If CrafterMans wife had a handgun AND plenty of training AND she had time to access it, this situation would shift in her favor considerably. (Mind you, Crazy Gunman isnt going to order her out of the house. Hed bind and gag her at the VERY least, wouldnt he?)
If she tries to attack a large, armed male only with teeth and nails, I wouldnt bet much money on her continuing to live long enough to even give the children extra time to escape, maybe not long enough to actually land a blow. Your wifes bravery is admirable, CrafterMan, and I suspect many mothers would feel as she does, but she`d basically be committing suicide to little purpose.
I guess what I want to say is:
A: I feel people ought to be allowed to have all the guns they want IF they take an assload of training in their proper usage and don`t have any felonies or violent misdemeanors on their record. An untrained gun owner is better off unarmed.
B: This internet cowboy shit fails to impress. Attacking a gunman with bare hands is just dumb as hell unless you`re Internet Meme Chuck Norris, and none of us here are.
Look, if I were one of the adults in that schoolhouse, I would *not * have been a sheep and left. I don’t care how many guns the guy had or how intimidating he was. I don’t care how much the odds were stacked against me. I would have reasoned that there was a strong likelihood the guy would murder someone, and I would do everything and anything in an attempt to stop him. Might I die in the process? Of course. But I would not be able to live with myself if I obeyed his order, left the schoolhouse, and the girls ended up being murdered.
Do you have children? Lets say you’re unarmed, and a bad guy breaks into your house. He is heavily armed, and orders you out of the house. He instructs your children to stay. There is every indication that he intends to harm your children. Would you say to yourself, “Gosh, if I try to stop him, I might not succeed. So I had better leave.” 99% of parents wouldn’t think twice about attacking the guy. Perhaps you’re part of the 1% who would leave.
It is apparent the adults who were in the schoolhouse did not even attempt to stop the guy. I predict they will feel immense guilt the rest of their lives. As they should.
CarnalK: You’re being a jerk. Seriously. **SenorBeef ** has put a lot of effort in an attempt to engage in a rational, intelligent debate with you, and you respond by being a sophomoric jerk.
SenorBeef: My advice is to not waste your time arguing with people like CarnalK. If you’re willing to put that much time & effort into a rational debate, do it with someone who understands and appreciates your efforts, and has the brain power to offer intelligent retorts.
I think the big problem, and the reason so many people are jumping on the gun issue, is that you can’t stop every whackjob. As long as there is society there will be members of it who act violently towards other members of it. We’ll never prevent every murder, nor every mass murder. Times like these serve to remind people that we are not entirely, 100% safe from harm. The easiest way to push those feelings aside is to find some inanimate scapegoat that can’t fight back and attempt to ban it.
And in the US, most of those homicides are criminals killing each other. Typically either rival drug dealers or rival gangs are killing their competition.
We have very few school shootings here when you consider the number of schools and the size of the US. It just seems like a bigger problem than it is because of the media. Remember the ‘Summer of the Shark’? There were no more attacks that year than any other on record, but it was a slow news summer so the media had to create something in order to get ratings…
But as a matter of fact for the last twenty years in the United States, that has not been true.
And you were chastising gun owners for living in fantasy land.
I bit a mugger who put a knife to my ribs. It worked, but I had to be a hell of a lot closer to the mugger than I wanted to be. I would very much prefer to have had my gun with me. If the bite had angered the mugger, I probably wouldn’t be around.
That’s like saying people are allowed to assemble *only * if they receive training on how to do so “peacefully,” and only if they’re not felons.
Want my opinion? The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. Unless the person is in jail, he/she has the *right * to keep and bear arms. Period. Including felons.
Depends on the circumstance. If I were a teacher, and a gunman burst into my school room and ordered me to leave, I would do everything possible to stop him. Most people would do the same.
Because I don’t trust an armed populace to use firearms responsibly. I’m not talking about any specific individual, but the more people who are armed, the more likely conflicts are to end up with shots fired. I don’t like guns and I don’t trust people. I know that we can’t put the cat back in the bag, regarding the proliferation of guns, but I don’t believe the best solution is arming more people. People aren’t responsible, and I believe it’s foolish to think that putting more weapons in the hands of more irresponsible people, legally or not, is the right solution.
Can you point to one state which has enacted concealed carry in which this has actually happened?
The truth of the matter is that there are millions of people who legally carry concealed every day, and you have no idea who we are. You’ve passed them on the sidewalk, seen them in a store, talked to them in a park, perhaps even flipped them off in traffic.
I carry concealed on a fairly regular basis, and the people I encounter as I go about my business have absolutely no idea that I’ve got a pistol under my jacket. That’s the point of concealment. Do I get angry at people who cut me off in traffic or ram into me with a grocery cart? Sure I do. Have I ever had the actual urge to pull the pistol out and shoot them? No.
Carrying a firearm is a great responsibility, and it’s something that I don’t take lightly at all. That firearm is for defense of my life or the life of another person only, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who carries and disagrees with that statement.
Let me ask you this:
If you were carrying a pistol concealed and someone cut you off in traffic, would you pull it out and shoot them?
Too bad the statistics say different. See my previous post about states with “Shall Issue” laws. This argument doesn’t have anything to back it up other than your uninformed opinion. There are a lot of arguments for gun control that actually have some meat to them. I recommend you look for some of those, because this one’s useless.
Unlikely, as NYC doesn’t have (or has extremely limited) CCW laws. Although I’m sure that I’ve come across those illegally carrying. During a week working in Arizona, I had the joy of being around many open carry people. Not surprisingly, no one fired a shot anywhere near me while I was there. Doesn’t mean I wasn’t uncomfortable around all the firearms, nor did the lack of gunfire make me anymore comfortable.
Bully for you! Now if you can guarantee me that every idiot who takes great offense at minor transgression will make the same choice, that would be great.
The first part is the way you handle yourself and your firearm ownership. The second part is wishful thinking. Many people carry for all the wrong reasons; they just don’t do it legally.
I would never be carrying a pistol, legally or otherwise. On the other hand, I have been in my car with baseball bats, hockey sticks, cricket clubs and other weapons of convenience, which might have been used when we caught up in traffic. Like the majority of people, I don’t overreact to minor transgressions. Physically, at least - mentally, I’m pouring honey over them and staking them on top of a fire ant mound.
On the other hand, my mother had a driver jump out of his car and start banging on her window, because she would not turn right on red. Nevermind that there were numerous signs stating No Right Turn on Red at the intersection, and that even if there weren’t, she’s well within her rights not to turn on red if she doesn’t feel it safe. The incident ended with no one harmed, when the idiot realized he was in the wrong. Can she trust, had he been armed, that he would not have used the gun threateningly, at a minimum? What if my mother had been armed? He was very threatening to her, and she was rightfully frightened. What if she used the firearm to protect herself. Do we assume that everyone owning a firearm will always use them at the right time and only when absolutely necessary?
I don’t like guns. I don’t trust people. I especially don’t trust people with guns (yes, this includes police officers).
On preview:Crafter_Man, except for the last word, that is the first thing you’ve written in your thread that I’ve agreed with.
I make no difference between legal and illegal ownership. I don’t like guns, I don’t want guns in my immediate vicinity, if it can be helped. That is why, if I were to learn that someone who is legally allowed to have a CCW shared my workplace (again, unlikely in NYC), I would see if my employer backed their right to be armed in the workplace or if my employer supported a gun-free workplace. I would make my decision on continuing to be employed based on that.
SenorBeef, I don’t think guns are evil and have no benefit. I just think that in general they are more harmful to society than beneficial. I fully accept that responsible owners can mitigate that harm, unconvinced that they significantly increase the benefits. The surveys used by your linked study are just that, surveys. They require gun owners to decide themselves how serious a crime they stopped indeed whether they anything happened at all. For instance:
I also feel it’s implausible but not impossible, given that it is a survey of one side of a highly politicized issue. It’s a given that some are lying.
I admitted right up front that my Wisconsin data was a small set but if you can find me a larger data set from a reliable source (such as the CDC) that shows wildly different ratios I’ll be glad to see it and give a mea culpa.
ps- looking through the data tables I find something peculiar: table 2 says that 46% of defensive gun uses were when there was no threat or attack towards the defender. WTF?
The CDC is hardly a reliable source, especially when it comes to areas outside of its mandate. They have repeatedly skewed data to match a political opinion in the past, and they continue to do so today.
To be less flip: give me a link to something you think is reliable that gives wildly different ratios than what I posted. I haven’t gotten into this gun merry-go-round debate but you gun owners clearly have, got anything bookmarked?