Poll: Let's settle something right now, can you defend yourself with a gun?

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
TopazFusion said:
And assuming the perpetrator survives your attack, they get paid compensation by the government.
Sorry, I need to get a bit more out of you to be able to wrap my head around it:

Are you saying that the act of breaking into somebody else's home with a self-service mindset going is pretty much a guaranteed win-win situation?

It's as if just putting up the effort to have a place to call home entitles other folks to invite themselves to it consider everything up for grabs. Does not compute.
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Headdrivehardscrew said:
Sorry, I need to get a bit more out of you to be able to wrap my head around it:

Are you saying that the act of breaking into somebody else's home with a self-service mindset going is pretty much a guaranteed win-win situation?

It's as if just putting up the effort to have a place to call home entitles other folks to invite themselves to it consider everything up for grabs. Does not compute.
Oh no, the perp still gets into trouble for it, but so do you if you use any sort of violence against them.

The point being; all forms of vigilantism are extremely frowned upon here.
how is defending yourself vigilantism?
 

Ryan Minns

New member
Mar 29, 2011
308
0
0
Sure, EVERYTHING can be used to protect yourself. I believe everyone deserves a chance to protect themselves. Would be nice though if that was the only reason they were used.
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
TopazFusion said:
gufftroad said:
how is defending yourself vigilantism?
Vigilantism: The act of taking the law into one's own hands.

In other words, this task is best left up to better trained and better equipped law enforcement personnel, not everyday civilians.
I don't know about you but i don't have a cop in my house 24/7 so in a break in situation who is better trained or equipped to defend myself then me.

also police here in the great USA have no obligation to defend citizens a brief google search will bring of dozens of SOCTUS cases were they ruled that police have no obligation to defend citizens although they do have to defend people in their custody
 

Johnny Impact

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,528
0
0
I don't own a gun, so the question is more or less moot. But here goes.

Any fool can employ a gun in an attempt to protect themselves. They can also employ a bat, a knife, or a kumquat. It's easy (less easy with the kumquat) to make an attempt at intimidation or, failing that, violence. Whether success would result is a very different question. Even trained professionals frequently miss targets in crisis.

If you are asking whether I am capable with a gun, the answer is I'm neither an expert nor a stranger. I don't shoot often, but I used to hit 8 clay pigeons out of 10 pretty regularly with a 12-gauge, and do all right with handguns. Much more importantly, I do not panic in crisis, I just go cold and make things happen. You would not want me pointing a gun at you.

If you're asking whether I have moral reservations against using guns on bad guys, I have none. Scumbags don't deserve that sort of consideration. Don't get me wrong, shooting is a last resort. I would certainly point it at them and tell them to fuck off first. Then comes the warning shot. If they're stupid enough to advance on me after that, it's going to cost them a kneecap.

I believe self-defense is legal in my area. Honestly, I don't care enough to find out. In that moment of crisis, I would have a very short list of concerns, and legality would not be on it. I have the right to protect myself by whatever means I deem necessary in the moment. That is not to say I have the right to use full automatic fire against someone who calls me a rude name. It is to say if I am in danger of serious and immediate physical harm I may shut down the attacker by whatever means I have to hand. As far as I'm concerned, no law can take away that right. (Yes, I know self-defense is illegal in many areas. I also know some of you think there is no such thing as justifiable violence. Spare me the counterarguments, please, I've heard them all before. )
 
Aug 1, 2010
2,768
0
0
gufftroad said:
Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
If there was only one, I'd put a round in their leg. If there was one, but basically unarmed, I'd threaten and he'd run. Multiple unarmed, put a round in the leg of one, threaten others, continue firing as necessary. Multiple armed, probably just try and get out after quietly calling 911.

Given I felt I could take my attackers, I would use force before avoiding anything.
Another thing I cant stand saying you should or even could shoot someone in the leg or arm. First of all I practice a lot, every weekend I put about 200 rounds down range with my handgun, which I use in competition and for home defense, I can hit about 2 inch groups at 25 meters. Now in action shoots I shoot about half as accurately and the only thing added is small movement and a timer. Imagine how much stress you are under being woken up, half asleep, and scared s***less because some one kicked in your door/window and tell me you have not only the presence of mind but also the ability to reliably hit a leg or arm. remember you are in your house so chances are this guy is less then a few yards away and can close that gap probably as fast as you could line up another shot for their leg/arm. I know I couldn't, I know most police couldn't hell most police officers only practice when they have to pass their qualifications that is why they are told to aim center mass and not for appendages because it isn't easy hitting a leg or arm.
But that's the point, I am in my house so the distance is incredibly short. I can make that shot. Regardless of how disoriented I was, I could absolutely hit a leg at 1 to 2 yards. If he was any further away, some buckshot would make aiming fairly easy.

If I didn't feel I could make said shot, center mass would be fine.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Headdrivehardscrew said:
Sorry, I need to get a bit more out of you to be able to wrap my head around it:

Are you saying that the act of breaking into somebody else's home with a self-service mindset going is pretty much a guaranteed win-win situation?

It's as if just putting up the effort to have a place to call home entitles other folks to invite themselves to it consider everything up for grabs. Does not compute.
Oh no, the perp still gets into trouble for it, but so do you if you use any sort of violence against them.

The point being; all forms of vigilantism are extremely frowned upon here.
OK.

Hmmm. So, knowing a bit or two about human nature, I must ask: Are your fellow citizens steadfastly marching on their way to become peace-loving Eloi, as in natural victims just opting for splendid ignorance and, at best, fatalism, or have perpetrators already started disappearing?

Or does your country (Oz?) have a thriving insurance industry?

Or are you still working on getting really, really good at pinning people down without causing them too much discomfort?

Yeah, I must apologize, I still don't get it.
 

Happiness Assassin

New member
Oct 11, 2012
773
0
0
Yes, you can, but the chances that it will ever improve a situation in anyway are lower than the chances that you will just hurt yourself. Many gun owners (like myself) underwent some kind of firearms safety course or have learned how to properly handle a gun, but often these weapons are handled by those who have no business operating a can opener, let alone a full loaded weapon.
 

Waffle_Man

New member
Oct 14, 2010
391
0
0
I don't know whether to laugh at or be terrified by the number of people talking about using a gun to non lethally neutralize a threat. Any situation that prompts the use of a fire arm should be immediate enough that you would not have the opportunity to aim for some sort of magical non lethal area. Of couse such an area doesn't exist, since bullets can also ricochet off of bone and cause remote trauma through hydrostatic shock. While it is true that small arms only yield a ten to twenty percent fatality rate so long as the victim can be given proper medical treatment, all uses of a firearm should be considered lethal and should be concerned with neutralizing the target as quickly as possible. Further more, aiming for a "non-lethal" area such as the the legs or the arms is a bad idea because it increases the likely hood of the round flying off somewhere and hitting someone that isn't the intended target. Therefore, always shoot for center mass.

On the the other hand, while it is both possible and advisable to attempt to use a firearm to non violently deal with a hostile individual, a weapon should only be produced when one intends to use it. If you pull a fire arm and don't have the ability to use it, you run a very high risk of someone taking your gun away and using it against you or someone else.

AlexanderPeregrine said:
This really should have been put somewhere near the start of the thread, but here's a video where police officers discuss the "stop the bad guy" situation and simulate it for a couple people of varying non-professional skill levels:

Oh boy, someone went and rustled my jimmies.

Ok, let's do a realistic simulation of what it's like to be in a active shooter situation. First, we're going to have the students engage a threat from a seated position, never mind the fact that this is something that most cops would have trouble doing. Second, since safety gear is trendy these days, we should give everyone the most cumbersome eye protection money can buy and introduce a threat before the student can orient themselves to it. Lastly, we'd better prepare for a worst case scenario, so the shooters will be informed of both the presence and location of the only armed individual in the room, and we will have them completely ignore the dense flow of students out of the room. Sounds legit.
 

A.A.K

New member
Mar 7, 2009
970
0
0
Hmmm..
How to answer this.

-Do I have the capability to fire a gun? Yes.
-Can a gun be used in a defensive (or counter-offensive depending on your perspective) fashion? Yes.
-Is it immediately practical for defense? Not unless you keep your gun with you, or the cabinet/safe/drawer is an an easy access area.
-Is it immediately practical legally? Not unless you're in America, Turkey or....Columbia/Honduras. Well, America's legal, every other place with a high violence rate just doesn't care all too much. But the law is easy to avoid so long as you have a bathtub, a sharp enough object, some garbage bags and matches....or, so I'm told.
-Would I do it if someone busted in? Nope. I'd either use my hands or my knives. I don't go ANYWHERE without at least 1 knife. Seriously, I sleep with it, I shit with it, I eat with it, knife never leaves my side.
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Giving everyone here guns would be an extremely bad idea. It would only lead to more gun violence, accidental shootings, guns falling into the wrong hands, etc.
This "solution" to home invasions would actually be worse, and end up with more deaths, than the problem it's trying to solve.
upon doing some research(read spending 10 min on google) i found 3 well reported home invasions in as many months in New Zealand as well as a total registered number of 230,000 gun owners and an estimated 1.1 million guns there are also a few machine gun collectors in New Zealand.

P.S. its funny that your police want to make toy guns more distinctive after sieging a house over one also why do they loose so much equippment
 

katsabas

New member
Apr 23, 2008
1,515
0
0
No, I can't. I would like to believe though that after 3 years of training, I have a chance with my fists, even against someone with a weapon.

Besides, I am not a very big fan of them.
 

Aaron Sylvester

New member
Jul 1, 2012
786
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Well, for whatever reason, home invasions are rare here (New Zealand). In a country of 4.5 million people, we get a home invasion, maybe once a year or so.

I can only assume that it's because guns are scarce here, and difficult to get your hands on.
Launching a home invasion with a knife, sword, machete, axe, etc, just takes too much effort.
Not having the ability to point a metal barrel at someone and pull the trigger (or threaten to pull the trigger) is apparently enough of a deterrent for most people to not bother trying to 'home invade'.

Giving everyone here guns would be an extremely bad idea. It would only lead to more gun violence, accidental shootings, guns falling into the wrong hands, etc.
This "solution" to home invasions would actually be worse, and end up with more deaths, than the problem it's trying to solve.
Seconded. Alright so NZ population is very low, but nevertheless it is an example of a place that is doing damn fine without people owning guns. Hunting is a popular sport here given all the lush forests we have here, but I would still say less than 1% of the population here own firearms - and probably 0.00001% of that 1% are stupid fuckin' nutters who feel they need a firearm to "defend" themselves.

The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.

Frankly I think USA is full of weapon fanatics who would happily plant landmines around their homes and store grenades in their dishwashers if it meant they could feel "safer", hahaha. I know gun fanatics aren't specific to any 1 country, but USA has to have by far the most lunatics I have seen when it comes to whoring weapons and making absurd excuses for why they should be able to own such dangerous things.
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
A Smooth Criminal said:
I can, however I prefer to use something lighter that's not only easier to aim with, but is also more capable of doing non fatal damage to my target, while also being more likely to just incapacitate them. Something like a pistol is a ***** to aim properly with and in my opinion, they're generally finnicky and not suited for the purpose of defending yourself.

I prefer something in my house like you know, a bat or a knife...

I've a pretty big dagger on display in my room, considering how the blade is curved, hooked and quite sharp I think that I can use that more effectively than I can use a pistol.
aiming a pistol is a simple procedure:
1. line up gun with dominate eye
2.put the front post so it is equidistant between the rear posts and in such a way you could draw a straight line across the top
3. put the top of the front post over what you want to hit
its better if you do this process with both eyes open creating the illusion of the gun being centered and also allowing you to judge distance better

Since when have pistols been finicky? I've seen a 1911 left in mud fire without being cleaned. The only jams I've experienced with pistols were with, a .22 that was factory new and hadn't been oiled yet and, when the follower in one of my magazines got cocked at a weird angle and caused the second to last round not to chamber correctly after i put roughly 2,000 rounds through it.
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
There's plenty of cases here in the UK where people have started grumbling because someone shot a burglar in their own home. It's legal to now though, so that's fun.

Therefore, in light of clear evidence in support of it, anyone who says it's impossible to defend yourself with a gun is obviously delusional.
 

gufftroad

New member
Sep 5, 2011
39
0
0
Aaron Sylvester said:
The government here has full control over our right to own firearms, and yet our nation hasn't turned to chaos/anarchy/tyranny.

Frankly I think USA is full of weapon fanatics who would happily plant landmines around their homes and store grenades in their dishwashers if it meant they could feel "safer", hahaha.
It is nice that you view us Americans in such a way. You need to remember our countries were formed in much different ways the United States was born in conflict. The first shot was fired in Lexington when the British tried to disarm them. although initially out numbered they held off three companies of British forces. Gun ownership is part of our heritage.

If i remember correctly New Zealand was only given representation because of rebellions in Canada and granted sovereignty some time in the early 1900s.

A Smooth Criminal said:
Great, and after all that you still only hit your exact target 1/10th of the time.

Don't know why you're arguing this... I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that pistols are made to be compact, not accurate.
I can damn well hit more then 1/10th of shots. in the action shoots I have to hit a six 6' wide targets that move 10 meters away i can usually do this in 7-8 shots I've done it a few times in 6 shots
 

Aaron Sylvester

New member
Jul 1, 2012
786
0
0
gufftroad said:
It is nice that you view us Americans in such a way. You need to remember our countries were formed in much different ways the United States was born in conflict. The first shot was fired in Lexington when the British tried to disarm them. although initially out numbered they held off three companies of British forces. Gun ownership is part of our heritage.

If i remember correctly New Zealand was only given representation because of rebellions in Canada and granted sovereignty some time in the early 1900s.
I don't view all Americans that way unless you're seriously implying that every single American is a paranoid shut-in who collects assault rifles in order to keep themselves safe. Just...quite a few people within the American population.
I consider a lot of you quite sane and reasonable, it's always the minority who make everyone else look bad right ^_^
For example it's the minority of psychotic murderers who make gun owners seem dangerous, and it's the minority of psychotic gun owners who make the normal people seem dangerous. Snowball it up and end result as far as the rest of the world is concerned is..."lol, stupid fuckin Americans."

I know your country is far older and has had a far more violent past compared to NZ, but I think it's time people put the past behind them and focus on the present/future. If Wiki is to be believed the "US Constitution" or whatever it's called was adopted in 1780-1790. Those guidelines were made for a completely different world and era, and it boggles my mind how people can still defend the 2nd amendment today.

This reminds me of that incident where an Aussie broke shot a guy for entering his backyard because he was of the indigenous population (aka Aborigine), and then he produced a 100-year-old license which legally allowed him to do that (back then shooting Aborigines was considered a sport)...some kind of loophole which completely slipped past the government.

I consider the 2nd amendment similar to that 100-year-old license...a remnant of the old past which may have seemed vaguely relevant back then, but makes fuck-all sense today.