What I find funny is that people are pretending that this has anything to do with the Constitution. The Church of the Holy Bangstick doesn’t give a didly-squat about the Constitution, except to use their particular interpretation of it as an excuse.
You want proof? Easy.
Supposition: The Supreme Court of the United States finally gets around to ruling on the exact meaning of the Second Amendment, and decides that it means that people must join an organized state or local government run militia to own and operate firearms. This is just a supposition, mind you.
What would your reaction be?
Now I’ve asked this question in other threads before, and almost to a man the answer involved going underground or running away to a place where they could keep the guns. What’s your answer?
- Give up my guns, to the extent that owning them was illegal.
- Begin work on a grass-roots campaign to add an unambiguous Constitutional amendment permitting private ownership of guns.
- Look into joining a legitimate militia.
- Rick
Maybe the information I have is confused because there are so many people involved.
Just to clear up any remnant of confusion, are these 4 in jail right now?
Jai Pey
I think we have rounded out the Pure Second Amendment arguements pretty well.
Of course I still have a couple of comments 
I specifically stated that the Swiss army was a good model for the types of weapons that should be legal. I did not try and use them as a model in any other way.
On the home defense thing…
Go over to the the thread that is discussing the three factors involved in a fight. Mindset, tactics and technique(I think)
I would say that the average guy who breaks into an occupied home is in a much better mindset to fight, kill and walkaway than the average homeowner.
They already have nothing to lose, and are committed to their course of action. The average homeowner is going to be dealing with the shock of the situation and trying to figure what the best course of action really is.
I still can’t beleive that you could ever equate fists with a gun. I don’t know if you have ever trained in a martial art, but if you go to some tournaments you will discover that there are some very dangerous people out there that look like morons.
However, knowing their skill I would never want to go face to face with them unarmed. If you are in your home, you owe the criminal NOTHING. Take every advantage you have and assume he will do the worst to you if you fail.
I can even see the logic in shooting them instead of driving them away. Who knows what person you may have condemmed to rape or death next week? When a person is breaking in to your house at night, they have lost their right to live.
You are absolutely right … and absolutely wrong. 
You are correct that if you own a gun and haven’t bother to train with it, you may as well have saved yourself the money. It just won’t do you any good. Assuming that you actually get around to getting it while consumed by your animal mind (A police detective who I taught sent me an excerpt from a crime he was working. The defender was startled awake by a noise. He picked up his gun as the assailant entered his bedroom. In a panic, he THREW the gun at the criminal! This, and other oddities, are more the norm than unusual. See “Ayoob Files”).
However, you are very mistaken if you think going against a firearm with your fists is going to do you much good. The firearm has an overwhelming advantage in every sense. Your only hope is that the criminal is completely incompetent with it… and for obvious reasons this does not make for a solid self defense foundation.
The assailant has almost every advantage over you mainly because he is armed with the aggressor’s mindset. He is used to the chemical cocktail involved in high stress situations. He is used to being in strange houses, and adjusting. He has to be. If he wasn’t he wouldn’t survive as a criminal. Self defense strategy has to be designed for at least the decent criminal, and this is the profile of the decent career criminal. Unless you live in similar high stress situation (police officer, solider) he has the edge, unless you have trained for it (i.e. primarily with scenario based training, IMO).
Hey hey now I get to fight 2 fronts!
Hmmm Freedom, first:
Even the freedom-loving Swiss, Freedom, will only let regular people have automatic weapons once they’re in an army. For people that are truly egalitarian, you oughta consider that with your model of types of weaponry. You might not have tried to but its gotta be considered…
On home defense things:
I admit… I’m wrong about home turf advantage, provided; (a) Assailent is armed with a gun and knows how to use it, and (b) I’ve never taken adequate time and energy to prepare for the event of “What to do if”. This would include courses in self-defense and/or a martial art, in my books.
Assuming a criminal is in possession of a gun would be best in any case, really, is what you folks are saying… whether or not there is a gun. This, like appealing to the reasoning for the 2nd (which I think we all agree on) being for government tyranny… supposedly provides adequate reason for Joe Blow to have a gun in the household. “Assuming the worst, Mr. Dastardly has a gun, so of course I need one, because my fists won’t help me.”
I don’t think Freedom or Glitch are any more cowardly than I am. But what I read here is reactive fear, “Must not get caught with my pants around my ankles, must keep up with the pack or else be naturally selected out, etc” and in this case its about guns.
I am not afraid (as much as I can say without having lived thru the experience) of being threatened with a gun. Its nothing but a threat of force, no different than a person I’m on the out’s with threatening to beat my face in. If I give it inordinate power over me, it’ll get it, too, as will the person who owns the gun. But I refuse to be forced into action by anyone.
Glitch:
I don’t usually buy into psycho-mumbo jumbo but I buy this. I also think, as Freedom pointed out a waaaaay up there that we oughta avoid thinking of the average homeowner as being a bumbling fool. Now, I would worry if the average homeowner is a bumbling fool without a gun but an ubermench with it. Speaking of ubermench, wassup with this super-criminal glitch? Yeah I agree with it, but where’s his edge? (a) aggressor’s mindset. Homeowner can easily, having assertained his home, property, and family is in danger, can assume an aggressor’s stance, w/ and w/out a gun; (b) chemical cocktail of high stress situations, again most people who go thru these situations say the same thing (I mean high stress, surprise deal with a crisis type stuff) “I never knew I had it in me” and “I was scared until after it was all over… I just did it” and dealt well with it. © Used to be in strange houses and adjusting, but he still doesn’t know your floorplan like you do. (d) If he didn’t he wouldn’t survive, this I think might be poppycock. Why does he have to pick on habitated houses? Homes left unguarded while the family’s on holiday, etc, just as ripe for the picking. No pesky homeowners crawling around hidden passageways shooting at you. Besides, one of the primary survival instincts is knowing when to fight and when to flee. If he can’t ascertain when to get out, he oughta get caught (well, he oughta be caught anyway)
Freedom:
This is no different than “What if the average gunowner goes psycho” argument you rightly pointed out as a red herring.
If BnE is a capital offense, you folks oughta reconsider your entire justice system.
Glitch, one last one:
Poppycock. The firearm is a piece of metal. The person holding the firearm should supposedly have the advantage. And that’s why he doesn’t… cuz he hears and sees and smells the same as you do. He can apply force with greater force, but not necessarily with greater accuracy. He can apply force repeatedly, until his clip runs out. Holding a firearm won’t let him see in the dark, give him super powers, let him walk thru walls. Holding the firearm, in fact, could be detrimental to his senses… He gets a little too excited, knowing he’s in a shoot-out with a homeowner, and fires the gun at the first moving shadow. The noise of the shot will be deafening if he’s not ready for it, same for the homeowner… all of a sudden, there’s a MAJOR disadvantage when moving in a dark home at night.
Perhaps its all relative. its not black and white.
Regards to you all,
Jai Pey
I also beg the question:
What do criminals who break into your home at night have to do with 2nd amendment gun rights? Do you have the right to shoot them dead, grounds of protecting your property?
Seems to answer itself but I want a definitive answer…
Jai Pery
And freedom, regarding your “Number one” post…
Say it ain’t so!!! It ain’t over!!!
Well, thats OK, if this and that one is over we can both choose a topic and perhaps gang up on some poor unsuspecting soul, or we can take opposing sides (but not diametrically opposed, that’d be too easy) and just continue what seems to be a decent understanding.
Regards to you and the gf… don’t let her getcha down, now.
Well… lemme rephrase that… 
TTYL,
jai pey
Hey Freedom, any response to my supposition?
Just curious.
You got that right.
Sorry but no. This isn’t reactive fear at all. Simply put, owning and knowing how to properly use a firearm greatly increases your chances of self defense, especially against another firearm. It is no different that teaching my students by means of scenario based training. It is simply, currently, the current best way to prepare for a serious fight. It is difficult. It is intense. But it works. It increases their chances of surviving a serious encounter.
I was stabbed twice in the back but a strung out mugger. I fought him off, and ended up in the hospital. I am not afraid of people with knives.
Being afraid has absolutely nothing to do with this. Feel free to read “Strong on Defense” (Sanford Strong) or just about any book by Ayoob. Owning and knowing how to use a gun is a no more of a safety precaution for a responsible person that putting on your seat belt. It is the recognition that a gun, with training, is the most effective means of self defense against another gun, when escape is impossible and a conflict is necessary.
Do you put on your seatbelt in your car? Why? Are you concerned that some moron might run into your car at 50MPH? Is that reactive fear?
- Go take part in a seminar at the Lethal Force Institute.
- Go read Ayoob’s, Strong’s, Quinn’s and DeBecker’s books. These guys are the real experts, and I just cannot compress their knowledge more than I already have. You clearly are not familiar with what the defensive and aggressor’s mindset is. You also don’t seem to know what the mind and body go through when hit by the “chemical cocktail”. I would have to write a book to explain it any better than I already have. If you want to reject it out of hand, fine by me, but this is no different than rejecting Hawking’s books and knowledge out of hand in a discussion on wormholes.
Firearm vs. Fist
Firearm has better damage. Two center of mass hits will usually stop a person (90% of the time).
Firearm has penetrating damage. The most effective damage against the human body.
Firearm has better range.
Firearm is very effective at close range.
Firearm is extermely effective at the 5’.
Fists have poor damage. It takes many blows from the human fist to stop another human, barring a lucky blow.
Fists have blunt damage. The most ineffective kind of damage against the human body.
Fists have short range.
Fists are only effective at close range, but are less effective than a firearm at close range (a gun is inferior to a knife at close range).
So, all things are equal except he has better damage, penetrating damage, better range, and better close range effectiveness (see Quinn and Jeff Cooper for further details on this last).
Slythe,
I guess it would depend on the details and the intent of what was happening.
This is what I would look for:
Is it prohibitively time consuming?
Is it truly a “local” organization, with NO federal involvement?
Do I lose all the restrictions placed on me now when this happens, or do I get more placed on me?
(Shall issue CCP, fully auto weapons, any clip I want, etc…)
Depending on the answers to those questions, with any benefit of the doubt going to saying yes, I would accept those terms happily.
If it looked like a federal program that reported to Washington, then HELL NO.
As the moistest, pinkest of newbies, I will not presume to leave my muddy footprints all over the thoughtful arguments in this thread.
But Glitch touched on a tangential question with his seatbelt remark. Why the beef with registration? I think automobiles provide a useful point of comparison. They enable several inalienable rights (the right to go to the mall, the right to cruise Main Street on Saturday night, the seldom-claimed right to visit South Dakota). They are also potentially deadly, and are often engaged in the pursuit of illegal activities (robbin’, lootin’, date rapin’, fuzzy dice danglin’, etc.). Yet, while nobody relishes a trip to the DMV, almost nobody complains about car registration and driver licensing as somehow curtailing, circumventing or limiting any basic constitutional rights. This can’t be simply because cars are not mentioned in the Constitution (which is a related grind—it seems that for the Constitution to be a viable, living document with any modern relevance, it must be primarily a document about IDEAS; in targeting specific technologies that happen to be mentioned [like guns] we must also recognize that the Constitution fails to address such things as automobiles, television, the so-called “information superhighway,” the Backstreet Boys, and other modern monoliths; does this render the document less useful now than a couple Cs ago?).
The licensing and registration process serves several worthy purposes, a few of which are:
- a means for ensuring that all-important training
- keeping some tabs (I know, damn peeping bureaucrats) on which people possess the potentially deadly technology in question
- making for invaluable first-date ice-breaking fodder (“I’ll show you my crappy DL photo if you show me yours…”).
Now, I don’t like or own guns, but I recognize the need for gun ownership rights and am thankful for those who use them safely and in the pursuit of good. BUT…can anyone tell me why the same safeguards we accept for car use and ownership shouldn’t be applied to guns? And don’t hide behind the specific technologies mentioned in the Second Amendment, or else I’ll be tempted to toss my Constitution out with my acid-washed jeans.
(By the way, by “pink” I didn’t mean “Commie,” just “fresh-skinned.”)
Hey, Glitch, a question from me as well, if you don’t mind.
While I agree very much with most of your philosophy (going out to get some Ayoob tonight, in fact), I need a clarification. You say that a gun is the best defense against a gun, as you put it “when escape is impossible and a conflict is necessary.” No real question there, I guess.
But I take a little bit of issue with your comparing owning a firearm with usign a seatbelt. That seems to me to be an inaccurate comparison in many ways–not least of which that I can’t kill anyone by wearing my seatbelt. Further it seems that you’re saying that since any intelligent person would wear a seatbelt for protection, any intelligent person should therefore own a gun for protection. Is this a fair summary, or am I misreading you? Help me, Obi-Glitch-Kenobi!
One other point you can help me with: carrying a gun for self-defense only works if I am prepared to kill. My philosophy of firearm safety incorporates two rules. 1) the weapon is always loaded, and 2) if I am pointing a weapon at someone, I am prepared to kill that person.
But wouldn’t you agree that it’s a moot point if I make my personal ethical decision to not take another’s life at the expense of my own? That is, if I decide (as a matter of personal morals/ethics) that in any circumstances, I would rather get shot and possibly die than risk killing someone else, I have no reason to carry a gun, right?
-andros-
“1. a means for ensuring that all-important training”
You don’t need registration to ensure that. Also, if you argument is based on the predicate that everybody with a driver’s licence is not a danger on the road, then you’ve got some work ahead of you. I’m willing to bet that almost all auto accidents that result in fatalities were caused by licensed drivers. Personally, I don’t think licensing is a big deal, I like registration a lot less.
“2. keeping some tabs (I know, damn peeping bureaucrats) on which people possess the potentially deadly technology in question”
Okay, the way that a tyrannical and oppressive government can use this information is obvious. How, exactly, do you think our government (and by extension us, presumably) benefits?
Erratum-
Well, the intent of my babble was not so much to explore the justifications of licensing and registration as to wonder aloud why distinctions are drawn between applying them to guns and applying them to cars. However, the fact remains that I did attempt to justify L & R, so…
-
Right, registration doesn’t pertain so much to the training aspect. And no, I don’t believe licensing eliminates danger. But it does seem like a reasonable, and reasonably non-invasive, method of increasing overall competence level of drivers. It doesn’t appear that many here have too much beef with this where gun ownership is concerned, although I hear the point flogged a lot in other forums. Any reason to not have a picture license for gun owners, like a DL?
-
Registration: yes, harder to justify. But again, why do we register our cars? For tax collection? To aid authorities if the car is stolen? Can either of these justifications be applied to gun ownership, and do they outweigh the cost of government peeping? Do they with cars? I’m askin’ here, folks.
I would also dig it if someone could address my primary query: difference between guns and cars.
Get “Stress Fire” and “In Gravest Extreme: The Truth About Self Defense Protection” first. His two best books, IMO. His full name is Massad Ayoob.
I mean it only as a comparative analogy to people who say there is no reason in owning a gun as a precautionary measure. There are plenty of good reasons for not owning a gun (see below), but one good reason to own is as a matter of precaution.
Yes, absolutely. The further along you are willing to act along, what Ayoob calls, the Force Continuum, the better your chance of self defense. With a gun, this means maiming and killing your assailant. If you are’t prepared to do that don’t bother owning a gun.
I would take that one step further. If you are at the point where you should be pointing a gun at somebody you better already be pulling the trigger.
Yes, I agree. That is a good reason not to own a gun. A very good reason. Shooting and killing somebody, regardless of ethics, is very trying on the average person. I don’t recall the book right now, but as the author put it, when you kill somebody (if you weren’t prepared and even if you are) you will experience loss of sleep, possible impotence (in men), a “Mark of Cain” complex, you will feel like everybody is looking down on you as a cold killer, worry over legal complications (civil and criminal), etc. The people who don’t suffer from this are those that develop the defensive mindset, and are resolved in their own minds (see “In the Gravest Extreme” Ayoob, it cover this extensively).
I can understand why somebody wouldn’t want to carry all that baggage, and you better be prepared to carry that baggage if you want to own a gun. Either that or you better really hope you never have to use it.
Hey Glitch,
I must say, while your knowledge of self defense and Ayoob is impressive (I’ve never heard of Ayoob, what is it?) you can’t convince me with the argument “You obviously don;t understand…”; Analogous, I wouldn’t divert attention from an issue on religion by saying “Well you obviously don’t understand what I understand about God” but rather try to offer an explanation. Now, I do understand that you’ve made a good attempt to compress it all… But details here matter. Thanks for the references though.
When you say chemical cocktail, do you mean adrenaline rush? If so, I do indeed know from a whole bunch of life, different circumstances. Similarly, I’ve witnessed it in other people too. So please don’t assume.
Also, by making the Hawking analogy, you’ve only proven my point… “You obviously dont; understand ‘truth’ because you haven’t read the books that I define as ‘truth’” doesn’t carry weight, really, does it? What makes your books better than my life experience? (I know I’m appealing to subjectivity…)
The firearm versus fist list:
I can add proviso’s to all of that list… and in some cases you already have. I recognize the benefits of guns in terms of self-defense weapons. But we’re talking about an aggressor using a gun and your best defense. the big proviso you added is:
I would still maintain, you haven’t said a thing about your original statement “Firearm has overwhelming advantage” based on the evidence/claims I made. I assure you, all things are never equal.
You got stabbed in the back you say? All things weren’t equal there, were they? Similarly, assuming a criminal has gone to the trouble to know how to “double-tap” (reference, “Two centre of mass hits will usually stop a person, 90% of the time”) effectively is a big far too, isn;t it? THis takes us back into the world of 2nd amendment, i.e. knowing how to counter a tyrannical government force who’s trained to double-tap…
One last thing:
What am I missing? I’m clearly not familiar with the way you’d describe “Aggressor vs. defensive mindset”, is yours the only way?
I know about aggression vs. defense in chess… Also in paintball, also in driving, also in a whole bunch of other things… I know too how to keep off the defensive in a debate.
I won’t reject your post out of hand. I will stand behind “Poppycock, firearm is only as good as the person firing it”.
Regards,
Jai Pey
Jai Pey,
I think you are losing a little of your traction in the defense category here.
Here is my overwhelming evidence that guns are an ADVANTAGE in a violent situation:
Every Army in the World has guns.
There is no army that thinks, “Well, we have the high ground, we know our area and the locals support us, I don’t really think we need the extra advantage of guns.”
When someone is trying to hurt or kill you, there is no fair or unfair. Having a gun is a plus when you are getting attacked, regardless of the other factors involved.
Is is possible for oyu to pull up a scenario or two where it was actually a plus to be unarmed? Sure. But those are the rare exceptions.
Hey Freedom,
Nice to have a post for this morning!
Its because you obviously don’t understand.
Seriously folks… its challenging to know how to respond. Especially with evidence like that.
But respond I must, though it wouldn’t be below me to admit defeat.
And so, again, I point out that the Army’s use of guns is only as good as the training they’ve given the soldiers using the guns. Highly effective weaponry in trained and skilled hands. Are all criminals in the Army? (I know that there are SOME criminals in the Army…)
I’m not talking fair/unfair,(I quote
)
I’m talking the great big proviso’s that are begin forgotten. Just by saying “guns are advantageous” and showing how a trained person can effectively use a gun doesn’t help a 2nd amendment argument for gun ownership… in fact it strengthens my belief in the need for registration and training for owners of the gun.
Freedom, I also think that you and Glitch would agree theres a big difference in a violent situation in which the military has to respond, and one within the home during a break and enter.
Furthermore, I challenge either of you to discover the average number of bullets fired by military application guns, at the enemy, versus the numbers of people killed by those self-same bullets. Guns don’t just kill people, guns force people to keep their heads down so that your own people don’t get shot. Thats an aggressive manner to be tactically defensive. I’d hardly classify several thousand bullets per kill to be highly effective. Put a gun in a highly trained specialist’s hands, though, like a sniper… and we’re talking a whole other ball game. What you folks are saying to me is that we all oughta look at guns from a sniper’s perspective, not from the regular grunt who’s laying down a cover-fire.
And lastly, for the advantage guns give to armies, why don’t you go and read about the origins of the phrase “friendly fire” from WW2. Hell of an operational way for the Army to account for a lot of accidental real-estate deals.
To Dirt:
Good start in the debate. Keep it up! FYI, I dunno, but I’m tending to agree all along that registration for several purposes would be a good thing when it comes to firearms. The statement will (and has) been made, this is regulations for the lawful, not the lawbreakers, to which I reply “Then get tougher on the law breakers”. Registration for aid in finding lost and stolen arms, as well, strikes me as of particular interest, especially in this home-invaded-by-night-by-criminal scenario.
The difference between guns and cars? Good question… Gun only does 70 MPH when in a car, or truck, perhaps on the back gun-rack?
Regards to all,
Jai Pey
Massad Ayoob is the founder of the Lethal Force Institute. He is considered to be one of the best experts on self defense in the country. He has done the work and research to be able to make real claims about self defense, and not just what everybody “knows” is true.
You talked about your personal experience. Fine, I can bring my personal experience in along with all the books and seminars I have done. I have been a martial arts student for 22 years. I have been teaching for 17 years, 14 years as my own dojo owner. I have been in a few real serious fights, the most serious fighting off a junkie after being stabbed in the back twice.
I wish I could condense 1500 pages of books in to a nice little post. Of course, to even try would be crazy. If you are really interested in learning about the “chemical cocktail”, force continuum, defensive mindset, self defense triangle, etc, in greater detail I urge you to go and read at least Ayoob’s “Stress Fire”, “In Gravest Extreme” & “The Ayoob Files”. There are plenty more books, but at least read those three.
I can try to explain them (and have) in simple terms, but again I cannot condense 1500 (or more) pages into one little post.
“Chemical cocktail” is a term used to describe the set of physical and mental changes that occur when preparing for a fight, or during a fight. Although adrenaline is the main chemical, it isn’t the only one. The body also releases pain killers into the blood stream in order to prepare for damage. Some, of the psychological affects include tunnel vision, for example.
Force continuum is the range of actions to use in dealing with violent threats and action. At one end is walking away, at the other end is killing the assailant.
Defensive mindset is, despite the name, not defensive at all. It is the mindset that the defender should have in order to be able to defend themselves. This includes predetermination of action, predetermination of result, etc.
Aggressors mindset is the mindset that your typical aggressive criminal is going to have. It is in many ways similar to the defensive mindset.
Self defense triangle is the three elements which compose self defense. Mindset, tactics and techniques.
Now, you are probably sitting there nodding, going “Oh, yeah. I know about all those.” And its easy to believe that, until you start reading some of these books and/or attending these seminars and they start blowing the myths out of the water.
So, sorry, personal experience is pretty low on my credentials list (unless you can show me books or articles you have written on self defense, which were done with proper research to back them up). I would rather listen to what a dozen or so real experts know, and have done the necessary work and research to know. Yes, I consider myself a self defense expert, but not quite on the level of people like Ayoob, DeBecker or Quinn. But it helps me be a better expert by knowing and understanding what they have researched and discovered.