If you are going to keep something in the nightstand, your best bet is probably a snub .38 as its hard to grab the barrel.
That is why I prefer long blade weapons. Unless the perp is Rob Roy or wearing chainmaille gloves, he would severely regrett touching that blade. A heavy sabre is a scary weapon, it does not just kill your enemy, it butchers him. Sure fullfills the deterrend part too.
For indoors you don't want a sabre. Sabres are large, heavy cavalry weapons designed to be swung from the shoulder against targets on the ground. For close infighting, if you want a slashing weapon, you want something like the shorter cutlas, which was designed for use aboard ship where the confines prohibit long-reach weapons.
Still, always bad to bring a knife of any length to a gunfight. . .
Reducing the issue to that of home defense does however slant the playing field of the debate. When I lived in Portland Oregon, there were something like eleven bank robberies in town every week, and many times this number in robberies of gas stations and convenience stores. That number dropped fantastically (I don't remember the exact value but more than 90% IIRC) in the first week Portland began to issue concealed carry permits. It's not safe to rob a convenience store if anyone there might have a firearm.
The real issue is even broader than either of these, home defense and self-defense in public. The real issue ought to go back to the question of whether it is lawful to use lethal force in defense of private property. When it is not legal, the bad guys are going to be robbers. When it is legal to use lethal force in defense of private property, the bad guys are always severely restrained in their actions, and far fewer of them become a real threat.
Anyway, that's what the statistics say I've seen over the years but arguing without them is pretty pointless. Anti-gun folks will always just say "I don't believe you" which is all too tiresome for me.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Source: I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56, 1894
EXCELLENT source of Gun quotes from the Founders. Want to know what the founders thought about guns, government and criminals? Read their quotes! They Founders would nowadays be called "Right winged extremists."
TL wrote:Just yesterday, Virginia put into effect a law that permits people with concealed-carry permits (for which a specific background check is required) to wear them concealed in bars or restaurants.
I can see why. Spotting someone carrying a gun on the table next to you, can severely ruin your appetite.
Most people, including many Virginians mis-understand the law. What has been illegal has been to carry CONCEALED. It has long been legal to carry UNconcealed.
I was out with a group of about five other folks when we decided to get lunch at a Chinese restaurant. As we entered, one of the guys said, "This place has a liquer licence" and he and two others drew their pistols out of concealment, clipped them on their belts, and proceeded to enjoy their meal; all entirely legally.
Didn't seem to ruin my appetite or anyone elses at that restaurant.
I find the presence of weaponry on upstanding citizens to be reassuring.
To quote Msimon " I like disproportionate response".
Well yes. Did I mention that it is generally a good idea to limit the damage to the intended target if possible? One of the reasons the US is going for smaller more accurate explosive weapons. Why bomb a city if all you want is a building? Why bomb a building if all you want is a room? Why bomb a room if all you want is a person?
Rifles endanger those behind the intended (especially if those behind are covered by a wood frame building). Pistols less so.
Did you see that article about DARPA building guided sniper bullets?
I fully agree with what you said below and I never said that I would have doubted that. However, you do not really respond to my question. You are talking about a completely different example, not the example that David gave (with the guy shooting from 1000 meters away).
Also, had there been people (employees) armed with shotguns or rifles these situations could have been resolved just as well.
Most of the examples that you are listing here are also extreme and luckily rather unique and rare cases that were completely blown out or proportion by the media. Also the kids in colombine should not have had access to guns like they had in the first place. Their parents are equally guilty for handing them guns and not caring what they are up to. Irresponsible!
I admit I did not address your point further. I thought it was enough to point out that you and he were both on slightly different topics.
I take it you haven't seen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" ?
Your making the point that one has a gun, the other a sabre. I was talking about some more equal chances.
Of course that brings us back to the bigger weapon thing. So everybody has a 38 at home, well then the perps come armed with body armor and automatic guns. So what if everyone has an automatic too. Then they come with Uzis and so on.
There will always be someone with bigger guns (unless you are the president of the United States). So this sort of argument is pointless. The question is, "what do most people have?".
The probabilities are that I will have a better gun than any likely burglar. Even so, with enough warning, even a little gun can do the job. The advantage of a Gun over a sabre is that it requires much less effort for someone to become proficient enough with it.
Apart from that, I just thought it was an amusing scene to interject into the discussion at such an opportune time.
Well better zapped than shot, cut into pieces or strangled to death, no?
Yes, but for one thing. Making it easy to zap someone will make it far more desirable to do so. Count on the numbers of rapes and robberies going up should this weapon become commonplace.
Also, buy stock in companies manufacturing conductive clothing before ALL clothing companies start doing it.
That crazy shooter at Virginia Tech (my alma mater), had been diagnosed as dangerously nuts, and placed under medical care. This would have disqualified him from handgun ownership in Virginia, and the instant background check would have said so, had the people who diagnosed him reported it as they were supposed to. Evidently they didn't want to mess up his record.
Had there been a mandatory check by people that are required to report this, right before he got a gun license, this would have worked too.
The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons illegally.
Really? I thought they got them from their parents, if I remember correctly.
They bought them mail order from the internet. The cops went after the guy that sold them for not properly credentialing the buyers (kids).
I meant "what class of weapon do most people have". It is always about a level playing field.
Ah. So protecting your own life is now sport where everything has to be fair. When dealing with miscreants I do not believe in fair. I believe in the fighter pilot dictum: get on his tail and shoot him in the back.
Fair fights have referees. Real fights have the standing and the fallen. Forgetting "fair" improves your chances of being among the standing.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well better zapped than shot, cut into pieces or strangled to death, no?
I dunno. In the slaughter house I worked at we stunned the pigs with a bolt of electricity and then slit their throats. The throat slitting went much better if the animals were properly stunned. You really do not want the animal thrashing around while you take out a major artery. It can be rather hazardous.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Diogenes wrote:I would like to respond to some of the comments in this thread, but I cannot think of an inoffensive way to do it. :)
Don't let that stop you.
as long as retribution in the same way is allowed...
I wouldn't have it any other way. I miss the flame wars on usenet. You got your knuckles bloody there. But mostly flaming morons was too easy. I prefer the current more erudite crowd. I actually have to think some. Not so as you would notice though.
The highlight of my usenet career was when Hunter Thompson sent me an e-mail saying he liked my writing. He was probably being ironic.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Interesting question whether the right to bear arms still has any relevance to the idea of being able to overthrow a tyrannical government. When I first thought about this, my initial reaction was that against a modern Western government, especially something with the military power of the U.S. government, you would need a lot more than rifles and handguns, like:
1. Main battle tanks and armed infantry fighting vehicles (ie. Abrams and Bradleys)
2. Late-generation RPGs capable of taking out vehicles with reactive armor (like Chobham armor)
3. Late-generation man portable anti-air weapons and SAM batteries
4. Reinforced bunkers capable of withstanding hits by thermobaric weapons
5. Capability to hack into/intercept/disrupt secured, radiation-hardened military communications networks
Etc.
However, a lot of the weapons used by insurgents over the past few decades are just small arms and IEDs, with the occasional RPG etc. thrown into the mix. I wonder if the right to bear arms would facilitate an insurgency against a tyrannical regime?
Maybe that's what they had in mind all along - after all, in the War of Independence the U.S. didn't defeat Britain quickly but through a prolonged insurgency.
And that raises another question - against a tyrannical government willing to cause unlimited bloodshed, would an insurgency work? Insurgency causes us a lot of trouble right now because we want to kill as few people as possible.
