Firearms???

[Withers M.A.A.]

Very good points Don.

 

To answer the question about why robbers are more likely to use a gun in a robbery. Well the answer is simple. Most robbers fear that a store owner or worker will be carrying a firearm. You say if we take guns away from average citizens then robbers won't need guns. Well I believe it is because people fear store owners are carrying that more stores are NOT robbed. If criminals knew stores were not armed at all then it would be much easier to rob them.

 

My g/f's father was robbed years ago in his store and saved his life because he was carrying a firearm. So what you are saying he would have been better off being stabbed by the criminal than pulling his firearm and scaring the person and not being robbed? Hmmmm sounds like it was a good thing he was carrying.

[Iron Arahat]

1) Don Gwinn stated "Why do you suppose armed robbers choose to get away in cars and not on horseback? Shall we ban cars?"

 

2) Don Gwinn also stated "Why do you suppose armed robbers choose to get away in cars and not on horseback? Shall we ban cars?"

 

Points here:

 

1) A cars primary use and design is transportation, not a weapon. So the answer to your question is no.

 

2) Robber use cars over horses because of ease of access. There are more cars than horses especially in cities. It's a poor comparison, and a bad example.

 

Don Gwinn stated "4. Once you give it to him, how does that guarantee he won't stick you for fun, or to get rid of his witness, or because there's not enough money in your wallet (happened in Springfield last year. Guy said it was disrespectful.)

 

5. "The chance of fatal violence" and "escalation" are misleading terms. The chance of fatal violence is indeed 100% if I shoot the slug who is threatening to kill me. However, that is not a bad thing. The chance of fatal violence inflicted upon the innocent party is actually much less if you resist with a firearm than it is for any other form of resistance OR for cooperation."

 

4. Chances a guy is within range to stab you before you draw your weapon. One could argue, that you could see it coming and draw your weapon. One could also argue that you could also run at this point as well.

 

5. These terms are not misleading. A criminal in many cases will feel justified shooting you in a robbery, because you have a gun. Refer to any 7-eleven clerk that got shot for pulling a gun during a robbery.

 

6. Action beats reaction....precisley. You think that criminals wear name tags? Do they not want the element of surprise?

 

Don Gwinn stated "The knifers in Tueller's experiment were intent and focused on attacking first."

 

It leads to the term you call misleading "escalation". Why don't robbers kill people then take their money? I would guess they don't want a murder charge, and would rather just take your money, otherwise they would have just killed you.

 

Don Gwinn stated "Why do you suppose counter-terrorism teams use pistols instead of knives for CQB and entries? They spend most of their time inside Tueller's distance, so if a gun requires more than that to be the most effective weapon in the fight, why wouldn't these professionals switch? "

 

Thats a huge generalization, and there is alot more at play here. Tueller's is valid for one to one encounters, being robbed is probably not far off unless you walk around gun in hand. It's a poor example, trust me I'm trained for these things.

 

 

 

 

[ZR440]

The handguns that most robbers use is generally a low price piece of junk small caliber six shooter. They don't like the law abiding citizen who has a 10 shot .40 cal tucked away from view. That's why some state armed robbery rates have fallen. It's fear.

[Don Gwinn]

Of course Tueller's work is valid. It just doesn't say or imply what you keep saying it does. Ask anyone who read the report. Tueller did not conclude nor would he agree with a conclusion that you must keep a 22 foot distance to be effective against a knife. Never. Not once. He said that if you are within 21 feet of the threat, and are armed but are standing casually with the gun in holster, and if you wait for the threat to move before you begin the draw, THEN he will PROBABLY get the first shot in. That's all. Anything else is your bias and your assumptions, not Tueller's work.

 

It doesn't make a bit of difference what it was designed for. If you are ever attacked with a car or a kitchen knife, I hope you have a better defense than the hope that since it wasn't designed to be a weapon it won't kill you. You didn't ask me what it was "primarily designed to be." You asked what it IS. A car IS an "offensive weapon" if it is USED as an offensive weapon. Simple as that. If you don't believe me, I invite you to stand in front of your wife's car and tell her you want a divorce so that you and your mistress can sell the house and go to Cancun.

 

I can see it now. "Go ahead, punk, see if you can run me over with that pansy-ass truck! It wasn't designed primarily as an offensive weapon, you idiot! Joke's on you!"

 

Just don't do it while I'm standing next to you.

These terms are not misleading. A criminal in many cases will feel justified shooting you in a robbery, because you have a gun. Refer to any 7-eleven clerk that got shot for pulling a gun during a robbery.

 

With all due respect, you used the terms to mean something they DON'T mean in the FBI report. THAT is misleading. There is no other word for it. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it was an innocent error.

 

A criminal in many cases will feel justified shooting you (or stabbing you, or booting you to death, or running you over, or. . . .) no matter what you do. This is because HE'S A CRIMINAL. If he were a decent person, he wouldn't have a gun or a knife in your face in the first place. You are assuming you can trust such a person not to escalate the situation if you don't. Why would you make that assumption? He has already walked up to you, brought out a weapon and demanded money. You were just walking along minding your own business, so there's no way you provoked him or escalated the situation, and he still felt free to escalate.

 

And ten seconds after that happened, you want to trust him not to escalate again? You're afraid of provoking him? It's a little too late for that, mate!

Why don't robbers kill people then take their money?

Uh. . . they DO. They also take people's money and then kill them. Often they take their money while promising not to kill them, and then kill them. Before anyone asks, yes, kidnappers and rapists do the same thing, only they often try to convince the victim to go willingly to another location. If you go to that other location, you have very long odds of survival in any shape at all.

One could also argue that you could also run at this point as well.

Sure, you could. Most of the time that's a good solution. Sometimes it isn't. Personally, I'm fat. I'm tall and large, but I'm over 300 lbs. I have lost 20 lbs in the last few weeks, but I can't run away from most people and expect to get away. However, let's assume you can. In fact, let's assume you run a 4-minute mile. Fair enough?

 

Can you outrun that knifer while carrying your child? Can your child outrun him?

 

Can your grandparents outrun him?

 

Can your wife outrun him? (or husband)

 

How about my good friend Chris Morley, who has been mugged four times and stopped every one by displaying his handgun? Chris has MS and cannot walk without the aid of a cane, nor can he fight hand to hand and hope to win.

 

How about my TKD instructor, who is a 4th Dan black belt and veteran of many fights from his younger days, but also a paraplegic?

Action beats reaction....precisley. You think that criminals wear name tags? Do they not want the element of surprise?

 

You lost me on that second curve. What is the significance of name tags?

 

 

[Don Gwinn]

ZR440, what's it like up in Michigan nowadays? Lots of gun duels in the streets over parking spaces and fender benders? Does the blood running in the streets back up the sewers?

 

Arahat, I trust you at least as much as I trust anyone on the internet, but what things are you trained for? Dealing with muggers? Dynamic entries and counterterrorism? Mugging people?

 

 

[Mankr]

theres no if but about it, if america couldn't buy guns how they can it would be a better place.

 

my cousins how live in hollywood have everygun you can buy, they have guns in there car, under the seat, glovebox..

 

if criminals couldn't buy guns so easy, if you to go target shooting, shooting ranges should have the guns and hire them out and do suthin so they cant get on the streets

[Withers M.A.A.]

Mankr we're not talking about illegal guns here. We are talking about guns w hich are liscenced and legally obtained by law abiding citizens

[Iron Arahat]

Back to the 22 feet thing, I will post a video later that everyone may find intresting (I just need to find the space).

 

The criminals don't wear name tags (sarcasim). They want the element of surprise, they will pick an unsuspecting target. If they want to kill you, even if you have a gun, you will never be able to use it.

 

Withers stated "To answer the question about why robbers are more likely to use a gun in a robbery. Well the answer is simple. Most robbers fear that a store owner or worker will be carrying a firearm."

 

Exactly my point, so a criminal will use a gun, and be more likely to shoot a clerk under that presumtion. Also I'm sure criminals who just shoot people are mearly eliminating the risk of taking a chance of getting shot, and will get the first shot if not more by the element of surprise.

 

Airplanes in the US seem to be popular these days to kill people as well. Do we ban them. Well of course not. That would be silly right? It would ruin the American economy, and cause problems within America.

 

But what do we do to make the planes safer?

 

Using the argument that guns make places safer for the public, should allow the public to carry guns on a plane? Probably not, as it would make it easier for people to hijack a plane.

 

What has happened though is that there have been tighter controls put in place. Will it stop these things from happening? Probably not, there is always a way, but it will make things harder for a repeat of the events of September 11th to happen again. Do controls mean I can't fly, no. But I must do things in order to do so domestically now, carry ID, answer questions, security checks, body searches etc.

[Don Gwinn]

The criminals don't wear name tags (sarcasim). They want the element of surprise, they will pick an unsuspecting target. If they want to kill you, even if you have a gun, you will never be able to use it.

 

Ah, thank you for clarifying that. However, what you suggest is possible, not inevitable. They may make a mistake. They may miss. You may detect their intentions (that's where that awareness thing you brought up comes in.) If we assume that it's inevitable, and that they will inevitably manage to kill you, that is still not an argument against having the gun. If you are surprised and killed before you know you're under attack, a gun will not help, but not having the gun wouldn't have helped either! You'll still be just as dead. With the gun, you have that option for other situations.

Also I'm sure criminals who just shoot people are mearly eliminating the risk of taking a chance of getting shot, and will get the first shot if not more by the element of surprise.

 

I'm glad one of us is sure why criminals do what they do. Are you a criminal, or a psychic?

 

Personally I find it odd that you assume that even though these people are thugs, robbers, murderers and rapists, they only kill in self-defense. I assume that a violent criminal is ready to kill at any time until proven otherwise. I assume this because they are, in fact, violent criminals.

 

Were I fighting with you, I might assume that you don't want to kill me, because you have given me reason to believe that you are a decent and good person. But if someone has a knife on me and is demanding my money that would be a stupid assumption.

Using the argument that guns make places safer for the public, should allow the public to carry guns on a plane? Probably not, as it would make it easier for people to hijack a plane.

That would be exactly what I suggest doing. The problem at the current time is that not enough people carry even in CCW states to make it likely enough that there would be a large number in a small sample like an aircraft. What exactly is the argument against allowing a person with a CCW who carries legally almost everywhere she goes continue to carry on an airplane?

 

With enough numbers, how on Earth could it make it "easier" to hijack an airplane? On September 11th it took a few men per plane armed with nothing more formidable than box-cutters. Why? Because they were armed and determined, and the passengers were unarmed and disorganized. On the plane where the passengers got organized they managed a draw (not really desirable in this case, since a draw meant death for all.)

 

Let's say your worst nightmare comes true. A terrorist is able to get a CCW and thus boards a plane with his firearm. What will he do with it? He doesn't know if there are five more CCW carriers on that plane or 100. How will he defeat, for instance, 20 armed passengers? There would only be two ways terrorists could hijack the plane under those circumstances:

 

1. They get lucky and there happen to be no, or extremely few armed passengers, or

 

2. They somehow manage to sneak overwhelming numbers of terrorists on to the plane, say around 20-50 on a single plane.

 

How likely are those two scenarios?

What has happened though is that there have been tighter controls put in place. Will it stop these things from happening? Probably not,

I thought you were arguing FOR controls. I agree with your assessment, but I wonder why, having made it, you still advocate this process which is invasive, demeaning, expensive and (according to you) largely pointless.

 

By the way, I have never made the argument that "guns make public places safer." Guns don't make anything anything. They are not magic talismans which protect you.

 

However, one good person with one good gun can make a place safer than he could without the gun. The more good people have guns, the safer the place. This is why no one ever robs gun shows even though there are millions of dollars worth of valuable stuff displayed at even the small ones. Too many good guys with guns.

 

Shooting up a school, on the other hand, or an airplane, is no big deal. These are victim disarmament zones where a criminal can be reasonably sure no one will be able to fight back. The mistake that idiot at LAX made was pulling his killing spree at an El Al terminal. Probably this had more to do with hating Jews than any practical consideration, but had he targeted people less resolute than the Israelis, like at an American counter, he'd have had plenty of time to rampage while the National Guardsmen tried to find ammunition.

 

 

[Don Gwinn]

I think you should post that video as its own thread. It might be of much broader interest than just the topics in this thread. This is basically a political thread, but a lot of artists should probably see that type of film.