DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Shooting suspect in custody after Charleston church massacre

I've been taught how to take a gun from an assailant, but it requires two things to make it work. First, the gunman has to be stupid enough to get close enough for you to get their gun. Second, he has to hesitate.

Typically for a person to take a gun from an assailant, the shooter has to be the type to stick the gun in your face, or within a person's reach. If the shooter's reflexes are faster, you lose.

I was responding to this line from Swish


Which I will apologize to him, because I took it as he thought he had a better chance in melee against a knife wielder than melee against a gun wielder. But after re-reading he meant in melee with a knife wielder, versus at range with a gun shooter.

Actually, the message I've tried to convey isn't that a billion Muslims should have their own press conference every time there is a terrorist incident, but that Muslims should be the most vocal group in denouncing terrorism because it is their religion that is being dragged through the mud because of it.

There is also a differentiation in the motive of the person. If a Christian gets drunk, wrecks his car and kills 2 people, that's a horrible thing, but it has really nothing to do with the fact that he's a Christian... now if a Christian blows up a Planned Parenthood and kills 2 people BECAUSE he thinks he's doing what a Christian should do, then I have a huge problem with that. It is really only when crime is committed in the name of the whole group, that I think that group should be the loudest in condemning it...

This guy committed his crime in the name of white people to start a race war.. so yes, I think white people should be leading the charge in condemning him, and for the most part, that's what's happening... other than the random political hacks trying to use it to make a point.

No problem, as I knew you were responding to swish. Just my 2 cents. I also have to give my two cents on guns v. knives.

Stab wounds and gunshot wounds tend to work the same. All you need from a stab wound in the abdomen or chest area is a 2 inch penetration. This puts the blade through the muscle and into the abdominal cavity, causing a leakage of bile or other internal fluids, which can cause a systemic infection. Our current medical technology is one thing that saves stab victims in our day and age.

I agree with Swish that I would rather face a knife wielder than a gun wielder, but the rate humans can take stab wounds depends on where they are stabbed. If you stab someone in their liver (about a hand's width over most men's belts on the center right) they will most likely go into shock and be incapacitated long before they die.

I think you miss the entire point about the difference between a knofe and gun.

Gun = fast and impersonal

Knife = slower, and the person has the chance to defend themselves.

j/c...

At some point, the gun owners are going to have to just face the facts, it's not about car deaths or stabbings or killing people with a shovel... we shoot each other at a rate 4 to 5x more often than most other developed countries.

At some point, the rights of people to live is going to trump the gun owners right to go get their jollies off by blasting their AR-15 at some inanimate objects or to pack heat so they can run down to Target for some groceries.....

At some point the anti-gunners are gonna have to face the facts,
You can't have our guns unless you arm yourselves and try to take them.

At some point, the anti-gun crowd is going to realize what happens to a populace that is unable to defend itself. If you wish to be an unarmed sitting duck for easy pickings either by an assailant or our government, you have the choice to do so. Getting rid of legal gun ownership does not get rid of illegal guns.

And the gun crowd will never realize they're being played a fiddle by the NRA. All this scaremongering about "OBAMA WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS!" does nothing but put more money in the pockets of the NRA and gun companies. It's sad barely anyone realizes that fact.

the only "easy pickings" i see from governments in developed countries with unarmed populations is in communist countries.

i don't see rampant, over even consistent, or better yet, sporadic instances of government assaulting the population in developed countries.

if you can provide links to an instance in Western Europe where the government straight up opens fire and abuse their population with soldiers every month, in recent times, that will be great.

What gun crowd would this be? I'm a member of the NRA, I pay them $25 a year and I wait until the Wanemachers Gun Show here in Tulsa (Worlds largest) and $10 of that is for my entry into the show. So I'm really giving the NRA $15 a year. I even get the American Rifleman magazine for my $15, which I enjoy since I love rifles.

So I'm being played like a fiddle for $15 a year?

I'm not a NRA member. I read a bunch of history. Hitler banned guns. Guns were banned in Tombstone, AZ. The British used to confiscate guns. There are many more examples of abuse by governments after banning guns. Have you checked to see who in the DNC owns stock in gun companies? They way they've been going after guns and the results of higher purchasing afterwards, I would figure Obama as a major shareholder.

yes, because maybe there's a guy only paying 10 a year. they got you bro.

in all seriousness, like i said before, i own weapons.

but i've said this over and over again, people are making BS excuses to justify their guns.

if people would just be like "it's my right. it's legal, i like guns" then at the end of the day, nobody can really say anything. i would simply want some more safety regulations imposed on weapons, like mandatory safes that way less illegal weapons ends up on the streets,

but once people start with the "Cars kill people" and "knives lol shank shank" thats when the debate starts getting ridiculous, IMO.

i've been around people who claim it's for defense. and i've seen them shoot. i must say, i'm more in danger of getting shot by them than the criminal they trying to aim it at.

combine that with most people don't have the balls to shoot weapons at an actual person, and who NEVER done it before, the arguments get even more stupid.

i've shot people. i've been shot at. trust me, i rather get attacked with a knife.

You really think we don't understand that the greatest gun salesman of the modern age is Barack Obama?

You think we don't know that we have stuffed the coffers of our Second Amendment Defenders, the NRA!

This is a time of celebration for gun owners and the gun rights people! We are a Nation, armed to the teeth against
all enemies, foreign and Domestic! A Nation of Men, armed and practiced, against any threat we may face to our families and our Rights!
We feel safer than at any time in our lives for we are in charge of our own safety and our own lives!

Anyone who wants to take our Rights or hurt us or our loved ones? Come git some!

i read this with the thought of the confederate flag flying in the background.

redneck voice **my rightsss!!!!!***

I don't know. I've seen some scary individuals at the range at times. Actually packed up and left once, because the guy a couple lanes down scared the crap out of me with the mishandling of his loaded weapon.
Never seen the staff move so fast when I told them and pointed to the monitor and they saw the guy just swinging his firearm around like it was a laser pointer.

Don't be a Bigot now, I stood next to many Black and Hispanic Brothers at the recent National Gun Show and we were all shedding cash for safety and security! Rednecks were there too! We discussed
bang for the buck and knockdown power!

And that point is fine to make it's just the generalizations of "gun crowd" I object to. There are some weirdo's in every group but the vast majority tend to be just normal every day Joe's who enjoy participating in whatever it is their particular group does.

I love to shoot, I'm a target shooter. My vintage WWI Springfield 1903 is an amazing shooter from 400 yards. It'll shoot much farther but my range only goes to 400 yards. I don't hunt, the grocery store has meat, for me it's pure sport.

Once I get my hands on an 1878 Lyman Sharps 45-70 with a tang mounted sight then I'll be in shooters heaven.

pics or it didn't happen.

which is why i would support legislation that makes it a requirement to go through a gun course to learn proper weapon handling and storage.

Most of us settled for the S&W 500...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=afc_1414624005

J/C

I'm talking about those who buy into the "Obama is taking your guns" chain emails. Support the NRA if you wish, but they help drive the fear mongering about boogeyman gun laws.

Here's the latest one I can find.
Belarus

Yes, it's much harder to find in Western countries, as Western countries have a well established version of freedom. Most of them have laws to protect the individual. As you have provided, those in countries without guns are held under the boot of the oppressors.

As for guns, it's my right and it's my duty to be armed to protect me, my family, and if needed, my country. The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent abuses by the government, and to have a quickly mobilized army, the militia, if needed. We were not originally intended to have a standing army, so the militia would have responded if called.

I would also add one other thing. The founders saw how standing armies were used as tools of oppression throughout history, and did not want a huge standing army in times of peace. Jefferson, in fact, did not want a standing army in peacetime at all.

you're right that i'm right, especially since belarus isn't western europe and is controlled by russia.

Both groups will need to face the facts, you can't just ban guns and be done with it. Crack is banned, but people are still distributing it at alarming rates. Banning guns will only make it harder for the civil folks to protect themselves/families. There's more involved than just "taking away" or "letting people keep" their firearms, but that's the first topic everyone jumps on.

Jmo

So that's why (compared to the US):

* you are 44x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in the UK
* 23x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in the Netherlands
* 17x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in Spain
* 3.5x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in France
* 8.3x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in Italy
* 8.6x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in Germany
* 3.0x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in Croatia --- which just had a freaking civil war 20 years ago, do you not think there were a lot of illegal guns floating around the paramilitaries?
* 6.0x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in Portugal
* 7.8x less likely to die of a gunshot wound in Sweden


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#cite_note-55

I think it's fair to argue that the 2nd amendment allows gun ownership, it's fair to argue that the right to have a gun outweighs the safety benefits of not having guns.


But it's freaking stupid and factually incorrect to argue that more gunownership saves lives. It's never been true, it never will be true - how deluded do you have to be to argue this?

Well said my friend. When 20+% of the population says we don't care what your laws say, about any subject, is it really illegal after all? NOT!

Sadly, it is this cavalier cowboy attitude that will probably some day lead to just that happening.

jc

Maybe someday there can be a gun discussion that doesn't focus on all or none.

What are the overall deaths from violence?

Have you ever taken a good look at gun crime rates in areas that have all but banned guns? Chicago is a good example that comes to mind, along with DC. I would also ask you to go over that list on Wiki again, as you will notice the most gun crime currently on the planet is from South America, our neighbor to the south.

Here's some gun stats that will be ignored by those that don't like guns. I bolded a part of it for you, Swish.

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

Tell that to all of the industrialized nations that kill each other 1/10th as much as we do. I'm sure the people in Switzerland, Finland, UK, and Japan can't even sleep at night wondering when the gestapo is coming to take them away because they don't have a 9mm in the drawer.. if only they had one, then they could stop them.

This irrational fear that the minute you are without your handgun, Adolf is coming for you is just that.... irrational.

Gun owners will continue to lose more and more support with the passing of each one of these events due to their own unwillingness to reach any kind of compromise...

That cavalier cowboy attitude has brought this Nation a long way over the last couple hundred years. Libs wanted to appease the Nazi's and the Soviets but we ignored them and crushed our opponents. Now they want to tell us what to eat and what to drink and limit our Rights to defend ourselves from those who don't obey the laws. Guns have never been the problem, Libs are.

That's a pretty irrelevant example when you can be outside of that restriction in a 20 minute drive and then go back in... thereby constantly fueling the supply and demand. Broaden the area, broaden the effectiveness.


If you came after me with a tank, it would help if I had my own tank or an RPG... but if neither of us had a tank, the odds that people would die go down significantly.

I will be labeled as an anti-gun person but I'm really not. Heck I took my wife to the range for Mother's Day and let her shoot her first 9mm... I'm a common sense person and if people don't have any, then expect it to be legislated for them.

It is pleasing to hear you talk of compromise since the conversation years ago was banning.
Win for my side.
However, We The People are not willing to compromise on our gun rights yet.

had me wondering what happened, because I knew you weren't anti-gun in previous threads.

As someone stated above, we won't have all guns or no guns, we have to find a way to meet in the middle. They will NEVER collect all guns currently in circulation, no matter what laws they pass. And the ratio of people with ill-intent being armed to those armed for defense will tilt highly in the favor of the bad.

As soon as you can assure that no one owns guns, that being the police, populace, criminals, government, other governments, I will gladly give up mine.

Actually, they don't lose support. You need to recheck your numbers. I don't have to compromise, as I have the words, "Shall not be infringed" on my side.

I will still hide one in the attic.