Iso & Icecream: yeah, breech loading shotguns & air rifles. You're supposed to carry them in the open position, unloaded, and out of easy firing angle.
Mostly people carry them in soft bags or held a little awkwardly so the bend is obvious and they can't be easily fired. The guns being unloaded you have to take on faith, I guess.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Do not carry a weapon on you. If for whatever reason a cop ever stops you (it doesn't matter the reason, maybe you were jaywalking or maybe they were randomly searching people) and decides to search you, and finds a weapon, you could be in big trouble.
In trouble for doing what, exactly? Walking? Random searches are against my rights if I do not consent. Carrying a weapon is not probable cause for suspicion that I may be committing a crime. If I'm legally allowed to have a weapon and I'm not breaking any laws in the process, they have no leg to stand on.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Random searches are legal in a number of places - the NYC ones still continue today even after being challenged.
And open carry can get attention that makes them scrutinize you - even if the carry itself is legal - it can get attention which under greater scrutiny they catch something else that would've normally gone ignored.
Not to mention many businesses have policies against firearms within them, which breaching those can land you in jail in a big hurry. (At least briefly)
My Wallet is in fact more valuable to me than the life of a criminal trying to take it. Also, some criminals want more than a wallet. I kind of like living without being raped.
Credit cards, smartphones etc. can be replaced. Killing someone is a big deal.
More to point, self defence or not, you could still cop gaol time.
I don't believe holding a lethal weapon here helps that much against would-be muggers.
Every time I've been attacked I've been ambushed (usually from behind) with no chance of stopping their initial attack.
I don't see how holding a knife/gun here actually helps, considering they're already on you before you have a chance to go for it.
You're just as likely to have it used against you.
I'm not a huge fan of carrying around a gun, I find them to be tools more for killing animals than protection. When they are weapons, I find that to be for war.
Guns are weapons, a type of tool. Act stupidly about that resource and you can kiss the second amendment goodbye with another amendment over a number of generations. It's our responsibility if we want to have the second amendment to not abuse it and be a bad witness to gun ownership. Rights can go away and be modified.
This is close to my standpoint.
I'm not arguing that guns aren't fun to shoot, sure they are, but I don't believe that guns have a place in every day life, every minute of every day.
I understand why people would argue with this, but if the sheer number of guns was reduced to a very low level, why would you *need* one in the first place?
I believe that the way to reduce the threat of gun crime is to reduce the guns, not to buy a gun as a deterrent.
Now all that out the way;
For you guys who live in dodgy area's where gun crime is a constant everyday threat, why do you still live there?
Have you considered moving somewhere more peaceful? If not, why not?
Yeah, the blanket statement of never needing to own a weapon is just absolute absurdity to me.
Why?
Because the world is filled with those who would threaten our life, liberty, and property. The idea that self-defense is a totally unnecessary concern is nothing less than denial.
Do not carry a weapon on you. If for whatever reason a cop ever stops you (it doesn't matter the reason, maybe you were jaywalking or maybe they were randomly searching people) and decides to search you, and finds a weapon, you could be in big trouble.
Umm... only in oppressive police states (like New York, figuratively speaking ;p), or it least only in places that aren't named Arizona, though if you are being detained or searched letting the LEO know you have a weapon is obviously about the only thing you should do besides exercising your right to remain silent.
Two most common gun nut arguments
----------------------------------------
1. "I need to carry a gun in public to feel safe."
2. "we need our guns to protect us from the government"
In truth, unless you are a hunter or sportsman there is no logical reason to own a firearm much less carry one in public like you're in a damned clint eastwood movie. And if you think you need to carry a gun to feel safe consider either moving or visiting a therapist.
That's all well and good I guess. There are certainly many self defense situations where a gun is just not all that helpful. And certainly if the military is on board with a dictator who's willing to carpet bomb a gun doesn't go very far.
However, why should law-abiding next to zero-risk of committing a crime folks have to jump through hoops and get treaded like criminals just because they enjoy the Zen of target shooting? The vast majority of gun owners are never in trouble with the law and go about their business without harming society. I don't see why the existence of criminals justifies harassment of people who are just living their lives. I think there are something like 20000-ish gun-related suicides, murders, and injuries in the US per year, but there are something like near 300,000,000 guns in private hands in the US, I think enough for there to be near 9 guns per 10 people, so it's pretty clear the average American with a gun is pretty much harmless (and it seems like those getting in trouble are often already felons anyway). I feel like treating a bit under half the country as though they're criminals for having a hobby is pretty silly. (I say a bit under half the country because I think most people who own one gun probably own 2 or more, so by math only maybe 40 - 45% of people likely own a gun.)
Do not carry a weapon on you. If for whatever reason a cop ever stops you (it doesn't matter the reason, maybe you were jaywalking or maybe they were randomly searching people) and decides to search you, and finds a weapon, you could be in big trouble.
Nope... I have carried and been stopped by Cops (sometimes a checkpoint, other times for my taillight being out, or the cops thought I wasnt wearing a seatbelt). In my state we have to tell them we have a permit and whether we are currently carrying or not. The cops I have ran into are cool with it, some even asked me what I was carrying. So no I wont be in big trouble for carrying.
I think you are more likely to kill yourself with a gun than stop a criminal or kill someone, all of which is exceedingly rare. I also think think the risk of being harmed by someone who owns a gun is extremely negligible. I also think if someone sees you wearing a gun, you are less likely to get mugged (there is a reason muggers pick on little old ladies). Both sides of this issue appeal to the fear of rare events to justify their position. Who cares if someone has gun?
There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.
--------------
Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
The gun debate is used as a political tool to rile up the base.
My Wallet is in fact more valuable to me than the life of a criminal trying to take it. Also, some criminals want more than a wallet. I kind of like living without being raped.
Credit cards, smartphones etc. can be replaced. Killing someone is a big deal.
More to point, self defence or not, you could still cop gaol time.
I don't believe holding a lethal weapon here helps that much against would-be muggers.
Every time I've been attacked I've been ambushed (usually from behind) with no chance of stopping their initial attack.
I don't see how holding a knife/gun here actually helps, considering they're already on you before you have a chance to go for it.
You're just as likely to have it used against you.
And I care about MY credit cards more than I care about YOUR life. I don't know you. If you dropped dead this instant I would never notice. I'm not trying to be mean I am just being realistic. Also there have been several people chiming in on this very thread about using their gun for protection... so apparently there are situations where it helps.
In general criminals are either cowards or smart. If they know or suspect that you might have a weapon, chances are they will just leave you alone and wait for easier prey. If nobody is allowed to carry, then criminal dont even have to consider the possibility. If enough people did carry then criminals would have to be much more careful and petty muggings could possibly become too risky to even bother with.
Yeah, the blanket statement of never needing to own a weapon is just absolute absurdity to me.
Why?
Because the world is filled with those who would threaten our life, liberty, and property. The idea that self-defense is a totally unnecessary concern is nothing less than denial.
You're making me think things must be really bad in the US... back in england my consideration for self defence was good running shoes, and over ~20 years that was only relevant like twice (both were mad dogs btw).
I've not been seriously threatned in NZ yet.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I think there is definitely an issue of proportionality to the threat you are under. I worked EMS for ten years (private and volunteer), and I've seen a lot of weird stuff.
For me, I've got no problem with carrying a knife legally on a regular basis, because it can stop or help me out of the most common scenarios (and they're useful for more than being a weapon), but my risk for a situation that requires a firearm is minimal. But if you work in areas with dangerous wildlife or have to carry something that makes you a target from other people, by all means, carry.
But I wouldn't carry a gun on a regular basis for several reasons.
Carrying a firearm without tactical training is risky. Even trained and experienced police officers rarely fire their weapons in the line of duty, and even when they do in a confused situation they can make mistakes. So if ten people with basic NRA courses have guns in a crowded theater with an active shooter, how is that going to help the situation? People really overestimate their ability to take good actions during a crisis. I've seen it time and time again where formerly confident tough guys panic, freeze or do any of a number of unhelpful things when confronted with an emergency. Why do you think the military drills months of training into troops before sending them to fight?
I would also say that no one needs more than a revolver at any given time (for self-defense). There is literally no scenario where you need more that 6 bullets that you're going to survive or that you'll be particular useful in (unless you are John Mclane himself, in which case, Yippey Ki Yay Mother****er). This also isn't the old west, a firearm is really only useful against someone without a gun themselves, because the aggressor is more likely to have their gun out and ready before you can even draw yours.
So as long as the purpose of the weapon is for a real threat that it would be helpful in (for instance, keeping you from being robbed by a single person without a firearm while transporting a large sum of money), I think it's reasonable.
I think the "I stopped a X or Y incident from happening" cases are amusing myself. I personally have, as a Good Samaritan, pulling over to help someone out had a gun pulled on me (in a state with basically no concealed carry) when the only reason I was approaching the person was to give them a hand.
The number of times in non-hunting situations I've seen a gun brandished besides when I've had them pulled on me TRYING TO HELP SOMEONE (which has happened twice at this point) is literally zero.
I'd bet pennies to pesos 2/3-3/4 of those scenarios were something completely different in reality than the interpretation the armed person actually thought they were. Heck even the "he was holding a gun" thing is remarkably inaccurate more often than not based upon police statistics - for every crime report involving a supposedly brandished weapon a drastic majority of the time no weapon is ever proven to exist. (Quite often with other witnesses correcting the "He had a weapon" declaration)
The human brain likes to make up alot of things when it's scared. And considering the primary motivation to carry a gun is fear it's not a large jump to realizing how many of the self-reported "miracle stories" are likely nonsense, even if the people involved truly believe it themselves. Self-delusion is a powerful force.
You're making me think things must be really bad in the US... back in england my consideration for self defence was good running shoes, and over ~20 years that was only relevant like twice (both were mad dogs btw).
I've not been seriously threatned in NZ yet.
And I've not been seriously threatened in America. Not even by dogs. Does England have a really bad mad dog problem?
Look again at what Highroller is responding to: the categorical claim that weapons are unnecessary. To refute that, he doesn't need to argue that you might be attacked on every street corner. He need merely establish that there exists some realistic situation, however rare, where a weapon would be of unique utility. And he's absolutely right - it's foolish to deny that such situations do occur from time to time. There is a lot to be said against carrying around guns everywhere, and some of it has been said most excellently by Jay13x and Vaclav, but "You're never possibly gonna need a gun" is simply a smug and complacent way to approach the issue.
And I don't think anybody is saying that a pair of running shoes isn't also a good investment. The broader concern here is what responses you have a right to undertake. Running away may be a good option, but if that's legally your only option, if you cannot choose to fight back when you are attacked, that's a limitation which will bother a lot of people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I've been jumped once, and only once, when I was a teen. Me and a friend were walking to a football game at our school, when 4 adult men came out of a garage near the street and took our coats and hats and punched my friend.
Since growing up, I have never been attacked, or even threatened. The only fight I ever got into after turning 21 was a mutually instigated bar-room thing, so I wouldn't even call it being attacked, we were both stupid and mouthing off.
That all being said, I don't carry often, and when I do it's openly. But my wife, who goes to work in the dark, and often drives home from work in the dark - I want her to carry (concealed of course) on the off-chance, that one in a million occurrence, where someone in that crap hole town tries to mess with her. It doesn't guarantee she wins, but it improves her chances even a tiny bit, I'll go with that.
After that, we carry openly when we are going hunting, target shooting, busting clays, or gathering at a pro-2nd Amendment demonstration.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The area I grew up did. This one old farmer living near some good walking paths kept guard dogs but didn't train them well, so they'd leap the fence and chase folks occasionally.
I think I see your point, it's still odd to think of people habitualy carrying guns.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
You're making me think things must be really bad in the US... back in england my consideration for self defence was good running shoes, and over ~20 years that was only relevant like twice (both were mad dogs btw).
I've not been seriously threatned in NZ yet.
Look again at what Highroller is responding to: weapons are unnecessary.
There is a lot to be said against carrying around guns everywhere, and some of it has been said most excellently by Jay13x and Vaclav, but "You're never possibly gonna need a gun" is simply a smug and complacent way to approach the issue.
I don't think anyone is really saying guns are not needed anywhere in the world.
I think the broader feeling was either that you live with guns, or you don't by choice. Your environment may influence this decision, it may not.
I reckon it's fair that people in areas chock-full of guns, and people in areas with almost no guns to speak of, both generally see each other as not quite understanding the whole picture. We all make assumptions and arguments based on previous experience.
But I think the argument comes down to this, and this only. You make a choice to take lethal force or not.
Don't dress it up or try to sanitize it. If you're cool with admitting that killing someone is something that you're cool with, I respect your decision, but I hope for your sake the moment never comes.
But I think the argument comes down to this, and this only. You make a choice to take lethal force or not.
Don't dress it up or try to sanitize it. If you're cool with admitting that killing someone is something that you're cool with, I respect your decision, but I hope for your sake the moment never comes.
I think you're the one trying to dress this up, as something sociopathic. And what you seem to intend as magnanimity is coming off as distinctly insincere and patronizing. I also think you don't understand the laws involved. So let's be clear on one thing: if you are in a situation where you know you could choose not to use lethal force and still guarantee the safety of yourself and bystanders, but you choose to use lethal force anyway, you are looking at manslaughter charges. Self-defense only applies when you don't have a choice - or, if you want to be pedantic, if your sole alternative choice is death.
What's more, the purpose of a weapon is more often than not to avoid the need for lethal force. The only person who carries a gun with the intention of using it to kill someone else is a premeditated murderer. For all other gun-users, be they private citizens, muggers, police officers, or even soldiers, they carry in order to project the threat of violence, to convince people to acquiesce to their wishes so they can accomplish their other, non-lethal, goals. So it is absolutely consistent for a person to carry a gun and not be "cool with killing someone", as you put it.
But I think the argument comes down to this, and this only. You make a choice to take lethal force or not.
Don't dress it up or try to sanitize it. If you're cool with admitting that killing someone is something that you're cool with, I respect your decision, but I hope for your sake the moment never comes.
You're not cool with the fact that you may have to kill someone in order to defend yourself or your loved ones? And, given by the tone of your post, I think you consider people who are cool with that somehow... wrong.
Random searches are legal in a number of places - the NYC ones still continue today even after being challenged.
And open carry can get attention that makes them scrutinize you - even if the carry itself is legal - it can get attention which under greater scrutiny they catch something else that would've normally gone ignored.
Not to mention many businesses have policies against firearms within them, which breaching those can land you in jail in a big hurry. (At least briefly)
1. At least in my state, random searches aren't legal - at least not without probable cause.
2. Why does greater scrutiny matter if I'm a law-abiding citizen?
3. I try not to patronize businesses that aren't supportive of my rights.
My Wallet is in fact more valuable to me than the life of a criminal trying to take it. Also, some criminals want more than a wallet. I kind of like living without being raped.
Credit cards, smartphones etc. can be replaced. Killing someone is a big deal.
More to point, self defence or not, you could still cop gaol time.
I don't believe holding a lethal weapon here helps that much against would-be muggers.
Every time I've been attacked I've been ambushed (usually from behind) with no chance of stopping their initial attack.
I don't see how holding a knife/gun here actually helps, considering they're already on you before you have a chance to go for it.
You're just as likely to have it used against you.
I'm not a huge fan of carrying around a gun, I find them to be tools more for killing animals than protection. When they are weapons, I find that to be for war.
Guns are weapons, a type of tool. Act stupidly about that resource and you can kiss the second amendment goodbye with another amendment over a number of generations. It's our responsibility if we want to have the second amendment to not abuse it and be a bad witness to gun ownership. Rights can go away and be modified.
This is close to my standpoint.
I'm not arguing that guns aren't fun to shoot, sure they are, but I don't believe that guns have a place in every day life, every minute of every day.
I understand why people would argue with this, but if the sheer number of guns was reduced to a very low level, why would you *need* one in the first place?
I believe that the way to reduce the threat of gun crime is to reduce the guns, not to buy a gun as a deterrent.
Now all that out the way;
For you guys who live in dodgy area's where gun crime is a constant everyday threat, why do you still live there?
Have you considered moving somewhere more peaceful? If not, why not?
How does "reduce the number of guns the common man has access to" correlate to "the world will be a safer place because criminals totally wouldn't illegally obtain guns from that point on"?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I also think you don't understand the laws involved. So let's be clear on one thing: if you are in a situation where you know you could choose not to use lethal force and still guarantee the safety of yourself and bystanders, but you choose to use lethal force anyway, you are looking at manslaughter charges. Self-defense only applies when you don't have a choice - or, if you want to be pedantic, if your sole alternative choice is death.
There was a case of this in MN recently that while emotionally many people disagreed with, makes perfect sense to me legally. An older guy had his house broken into several times. Then I believe it was on Thanksgiving he was home alone and heard someone breaking into his basement again. He went down there with a gun and shot and killed two teenagers that were breaking into his house (and might have been high I cant remember that part for sure). This guy was convicted of manslaughter for killing the teens. He did something specifically wrong though that caused those charges. He did not just shoot the teens as they came in and they happened to die... after shooting the teens they were still alive (gunshot wounds are actually very survivable unless you're hit in the wrong spot), and he walked over to them and basically executed them. The close range execution is what got this guy in trouble. If he simply would have incapacitated the teens and then called 911 he would have been fine, whether the teens eventually bled out or not. Now I also know there are a lot of people who agree they would have done the same thing as this guy and essentially finished the teens off. Emotionally I understand the thinking but legally it's not allowed. While the threat is active anyone should have the right to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property with any means necessary. Once the threat is dealt with though, lethal force is no longer necessary nor is it legal.
One could also argue that in the higher density populated areas people are in even more need to defend themselves. I'm not proclaiming that this is necessarily so, but I brought it up since I don't think there is a relation between population density and gun necessity.
That depends greatly on the makeup of the population density. I would be willing to bet their are swanky areas of NYC that you dont have to worry too much about. Population density + poverty level is a good indicator of potential for crime. But on the other hand in some areas people may want the gun for protection from animals instead of humans. I'm sure there are areas where bear and cougar attacks are a real possibility and you probably dont have to worry too much about accidentally shooting anyone while defending yourself from a bear.
This is why gun laws do not make sense to enact from a national/federal level. It makes absolutely no sense at all to say the same rules regarding guns should apply to a hiking trail in Wyoming and a path through Central Park or the middle of a small town in Alaska and downtown San Francisco.
This situation is super romanticized and hardly ever happens. It's in Hollywood movies mostly that some hero saves his whole family from murderous criminals with guns. Most criminals aren't murderous, and in most situations a gun couldn't help you or even make things worse. Not having a gun or having one in dangerous situations both pose different risks. I guess the issue is, which of these risks is the highest?
... That wasn't the point.
Read what Slave wrote and read what I wrote. He talked on a general "self-defense" standpoint and the act of killing someone and I answered in the same standpoint.
I do not like guns. I do not like some people think it's a fine idea to have open-carry laws and such. I don't like how people think that guns make for a safer society and then point to freaking Switzerland of all places as an example and such. Guns make it easier to murder people, and making it easier to murder people makes emotion-induced violence (by far the most common reason for violence, afaik) all that much more deadly.
But I will not hesitate to attempt to kill anyone who seriously threatens my family.
If they're 'just' teens who stray from the righteous path and enter the house only to steal or have some twisted and stupid sort of fun I don't think anyone has the right to shoot them. Especially since you don't shoot to incapacitate someone, you shoot to kill them. Why would you? Just call the police, or bring your gun and scare them out of your house.
Correct. Firing a gun must always be considered lethal force. And you don't have a right to use lethal force unless you reasonably fear for your life and/or the lives of bystanders. Now, in a break-in situation, the homeowner should get some benefit of the doubt, because a break-in is by its very nature a threatening act and it's hardly unreasonable to be fearful. But it's not normally a "shoot first" scenario, and obviously executing incapacitated criminals is never okay. Call the cops, then use the gun to order the invaders to surrender or leave. If they advance on you after being confronted, and/or produce weapons of their own, then firing becomes reasonable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If they're 'just' teens who stray from the righteous path and enter the house only to steal or have some twisted and stupid sort of fun I don't think anyone has the right to shoot them. Especially since you don't shoot to incapacitate someone, you shoot to kill them. Why would you? Just call the police, or bring your gun and scare them out of your house.
Correct. Firing a gun must always be considered lethal force. And you don't have a right to use lethal force unless you reasonably fear for your life and/or the lives of bystanders. Now, in a break-in situation, the homeowner should get some benefit of the doubt, because a break-in is by its very nature a threatening act and it's hardly unreasonable to be fearful. But it's not normally a "shoot first" scenario, and obviously executing incapacitated criminals is never okay. Call the cops, then use the gun to order the invaders to surrender or leave. If they advance on you after being confronted, and/or produce weapons of their own, then firing becomes reasonable.
Technically in MN you have the right to protect your home before attempting to flee. "No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abod" Although apparently there have been several cases where duty to retreat was upheld.
Mostly people carry them in soft bags or held a little awkwardly so the bend is obvious and they can't be easily fired. The guns being unloaded you have to take on faith, I guess.
Art is life itself.
In trouble for doing what, exactly? Walking? Random searches are against my rights if I do not consent. Carrying a weapon is not probable cause for suspicion that I may be committing a crime. If I'm legally allowed to have a weapon and I'm not breaking any laws in the process, they have no leg to stand on.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
And open carry can get attention that makes them scrutinize you - even if the carry itself is legal - it can get attention which under greater scrutiny they catch something else that would've normally gone ignored.
Not to mention many businesses have policies against firearms within them, which breaching those can land you in jail in a big hurry. (At least briefly)
Why?
Credit cards, smartphones etc. can be replaced. Killing someone is a big deal.
More to point, self defence or not, you could still cop gaol time.
I don't believe holding a lethal weapon here helps that much against would-be muggers.
Every time I've been attacked I've been ambushed (usually from behind) with no chance of stopping their initial attack.
I don't see how holding a knife/gun here actually helps, considering they're already on you before you have a chance to go for it.
You're just as likely to have it used against you.
This is close to my standpoint.
I'm not arguing that guns aren't fun to shoot, sure they are, but I don't believe that guns have a place in every day life, every minute of every day.
I understand why people would argue with this, but if the sheer number of guns was reduced to a very low level, why would you *need* one in the first place?
I believe that the way to reduce the threat of gun crime is to reduce the guns, not to buy a gun as a deterrent.
Now all that out the way;
For you guys who live in dodgy area's where gun crime is a constant everyday threat, why do you still live there?
Have you considered moving somewhere more peaceful? If not, why not?
Umm... only in oppressive police states (like New York, figuratively speaking ;p), or it least only in places that aren't named Arizona, though if you are being detained or searched letting the LEO know you have a weapon is obviously about the only thing you should do besides exercising your right to remain silent.
That's all well and good I guess. There are certainly many self defense situations where a gun is just not all that helpful. And certainly if the military is on board with a dictator who's willing to carpet bomb a gun doesn't go very far.
However, why should law-abiding next to zero-risk of committing a crime folks have to jump through hoops and get treaded like criminals just because they enjoy the Zen of target shooting? The vast majority of gun owners are never in trouble with the law and go about their business without harming society. I don't see why the existence of criminals justifies harassment of people who are just living their lives. I think there are something like 20000-ish gun-related suicides, murders, and injuries in the US per year, but there are something like near 300,000,000 guns in private hands in the US, I think enough for there to be near 9 guns per 10 people, so it's pretty clear the average American with a gun is pretty much harmless (and it seems like those getting in trouble are often already felons anyway). I feel like treating a bit under half the country as though they're criminals for having a hobby is pretty silly. (I say a bit under half the country because I think most people who own one gun probably own 2 or more, so by math only maybe 40 - 45% of people likely own a gun.)
Nope... I have carried and been stopped by Cops (sometimes a checkpoint, other times for my taillight being out, or the cops thought I wasnt wearing a seatbelt). In my state we have to tell them we have a permit and whether we are currently carrying or not. The cops I have ran into are cool with it, some even asked me what I was carrying. So no I wont be in big trouble for carrying.
The gun debate is used as a political tool to rile up the base.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
And I care about MY credit cards more than I care about YOUR life. I don't know you. If you dropped dead this instant I would never notice. I'm not trying to be mean I am just being realistic. Also there have been several people chiming in on this very thread about using their gun for protection... so apparently there are situations where it helps.
In general criminals are either cowards or smart. If they know or suspect that you might have a weapon, chances are they will just leave you alone and wait for easier prey. If nobody is allowed to carry, then criminal dont even have to consider the possibility. If enough people did carry then criminals would have to be much more careful and petty muggings could possibly become too risky to even bother with.
I've not been seriously threatned in NZ yet.
Art is life itself.
For me, I've got no problem with carrying a knife legally on a regular basis, because it can stop or help me out of the most common scenarios (and they're useful for more than being a weapon), but my risk for a situation that requires a firearm is minimal. But if you work in areas with dangerous wildlife or have to carry something that makes you a target from other people, by all means, carry.
But I wouldn't carry a gun on a regular basis for several reasons.
Carrying a firearm without tactical training is risky. Even trained and experienced police officers rarely fire their weapons in the line of duty, and even when they do in a confused situation they can make mistakes. So if ten people with basic NRA courses have guns in a crowded theater with an active shooter, how is that going to help the situation? People really overestimate their ability to take good actions during a crisis. I've seen it time and time again where formerly confident tough guys panic, freeze or do any of a number of unhelpful things when confronted with an emergency. Why do you think the military drills months of training into troops before sending them to fight?
I would also say that no one needs more than a revolver at any given time (for self-defense). There is literally no scenario where you need more that 6 bullets that you're going to survive or that you'll be particular useful in (unless you are John Mclane himself, in which case, Yippey Ki Yay Mother****er). This also isn't the old west, a firearm is really only useful against someone without a gun themselves, because the aggressor is more likely to have their gun out and ready before you can even draw yours.
So as long as the purpose of the weapon is for a real threat that it would be helpful in (for instance, keeping you from being robbed by a single person without a firearm while transporting a large sum of money), I think it's reasonable.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The number of times in non-hunting situations I've seen a gun brandished besides when I've had them pulled on me TRYING TO HELP SOMEONE (which has happened twice at this point) is literally zero.
I'd bet pennies to pesos 2/3-3/4 of those scenarios were something completely different in reality than the interpretation the armed person actually thought they were. Heck even the "he was holding a gun" thing is remarkably inaccurate more often than not based upon police statistics - for every crime report involving a supposedly brandished weapon a drastic majority of the time no weapon is ever proven to exist. (Quite often with other witnesses correcting the "He had a weapon" declaration)
The human brain likes to make up alot of things when it's scared. And considering the primary motivation to carry a gun is fear it's not a large jump to realizing how many of the self-reported "miracle stories" are likely nonsense, even if the people involved truly believe it themselves. Self-delusion is a powerful force.
Look again at what Highroller is responding to: the categorical claim that weapons are unnecessary. To refute that, he doesn't need to argue that you might be attacked on every street corner. He need merely establish that there exists some realistic situation, however rare, where a weapon would be of unique utility. And he's absolutely right - it's foolish to deny that such situations do occur from time to time. There is a lot to be said against carrying around guns everywhere, and some of it has been said most excellently by Jay13x and Vaclav, but "You're never possibly gonna need a gun" is simply a smug and complacent way to approach the issue.
And I don't think anybody is saying that a pair of running shoes isn't also a good investment. The broader concern here is what responses you have a right to undertake. Running away may be a good option, but if that's legally your only option, if you cannot choose to fight back when you are attacked, that's a limitation which will bother a lot of people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Since growing up, I have never been attacked, or even threatened. The only fight I ever got into after turning 21 was a mutually instigated bar-room thing, so I wouldn't even call it being attacked, we were both stupid and mouthing off.
That all being said, I don't carry often, and when I do it's openly. But my wife, who goes to work in the dark, and often drives home from work in the dark - I want her to carry (concealed of course) on the off-chance, that one in a million occurrence, where someone in that crap hole town tries to mess with her. It doesn't guarantee she wins, but it improves her chances even a tiny bit, I'll go with that.
After that, we carry openly when we are going hunting, target shooting, busting clays, or gathering at a pro-2nd Amendment demonstration.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I think I see your point, it's still odd to think of people habitualy carrying guns.
Art is life itself.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
I don't think anyone is really saying guns are not needed anywhere in the world.
I think the broader feeling was either that you live with guns, or you don't by choice. Your environment may influence this decision, it may not.
I reckon it's fair that people in areas chock-full of guns, and people in areas with almost no guns to speak of, both generally see each other as not quite understanding the whole picture. We all make assumptions and arguments based on previous experience.
But I think the argument comes down to this, and this only. You make a choice to take lethal force or not.
Don't dress it up or try to sanitize it. If you're cool with admitting that killing someone is something that you're cool with, I respect your decision, but I hope for your sake the moment never comes.
LOL.
In the USA, are there any states that don't allow their general public to carry a gun in public?
Yep. It's pretty much that way in California, and I have the impression there are a few more states like that in the eastern US.
What's more, the purpose of a weapon is more often than not to avoid the need for lethal force. The only person who carries a gun with the intention of using it to kill someone else is a premeditated murderer. For all other gun-users, be they private citizens, muggers, police officers, or even soldiers, they carry in order to project the threat of violence, to convince people to acquiesce to their wishes so they can accomplish their other, non-lethal, goals. So it is absolutely consistent for a person to carry a gun and not be "cool with killing someone", as you put it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're not cool with the fact that you may have to kill someone in order to defend yourself or your loved ones? And, given by the tone of your post, I think you consider people who are cool with that somehow... wrong.
Why?
1. At least in my state, random searches aren't legal - at least not without probable cause.
2. Why does greater scrutiny matter if I'm a law-abiding citizen?
3. I try not to patronize businesses that aren't supportive of my rights.
How does "reduce the number of guns the common man has access to" correlate to "the world will be a safer place because criminals totally wouldn't illegally obtain guns from that point on"?
I would love to see this.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
There was a case of this in MN recently that while emotionally many people disagreed with, makes perfect sense to me legally. An older guy had his house broken into several times. Then I believe it was on Thanksgiving he was home alone and heard someone breaking into his basement again. He went down there with a gun and shot and killed two teenagers that were breaking into his house (and might have been high I cant remember that part for sure). This guy was convicted of manslaughter for killing the teens. He did something specifically wrong though that caused those charges. He did not just shoot the teens as they came in and they happened to die... after shooting the teens they were still alive (gunshot wounds are actually very survivable unless you're hit in the wrong spot), and he walked over to them and basically executed them. The close range execution is what got this guy in trouble. If he simply would have incapacitated the teens and then called 911 he would have been fine, whether the teens eventually bled out or not. Now I also know there are a lot of people who agree they would have done the same thing as this guy and essentially finished the teens off. Emotionally I understand the thinking but legally it's not allowed. While the threat is active anyone should have the right to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property with any means necessary. Once the threat is dealt with though, lethal force is no longer necessary nor is it legal.
That depends greatly on the makeup of the population density. I would be willing to bet their are swanky areas of NYC that you dont have to worry too much about. Population density + poverty level is a good indicator of potential for crime. But on the other hand in some areas people may want the gun for protection from animals instead of humans. I'm sure there are areas where bear and cougar attacks are a real possibility and you probably dont have to worry too much about accidentally shooting anyone while defending yourself from a bear.
This is why gun laws do not make sense to enact from a national/federal level. It makes absolutely no sense at all to say the same rules regarding guns should apply to a hiking trail in Wyoming and a path through Central Park or the middle of a small town in Alaska and downtown San Francisco.
... That wasn't the point.
Read what Slave wrote and read what I wrote. He talked on a general "self-defense" standpoint and the act of killing someone and I answered in the same standpoint.
I do not like guns. I do not like some people think it's a fine idea to have open-carry laws and such. I don't like how people think that guns make for a safer society and then point to freaking Switzerland of all places as an example and such. Guns make it easier to murder people, and making it easier to murder people makes emotion-induced violence (by far the most common reason for violence, afaik) all that much more deadly.
But I will not hesitate to attempt to kill anyone who seriously threatens my family.
They are two different things.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Technically in MN you have the right to protect your home before attempting to flee. "No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abod" Although apparently there have been several cases where duty to retreat was upheld.