Agreed that when they both have guns the lady might be killed, but what choices does she have? Without the gun her only option is to hope the guy doesn’t do too much damage, trusting the good intentions of a rapist/thief.
At least with a gun she can fight back effectively and has a very good chance of winning.
Regards
Testy
No, it doesn’t level it out as much as a gun, but an improvised weapon may be better than no weapon at all. If the Bad Guy isn’t expecting her to fight back at all, she might also have surprise on her side and that’s valuable in a fight, too.
The little lady is never going to convince the “behemoth” that she’s his physical equal - the goal in that case is to convince him that it’s too much trouble for him to bother her. That could be accomplished by (as Una did at one point) convincing him that she has friends/allies who might come to her aid. It could be done by body language and an improvised weapon that indicates that she might be willing and even capable of fighting back and possiblity injuring him.
Clearly, the most powerful example of this would be a woman with a “hand cannon” and the behemoth unarmed - but even then, you have to know something about how to use that gun AND be willing to fire it at another human being.
And the behemoth suddenly also has a great chance of dying of gun wounds, whereas before there was very little chance of him getting hurt. THAT’s what levels the playing field, and can make the Bad Guy consider backing down - remember, most thugs don’t want to get hurt, either.
Without the gun - the little lady almost certainly gets hurt, and may be killed. With the gun, her odds are certainly no worse, but suddenly his odds of getting badly hurt go way, way up.
Now, this really had me puzzled until I realized you were posting from Brazil. Here in the US, crime is much lower in the rural countryside, some areas will even go a decade or more with even a theft, much less a murder. It’s in US urban areas where you’re more likely to need to defend the home.
Wow, major cultural difference here. Our military is forbidden to take on policing of US citizens. A US soldier who did something like that on US soil to US citizens - or even non-citizens - would probably be brought before a court martial.
(The National Guard is sometimes called out in extreme situations, but they aren’t regular military in the sense a full-time soldier is. In such situations, the National Guard is actually under control of the state governor, not the Federals in DC. Oh, bother, this can get complicated…)
Those who carry a gun in the US in an official capacity - the military, the police, etc. - are also given strict limits as to their use. I had five uncles who were police officers in St. Louis for 30-40 years apiece. If I recall, only one ever drew his weapon on another person. He did shoot two people (both were attacking) and, in fact, killed neither. Nonetheless, there was a full investigation of each incident and he was required to justify his actions in both cases.
Yes, guns carry a certain authority. But it’s not unlimited authority (at least in this country). If a person of authority abuses the privilege of carrying a gun they can be punished, which tends to quash the impulse to frisk a busload of poor folks on a whim.
Sure, we have some bad cops - you have bad folks in any group - but widespread abuse of firepower is less a concern of the average US citizen than fear of crime. Or maybe it’s because a sizeable number of folks own and are famillar with guns before they join the police or the military that most of our recruits don’t get “drunk with power” once a gun is put in their hands.
I think we’re basically in agreement. Anything at all is better than being defenseless. I just have some serious doubts about the efficacy of improvised weapons. If she does surprise and hurt the guy he might leave her alone. On the other hand, if he isn’t disabled, he might dig in and fight in which case she would almost certainly be badly hurt. I’m basing that opinion on some fairly extensive armed and unarmed martial arts studies over the previous twenty years. (Jiu-Jutsu, Kali, and Thai-boxing.)
It is a great credit to Una that she was quick-minded enough to avoid rape/robbery/whatever by using her wits and avoiding confrontation. Nevertheless, I dislike the thought of someone that size being considered as prey and if she were properly armed she wouldn’t have to pray for a cop on the corner or some good Samaritan hanging around.
Regards
Testy
**
We already have laws in the United States that limit the carrying of firearms outside of the home.
**
Even here in the states in generally takes longer for authorities to respond to an emergency in rural areas then it does in cities. However why should people who live in urban areas have to wait for the police to defend them? Can the police guarantee to protect any particular individual? These laws don’t seem to make it more difficult for criminals to carry firearms in the United States. Why would it make it harder for them in Brazil?
**
I still don’t know what a psychological reaction is. Is it a rational or irrational response?
**
Most human beings who are responsible enough to drive an automobile, handle their own finances, and make their own life altering decisions are responsible enough to use a firearm. It ain’t rocket science and despite what some believe it doesn’t turn ordinary people in stark raving lunatics bent on murder.
Not all others.
Marc
God made [Wo]Men. Samual Colt made Men equal.
Rashak
This army guy held up a bus and frisked the passengers at gunpoint? I have to ask what was done about this? Were the civilians so cowed and submissive that they allowed this? Did they protest later? What happened to the actor/army guy?
I couldn’t imagine something like this happening in the US.
Army or not, someone would be held to account for an activity like that. If the army in Brazil is given to activities like this I would think that the average citizen would want all the firepower he could get his hands on.
Regards
Testy
Yep!
And interestingly, crime is dropping even lower against those who are actually carrying a gun, e.g. the number of rapes of women who are armed is much lower than the number of rapes against women who arent carrying a gun. Armed American women experience just about the lowest rape vicitmization rate of any women anywhere in the world.
This is a societal issue, not a “most people” issue, and a HUGE assumption on your part. With over 270 million guns in the US, if “most people” were unable to handle the responsibility of firearms ownship, this country would look like any number of warzones in Africa. That is not the case.
That’s certainly a reasonable assumption, and for that reason I don’t blame the first few politicians who enacted gun-control legislation in hopes of reducing crime.
However, it’s been tried hundreds of times, and it’s basically never worked. Reasonable assumptions must yield in the face of facts.
Criminy, this is where my thread wound up… I thought it just dropped off the page…
Anyway, I had hoped (foolishly, apparently :)) to avoid the typical Gun Control debate (I see, for instance, that it didn’t take too long for someone to show up with few facts and plenty of accusations of “circle jerks” and such). My biggest concern was the creation of laws that had no point… I’d like to see Minty Green or RTFirefly address that. How does one control guns if one has no idea what effect a law would have? And would you support repealing a certain gun control law if it was found that it, in fact, most likely had no effect on crime?
Good one! Tell us another.
And I’ll note that once again, it’s the anti-gun folks tossing about the first derogatory remarks about gun owners. Circle jerkers, indeed. What’s with you people and civil conversation? Do we have to hold a gun to your heads in order for you to remain civil?
I actually took this issue up with minty green in another thread. His response was that he wanted a $500k grant to study the effects of the law in question. I told him that I thought he should bear the burden of proof on this point. As best I can recall, he did not respond.
But that’s how I feel for what it’s worth. It seems to me that those who support gun control have had plenty of opportunities to see their ideas tested. The evidence seems to indicate that gun control doesn’t work. At this point, those who support further gun control measures should bear the burden of proof.
Just MHO of course.
**
Of course, that’s the real kicker. When I debate gun control with folks, they often end up saying something like “Of COURSE state gun controls don’t work. States have pourous borders yadda yadda”
To which I respond “So would you support repeal of those laws?”
The usual reply is silence at this point.
I was using “crazies” as shorthand for people who leave guns around kids, shoot themselves with “unloaded” guns, shoot their friends while drunk, etc. – people who shoot themselves or others without any criminal intent.
It’s a numbers game from a scientific standpoint. I was not judging anyone except by their actions. You shoot someone while playing with your gun at a party: “Crazies:” “Check.”
Exactly. As Achernar said, you don’t know if someone is responsible or not until they prove themselves otherwise. The government can NOT morally assume that everyone is irresponsible… innocent (of irresponsibility) until proven guilty, and all that.
Of course, that all gets thrown out the window the second you mention poor little statistically-insignificant-but-emotionally-prominent Timmy that accidently shoots Billy while playing Cops 'n Robbers.
You recall poorly. We discussed the lack of perfect data and the reliability of the gun control mechanism (as applied to assault weapons) at length.
I disagree. I believe that those who are in favor of unrestrained firepower bear the burden of clearly justifying that lack of restraint. The costs of gun ownership are clear and measureable; the benefits are as opaque as could be.
Likewise.
Minty, Minty, Minty… no matter how many times you’re reminded, you just can’t seem to keep yourself from deliberately misrepresenting the pro-rights side of the debate. C’mon, man, you know full well that nobody in this thread is advocating “unrestrained firepower”.
(Stinkin’ Reply button… must resist urge to click on it… but it’s so pretty and smooth…)
Like the Kellerman study, which, along with concluding that it’s more dangerous to own a gun, also found that “living alone” is even more dangerous than THAT…
Yeah, THAT’S clear.
Only if one bandies about claims of Gary Kleck “lying” without providing support for that claim. 1.5 million DGU’s, Minty… seems clear to me.
Posted by Vlad Dracula:
Vlad, do you really think facilitating armed revolt is what the Second Amendment is for? Or even that this is a legitimate consideration in the discussion of gun rights? It isn’t. When the police (or the National Guard, the Army, etc.) arrive on the scene to take control of any situation or disturbance, the police (etc.) should immediately become the only armed persons on the scene. Any other outcome is a formula for tragedy. Does anyone in this forum seriously care to dispute that?
By the way, this was discussed in another thread: “Is the Second Amendment meant to facilitate armed rebellion?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201061
I won’t speak for our friendly resident impaler, but I note that he didn’t mention the second amendment.
Shorthand, with a dollop of rhetorical flourish thrown in for good measure. If you desire perfect delineation of the pro-gun position, substitute “essentially unrestricted private ownership of firearms.” And if you think that is an overstatement, tough luck. My point of comparison is the rest of the civilized world, not myopic focus on the de minimis gun restrictions in this country.