There should really be more statistics about this.
In an ideal world, people would handle their guns responsibly. But it's just not like that. In your example, if the woman uses her gun she might miss him and hit an innocent bystander. Or worse, the criminal might see her gun, panic and kill her.
The perpetrator will not have a gun regardless of the law. They'd be a lot harder to come by, and unable to attain if you haven't got the proper connections. The ordinary rapist doesn't have any criminal connections.
I still believe that carrying a gun increases your risk of getting shot yourself. Sure, the police needs some time to get to the scene of the crime, but it's still safer than giving everyone a gun. Ordinary people panic in such situations, and that's when the shit starts hitting the ventilation system.
In an ideal world there would be no need for guns, but its not like that. Before receiving a gun you undergo some training in using a firearm, and if you're not blind and don't have Parkinson's disease its impossible to miss the rapist who is a couple of meters away from you or even closer, if he is farther than that you can always point a gun at him to make him stop, at closer range you can't take that risk because he might just snatch the gun, therefor you must fire a shot to subdue him. Also it is very unlikely that an innocent bystander will be nearby, the rapists try to attack a woman when she is alone, not when there are people around to help her. Seeing a gun pointing at you doesn't make you panic and jump, it makes you freeze in place because you realize very fast that if you make the wrong move this might be the last thing you ever see.
Drugs are illegal almost anywhere in the world, tell me honestly, is there any trouble acquiring them for any school kid who got a little money? While guns are sold legally at least there is some regulation and the organized crime can't can a part in it, but just like with the prohibition, as soon as guns become illegal the black market will start trading them, selling them without any regulations to anyone with money, some guns would be manufactured in underground factories and of course would have very poor safety mechanism to save on the production cost, not to mention the crime war over who controls this area.
The police can get to the scene of the crime once the crime have been committed, they will examine your body, and maybe later find the guy who murdered you or raped you, I fail to see how this would help you. Do you think a woman describing her rapist to the police is really better off than a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet? Criminals, unless they are professional assassins, usually attack those who they believe are defenseless, they are much less likely to attack a person if they think this person might shoot them.
You gave me some hypothetical theories, I can give you two examples that happened to two women I personally know, I already told this story here before, one woman who refuse to carry a gun, and she was raped, and another who always carry a gun and two men tried to rape her, one is dead, another one is in prison. Turns out its much easier for the police to locate a guy who is bleeding on the floor, the guy who raped the first girl was never found and probably raped other women.
Of course I agree that there should be strict regulations upon giving people guns. Every person must undergo a psychological evaluation, have decent vision and get proper training in handling a gun. In the world we live in you can't count on someone else to protect you, you must always be able to protect yourself, the police can only try to punish the criminal after they committed the crime.
It's way easier to get a hold of drugs than it is to get a hold of guns. Those school kids you're talking about might carry some weed, but it's not like they're dealing in AK's
I am not talking about combat equipment, but a handgun is just as easy to obtain illegally as it is to obtain weed, and as soon as it will become illegal there would be even more money in it for the organized crime, which in turn will make the handgun even more available. I'm not talking about it from a sensitive point of view but rather from a logical one. Pepper spray and stun guns are ineffective from range or if there is more then one perpetrator, and would be useless. Of course they are much better alternative when effective and I do believe that a gun should be used only when there is no other way, never have an easy finger on the trigger, its not something to be used on a daily basis and hopefully not ever in your life, but if that moment does come, you better be ready for it. In the end its better to stand trial than rest in peace.
Wait, what? So you don't want gun control because that'd make handguns more available?
Pepperspray isn't useless when there are multiple perpetrators. If there are multiple criminals surrounding you, and you draw a gun, you're even more likely to get shot yourself. I still think pepperspray would be safer in such a situation. As long as you use non-lethal force they're unlikely to kill you. Once you draw a gun, they'll do whatever it takes to stop you from firing it.
You obviously never had any training. You never let others surround you, at times you must use the element of surprise. Also I'm sure you're not talking from experience but rather from your own personal theories if you believe that once the perpetrators see you have a gun they will do whatever it takes to stop you from firing. You shoot somebody in the chest, shots are heard and are likely to attract attention, and while one of the perpetrators is down the others would most likely try to save the one who is down and themselves. If you spray one of them with pepper spray, they will know that its not lethal and while you try to spray one the other will grab it from you, you only make them more angry. And yes, gun control will make handguns more available, but to the wrong crowd, while a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed off teenager with raging hormones and a little money saved up would easily be able to get one.
You must be either very young or just never encountered such situation in your life, either way you are very inexperienced in this matter. I really wish your idealistic and somewhat naive ideas would work, it would make life much safer, but in this life sometimes you got nobody to rely on but yourself. There are countless examples where having a gun saved or would've saved people if they had a gun, so far I haven't heard of a single one about a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense.
"You obviously never had any training": I know some people get decent training, but don't tell me all gun-owners have had top-notch training. Since civilians aren't hardened war veterans, they're extremely likely to panic and do something stupid. You're assuming that all gun-owners are action heroes who are more capable of armed combat than criminals are.
"you must use the element of surprise": You can only use the element of surprise if you're the one attacking.
"I'm sure you're not talking from experience": I also have personal experiences with being robbed, don't assume I haven't. I've never used pepperspray or a tazer gun, but I still think they're better alternatives than a gun. Mace is made for defence. Guns are made for killing.
"a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed of teenager would easily be able to get one": If a pissed off teenager has the necessary connections to get illegal firearms, then the law abiding citizens have them as well. Don't tell me teenagers have better connections than adults do.
"You must be either very young, inexperienced, naive,...": Why are you assuming all those things about me? I've been robbed in my life, and I've been in a couple of fights. But I refuse to let fear consume me. There are plenty of safer ways to get out of those situations.
"There are countless examples (...) a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense": that's very mixed. We have some scenario's in which guns 'save lives', we have scenario's in which they don't. But where do people get the ideas that guns are for defense? Defense is about STOPPING an attack. Mace is for defense. Kevlar vests or even rubber bullets are for defense. Tazers are for defense. A defensive weapon saves lives. If you had a gun-like weapon that solely incapacitates people, then we're talking about defense. If you buy a device solely designed to pump lead in people, then we're talking about offense.
By the way, can I ask you a question? What's your experience with this kind of situations?
Well, this is probably sensitive matter to you, because of the personal experiences. I only used the rape example when you brought it up. But don't you think that you could get the same degree of protection from pepperspray and a stun gun? It's non-lethal, so you don't risk getting a life sentence for using it.
What's your opinion on gun control?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
There should really be more statistics about this.
In an ideal world, people would handle their guns responsibly. But it's just not like that. In your example, if the woman uses her gun she might miss him and hit an innocent bystander. Or worse, the criminal might see her gun, panic and kill her.
The perpetrator will not have a gun regardless of the law. They'd be a lot harder to come by, and unable to attain if you haven't got the proper connections. The ordinary rapist doesn't have any criminal connections.
I still believe that carrying a gun increases your risk of getting shot yourself. Sure, the police needs some time to get to the scene of the crime, but it's still safer than giving everyone a gun. Ordinary people panic in such situations, and that's when the shit starts hitting the ventilation system.
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
In an ideal world there would be no need for guns, but its not like that. Before receiving a gun you undergo some training in using a firearm, and if you're not blind and don't have Parkinson's disease its impossible to miss the rapist who is a couple of meters away from you or even closer, if he is farther than that you can always point a gun at him to make him stop, at closer range you can't take that risk because he might just snatch the gun, therefor you must fire a shot to subdue him. Also it is very unlikely that an innocent bystander will be nearby, the rapists try to attack a woman when she is alone, not when there are people around to help her. Seeing a gun pointing at you doesn't make you panic and jump, it makes you freeze in place because you realize very fast that if you make the wrong move this might be the last thing you ever see.
Drugs are illegal almost anywhere in the world, tell me honestly, is there any trouble acquiring them for any school kid who got a little money? While guns are sold legally at least there is some regulation and the organized crime can't can a part in it, but just like with the prohibition, as soon as guns become illegal the black market will start trading them, selling them without any regulations to anyone with money, some guns would be manufactured in underground factories and of course would have very poor safety mechanism to save on the production cost, not to mention the crime war over who controls this area.
The police can get to the scene of the crime once the crime have been committed, they will examine your body, and maybe later find the guy who murdered you or raped you, I fail to see how this would help you. Do you think a woman describing her rapist to the police is really better off than a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet? Criminals, unless they are professional assassins, usually attack those who they believe are defenseless, they are much less likely to attack a person if they think this person might shoot them.
You gave me some hypothetical theories, I can give you two examples that happened to two women I personally know, I already told this story here before, one woman who refuse to carry a gun, and she was raped, and another who always carry a gun and two men tried to rape her, one is dead, another one is in prison. Turns out its much easier for the police to locate a guy who is bleeding on the floor, the guy who raped the first girl was never found and probably raped other women.
Of course I agree that there should be strict regulations upon giving people guns. Every person must undergo a psychological evaluation, have decent vision and get proper training in handling a gun. In the world we live in you can't count on someone else to protect you, you must always be able to protect yourself, the police can only try to punish the criminal after they committed the crime.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh yeah, also, about the drugs:
It's way easier to get a hold of drugs than it is to get a hold of guns. Those school kids you're talking about might carry some weed, but it's not like they're dealing in AK's
--
jitterbug66
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What's easier to carry in a pocket?
A bag of weed or an AK?
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
A bag of weed. That's another reason why you'll find more drug dealers than weapon dealers.
--
Dragostea
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Almost all gun crime involves pistols, which are relatively easy to conceal.
I am not talking about combat equipment, but a handgun is just as easy to obtain illegally as it is to obtain weed, and as soon as it will become illegal there would be even more money in it for the organized crime, which in turn will make the handgun even more available. I'm not talking about it from a sensitive point of view but rather from a logical one. Pepper spray and stun guns are ineffective from range or if there is more then one perpetrator, and would be useless. Of course they are much better alternative when effective and I do believe that a gun should be used only when there is no other way, never have an easy finger on the trigger, its not something to be used on a daily basis and hopefully not ever in your life, but if that moment does come, you better be ready for it. In the end its better to stand trial than rest in peace.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Wait, what? So you don't want gun control because that'd make handguns more available?
Pepperspray isn't useless when there are multiple perpetrators. If there are multiple criminals surrounding you, and you draw a gun, you're even more likely to get shot yourself. I still think pepperspray would be safer in such a situation. As long as you use non-lethal force they're unlikely to kill you. Once you draw a gun, they'll do whatever it takes to stop you from firing it.
--
nightmare28
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You obviously never had any training. You never let others surround you, at times you must use the element of surprise. Also I'm sure you're not talking from experience but rather from your own personal theories if you believe that once the perpetrators see you have a gun they will do whatever it takes to stop you from firing. You shoot somebody in the chest, shots are heard and are likely to attract attention, and while one of the perpetrators is down the others would most likely try to save the one who is down and themselves. If you spray one of them with pepper spray, they will know that its not lethal and while you try to spray one the other will grab it from you, you only make them more angry. And yes, gun control will make handguns more available, but to the wrong crowd, while a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed off teenager with raging hormones and a little money saved up would easily be able to get one.
You must be either very young or just never encountered such situation in your life, either way you are very inexperienced in this matter. I really wish your idealistic and somewhat naive ideas would work, it would make life much safer, but in this life sometimes you got nobody to rely on but yourself. There are countless examples where having a gun saved or would've saved people if they had a gun, so far I haven't heard of a single one about a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Okay, I'm going to answer all of your statements.
"You obviously never had any training": I know some people get decent training, but don't tell me all gun-owners have had top-notch training. Since civilians aren't hardened war veterans, they're extremely likely to panic and do something stupid. You're assuming that all gun-owners are action heroes who are more capable of armed combat than criminals are.
"you must use the element of surprise": You can only use the element of surprise if you're the one attacking.
"I'm sure you're not talking from experience": I also have personal experiences with being robbed, don't assume I haven't. I've never used pepperspray or a tazer gun, but I still think they're better alternatives than a gun. Mace is made for defence. Guns are made for killing.
"a stable law abiding citizen won't be able to acquire a gun, a pissed of teenager would easily be able to get one": If a pissed off teenager has the necessary connections to get illegal firearms, then the law abiding citizens have them as well. Don't tell me teenagers have better connections than adults do.
"You must be either very young, inexperienced, naive,...": Why are you assuming all those things about me? I've been robbed in my life, and I've been in a couple of fights. But I refuse to let fear consume me. There are plenty of safer ways to get out of those situations.
"There are countless examples (...) a person being killed because they used a gun in self defense": that's very mixed. We have some scenario's in which guns 'save lives', we have scenario's in which they don't. But where do people get the ideas that guns are for defense? Defense is about STOPPING an attack. Mace is for defense. Kevlar vests or even rubber bullets are for defense. Tazers are for defense. A defensive weapon saves lives. If you had a gun-like weapon that solely incapacitates people, then we're talking about defense. If you buy a device solely designed to pump lead in people, then we're talking about offense.
By the way, can I ask you a question? What's your experience with this kind of situations?
Well, this is probably sensitive matter to you, because of the personal experiences. I only used the rape example when you brought it up. But don't you think that you could get the same degree of protection from pepperspray and a stun gun? It's non-lethal, so you don't risk getting a life sentence for using it.