The path to world peace

[Diogenes]

Some people carry concealed handguns, small ones, that can kill people, but not necessarily elephants, or cars and military equipment.
Why?
Well, MSimon said it right. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Without small arms that be surprised on an attacker, you would be dead before you could pull your long rifle or shotgun off the mantle.

This is a very weak argument, I think. AFAIK, you are required to keep your gun in a save place while at home anyway, no?
Some offices will not let you enter while you are wearing a concealed handgun (even if you are legally allowed to wear one) and IMHO that is their good right.. Since you are not allowed (again AFAIK) to leave the gun in the car either, you are in a bad situation. So wearing a rifle openly would get you arround this issue, no? I mean, since it is not concealed...

Especially if the criminal made a makeshift handgun/zip gun. Or presents a long distance threat over the phone with a 1000 yard capable long gun for under $200 which can snipe easily. Even, the K98 Mauser for $50 with a $50 scope could do the job from a typical sporting goods store.

I dont understand. How would a handgun be effective against a criminal that is sniping at you with a rifle from 1000 meters away?

You are mischaracterizing his argument.


Some years ago, there was a shooting in Texas at a Luby's restaurant. A woman was there who had a handgun in her purse, but she decided to leave it in her car. Her parents were shot and killed, but she survived. She said if she only had that gun with her in the restaurant, she could have saved her parents lives, and possibly the lives of other innocent people.

There are SEVERAL cases like this. The Virginia tech shooting is another example. Columbine is another.

There are cases where someone DID pull out a gun and kill a maniac shooter, but we don't hear much about those because the maniac didn't end up killing a dozen people. You see, it doesn't make the news when someone SUCCESSFULLY stops a killer.

In the NRA publication "American Rifleman" (monthly) there is a section (called "the Armed Citizen" where they detail all the cases of a person using a gun to prevent a crime. There's usually several cases every month, but you will seldom see any of it on the Network news because most of these events get FILTERED OUT by the typical liberal news people because they simply don't want people to hear any information that they disagree with.

[Skipjack]

Beyond keeping governmental tyranny at bay, (like that worked during the Civil War.) there may be another factor which the founders had in mind. The ready availability of men who knew how to handle and use firearms.

I completely agree with you on that. It is one reason why Austria has a Bundesheer and a Wehrpflicht simillar to the model in Switzerland. For once this military consists mostly of people that are just normal citizens with famiies and not mercenary soliders. That makes them harder to corrupt. The Wehrpflicht (mandatory military training and duty for every capable male) makes sure that a large part of the population knows how to handle a gun. It does make a lot of sense and I have always been a proponent of that.
I am very sure that this was what your founding fathers had in mind when they wrote this down. In the US, it also guaranteed that there would be a lot of people in the posession of firearms. When you dont have a professionally built war machine, like the US has now, this sort of militia is your best bet.

[Diogenes]

Contrary to what you may have heard, we don't have them in vending machines.

I did hear that somewhere, yeah

Carrying a shotgun or rifle conspicuously would not only be terribly awkwardquote]

Yeah and that is good so.
It does not allow thugs to carry guns arround just like that.

Most rifles are grossly overpowered for personal defense.

To quote Msimon " I like disproportionate response".

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.

All US handgun sales require a criminal background check.

That is not enough. They should also require a mental check (for the license to carry) and probably an intelligence test. A drug test should also be mandatory.

This from the guy who didn't like making people show a license when they buy alcohol.

I will point out, that Alcohol kills a lot more people than guns do.

[Skipjack]

You are mischaracterizing his argument.

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!

[Diogenes]

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.

I take it you haven't seen "Raiders of the Lost Ark" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLXdLgOybE

[Skipjack]

This from the guy who didn't like making people show a license when they buy alcohol.

They do have to proof that they are the right age and if they drive drunk (which is where alcohol usually kills people) they get their license taken, even put into prison (if they are repeated offenders), even if nobody got hurt. I think that this is enough. You were talking about private citizens checking some alcohol license at private parties. It seems out of place to me.

[MSimon]

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.

[Skipjack]

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?".

[Skipjack]

Did I mention that it is generally a good idea to limit the damage to the intended target if possible?

That sounds reasonable. Sounds very different from your previous posts where you favored "disproportionate response".

Rifles endanger those behind the intended (especially if those behind are covered by a wood frame building).

I already clarified in a previous post, that I falsly counted shotguns as rifles (was a language barrier thing).

[MSimon]

The question is, "what do most people have?".

Fear.

[Tom Ligon]

Diogenes,

I see we are pretty much on the same page. My father was both a National Guardsman prior to WWII, and a sport target shooter, mostly with members of his Guard unit. He trained me to shoot (and I've always much preferred rifles to pistols myself, with little use for shotguns). A short article will illustrate what having a trained crack shot civilians can mean in a crisis.

http://www.tomligon.com/FA111.pdf

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. The system works if the people do. The Columbine shooters obtained their weapons illegally.

As for the suicide bombers being cowards, true followers of Islam would probably agree, and add that they are also stupid. The coward label would come from killing women and children. The stupid label would come from killing Muslims, something that guarantees eternity in a particularly tough neighborhood in Hell. They killed hundreds, including a large number of Pakistanis, that day, a big reason Pakistan is fighting them.

[Skipjack]

Fear.

I meant "what class of weapon do most people have". It is always about a level playing field.

[Diogenes]

In my current state many establishments prohibit entry with guns, even the non-concealed kind.

This is also a state with a high level of gun ownership. People mostly use them for hunting, and don't have such a big need to drink their coffee with a revolver in their pants.

For personal defense, I like tasers. Cheap, concealable, regulations are laxer, not as likely to kill your kid, and sure to fry pacemakers (hands off, grandma!). They won't really help you overthrow the government, but neither will a handgun.

For you and Tom Ligon, are you aware that there are two companies (last I checked) working on a taser with a 300 meter range?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6014


http://hsvti.com/
http://www.xtremeads.com/


The concept is pretty simple. What isn't is how to defend against it. It looks like a great tyranny and/or criminal weapon.

Want to rob or rape? Zap em from a distance!

[Skipjack]

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.

[Skipjack]

Want to rob or rape? Zap em from a distance!

Well better zapped than shot, cut into pieces or strangled to death, no?