DangerAardvark
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2004
- 7,559
- 0
- 0
I wouldn't worry with carrying a knife.....a guy tried to rob a knife store here the other day and the owner blasted him with a pistol, so you can see that even the shop owner had no confidence in his own product.
Actually, I keep my doors locked because it's an easy preventative measure. Why wouldn't I lock them? It's not that the consequences are high, it's that the action is so easy that there's no point in taking a risk.
Carrying around a gun is not an easy preventative measure. I'd have to learn how to shoot it. I'd have to get the conceal carry permit. I'd have to actually purchase the gun. I'd have to carry around on me at all times. And then should the need arise to use the gun, what are the chances that the gun will help me at all? Certainly not 100%; if I'm being mugged/assaulted, chances are that they assumed I'd be carrying a gun and have already pulled out a gun of their own. Great, now if I reach for my gun I'll get shot. A lot of good all of that preparation did!
And how about if I do successfully use the gun? Awesome, now I go to trial and plead defense. Hopefully the jury believes me! Now I've spent a ton of money on a good defense lawyer, but of course there is simply no guarantee. But hey, at least I saved the $50 in my wallet, I stopped the mugger... after spending thousands on a lawyer and on the weapon and the permit.
And then there are the chances of your kid getting to the gun and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. It does not happen as often as assault/rape/mugging/etc., but accidents do occur. That sounds like a pretty big consequence.
It's all personal preference. To me, it sounds like I'd be risking a lot more and wasting a lot more time/energy by carrying.
But those statistics did not include rusty poisoned pocket knives! They also did not include swordfish! Clearly these are both better self-defense weapons.
Fireaxe
Only someone truly insane would attack fire with an axe. The criminal will realize this and leave you alone. It's even part of the hobo code
Only someone truly insane would attack fire with an axe. The criminal will realize this and leave you alone. It's even part of the hobo code
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
This stuff happens all the time in big cities. Just watch any national news channel and there's murders daily. This is the ones that actually do make the news, there's probably lot of incidents that don't get on the news since the body is dumped and they only find out about it a few weeks later and the killer is not caught.
But that said, big city = millions, so what are the odds of it happening to you? very slim. So not something to constantly worry about imo. Just be aware of your surroundings at all time and don't walk into what looks like could go bad. Though having a self defense plan for bad situations is not a bad idea. If the attacker just wants something like money then great, just give them their 20 and leave, but if they just want to kill you for fun of it, they probably already did it before you knew.
Not even REMOTELY true. There are only about 930 accidental deaths a year, and of course a slightly greater number of accidents that don't result in death (mortality from gunshot accidents is unfortunately very high). Let's call it a maximum of 5000 firearm accidents a year (to include those that go unreported, etc).
Meanwhile, there were 1,400,000 violent crimes in 2006. So you are about 300 times more likely to be a victim of crime than to be the victim of a firearm accident.
ConstipatedVigilante
Diamond Member
- Feb 22, 2006
- 7,670
- 1
- 0
I can't believe people are still arguing that it's better to be unprepared, no matter how unlikely an attack might be. Go cite statistics to the thug holding a gun in your face while he's telling you to hand over your wallet and keys.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Huh? That's the point I'm trying to make. Even in the extremely unlikely event that that happens - the thug has a gun to your head. you can give him your wallet with $20 in it, or you can reach for your gun and he can shoot you. I know I'd rather be dead than give some druggie $20.
ConstipatedVigilante
Diamond Member
- Feb 22, 2006
- 7,670
- 1
- 0
You could always shoot him in the leg as he runs away, then call the cops.
Edit: It may sound cowardly, but there are no "rules" when dealing with supreme douchebag thugs.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
A) Aren't most people taught that if you're shooting a gun, the intent is to kill?
B) Shooting a guy that's running away from you....ah....no rules? What about laws? What about when his family sues you because you shot a guy that was, at the time, causing you not threat? I'm not saying you wouldn't be justified in doing it, I'm saying it makes the ensuing legal battle a much bigger pain in the ass.
C) You also assume that he's just going to turn and run, not back away with his gun still pointing at you. You even further assume that in the process of robbing you, he doesn't take your gun from you anyway.
B) Shooting a guy that's running away from you....ah....no rules? What about laws? What about when his family sues you because you shot a guy that was, at the time, causing you not threat? I'm not saying you wouldn't be justified in doing it, I'm saying it makes the ensuing legal battle a much bigger pain in the ass.
C) You also assume that he's just going to turn and run, not back away with his gun still pointing at you. You even further assume that in the process of robbing you, he doesn't take your gun from you anyway.
In most states, you don't get one "soon." There's usually a background check involved, then some safety classes, then you take it. In some states, you have to have a certain # of range hours. A noob concealing a handgun is a bad idea, and not a decision to be made lightly, and the laws of most states reflect that.
Start by finding a local range that will let you rent, take a safety class, and see how comfortable you are. If so, proceed, if not, find a safer occupation.
I'm really not trying to flame or be an asshole or anything, but a CCW brings a certain level of responsibility with it. Make sure you're ready for that before doing it.
no one said the rest of the post wasn't relevant. It's a great post aside from the misinformation.
It is absolutely his personal choice to decide that those steps are too much.
For me, those steps are nothing compared to even the extremely remote possibility that my CHL will save my life or the lives of others.
Actually, there ARE rules. You can't even pull that crap in Texas. Please don't spread stupidity, we are trying to be informative.
A) If you are properly taught then the intent is to STOP. Whether you kill the person does not matter. There is a question on the Texas CHL test regarding this.
B) You are correct, and in fact he would not be legally justified depending on the situation. Definitely if he intentionally shot someone in the leg he would be charged with attempted murder. Again, this goes back to shooting to STOP. If you are shooting someone, you better be shooting at their center of mass.
C) true.
The background checks take less than two weeks usually. The classes take between 1 day and 1 week (when they're even required, not all states do). I've never seen a requirement for range hours outside those inherent in the required class.
He can have them. I'm still coming out ahead when you factor in cost of weapon + permit + ammo + training even if I have to change all of my locks (cheap by comparison) and change all of my credit card numbers (free).
Yes, having a gun reduces your likelihood of injury more than cooperation, but the calculated risk of simply owning a gun outweighs the risk of not carrying and getting mugged and then being injured/killed.
The best solution is to avoid dangerous situations. That will drop your likelihood of injury/death to almost nil.
Unless he checks you for a weapon. If he has a gun, chances are he'll try to find out if you have a gun, too. What then, hot shot? Now he has two guns and is twice as powerful!
Perhaps, but how many of those 1.4 million violent crimes are actually random events? I may not be reporting any numbers at all, but at least I'm not reporting misleading ones! Also, consider how many violent crimes are completely unpreventable even with a gun. If a man has a gun to your head, you're fucked and the gun in your holster isn't going to change that.
Over 80% of rape victims know their attackers, for instance. Many violent crimes are not random chance events like what we're considering. I'm not aware of how many random violent crimes occur, but I'm sure it's pretty comparable to number of firearm accidents
johnjohn320
Diamond Member
- Jan 9, 2001
- 7,572
- 2
- 76
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
In fact, in only 24% of all violent crimes is any weapon present. That means if you carry a gun you're going to be better armed than your attacker three-quarters of the time. Doesn't mean you can get it into play necessarily, but it does mean in the VAST majority of violent crimes you won't face a firearm.
74% of males robbed were robbed by a stranger, while 48% of females were.
57% of murders were committed by a stranger.
So we can roughly estimate that at least 700,000 violent crimes every year are committed at random/by a stranger, and that only 175,000 of them are armed (with even fewer being armed with a firearm). 900 accidents, 175,000 unarmed attacks by a total stranger. In other words, you're completely and totally wrong.
This is why people who don't study things seriously shouldn't form any sort of opinion about them...you simply don't have a damned clue what you're talking about.
edit: oh yeah, and btw about rape/sexual assault, against females it's actually 64% people they know, but for males it's 46% people they know. Yes, it's a higher percentage of intimates, but still a very large number of strangers.
You've completely missed the point. Robbery is only one type of violent crime. I think you require better reading comprehension.
This is why morons shouldn't form any sort of opinion... you simply don't have a damn clue what you're trying to argue about :roll:
Stating that 57% of murders were committed by a stranger and using that alone to claim that 50% of all violent crimes are random is idiocy.
edit: Clearly the numbers on rape vary considerably. Here are numerous conflicting sources, the percent I've included is the percentage of victims who knew their assailant
http://wellness.uwsp.edu/medin...teAcquaintanceRape.pdf (90%)
http://www.wcstx.com/friendrp.htm (80%)
http://www.cer.truthaboutrape.co.uk/3.html (97%)
http://www.rainn.org/statistics (73%)
If only 50% of rapes are random, there were 140k rapes reported in 2005 in the US; that's 70k of your 1.4 mill violent crimes that were definitely not random events, and the number is definitely higher than 50%.
You also have to remove all domestic violence from your number, as those are definitely NOT random. In 2004, there were more than 600k reported nonfatal domestic violence cases (fatal cases are only a few thousand). That's nearly half of your sample! You didn't even take any of this into account, making your post completely disingenuous.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 396
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter