Well there is one case where you’re wrong. If you are Amarr Militia being attacked by Minmatar Militia, having a gun is probably not going to do you any good. 
My gun certainly defended me when my house was broken into. I’ve told the story here before but I don’t know if it’s still in the archives.
And of course the slant will be anti-gun. The program is 20/20.
In that case, a gun is a tool for accelerating a small, lead projectile to a high velocity, and in a precise direction. That’s all a gun really does, right? Not much of a news story there, or a debate.
If you want it to be an “effective tool(s) of self defense”, then that projectile must be delivered to the right target, at the right time. How many people can really do that? Now that is an interesting question, and worth investigating.
As for my “shifting the goalposts”, well, the story that’s the topic of this thread hasn’t even aired yet, so neither of us knows where the original goalposts were.
In the same sense as a car is a hunk of metal and glass built to revolve circular pieces of rubber.
If you want a car to be a device to get you from place to place, you need to be able to drive it in a straight line and maneuver to avoid obstacles and make turns.
It’s a pretty good bet, especially judging from the ads that have circulated. And the fact that there’s even any ‘debate’ going on on the program at all.
I predict this thread will eventually and calmly reach a consensus.
If properly presented, it’s a valid topic. There are common misconceptions of what a handgun is and isn’t capable of in terms of self defense; for example, most people think that their handgun reaction time to a deadly threat will be much faster than it actually is in a close range encounter, which led law enforcement to develop training techniques like the Tueller drill. I’d really like to see it, but I have plans for tonight.
Agreed, I just wonder if 20/20 is going to stack the deck, like presuming that only one person in the whole room has a gun, and the attacking gunman happens to shoot them first. Or give a person with no handgun experience and no tactical training a paintball gun and see how well they do in a simulated attack.
Of course people can be ambushed- three cops responding to a call were recently ambushed. I’m not the most experienced or well trained of gun owners but I think given ten seconds warning even I could respond effectively to an armed attack.
Hopefully so. Another angle that comes to mind is that a handgun bullet may not always be enough to stop a determined and agressive attacker. This video shows a police officer who shot an assailant point blank in the abdomen (the assault is somewhat graphic but “safe enough for television,” the actual shot itself can’t be seen), but didn’t stop the attacker from continuing the assault and even getting his jammed weapon from him. The difficulty in stopping an attacker with a single full metal jacketed round from a handgun is what caused Sykes and Fairbain to develop the “double tap” technique.
That’s a description of part of tonight’s show. Enjoy.
True, but who would use a FMJ round for self defense?
Hollow points do a lot more damage when they work. When they encounter a lot fo clothing they might do very little damage, as the FBI found out, leading them to drop the 9mm. FMJ does less damage, but pretty much always works.
I think if guns aren’t useful for self-defense, then cops shouldn’t carry guns. Simple.
I don’t think that the circumstances are the same for self-defense and for a policeman knowingly entering into a potentially dangerous situation. If guns aren’t useful for self-defense because, for example, by the time you have defined the threat and pulled and aimed your gun the attacker had time to see you doing it and was able to interupt your action with an attack or a disarmament, then that isn’t going to be applicable to a police situation where he enters prepared with gun drawn.
I’d be vaguely curious whether the show/argument will distinguish between home invasions (where you may have a few moments’ warning and the opportunity to prepare) and simply being jumped on the street.
There are people who have to walk to work through “potentially dangerous situations.” There are many private citizens more qualified to use guns than many cops are. There’s a famous video somewhere on Youtube of a cop shooting himself in the foot during a “safety” presentation to a high school class.
As to street attackers “disarming” a licensed gun-carrying citizen, I’d like to see some statistics of this actually happening, because as far as I know it’s an invention of the movies (some character, usually a woman, pulls a gun in self-defense and it fails to work or the evil bad guy grabs it.)
I’ll add that this kind of television presentation would NEVER have happened in the first half of the twentieth century. This kind of stuff only exists because of widespread ignorance about guns among the general population, which no longer has any exposure to them, and so stupid and very biased TV shows come in to fill the gap. It used to be that guns were just another tool, an accepted part of American life, kids got .22s for their birthdays and walked around the neighborhood with them, you could order a gun through the mail, etc, etc, and guess what…the country didn’t degenerate into a giant war-zone!
i think that a cross bow is better than a gun. sometimes a person keeps moving after they get shot. they tend not to move when pinned by an arrow to the floor or wall.
I daresay.
Er, so what? Do these people walk around with guns drawn and cocked or something? (And it’s amusing that you felt you had to lower the bar to let these people clear it.)
I’d like to see stats too, because as far as I know, the notion that the bad guys stand idly by while you stick your hand in your jacket is similarly invented.
It also didn’t degenerate into a country where all the criminals were too afraid to commit crimes because they’d be shot by one of those kids with their .22s, either.
And TV back then was totally different. It was black and white!
About that. Seem to recall that policemen rarely actually use thier weapons in self-defense, many have whole careers wherein they fire their weapons only at the firing range. So, it would seem, that while a gun may be useful for self-defense, it may not actually be necessary.
Now, if a policeman rarely needs a gun for self-defense, how much less likely is it that Larry the Cable Guy is going to?
Simple, yeah, but that’s kinda the problem.
Not to toggle sides, but I doubt the first thing a mugger thinks when they see a cop is, “I think I’ll have a go at that guy’s wallet.” I think that if a cop does use his gun, the situation almost certainly won’t be much like a civilian self-defense situation.
As in most things comedic, timing is everything.
Pardon my schadenfreud as I watch yet another “highly trained professional law enforcement officer” (ostensibly one of the few classes of individuals gun banners thinks should be allowed to carry and possess firearms) demonstrate laughable incompetence.
Fortunately he only shot himself. With a room full of school children, I shudder to think of the possible outcomes of his demonstrable negligence and incompetence.