In Britain, man afraid of retaliation can't use gun to stay safe...all he did was defend himself....

[Vagabond63]

Nice course! So the instructor intentionally introduced unrealistic parameters into the course in order to get you to fail. Sounds very political.

That's because you're a dumbass. Intelligent people understand the deck was unrealistically and needlessly stacked against you to make you make those errors. They must raise you Brits to be stupid, loyal subjects.

Thank you for your reply, the course was an eye opener indeed. It was run by representatives of a private security company that specialises in providing bodyguards and other private security functions for VIPs, most of the employees are either ex-special forces or paratroopers or Royal Marine Commandos. The idea of the run around was to artificially create an adrenaline rush and the shouting at us was designed to induce a level of distraction that would come from shouts and screams of nearby bystanders.

As any shooter will tell you, controlling your breathing and heart rate is important when trying to shoot with any degree of accuracy. Short of them shooting live ammunition at us, it was about as realistic as you could get in a simulation.

Interestingly, the gentleman who came top was himself a retired army officer who had seen action in the Falklands, and he only managed 8 bad guys and 3 innocent bystanders!

It stacks the deck in favor of a violent criminal, who has more experience with it.

Very good point which also makes my argument for me, thank you. Armed or not, a violent criminal will always have more “experience” than a normal “civilian” and be more likely to win in either a “shoot out” or a “punch up”. Very few average people have the skills of a Chuck Norris or a Steven Segal in either fire arms or unarmed combat.

I’ve no objection to people owning guns for recreation, but if they want to use them for “self defence” they should have extensive training and be certified accordingly; if only to avoid the number of innocent bystanders shot accidently by any budding “Rambos” who want to show how macho they are.

 

[evenflow1969]

Can;t believe they arrested him. Should have given him a medal and a gun permit. Just more bullshit from the criminal-loving pieces of shit in power.

There is a good chance you will be arrested here in that situation. This is why we have the saying "I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" Any time you deal with the courts or cops it has the potential to cost you a great deal of time and money. I believe this is the case no matter where you go on the planet! I would imagine there are several missing persons in the United States that home owners killed in this type of situation that said the hell with calling the cops and hid the bodies. Most people with a brain like to avoid cops and courts!

Sure, but with modern electronics, it's pretty hard to hide something like that. They could just check the last location of the man's cellphone and zero in on you.

They can do that to most not to me. I wire cell phone towers on the side, I understand how they work and how to trick them Further more cops are lazy, they are not as quick to follow thru on an investigation as they are on TV. I can clone the assailents phone and have him showing up according to cell phone towers in multiple places at one time. Assuming that the criminal was stupid enough to commit such a crime with it in his pocket. Criminals are lazy and stupid I must admit but most would be bright enough to leave the cell phone some where else if they were planning a home invasion. Further more they would have to be able to put a time on the death other wise I can drive the phone around changing his last known where abouts. They put a time on the death and you are screwed by the phone though. The good news is most of us will never worry about such a thing!

 

[bgrouse]

Nice course! So the instructor intentionally introduced unrealistic parameters into the course in order to get you to fail. Sounds very political.

That's because you're a dumbass. Intelligent people understand the deck was unrealistically and needlessly stacked against you to make you make those errors. They must raise you Brits to be stupid, loyal subjects.

Thank you for your reply, the course was an eye opener indeed. It was run by representatives of a private security company that specialises in providing bodyguards and other private security functions for VIPs, most of the employees are either ex-special forces or paratroopers or Royal Marine Commandos. The idea of the run around was to artificially create an adrenaline rush

Except what it actually did was "ran the participants ragged." Can't you think for yourself instead of taking their word for everything?

and the shouting at us was designed to induce a level of distraction that would come from shouts and screams of nearby bystanders.

As any shooter will tell you, controlling your breathing and heart rate is important when trying to shoot with any degree of accuracy. Short of them shooting live ammunition at us, it was about as realistic as you could get in a simulation.

Controlling your breathing? Only if you're dead tired and huffing and puffing or trying to hit a very small target with a scoped rifle.

Interestingly, the gentleman who came top was himself a retired army officer who had seen action in the Falklands, and he only managed 8 bad guys and 3 innocent bystanders!

8 bad guys? Most people I've seen want a gun to protect themselves at home mostly. Which is what happened: 1-2 bad guys and maybe you're wife is also in the house with you. If you're up against 8 people with guns or even knives, you're probably as good as dead anyway. That hardly ever happens though, so again, you were too dumb to see the scenario was stacked against you to make a political point. You must make a great British loyal subject!

It stacks the deck in favor of a violent criminal, who has more experience with it.

Very good point which also makes my argument for me, thank you. Armed or not,

Experience may help with a knife fight, but it won't do much against a bullet. With a gun, what's more important is knowledge of the area, so the homeowner wins that one.

a violent criminal will always have more “experience” than a normal “civilian” and be more likely to win in either a “shoot out” or a “punch up”. Very few average people have the skills of a Chuck Norris or a Steven Segal in either fire arms or unarmed combat.

You don't need to, but I'm sure your instructor told you otherwise and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

I’ve no objection to people owning guns for recreation, but if they want to use them for “self defence” they should have extensive training and be certified accordingly; if only to avoid the number of innocent bystanders shot accidently by any budding “Rambos” who want to show how macho they are.

Yeah, it was really important for the guy in the OP to deal with nonexistent bystanders!

 

[Vagabond63]

Except what it actually did was "ran the participants ragged." Can't you think for yourself instead of taking their word for everything?

Controlling your breathing? Only if you're dead tired and huffing and puffing or trying to hit a very small target with a scoped rifle.

8 bad guys? Most people I've seen want a gun to protect themselves at home mostly. Which is what happened: 1-2 bad guys and maybe you're wife is also in the house with you. If you're up against 8 people with guns or even knives, you're probably as good as dead anyway. That hardly ever happens though, so again, you were too dumb to see the scenario was stacked against you to make a political point. You must make a great British loyal subject!

“Ran the participants ragged” was my own turn of phrase and as I’ve already said most normal/average people aren’t fit enough or mentally prepared enough to deal with sudden stress levels caused by something like an attack on themselves or a loved one. I’d take the word of a trained experienced professional over a Hollywood film, any day of the week, thank you.

There was no politics involved in this. Remember this was a gun club event; all of us there were gun owners and experienced shooters. The idea was to give us a taste of what a “real life” experience of making split second life or death decisions was like, nothing more. To reiterate from my previous post:

The club I was a member of once organised a “bodyguard” course which included a simulator which ran you through 10 scenarios of dealing with the possibility of armed attack in a “real life situation”…

You clearly misunderstood. There were 10 individual video scenarios we had to deal with; each of which had an indeterminate number of potential assailants, some situations presented were in fact harmless but could potentially have been menacing; we had to make a split-second decision to shoot or not to shoot.

As for your home protection scenario, are you really telling me Americans wander around their homes with holstered, loaded guns constantly on their person, even when taking a bath?! How paranoid must these people be?

 

[evenflow1969]

Except what it actually did was "ran the participants ragged." Can't you think for yourself instead of taking their word for everything?

Controlling your breathing? Only if you're dead tired and huffing and puffing or trying to hit a very small target with a scoped rifle.

8 bad guys? Most people I've seen want a gun to protect themselves at home mostly. Which is what happened: 1-2 bad guys and maybe you're wife is also in the house with you. If you're up against 8 people with guns or even knives, you're probably as good as dead anyway. That hardly ever happens though, so again, you were too dumb to see the scenario was stacked against you to make a political point. You must make a great British loyal subject!

“Ran the participants ragged” was my own turn of phrase and as I’ve already said most normal/average people aren’t fit enough or mentally prepared enough to deal with sudden stress levels caused by something like an attack on themselves or a loved one. I’d take the word of a trained experienced professional over a Hollywood film, any day of the week, thank you.

There was no politics involved in this. Remember this was a gun club event; all of us there were gun owners and experienced shooters. The idea was to give us a taste of what a “real life” experience of making split second life or death decisions was like, nothing more. To reiterate from my previous post:

The club I was a member of once organised a “bodyguard” course which included a simulator which ran you through 10 scenarios of dealing with the possibility of armed attack in a “real life situation”…

You clearly misunderstood. There were 10 individual video scenarios we had to deal with; each of which had an indeterminate number of potential assailants, some situations presented were in fact harmless but could potentially have been menacing; we had to make a split-second decision to shoot or not to shoot.

As for your home protection scenario, are you really telling me Americans wander around their homes with holstered, loaded guns constantly on their person, even when taking a bath?! How paranoid must these people be?

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

 

[bgrouse]

Except what it actually did was "ran the participants ragged." Can't you think for yourself instead of taking their word for everything?

Controlling your breathing? Only if you're dead tired and huffing and puffing or trying to hit a very small target with a scoped rifle.

8 bad guys? Most people I've seen want a gun to protect themselves at home mostly. Which is what happened: 1-2 bad guys and maybe you're wife is also in the house with you. If you're up against 8 people with guns or even knives, you're probably as good as dead anyway. That hardly ever happens though, so again, you were too dumb to see the scenario was stacked against you to make a political point. You must make a great British loyal subject!

“Ran the participants ragged” was my own turn of phrase and as I’ve already said most normal/average people aren’t fit enough or mentally prepared enough to deal with sudden stress levels caused by something like an attack on themselves or a loved one. I’d take the word of a trained experienced professional over a Hollywood film, any day of the week, thank you.

Of course you will, given you're a mindless UK "subject" / robot. If you can't think for yourself, let someone else do it for you!

There was no politics involved in this. Remember this was a gun club event; all of us there were gun owners and experienced shooters. The idea was to give us a taste of what a “real life” experience of making split second life or death decisions was like, nothing more. To reiterate from my previous post:

The club I was a member of once organised a “bodyguard” course which included a simulator which ran you through 10 scenarios of dealing with the possibility of armed attack in a “real life situation”…

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

You clearly misunderstood. There were 10 individual video scenarios we had to deal with; each of which had an indeterminate number of potential assailants, some situations presented were in fact harmless but could potentially have been menacing; we had to make a split-second decision to shoot or not to shoot.

As for your home protection scenario, are you really telling me Americans wander around their homes with holstered, loaded guns constantly on their person, even when taking a bath?! How paranoid must these people be?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

 

[Vagabond63]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

 

[Pop23]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

WOW, that's an average of 688 people per year, although I've seen it as low as 505, but why quibble?

That leaves the odd's at between 1.55 per 300,000,000 and 1 per 150,000,000 on any given day of being killed by an accidental shooting!

Not that I want to cause a panic, but today you have a 1 in 2,043,750 of death from an automobile accident involving texting.

I dunno, neither data set will keep me awake at night.

 

[bgrouse]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

First of all, no. Secondly, a "bodyguard" wouldn't guard "property." That would be a security guard, maybe.

Bodyguards protect high risk (to be attacked) individuals in all sorts of places. With home defense, your first goal is to protect yourself, secondly your property. Many people don't even have families living with them.

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.

He supposedly shot and killed her through a closed door, meaning he didn't even need to see her to kill her. That's how well he knew his home.

Thanks for making my point for me, moron! Homeowner has the advantage.

· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

Given how few die from this and how doubtful your "training" is to be useful, no, it's not worth it.

 

[2aguy]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

Notice....as more Americans own and carry guns, our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up...

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html


2016 495
2015...489http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....486

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824


And some more truth for you...

There are close to 600 million guns in private hands in the U.S. and over 17 million people have permits to carry guns for self defense.....with all of those guns in private hands, how many gun accidental deaths in 2016...... 495.

How many car accidental deaths...and how do accidental gun deaths compare to other accidental deaths?

The Truth...from the CDC, WISQARS data site...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2016

Gun.....495

Car.......38,748

poisoning......58,335

falling.......34,673

suffocation...6,610

drowning......3,786

 

[2aguy]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

And this statistic you posted is a lie......Do you consider a 15 year old gang member who shoots another 15 year old gang member over drug territory a child in the real sense of the word?

The anti gun researchers always include 15-19 year old career criminals in their numbers...because if they don't, they get a much lower number......

From our Centers for Disease control.....

Actual gun murder of children.....14 and under....as more Americans now own and carry guns......

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016....
Murder with guns...kids, 238

<1.......11
1-4.......64
5-9......68
10-14....95


Other means........
<1-14
674

 

[2aguy]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

And more truth......cars are deadlier to our children than guns are...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261




Suffocation: 1,215

Drowning: 713

Poisoning: 84

Traffic: 1,261

Guns: 74

<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23

Under age drinking:

Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?

Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).

 

[2aguy]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

Actually, no.....this too is wrong...

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

 

[2aguy]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

And the thing is.......we have more guns than ever before in private hands....and more people actually carrying guns for self defense....and gun accidents among our children are going down, not up....

71 million children in the U.S.........600 million guns in private hands, over 17 million people carry guns for self defense.....how many children are killed in gun accidents?

And of those, you will find that the owners of those guns in the accidents, are more than likely criminals who are barred from buying, owning or carrying guns, and have them in their homes illegally....after being released from prison by democrats...

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:

2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261

The truth is, if you train children to leave guns alone, they are safer......but we have anti gun groups here in the states who fight against teaching our children gun safety.....

 

[2aguy]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

And what do we get from the ability to use guns for self defense, while Britain is seeing an increase in gun crime and violent crime, after banning and confiscating guns?

Remember....British gun crime is going up......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...



--------
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Not many run around with holsters but I know a few that have a gun in every room, Alot of us have dogs that make it pretty hard for people to sneak up on us!

Remarkable. Doesn’t having a dog or dogs provide you with enough “security”?

A bodyguard course is supposed to have what to do with typical home defense?

I would have though that was obvious to such an intelligent “free thinker” as yourself, but as you apparently require everything explaining to you in detail, the idea was to provide a simulated experience of dealing with actual or potential threats in various circumstances when the use of a fire arm against a fellow human being may prove necessary. The aim of the experience was to provide a “real life” simulation without actually having to defend yourself or a loved one for real.

Aren’t you as a “home defender” just a “bodyguard” for your family and property?

They don't have to, you idiot. They keep their guns nearby, like in a desk, and get them when they hear a noise at night. Homeowners know their homes better than anybody else and can easily figure out where a burglar is provided they have decent hearing.

Really, you mean just like Oscar Pistorius, who alleges he was awakened in the night by sounds he thought were burglars, shot and killed his girlfriend Riva Steenkamp, who had gone to the toilet? (the jury didn’t believe him as he was convicted of murder, but I was just illustrating, the fallacy of your argument) Here’s some interesting statistics for you, from: Examining Accidental Shooting Death Statistics.
· From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

· Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.

· Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

· A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

· In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.

· A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.

· A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.

I suspect most of the gun owners involved “keep their guns nearby, like in a desk…”

As I've said before, I'm not against private gun ownership, I think if you want to have a fire arm for "home Defence" you should be properly trained and certified; a small price to pay to avoid thousands of unneccessary child deaths, don't you think?

And how often do Americans use their guns for self defense....let's look at 17 studies that looked at that question...from both government and private research groups over a 42 year period...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....
Self defense with a gun:

 

[2aguy]

Yes, only 3% vs our 13%. Hence the difference in violent crime.

Not signifigant...

Here's the reason we have more crime....

We let any asshole who wants a gun have one.

No...we keep having crime because democrats keep letting violent criminals out of jail...they keep fighting to reduce sentences for violent criminals...that is why we have our crime rate...

 

[2aguy]

Interesting discussion, albeit a bit off track. Guns are a contentious issue in many countries, I agree. Before the post-Dunblane legislation, I used to own handguns, I’d shoot at a local club for recreation and found the concentration involved shooting at targets helped clear my mind, all in all, a relaxing hobby.

Occasionally I’d hire our club guns so I’ve experience in shooting just about everything from .22 to 44 Magnum (popularised in the “Dirty Harry” films of the time) and 10mm pistols.

I’d like to think I was a responsible gun user, as opposed to a “gun nut”, but I’m a firm believer that guns should not be widely or easily made available to the general public for “self-protection”.

Most “civilians” are unable to cope with the stresses involved in making life and death decisions involving fire arms, and that includes me. I was a good shot in my time, but it’s one thing shooting at targets on a range and completely another shooting in stressful situations.

The club I was a member of once organised a “bodyguard” course which included a simulator which ran you through 10 scenarios of dealing with the possibility of armed attack in a “real life situation”, first however, the instructors ran the participants ragged doing what is now trendily called high intensity training, while constantly screaming in our ears. When we were sufficiently out of breath and disorientated, we had to field strip our pistols, reassemble them load and cock the weapons, then deal with whatever series of “crises” we were presented with. To cut a long story short, in the 10 scenarios, I managed to “kill” 8 innocent bystanders, 1 hostage and 4 bad guys; and I ended up 3rd best in the group!

That experience taught me “gun-fighting” is best left to professionals.

Yes, without guns, people will turn to knives, clubs, rocks, etc. but it’s far more difficult to stab someone than it is to shoot them; you must get up close and personal with a knife or a rock, and if your opponent is similarly armed, that could be a disincentive to do so.

Interestingly the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania carried out a study of gunshot/stabbing trauma victims in 2014 and found that 33% of gunshot victims died, compared to only 7.7% of stabbing victims.

Personally, I’m happy, and feel much safer, living in a society where guns are tightly regulated, just my point of view, thank you for reading.

Why......should only the rich and powerful be able to protect themselves from violent criminals?

Do you understand how often normal Americans use their guns for self defense?

Here is the research.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 2.46 million each of those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....
Self defense with a gun:

 

[2aguy]

Interesting discussion, albeit a bit off track. Guns are a contentious issue in many countries, I agree. Before the post-Dunblane legislation, I used to own handguns, I’d shoot at a local club for recreation and found the concentration involved shooting at targets helped clear my mind, all in all, a relaxing hobby.

Occasionally I’d hire our club guns so I’ve experience in shooting just about everything from .22 to 44 Magnum (popularised in the “Dirty Harry” films of the time) and 10mm pistols.

I’d like to think I was a responsible gun user, as opposed to a “gun nut”, but I’m a firm believer that guns should not be widely or easily made available to the general public for “self-protection”.

Most “civilians” are unable to cope with the stresses involved in making life and death decisions involving fire arms, and that includes me. I was a good shot in my time, but it’s one thing shooting at targets on a range and completely another shooting in stressful situations.

The club I was a member of once organised a “bodyguard” course which included a simulator which ran you through 10 scenarios of dealing with the possibility of armed attack in a “real life situation”, first however, the instructors ran the participants ragged doing what is now trendily called high intensity training, while constantly screaming in our ears. When we were sufficiently out of breath and disorientated, we had to field strip our pistols, reassemble them load and cock the weapons, then deal with whatever series of “crises” we were presented with. To cut a long story short, in the 10 scenarios, I managed to “kill” 8 innocent bystanders, 1 hostage and 4 bad guys; and I ended up 3rd best in the group!

That experience taught me “gun-fighting” is best left to professionals.

Yes, without guns, people will turn to knives, clubs, rocks, etc. but it’s far more difficult to stab someone than it is to shoot them; you must get up close and personal with a knife or a rock, and if your opponent is similarly armed, that could be a disincentive to do so.

Interestingly the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania carried out a study of gunshot/stabbing trauma victims in 2014 and found that 33% of gunshot victims died, compared to only 7.7% of stabbing victims.

Personally, I’m happy, and feel much safer, living in a society where guns are tightly regulated, just my point of view, thank you for reading.

All good for you...but the woman who is being raped might not have your advantages in a knife fight....and guns are the best tool for a woman to use to stop a rape...and they don't have to be Navy SEALS or the British SAS....

Guns Effective Defense Against Rape


However, most recent studies with improved methodology are consistently showing that the more forceful the resistance, the lower the risk of a completed rape, with no increase in physical injury. Sarah Ullman's original research (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1998) and critical review of past studies (Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1997) are especially valuable in solidifying this conclusion.

I wish to single out one particular subtype of physical resistance: Use of a weapon, and especially a firearm, is statistically a woman's best means of resistance, greatly enhancing her odds of escaping both rape and injury, compared to any other strategy of physical or verbal resistance. This conclusion is drawn from four types of information.

First, a 1989 study (Furby, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) found that both male and female survey respondents judged a gun to be the most effective means that a potential rape victim could use to fend off the assault. Rape "experts" considered it a close second, after eye-gouging.

Second, raw data from the 1979-1985 installments of the Justice Department's annual National Crime Victim Survey show that when a woman resists a stranger rape with a gun, the probability of completion was 0.1 percent and of victim injury 0.0 percent, compared to 31 percent and 40 percent, respectively, for all stranger rapes (Kleck, Social Problems, 1990).

Third, a recent paper (Southwick, Journal of Criminal Justice, 2000) analyzed victim resistance to violent crimes generally, with robbery, aggravated assault and rape considered together. Women who resisted with a gun were 2.5 times more likely to escape without injury than those who did not resist and 4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who resisted with any means other than a gun. Similarly, their property losses in a robbery were reduced more than six-fold and almost three-fold, respectively, compared to the other categories of resistance strategy.

Fourth, we have two studies in the last 20 years that directly address the outcomes of women who resist attempted rape with a weapon. (Lizotte, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1986; Kleck, Social Problems, 1990.) The former concludes,"Further, women who resist rape with a gun or knife dramatically decrease their probability of completion." (Lizotte did not analyze victim injuries apart from the rape itself.) The latter concludes that "resistance with a gun or knife is the most effective form of resistance for preventing completion of a rape"; this is accomplished "without creating any significant additional risk of other injury."

The best conclusion from available scientific data, then, is when avoidance of rape has failed and one must choose between being raped and resisting, a woman's best option is to resist with a gun in her hands.

***********

 

[bgrouse]

Yes, only 3% vs our 13%. Hence the difference in violent crime.

Not signifigant...

Here's the reason we have more crime....

We let any asshole who wants a gun have one.

No...we keep having crime because democrats keep letting violent criminals out of jail...

You mean PEOPLE are at fault for their own actions? That goes against the liberal agenda which places all blame completely on:

1. Dead white men
2. Inanimate objects