DZ safety warning

[sinker 0]

Quote

To be fair, Bill never advocated banning guns. Rather he expresses the opinion that you can avoid or run from any trouble that you may encounter and therefore don't need them.

this isn't directly replying to you, but bill is right to SOME degree in that sometimes it IS best to flee. In court, if you had the option to flee and DIDN'T, you could be hanging yourself. Some say that's stupid to flee, saying that you're only enabling the crooks/perps whatever to go prey on someone else, but honestly, we're talking about your safety here. Just b/c you have a gun and you pull it on someone doesn't mean you've won the battle. You STILL could loose.

BUT, sometimes fleeing isn't an option... in that case, having gun is the best alternative, IMO.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[billvon 3,120]

>And running from them demonstrates that they have the power
> and encourages them to continue their behavior.

Right. And we're responsible to socially engineer our neighborhoods with our guns.

>That other person could be an elderly person, a child . . .

Or more likely a cop, whom you have just called.

But if we're playing the child card here:

You get in a traffic accident. The other guy gets out of the car. He looks mad. You pull a gun to protect yourself. He's an off-duty cop; he sees a gun, reacts instinctively and pulls his. You see this and fire. You miss and kill a child. He fires, does not miss, and you're out of the picture.

Result - two dead. Not a good outcome. But no one could be accused of running away, so I suppose all is well.

>But if they have one and choose to respond, why is that any different
> from running up to an attacker and stopping them with a frying pan
> or by hand?

Well:

a. your hand won't end up 200 yards away in a child's head
b. your hand cannot be taken away from you and used to kill someone else
c. if two people use their hands it is less likely that someone is going to die
d. martial arts do not teach that once you strike an opponent, you must continue until he is dead.

I think the attitude "a gun is as safe as a frying pan or your fist" is dangerously naive, and can lead to a lot of bad outcomes. It is a dangerous device that must be treated with respect. It's really not like a frying pan.


>Maybe along with pointy sticks we should ban self defense classes too . . .

I didn't say anything about banning self defense classes, or guns, or whatever. There is NOTHING WRONG with using a gun to defend yourself. Let me repeat that, because people here have a tendency to stop thinking and start pigeonholing once they see the word gun. There is NOTHING WRONG with using a gun to defend yourself. If you are being pursued by a lunatic with a knife, and you end up in a dead-end alley with no other outs? Then a gun is an excellent alternative to being knifed.

However, there IS something wrong with relying on a gun to keep you safe in a dangerous situation. And that attitude is much like the attitude that an AAD will keep you safe in the air, and that attitude has killed several people.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

there IS something wrong with relying on a gun to keep you safe in a dangerous situation.

Okay, tell us what was wrong with this 79-year-old man using his gun to stay safe in this dangerous situation:

A 79-year-old man armed with a .357 magnum revolver shot two men after they broke into his home overnight. The homeowner told police the two men kicked in his back door just before 5 a.m. Saturday. They tried to flee after being shot. Everett Musgrave told News 5. "I am glad he was able to protect himself. That's the big thing. At least he's not hurt."

Source: http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/4702890/detail.html

Should he have been required to engage in hand-to-hand combat with his younger, stronger opponents? Should he have been required to flee his own home and try and outrun his younger, faster opponents?

Yeah, I know you said that there's nothing wrong with using a gun for self defense in the right circumstances. But you also said relying upon one to stay safe is wrong. The problem with your philosophy is that danger lurks everywhere. One cannot predict when they will be safe, and when they won't. Thus, it can be very worthwhile in rare circumstances to have a gun conveniently available in many different places; such as in your car, and at home. That's not "relying on the gun to be safe" - that's simply taking prudent measures to be prepared for the worst.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it."
- Col. Jeff Cooper

"If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
- Benjamin Franklin

[billvon 3,120]

>Should he have been required to engage in hand-to-hand combat . . .

No. Nor did I ever claim he should. If he could flee, that would be the wiser course of action. If he could not - say, he was wheelchair bound - then a gun is a good means of defending oneself.

>"If you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you."
>Benjamin Franklin

There are, IMO, far too many people who let fear of wolves shape their lives.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

If you are against private ownership of guns why do you have them? You do have them right?

Yes. I do. I am a hunter. Big difference.

So, killing defenseless animals with high-powered weapons, is morally defensible. But using a gun to save a human life is morally wrong. Is that it?

[billvon 3,120]

>But using a gun to save a human life is morally wrong. Is that it?

No, saving lives is morally good. Problem is that most people use guns to TAKE lives rather than save them. That's what guns are designed to do. The question devolves to - is it morally right to kill guy A so he does not beat up/rob/kill guy B? And that is a much more murky question.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Should he have been required to engage in hand-to-hand combat . . .

No. Nor did I ever claim he should. If he could flee, that would be the wiser course of action.

So let's say that a law is passed making it illegal to fight back against criminals, and requiring every citizen to simply flee when their home is invaded.

What effect do you suppose that would have on the crime rate?

Quote

There are, IMO, far too many people who let fear of wolves shape their lives.

Here we go again. Just because someone has a gun in their home, does not mean that they live in fear of wolves. It's simply a prudent safety measure, no different from having a fire extinguisher, wearing your seat belts while driving, or having a reserve parachute.

Are there far too many skydivers who live in fear of parachute malfunctions and let that fear shape their lives by wearing backup chutes?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>But using a gun to save a human life is morally wrong. Is that it?

No, saving lives is morally good. Problem is that most people use guns to TAKE lives rather than save them.

First of all, the equation is not lop-sided as you present it. There were about 9,600 people murder with guns in the U.S. last year, but there were also up to 2 million self-defense uses of guns, many of which saved lives. Counting "lives saved" is an imprecise subjective endeavor, but nonetheless, you can't discount the good for which guns are used.

So, how about you save your criticism for those who use guns illegaly, and quit lumping the good guys in with the bad guys?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

If he could flee, that would be the wiser course of action

I renew my objection to this blanket claim. Turning your back on an armed assailant is NEVER a good idea.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

If he could flee, that would be the wiser course of action

I renew my objection to this blanket claim. Turning your back on an armed assailant is NEVER a good idea.

pardon me if I missed something a post or two ago, but is that the only situation of fleeing he's talking about?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[ReBirth 0]

Probably not, but as I said, I object to his "blanket" claim that standing your ground is akin to voluntarily staying in a more dangerous environment than running. Sometimes the best defense really is a good offense.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>The question devolves to - is it morally right to kill guy A so he does not beat up/rob/kill guy B? And that is a much more murky question.

You hid three questions in there, not one - JR will focus on the kill question while you focus on the rob portion and they you two will go around and around and around....

BTW - guns are designed to accurately move a small piece of lead at high speeds to a distant location - that's all - the use of guns is the question, not the hardware itself

beat up? not murky at all (unless you're one of those that considers 'bumping' someone to be beating up)

rob? nope, but a robber is a threat of injury or death until proven otherwise - their choice, not yours. If someone unlawfully enters my house, they will be considered as a threat to my family of any and all crimes including murder, rape, torture, kidnapping. If they are scared off, great, but until the threat is completely removed, no slack is given. 1st choice, get the family out of the house and contact the cops, but if there is ANY chance that this can't happen, (scenario - robber standing between me and my girl's room - same one you wouldn't answer earlier) you can bet I'd use whatever tool available to protect my women. Including guns, bare hands, feet, knives, sticks, vacuum cleaner, small pointy sticks, I'll throw the cat at them for that matter....

kill? not murky at all

If a person proves themselves to be a threat by breaking the law (unlawfully entering a house, or getting out of the car and pulling out a bat and advincing) then the threat that they may also kill is serious enough - it is not murky at all.

Saying that protecting another (saving lives) with a gun is less morally good than protecting another some other way is goofy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[christelsabine 1]

Yes. I do. I am a hunter. Big difference.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Probably not, but as I said, I object to his "blanket" claim that standing your ground is akin to voluntarily staying in a more dangerous environment than running. Sometimes the best defense really is a good offense.

but unless you and I are reading different posts, that isn't what he said...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[ReBirth 0]

He said "if he can flee that is a wiser course of action". It can be, but not always. That is the blanket statement I don't agree with. Many times even if you can flee, it is NOT the wiser OR safer course of action.

[sinker 0]

Quote

He said "if he can flee that is a wiser course of action". It can be, but not always. That is the blanket statement I don't agree with. Many times even if you can flee, it is NOT the wiser OR safer course of action.

there we go... thanks for the clarification... I think we agree... there are times that you CAN flee but SHOULD NOT, which is often the case when innocent others are involved.

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>looking like he planned to crush his skull. Another bystander got
>out of his truck with a gun.

Sounds like the situation ended without incident because the first driver did not have a gun as well.

I think that if I were in such a situation I would run, then call the cops. Even if I had a gun I wouldn't use it, because I don't really care to shoot someone who I can run from.

Run?! They're stuck in LA traffic - that's largely why the accident happened. No one's running even if they want to!

Most times, a gun man faced with another gun will choose to back off and flee too, but given they're trapped here, probably was best that the attacker only had a bat.

Should LA drivers pack heat? It's always nice to have more options, but given the penalties for being caught with a concealed and loaded weapon, not worth it for most.

[ReBirth 0]

Not LA...worse....east coast inner city narrow one way street with cars parked on both sides. He would've been lucky if he could get his door open.

[billvon 3,120]

>So, how about you save your criticism for those who use guns
>illegaly, and quit lumping the good guys in with the bad guys?

Right! And we shold save our criticism of skydivers for those who actually break the rules. The ones who jump 2 to 1 loaded canopies at 100 jumps, and the ones who rely on their AAD's to save them when they do skydives that are over their heads, and the ones who cut people off on landing - they haven't broken any laws. We should instead focus on people who come closer than 1 mile to clouds in freefall, a clear violation of FAR's! Those are the criminals we REALLY need to watch for.