Are Guns Needed in Self-Defense? [Copperknickers vs |Sith|3|DarthWarman88] Commentary Thread

[Gelgoog]

Yea but with Better funding there could be better presence to prevent you needing to carry a weapon.

this is quite impossible. The simple fact is that you can not stop a crime until a law is broken. A cop could see someone in a ski mask with a crow bar walking down the street, and he can ask him questions. But unless a law has been broken a cop can do nothing.

Violent attacks in particular often last only a few minutes, sometimes the occur in seconds. Even if you have an emergency button that summoned the police to your exact location, they are still limited by the fact that we do not have star trek transporters, they have to move through traffic in a vehicle. Some areas of the US are so sparsely populated that increasing police presence ten fold would still mean that officers still might take a while to get there.

you also have the problem that officers often have very poor intelligence of what is going on when they arrive on scene. This can present many problems such as police officers waiting 40 minutes to enter a building in which a gunmen has been reported killing people because they need manpower to secure all the exits first. This could mean that cops arrive on scene and shoot a home owner six times after he has already detained the criminal and is on the phone with 911. The best person to have defend you is yourself because you have better situational awareness being at the scene of the incident first, so you are the best person to determine how to properly defend yourself.

As we said, cops are a deterrent and reactionary force. An assault/murder is usually over by the time their arrive on scene. Yes cops are needed to apprehend and the justice system is needed to prosecute, but neither of these things matter in the 30 seconds you have when someone pulls a knife on you. Even If you had a phone, you do not have time to call for help, you must react now.

Waiting for help to arrive is the absolute worst thing you can do in any survival situation. Having the tools to better help you survive is a very reasonable thing. A firearm being the best tool for my survival against an attacker means just that.

economically replacing firearms with police officers is impossible. Firearms are a positive force on the economy, while police officers are a drain on the economy paid through taxation. Just the yearly salary of one police officer can arm thousands of people. So no taking firearms out of the equation does not mean more funds for police officers because those funds used to buy firearms never belonged to the state in the first place.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

In a fight, the only thing that is cowardly, is leaving your friends behind. A lot of people would probably call my way of fighting as "cowardly", but when the day is over, chances are that I will sit in a rustic bar, drinking a nice pint of kilkenny thanks , while they would be fighting for their lives at the ER, or even worse yet.

Carrying a firearm isn't cowardice, it depends on when, and how you use it.

Plus when an school shooting happens by the way, especially at at college, it is OVER before anyone gets there from the SWAT teams or the Police departments.

[Gelgoog]

Plus when an school shooting happens by the way, especially at at college, it is OVER before anyone gets there from the SWAT teams or the Police departments.

yup, do not expect the police to show up like the cavalry and bust in a door as soon as they arrive on scene. When they are dealing with an armed gunmen, then secure the location and exits, then call in swat. This can often take 40 mins or more. Any gunmen worth his salt will run out of ammunition long before the cops storm in.

So hopefully if you are ever on campus when some mad gunmen goes down, you can only hope that some goes to their vehicle and grabs a weapon to stop it. Often times that can be off duty cops taking classes.

[SturmChurro]

Guns, are needed you should have made a poll.

[Ænema]

yup, do not expect the police to show up like the cavalry and bust in a door as soon as they arrive on scene. When they are dealing with an armed gunmen, then secure the location and exits, then call in swat. This can often take 40 mins or more. Any gunmen worth his salt will run out of ammunition long before the cops storm in.

So hopefully if you are ever on campus when some mad gunmen goes down, you can only hope that some goes to their vehicle and grabs a weapon to stop it. Often times that can be off duty cops taking classes.

Truth. I was a police exploere for a Dept in California, and when we rolled hot to a shooting scene or anything related to a gun, we staged, and made our plan of entry. Then when we have enough officers we go in and secured a perimeter. Depending on how the officers are trained and dept policy, patrol officers could contain a scene and organize for SWAT to come in. Most SWAT officers ride patrol and have their equipment with them for situations like this. So hopefully you have a few SWAT members on scene or rolling code to the incident.

But good points, people always expect the police to be like the old wild west sheriffs who meet the criminals face to face and do a duel or whatever, things have changed now. People just don't understand how modern policing works anymore, that's why you get so much criticism of police actions/protocol.

[Gelgoog]

Truth. I was a police exploere for a Dept in California, and when we rolled hot to a shooting scene or anything related to a gun, we staged, and made our plan of entry. Then when we have enough officers we go in and secured a perimeter. Depending on how the officers are trained and dept policy, patrol officers could contain a scene and organize for SWAT to come in. Most SWAT officers ride patrol and have their equipment with them for situations like this. So hopefully you have a few SWAT members on scene or rolling code to the incident.

But good points, people always expect the police to be like the old wild west sheriffs who meet the criminals face to face and do a duel or whatever, things have changed now. People just don't understand how modern policing works anymore, that's why you get so much criticism of police actions/protocol.

good post. Yes police officers have families too, and the reason they do not want to bust through an unsecured door all cowboy style is because at the end of the day they want to go home to their families as well. Unfortunately this means that valuable time is lost protecting officer safety first at your expense. This is why we say the cops will arrive to arrest the perp and take pictures of your dead body, but rarely will they get there in time to stop it in progress.

All of this is the reason why relying on police officers as your sole means of self defense is a horribly bad mistake to make. Now there are alot of things you can do to help yourself without resorting to carrying a firearm

Defensive mindset: much like defensive driving its just a means of keeping a heightened sense of situational awareness "aka be aware of your surroundings" and when your instincts kick up, take stock of where you are and where you exits are.

self defense training: If you have to engage someone, having some training and muscle memory will help you react instinctively and quickly.

tools: it can be something as simple as a flashlight in which you can blind your attackers sight with to distract him, or it can be a knife or gun. Anything that gives you an advantage should be utilized.

[Ænema]

Agree 100%. Unfortunately society has been accustom to having the police do the dirty work and then criticizing them for it after they're done. In fact if people exercises their 2nd Amendment gun crimes would less likely occur; assuming the people with the firearms are responsible and trained in defensive tactics. The police would be called out less likely and less in force (Assault rifles, SWAT) if people protected themselves with guns against criminals who want to screw with them. IE: If I'm walking down to the store and this idiot tries to rob me of my wallet and my cell-phone, I pull my gun on him, NOT shooting at him, but merely to scare the out of him and tell him to back the hell off. If I didn't have a gun the dude would of just robbed me and I would of had the police conduct an investigation wasting resources. I could of just holstered my weapon and continued on my business.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Truth. I was a police exploere for a Dept in California, and when we rolled hot to a shooting scene or anything related to a gun, we staged, and made our plan of entry. Then when we have enough officers we go in and secured a perimeter. Depending on how the officers are trained and dept policy, patrol officers could contain a scene and organize for SWAT to come in. Most SWAT officers ride patrol and have their equipment with them for situations like this. So hopefully you have a few SWAT members on scene or rolling code to the incident.

But good points, people always expect the police to be like the old wild west sheriffs who meet the criminals face to face and do a duel or whatever, things have changed now. People just don't understand how modern policing works anymore, that's why you get so much criticism of police actions/protocol.

Yup. Look at Columbine. By the time SWAT went in and reach the library, the gunmen were long gone. And Look at Virgina Tech, The Police busted in... 1 MINUTE after he killed himself according to eyewitnesses if I read correctly.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Assume victory, until your opponent returns, assume you have the field but your opponent made a tactical retreat.

[Ænema]

If they had brust in they would of been ineffective and unable to properly take down the gunmen. You have to remember they are nervious too about going into an environment where there is bullets flying over (Like a war zone) and most officers don't go threw that kind of situations every day while they're on patrol.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

COPPER! You're back!

Good luck with the latin test.

Now, to business...

Then what? What if i had a gatling gun embedded into my right arm? What if Obama made hundreds of genetically engineered Chuck Norrises to patrol the streets and behead anyone playing hip hop too loudly? What then? What if? What would happen if ...? etc.

Ah, my post on logical fallacies comes to fruition!

If you would, please familiarize yourself with the slippery slope fallacy.

Allowing guns for self defence =/= embedding gatling guns in people's arms, if that's what you're suggesting. To suggest that one will follow the other is rediculous.

Your argument is that if you are armed with a gun, you are safe from someone who is threatening you.

One of them, yup.

Can i really argue with that?

Nope.

Who is going to stand up to a guy pointing a 44. Magnum at them?

Nobody. That's kinda the point.

You're beginning to see the light!!!

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. PREPARE FOR ASSIMILATION.

9 times out of 10, if you are confronted by one or more people who intend(s) to injure you, you will be injured.

Unless...

YOU HAVE A GUN!!!

Crime is illegal (we can both agree on that at least ).

Poignant observation.

Self-defense is defense against physical harm, and the majority of the time, that harm will be unexpected.

Closer still! Come to the light, Copperknickers.

The purpose of firearms is that you only need about 5 seconds to prepare. Note, if you will, that 10 minutes of stretching exercises is not an option when your house is broken into at night.

Think about it - how many murders are the result of messed-up burglaries and gang-bangs, compared with other types of violent murder such as domestic, random, serial, revenge, hits? A minimal amount.

And what exactly are you trying to demonstrate?

Moreover, a gun is useful only in the cases of a known assailant, whom you assess as harmful before they assess you.

Assessment is a fairly simple process.

Person enters your house without invitation. Person advances despite warning. Person brandishes weapon.

= Person is a threat. You are in danger. Defend yourself.

The mind works at remarkably high speeds; this does not take long.

If a street gang approaches you, and that gang is not equipped with firearms, there are a large number of options to dealing with that.

Uh... no, there aren't.

Let's see...

You can... STAY and fight, or you can... run. That sounds like 2 options to me.

Now, if you run, you run an excellent probability of being overtaken. If you stay and fight with your fists, well... it's a matter of mathematics.

A firearm is a possible solution, but not a practical one, on balance.

Are you kidding? What could POSSIBLY be more practical?

Whatever your definition of practical, sir, I think the dictionary will differ with you on that point.

Therefore, the gun is not NEEDED, it is in essence a luxury.

That's true. Because all you NEED in life is oxygen, food, and water. Everything else is a luxury.

Come on. This is grasping at straws.

Although the title of the debate is 'needed,' you are simply playing with semantics, avoiding the issue, and obstructing logic with technicalities.

A better title would be "Are guns appropriate for self-defense?"

The same with a burglar, preventative beats combative every time.

So you suggest that I hire a private security staff or what?

I can't debate that, it is lower than the UK also, but then Switzerland is a very small country with a very high quality of life.

The causes of crime in general, notwithstanding the weapons used, are not equatable, therefore the comparison is rather invalid.

You have, once again, indirectly admitted that guns are not the issue in crime.

Just now, you have told us that ECONOMICS are a major contributor to crime. Well done! That's the kind of thinking we like.

So, you are telling me that it's not due to firearms, but due to economics. Exactly right. Now, let's take that insightful statement, and apply it.

If you do not associate low crime with guns, then why do you only associate high crime with guns?

Could it be bias? Prejudice? Stereotyping? GAAAAAAH!

(Say it isn't so...)

[trance]

Who is going to stand up to a guy pointing a 44. Magnum at them?

A female police officer in california did. The bullet damaged heart, spleen, and lunges to name a few, despite this she chased down the hostile, shot him to death and then managed to call for help before passing out. Later she died thrice at the hospital but was eventually able to survive the incident. Oh, the human body is capable of sustaining woefully large amounts of damage without shutting down, still some individuals die from shock after being shot in the arm. It's all about your mental preparedness.

Of course cops can't be there to protect you from an assault in progress, they're like previously said primarily reactionary. However, I will once again remind everyone that a firearm isn't your only way of effeciently defending you and yours from a possibly life threatening situation.

[Gelgoog]

However, I will once again remind everyone that a firearm isn't your only way of effeciently defending you and yours from a possibly life threatening situation.

Quite true. however when it comes to my personal safety and that of my family. I will take ever advantage possibly. When my life is on the line, the last thing I want is a fair fight. A firearm helps tip the balance in your favor, especially when dealing with multiple attackers.

[Viking Prince]

However, I will once again remind everyone that a firearm isn't your only way of effeciently defending you and yours from a possibly life threatening situation.

But options and altenatives do not preclude or dismiss the value and the utility of guns in self-defense. I do not believe anybody as claimed the absolute need for a weapon in all situations and at all times.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Quite true. however when it comes to my personal safety and that of my family. I will take ever advantage possibly. When my life is on the line, the last thing I want is a fair fight. A firearm helps tip the balance in your favor, especially when dealing with multiple attackers.

Agreed. Preventable measures don't always work and it been proven so.

[Theodotos I]

It is true, that if three men broke into my home, I could beat them off with a nightstick. However, I prefer my twelve-gauge. They're dead, brother. . .

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The shotgun DOUBLES as a nightstick.

[Copperknickers II]

COPPER! You're back!

Um... nice to see you to

Ah, my post on logical fallacies comes to fruition!

If you would, please familiarize yourself with the slippery slope fallacy.

I know about the Slippery Slope fallacy. The Slippery Slope is not a fallacy in itself however. The Slippery Slope is a time-honoured method of emphasis. It becomes a Fallacy only when there is no logical connection between the original and the example.

Allowing guns for self defence =/= embedding gatling guns in people's arms, if that's what you're suggesting. To suggest that one will follow the other is rediculous.

Are you familiar with the Inverted Stick fallacy?

And what exactly are you trying to demonstrate?

I have absolutely no idea. I think it was something along the lines that we are talking about a situation in which only 1 in 1000000 will find themselves in, which is not very productive when it has the side-effect of giving the general public free access to lethal weapons.

Assessment is a fairly simple process.

Person enters your house without invitation. Person advances despite warning. Person brandishes weapon.

= Person is a threat. You are in danger. Defend yourself.

The mind is a powerful thing, indeed, but don't forget that the other person has one as well. Unless you happen to be up against Stephen Hawking, chances are that the opponent is roughly equal to you in terms of brainpower. Plus, they will have a plan. Real attacks are not like those in the tv in which the villain spends 10 minutes explaining what he is going to do with you and a further 5 minutes of exchanging insults and bravado with you.

You can... STAY and fight, or you can... run. That sounds like 2 options to me.

Now, if you run, you run an excellent probability of being overtaken. If you stay and fight with your fists, well... it's a matter of mathematics.

Work out more then, and you won't be overtaken. That's Americans for you, always taking the easy route.

Although the title of the debate is 'needed,' you are simply playing with semantics, avoiding the issue, and obstructing logic with technicalities.

A better title would be "Are guns appropriate for self-defense?"

Needed has exactly the same connotations as appropriate in this context.

So you suggest that I hire a private security staff or what?

No.

You have, once again, indirectly admitted that guns are not the issue in crime.

Just now, you have told us that ECONOMICS are a major contributor to crime. Well done! That's the kind of thinking we like.

So, you are telling me that it's not due to firearms, but due to economics. Exactly right. Now, let's take that insightful statement, and apply it.

If you do not associate low crime with guns, then why do you only associate high crime with guns?

Lets skip economics and move on to science. In an experiment, you can only have one variable. That means in an investigation of gun crime, we have to have an invariable level of population, GDP, unemployment rates, drugs, historical and social problems, etc.

Could it be bias? Prejudice? Stereotyping? GAAAAAAH!

(Say it isn't so...)

Correlation does not = causation. Except when it does.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Hey, how was your latin test?

I know about the Slippery Slope fallacy. The Slippery Slope is not a fallacy in itself however. The Slippery Slope is a time-honoured method of emphasis. It becomes a Fallacy only when there is no logical connection between the original and the example.

You are right; the slippery slope CAN be true.

There is a difference between truth and validity. The slippery slope is not valid, because it is not always true.

Thus, if you wish to validate your claim of slippery slope, you must explain why it is reasonable to make that claim. You can't just say it; that is fallacious.

Are you familiar with the Inverted Stick fallacy?

Actually, I am not familiar with it by that term, and a quick google search yielded nothing termed "inverted stick fallacy."

which is not very productive when it has the side-effect of giving the general public free access to lethal weapons.

Only if giving the general public "free" access ot lethal weapons is a bad thing.

You are operating upon a multitude of presuppositions. This is one of them.

By this statement, you are using the argument that guns are bad to prove that guns are bad! That's circular reasoning.

If guns are bad to have, you must prove it, which you have not done. Nor, might I add, can you.

The best you've done is said, "Well... IT JUST MAKES SENSE!"

When the facts conflict with my intuition, I usually admit that I am wrong, and learn.

Because feelings don't trump facts.

Yet you yourself have admitted openly that you must resort to rhetoric, because you are UNABLE to defend your position with facts!

I am amazed that you are clinging to this debate after having admitted that the facts contradict you. Not only continuing, but going so far as attempting to overrule the definition of murder? I mean, how far is this going to go?

It was a valiant attempt, but really; you are not helping your standpoint any more.

Plus, they will have a plan.

All the more reason to be well-prepared, don't you agree?

Guns, my good man, guns.

That's Americans for you, always taking the easy route taking the EFFICIENT route.

I fixed your statement for you.

You seriously think it reasonable to avoid something because it WORKS? Really, this is unbelievable.

You've practically admitted that guns work better! They work better, and it is because of this that you would ban them?

You confuse common-sense and efficiency with laziness. I think you would have the military resort to the "good old days" of swords and spears!

Amazing. Simply amazing.

So you INTENTIONALLY want to make it HARDER to defend yourself??? When my LIFE is on the line, I'm going to stack the deck in my favor as much as possible! This isn't a GAME. It has nothing to do with laziness; it has everything to do with what I have at stake.

I will leave NOTHING to chance. The only reason that guns would not be reasonable for self-defense is IF THERE IS A LARGER POTENTIAL RISK THAN POTENTIAL REWARD.

And you have not and cannot prove or even effectively demonstrate that. There you go: end of debate.

I refuse to accept that I should gamble with my life to accommodate your rather twisted philosophy of "harder is better."

So, again I ask you:

Would your philosophy in this case be, "If it's not hard, it's not worth doing?"

A yes or no will suffice.

Needed has exactly the same connotations as appropriate in this context.

Good. Because that was the last shred of a technicality that could legitimize your position.

Guns are entirely appropriate for self-defence.

We have presented you with piles of facts, and even obliged you by countering your fanciful rhetoric, being that the anti-gun position is traditionally weak in the "facts" department.

No.

Good. Then I will buy myself a gun, thank you.

Lets skip economics and move on to science.

Yes, because economics also refute your position. Well, fine; let's explore the ways that SCIENCE refutes your position.

In an experiment, you can only have one variable. That means in an investigation of gun crime, we have to have an invariable level of population, GDP, unemployment rates, drugs, historical and social problems, etc.

Your point?

Denial that the real world varies? That seems like a strange position.

Correlation does not = causation. Except when it does.

Yup.

And lemme tell ya pal, you are FAR, FAR away from demonstrating that it does in this case.

You cannot logically expect anyone to accept the assertation that, because there have been cases where correlation DOES imply causation, that yours is one of those cases.

That is a thoroughly and absolutely disjointed conclusion.

[trance]

Most assaults are carried out by drug addicts and thugs, people who've flunked every oppurtunity of a better life by being lazy or just plain stupid. Coppernicks, I do believe you're overestimating the average criminals' intellectual capacity. It's not like these people sit at home, planning for a day or two on how they're gonna rob or hurt you, it's actions based on impulses. Unless you're being targetted by a professional hitman that is, but that is rare even in organized crime circles.