. FWIW, it's not the longest post in this thread, either.

As for April, are you suffering from selective amnesia or something? You only made ONE post? You had four on that page alone...

2/17/13 6:55 PM

"Taking another's life is ALWAYS complicated... "

True it may be, but to me it sounds smug. Like the voiceover at the beginning of an episode in a TV serial about a guy who has to stay alive by dodging bullets, explosions, ninjas, etc. Like "I don't mind taking another's life but the complicated paperwork is killing ME."

BTW, I did read the post later on. Maybe it could be shortened to "experts say to die running away with your weapon holstered" and then flesh it out a little. Can't fault you for citations (thanks.) Honestly though, the post did not enhance the pro-gun ownership argument.

My criticism of posts longer than freshman papers is that after reading a few that are bogged down in unsubstantiated claims, red herrings and ad hominems it becomes questionable whether the study needed to find a valuable counter argument to my own position is worth the effort. They become self defeating. The "perhaps you protest too much" argument.

2/17/13 9:21 PM

"As for April, are you suffering from selective amnesia or something? You only made ONE post? You had four on that page alone."


Lost count after 632?

2/18/13 7:58 AM

Eric, sorry for continuing to drag you into this thread, but you are a perfect example of the pro-gun element and fortunately we don't have a lot of examples of that on this forum so you naturally 'stick out' a little. I also believe you completely underestimate my understanding of how you think.

However you did say:

"I live in Sumter, SC. Well in the rural area outside of major problems. Google the fine town I live in."

...so I must have been mistaken in thinking the lack of "major problems" meant you lived in a safe place. Clearly with the respect and knowledge you have for the potential damage a gun can do, you must live in one very scary place and I am most thankful I never have occasion to spend any time there. I guess I'll have to stick to riding in NY and NC and stay as far away from SC as possible.

2/18/13 8:39 AM

Actually Sumter sounds pretty tolerant, re:the last sentence of the intro paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumter,_SC

But Eric might be on to something, compare the assault statistics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumter,_SC#Crime

I'm biased toward the state since I have family there.

2/18/13 10:16 AM

Interesting...well at least my car would be safe, but other than that it looks like a place in need of far more guns :-0

2/18/13 12:30 PM

quote:

---

Google the fine town I live in."

---

quote:

---

According to FBI statistics, in 2006 Oro Valley ranked #1 in the State of Arizona for the lowest levels of both violent crime and property crime, among cities with populations of 5,000+. It was also ranked #1 every year from 2001 through 2005 in either category or both

---

2/19/13 3:09 PM

quote:

---

"As for April, are you suffering from selective amnesia or something? You only made ONE post? You had four on that page alone."


Lost count after 632?

---

2/20/13 6:05 AM

...I have been one of the main contributors to this discussion. You might want to actually try contributing something of value to the discussion for a change. THAT would be refreshing!

2/20/13 8:24 AM

I lost track of this discussion long ago, but an interesting related issue has surfaced in Maine.

The Bangor Daily news made a request for the names of all holders of concealed weapon permits, and all hell broke loose. An emergency measure passed the legislature keeping this information confidential, pending further consideration. The paper rescinded the request in the face of massive outcry, demonstrations, etc.

Personally I don't feel any need to know who has the permits, but I'm not sure why this information would not be public like any other government permit. Apparently some perceive it as a threat. Thoughts?

2/20/13 9:15 AM

quote:

---

...I have been one of the main contributors to this discussion.

---

2/20/13 12:29 PM

"But you have the nerve to consider any other different view as non-contributing. And wanted any of those silenced."

If you are not with us, you are an evil doer, I guess...

But we don't have to like when someone's position is opposite our own. We also don't have to like when they discount us as being American, taking an anti-American position when we do. Which to me is about as un-American/Patriotic as it gets. That music is what would have me rolling around on the floor with someone. And get shot is they are packing? ;)

If it where 30 years ago, I am sure the lefter positions would have folks with those position told
they are communist. Same mentality, such a contemporary mindset.

Maybe this thread would actually have been better if we had a few good old fashioned 'Fuck You's in it...

2/20/13 2:30 PM

It obviously takes more words from a a participant who is relatively out-numbered, no? I mean he's replying to several people and several posts each time it seems.

As far as "flashing" a gun goes, I believe the purpose of my argument may have been completely mis-understood.
I believe in certain situations where an assault was imminent that drawing and perhaps (as if it was then needed?) giving one last command to cease and decist is entirely a good idea before shooting or shooting at someone! Some may disagree, but don't forget that such circumstances in the field will tend to vary quite widely and involve some element of surprise.
I can testify to a theft having been averted (and a critical lesson against committing crime learned) when my friend simply carried a rifle to the near-vicinity of the scene of a car full of bike thieves in a remote area along a country road.
I'll say it again: Those guys (we were outnumbered) saw the rifle and took off . Not only that, but they were suddenly considerate enough to quickly remove both bikes from the still-open trunk of the car and carefully place them at the side of the road.

2/20/13 8:51 PM

Was your friend ready to kill one of the thieves?

That seems to be a wedge issue.

-------------------------------------

The level of wealth redistribution that is being called socialism today was called legislation in the early '70s Nixon era. The Nixon with undoubted anti-communist credentials.

Some pundits consider the slippery slide to corporate plutocracy worthy of all the help it can get. They infer individual human liberty but espouse corporations as individuals; bloodless, soulless individuals with human beings as mere corpuscles.

2/21/13 10:10 AM

Agreed dddd, you guys are out numbered and without you guys there wouldn't be much of a discussion.

Great story about the bike thieves, and I think it's pretty damn cool when something like that works out...BUT, it still doesn't change the fact that it could have gotten VERY ugly and life changing. The question is one of probabilities and the risk one is willing to take. My contention is that most Americans don't realise even remotely how much risk they're taking when they have/use a gun because if they did gun sales would go down dramatically. I heard one statistic the other day which indicated a person with a gun was FOUR times more likely to be a victim of gun violence than a person without a gun.

Unfortunately it is difficult to get enough hard data to determine exactly what the probability/risk is and for sure a large reason why such data isn't available is because the NRA/gun companies have managed to suppress it...and that is one 'conspiracy' you should really be considering. Oh and this I believe is related to Dan's story about attempts to suppress information about people who carry guns, you can't have people like that being uncomfortable with their names being available to the public because that certainly can't help guns sales.

2/21/13 11:30 AM

Sorry dddd, I am trying to leave this thread alone but

Your friend drew a weapon to thwart some bike thieves. I see only two possibilities if they had not stopped doing what they were doing

1) Your friend would have let them go, which means he drew a weapon on someone with no intention of using it, or
2) He was ready to shoot someone over a bicycle

Neither of those are acceptable to me.

You further state that a critical lesson was learned by the thieves about crime. That lesson may have been to arm themselves before they do their next crime. You have no way of knowing.

2/21/13 11:48 AM

"That lesson may have been to arm themselves before they do their next crime. You have no way of knowing."

I doubt it make any difference. The compulsion will overcome the odds that it would happen again. It is all as zero sum as it gets for the thief, no? Unless they will get a 3 strikes hit. In which case the dynamic may get totally different. Unless you say, 'get lost or get shot' to the 3rd striker so he does not think you are going to hold him/her until the cop gets there, thus no arrest probable etc...

my version of conjecture...

If I had a gun on me and someone was attempting to lift my D/A carbon bike, pretty sure I would pull the gun. For better or worse...

2/21/13 12:18 PM

"If I had a gun on me and someone was attempting to lift my D/A carbon bike, pretty sure I would pull the gun. For better or worse..."

And if one were to have good understanding of the potential for a life changing experience to follow, maybe, just maybe, the idea of having a gun might not be so appealing. Of course this sort of thought process would most definitely have a negative impact on gun sales so we need to ensure not too many Americans get the idea :-0

You know it occurred to me at lunch time, part of the problem gun manufactures have is that their product is too good, it does not really wear out. A better way for them to maintain their profits would be to make guns which need to be replaced every few years regardless of use. Better yet, completely automate, like force an annual licence payment which if not made gets the gun disabled. Then GPS chip the gun so if it gets in the wrong hands it can be shut down, now we're talkin, if you let your imagination run wild for a bit you could solve a lot of problems...that's assuming of course a person is convinced there actually is a problem to begin with, which might be the real problem.

2/21/13 12:45 PM

LoJacking and chipping et al.

Except the 300+ million out there already...

"a gun might not be so appealing"

It is not to me...

Last edited by Sparky on 2/21/13 1:01 PM; edited 1 time in total

2/21/13 12:46 PM

Caliber of the year, self wettting powder

2/21/13 7:31 PM

"1) Your friend would have let them go, which means he drew a weapon on someone with no intention of using it, or
2) He was ready to shoot someone over a bicycle

Neither of those are acceptable to me.

You further state that a critical lesson was learned by the thieves about crime. That lesson may have been to arm themselves before they do their next crime. You have no way of knowing."


This seems very presumptuous if not deceptive to me.

The fact that someone reveals that they are armed changes the dynamic completely, to where the only other outcome from what happened would be that the thieves were actually wanting to engage in a shootout.
This ignores that thieves are generally cowardly. It also ignores that one being unwilling to take on risk against bullies is what is actually unacceptable here.
Aside from the fact that the rifle was the superior weapon from the distance involved, which was perhaps 125 feet at the time, and aside from the fact that we were out in the sticks with no alternative way to get home, the bottom line is that people should be able to, and actually should engage any assault on their liberties. These are the people who make life better for everybody else, and these are the people who help many simply mis-guided individuals decide that perhaps they just might have more productive options in life than jacking others of their property and liberties.
Congrat's to such people, I wish I could say it was me that was so proactive and thoughtful that day, but I was a mere bystander and near-victim.

It's so silly to imply that anyone who carries is likely to kill someone who isn't actually presenting a mortal threat themself. The crooks don't often escalate in cases like this one, and gun owners aren't interested in shooting anyone who isn't literally asking for it. Sorry if Darwin was right about what happens to those with such defective tendencies, but it's better for everyone else. Most cops would surely be quicker to fire than most of us, in my estimation.

The situation looks different in the inner cities, where crowded areas are the last place that normal people would want to see a gun fight. But looking at the problems that cause gang shootouts (among individuals who don't obeys weapons laws) is a completely different scenario than deciding how appropriate the rest of us, the majority of us, should be regulated in terms of our right to bear arms.
And, if an inner-city resident can stop the criminal shooter in the act with his/her firearm, then that's just free "police" protection for the rest of us, much appreciated, since the benefit outweighs the risk imo.
You have to consider the statistical benefit over time when guaging the benefit of a few armed good guys, not just the instantaneous benefit of a crime being interrupted, since criminals somewhat consider their risks based on their knowledge of whatever previous outcomes they have become aware of, so common sense then more likely kicks in. This knowledge is good for citizens including those potential criminals out there, so shouldn't be excluded from consideration imo.

2/22/13 8:13 AM

One thing for sure about violence is that no two situations will ever be exactly the same and it's that lack of predictability that makes it so difficult to access the risk.

Another thing, one always wants to 'win' but what they need to be knowledgeable about ahead of time is exactly what constitutes a 'win' to them. If it's anything more than doing everything they can to not 'lose' they are taking on additional risk and had better be sure they are prepared to deal with the fall out if/when things don't go exactly as planned.

I'm all for the periodic public service beating, handed out a few in my time which I'm sure must have forever changed the attitude of the recipient and as a result benefited society as a whole. Thing is, the risk associated with providing such a public service is so high it is clear that doing so simply means emotion has over ridden logic.

In dddd's situation I truly suspect if I had a gun I may well have 'used' it too, which is exactly why I don't want a gun, if it's there it's FAR more likely to get 'used'...that's why the US has 18,000 gun suicides and 12,000 gun murders a year, leading the world by a significant magnitude. And if you think those same 30,000 people would have died without ready access to a gun because they would have found some other way to do it, you are clearly delusional...the rest of the civilized world proves this.

So, without a gun what would I have done in dddd's situation, I would have simply approached the guys in question and have asked them to cease. If that didn't work I would re-evaluate options, ranging from simply walking (or even running) away, to picking out who was the obvious leader and providing a 'public service beating' to that 'bad' guy. When you take out the leader it's amazing the effect this has on the rest, as dddd mentioned, 'bad' guys tend to be cowards, but unfortunately this can't be guaranteed.

2/22/13 12:11 PM

"Thing is, the risk associated with providing such a public service is so high it is clear that doing so simply means emotion has over ridden logic."

I couldn't disagree more about this. There is risk associated with everything one does, including, as I so often do, going out on public and remote trails un- armed.
There is also statistical risk, the risk being ignored in this discussion, in failing to confront criminals who are caught in the act. This risk is the reason that crime happens!

As for "gun suicides", yes one should consider this when purchasing a gun, and I've advised certain people as to this risk, people I thought were less than sufficiently stable. One gal, whose ex-boyfriend was violence-tending (and who turned out to be suddenly quite humble when I physically pushed him out of the front doorway, despite his impressive musculature), wanted to buy a gun for protection, but I did what I had to do to talk her out of it.
But around here, there are more people leaping off of a local (and very high) bridge span than there are gun suicides! This tells me that there is some other problem involved than the availability of a gun, which causes these deaths, but there are many ways to take one's own life, including (here more common in the nearest big city) stepping or driving in front of a fast-moving train, which is doubly bad.
And a lot of todays suicides-by-gun are done by active and ex-service members, so perhaps we should consider the real cause of those unhappy endings.
I mentioned statistical risk, and statistics are quite important to this discussion when published "raw numbers" are thrown about.
Many suicides, for starters, are done by people with failing health, their choice. And many are commited by by law enforcement officers with their service weapons. And such a discussion can't be complete with out separating gang-shootings from the entirety of other such "gun" deaths, including the many(!) of these within your statistics done by police officers.

BTW, I should clarify that my friend never "drew" his rifle, he grabbed the rifle for his own protection before heading up the hillside to see where the bicycles had disappeared to, a smart move imo. I don't doubt for a minute that those 3 thugs might have next come down to the shore and strong-armed us two teenagers for any remaining valuables, once having put the two bikes tidily into the closed trunk of their parked car. One can safely assume that there was a statistical reduction in the likelihood of each of these 3 guys going out on a crime cruise in the future, which made my friends actions a great service for them as well as us. The message was clear, that "maybe it wasn't such a great idea to try to rob fisherman in remote places". Perhaps also that "robbing teenagers who seem to be helpless isn't always quite the easy get-rich-quick task that we imagined".

One more thing to consider is that people/communities having to spend too much money on police protection and street patrols (to feel, and allow customers to feel, sufficiently safe) can drain a local economy through higher taxation rates. These monetary risks are hard to quantify, but a local economy can tank rather suddenly when there is even the start of commerce-flight from an area, and there are all kinds of risks associated with the kinds of commerce which then replace the former, legitimate commerce. A population that assist's law enforcement by providing some armed (and other security-boosting) crime-deterrence may well be the local population that thrives instead of flees. They may also be the ones whose city and state coffers are managed, instead of becoming a parasite of debt for the next season and the next generation. Such debt-caused poverty is at the core of so much crime and despair after all, which is known to carry it's own risks to life itself on a very, very wide-ranging scale.

I am always impressed by the individuals we have seen on security videos who testify to the resilience of the law-abiding masses. A couple come to mind that serve as a reminder to those who consider taking chances with robbing others. An older man, with a turban on his head, facing an armed robber. He doesn't just think about getting comfortably home to his family, but instead thinks "how dare you come into my store, my community , and try to commit a brazen crime". Suddenly a hard bamboo cane cracks solidly into the robber's neck, his weapon flies as he briefly hits the floor before fleeing. This wasn't the clerk's safest option in the short term, but served to improve the statistics of such an event not happening in his community again. This is what a hero does, considering the full effect of letting a guy rob you and thus encouraging the extremely negative trend in this person's callous behavior toward others in the community. Yet some will call this guy the fool for not just counting on law enforcement to handle it, but in many places that is not going to happen.
Not just in small stores, but in the money houses in Vegas, the sort of "banks" that dispense cash, a teller is seen in one video where a man is flashing a small arm after handing a note. In an instant, the robber is facing a large-bore, long-barreled, cocked revolver, and (perhaps after evacuating his own bowels) literally runs out the door. Tell me that this robber won't think twice about committing such an act again! I almost expect to next hear that "next time the robber will shoot first". But how many would-be robbers will actually do that? Why then are these tellers armed as such? Hasn't experience long since taught these businesses how to best manage risk?
Each situation in each locality is indeed different, and thus sweeping federal legislation against arming oneself seems inappropriate. I feel disgusted hearing Joe Biden rant that passing some new law is necessary because he disingenuously claims "America has (suddenly?) changed". Is this the change poeple voted for? He's full of it, an elite-serving, power-grabbing actor/pawn if there ever was one.