An Alternative to Guns

  • Thread starter Dagenais
  • Start date
  • #51
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
If an intruder is unarmed, and you use deadly force against them, yes, you are the one who might face the charges. Self-defense as a defense only allows you to use comparable force against someone...if they hit you with their hand, you can't use a baseball bat to hit back. And if the gun you used is unregistered, you're in an even bigger heap of trouble. At least in the U.S. Some of you are talking about Canadian laws I suspect, and I don't know what those are.

As for the sexual assault example, any sort of weapon or tool for self defense is useless if it's in your purse. Quickest thing is for the criminal to just snatch the purse away and get it completly out of the picture. And even if they don't do that, do you think they are going to wait while you fumble through your purse trying to find that can of mace? When I lived in an area with a high crime rate, I carried a small knife in my pocket and walked with my hand in that pocket. Chose a small one because it wouldn't be deadly (I wasn't going to stop someone with a gun by using a knife) and that way it wouldn't kill me if I had it turned against me, the point was just to injure the attacker enough so they couldn't chase me while I was running away. I always figured if I needed to use it, I'd aim low...most men's natural response is to protect their crotch when a woman aims low, and I'd let them deflect my hand right toward the femoral...or at least do a good number on their quadriceps. If that didn't work, then I was taught to just wait for the right timing...at some point he has to take his hands off you just long enough to undo his fly if rape is his intent, so that's when you get away.

I was also taught a really easy move that even a small person could use against a large person, but the problem was that while it would let you pin them in place, you weren't going anywhere yourself either.

A cop once told me that most people who carry mace have no idea how to use it and often wind up being the one it is used against. Either they don't know how to operate it at all or they point it the wrong way or the attacker gets it out of their hand and sprays them with it. He suggested practicing hitting a target on a tree with it to make sure you know how to use it.

With guns, the moment you hesitate, you're dead. Most law-abiding people hesitate, and the criminal won't.

*Oh, one other thing a cop told me...there's no single answer to every self-defense situation. Sometimes you just have to use your instincts and hope they are right. Some people will brandish a weapon, but are scared to death to actually use it, others will fire at the slightest flinch. All sort of things have worked to thwart sexual assaults, from the basics of just fighting back, to someone who rolled up in a ball and wouldn't budge, to someone who just didn't fight at all, or one woman who told the attacker she had her period and he stopped cold.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
1,414
5
Dagenais said:
It depends on where you get shot. Stop making idiotic assumptions. If you get shot in the leg, you'll be wounded badly but you won't die. You'll much more likely die from a head shot from a small handgun.

A shotgun held at my shoulder is not going to shoot the guy in leg.

Dagenais said:
Also, you're changing your question. You didn't say anything about a shotgun, you simply stated a gun. Nothing about shotguns.

Shotgun has been the only weapon we've been discussing.

Dagenais said:
An intelligent criminal would more likely just sneak into your house and take your stuff. An experienced robber is bound to be more stealthy than you as you come stomping down the stairs making 'intimidating' sounds with your shotgun.

I know the layout of my house, and which floor boards creak and which ones don't. The idea isn't to scare him from one side of the house, its to get into the same room, and then alert him to the presence of the shotgun. At that range, he's dead, even if he manages to get a shot off in the dark in an unfamiliar setting.

Dagenais said:
You seem to believe that your gun will make your house a safer place, and robbers will always avoid your house because they somehow know, you have a gun in there. You're so paranoid, you even believe that they'll let you find your gun, and let you shoot them.

I would be smart enough to know where the gun is, so as to not ahve to find it.

Dagenais said:
You haven't demonstrated that, unless you own that special flash light, and have aimed it at yourself. The other person who mentioned that didn't even read the descriptions.

Sorry blinding someone is not incapacitating them. you're the one raving about the competence of the house burglar, not us.

Dagenais said:
Gun use, never promotes piece.

The ironing is delicious.


is it even legal to own a glock in the US? I ask because, unless i'm confused, they're ceramic, not metal, and thus the gun itself would not be seen by a metal detector.

Dagenais said:
Actually, this is sort of an example of where a robber sues because his fellow crook was shot dead. Make sure to kill all of them.

This is why i hate democrats, they support these kinds of people. Morality be damned in america.


Dagenais said:
This isn't a contest. The question at hand was whether or not an OpenBSD virus existed. People at that thread agreed that they did, and so did the Admin at OpenBSD forums. Therefore they exist - period. What else is there for you to deny? They exist, contrary to your own claims.

Truth isn't democratic, cretin.


Dagenais said:
Yes, it is, since he put thought into it as opposed to typing it out for the sake of argument.

The horror! The horror! O most horrible truth.
 
  • #53
Eh
718
1
Dagenais said:
It depends on where you get shot. Stop making idiotic assumptions. If you get shot in the leg, you'll be wounded badly but you won't die. You'll much more likely die from a head shot from a small handgun.
When you point a shotgun at another individual, you're not going to hit them in the leg. All you need to do is point, and you're going to hit your target. That's hardly an idiotic assumption. As I said, that ease of use is the reason shotguns are (justifiably) the most popular choice of self defense weapons.
Also, you're changing your question. You didn't say anything about a shotgun, you simply stated a gun. Nothing about shotguns.
I've been talking about shotguns here. I wouldn't argue a handgun or rifle is a good weapon for self/home defense. They simply do not have the advantages of a shotgun.
More reason to kill you first. Then loot your house. Is the criminal going to wait for you to get out of bed so you can fetch a shotgun, and you can have a good old shootout?
Since it only takes a few seconds to grab a shotgun, this all depends on how fast you hear the intruder and their intentions.

But I believe we are drifting from the point here. You have posted a glorified flashlight as an alternative to a firearm. That means something that could replace a deadly weapon. In any situation where your life is threatened by an introducer/attacker, would you rather be equipped with a shotgun or some light? It's rather simple and ultimately comes down to that.
You seem to believe that your gun will make your house a safer place, and robbers will always avoid your house because they somehow know, you have a gun in there. You're so paranoid, you even believe that they'll let you find your gun, and let you shoot them.
Actually, there's been no argument from me about how safe keeping a gun in your house will make you. Now you're the one making assumptions. Personally, I don't keep a loaded firearm at home, and I doubt I'll have a need for it. But I am arguing that a shotgun is an effective weapon to have in an encounter. More importantly, it is a much more practical weapon to have than a glorified flashlight as far as being able to defend yourself.
You haven't demonstrated that, unless you own that special flash light, and have aimed it at yourself. The other person who mentioned that didn't even read the descriptions. [/quote]
Actually, I've shown that pointing a light at someone is not going to prevent them from firing at you. A shotgun hit will. Case closed.
Obviously, you don't get the different types of light and the different types of power. Is the light from the sun silly? How about the blinding light from those small laser pens? Natural light can be dangerous,
Sure, against an unarmed opponent. Up against an armed criminal, who do you think will win?
You're on a physics forum, time to stop making dumb comments about light, electromagnetic radiation, and rays. Light can be used for many purposed and is hardly "silly" like you claim.
The only thing silly is the claim that this light could be an alternative to a firearm. Indeed, one would have to be quite silly to assume anyone could defend themselves against any attacker armed with a gun.

Now then, stop making assumptions about me and stick to the point.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
271
4
The best your cheerleader could say -- and you really seem to like him

Completely irrelevant and flame bait. Oh wait, now I sound like you.

By the way, I didn't see anyone else supporting you in that thread.

DDuardo cleaned up the thread dimwit.

"Pushing buttons" - in short, if you're right, he'll seek revenge.


As for the sexual assault example, any sort of weapon or tool for self defense is useless if it's in your purse.

Finally someone with common sense! And why would it even be visible in her purse? Worst scenario ever.

so they couldn't chase me while I was running away.

According to a special from Oprah, if you run away, especially in a zig zag, chances are less than 10% that you'll be shot.

Shotgun has been the only weapon we've been discussing.

No, this whole thread in general is about Guns.

I would be smart enough to know where the gun is, so as to not ahve to find it.

Is it right next to your bed, with the safety off, and loaded? And if you say yes, it's even more of a consistent danger to your family than any "high teenager" looking for stereos, in which you claim you'll shoot if they don't follow your instructions. Note: They're high
With guns, the moment you hesitate, you're dead. Most law-abiding people hesitate, and the criminal won't.

I already mentioned this. Just the thought about putting lead through a human will make a lot of people hesitate. These criminals deal with "tough guys" who think they can defend their home with their gun collection, and pointing a gun at them will provoke them.
 
  • #55
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
36
Dagenais said:
DDuardo cleaned up the thread dimwit.
No, he didn't. He can only soft-delete posts, and I can read all soft-deleted posts. Good try though, dimwit.

- Warren
 
  • #56
271
4
Despite the fact that I can't see the posts, your lying still doesn't cover up the evidence in the "Windows versus The world Thread", in which I remind you multiple times, that there were people who also believed OpenBSD had viruses but didn't have a chance to become rampant:

"It was 2 opinions against 1."

And:

" Like the other person said, you can't truly believe OpenBSD is completely virus free. Somebody had to have written some virus to attack it.
It's common sense vs a biased opinion. 2 users have noted this, it's just that you're denying it."

That's simply sick. Not only have you lied and threatened others to save face, you've also denied saying things in previous threads when proven wrong. Worthless.
 
  • #57
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
36
You're quoting yourself.

- Warren
 
  • #58
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
36
Let's not forget one of your first comments on the OpenBSD issue:

Dagenais said:
Who would bother to send a virus infecting OpenBSD?

- Warren
 
  • #59
1,414
5
Dagenais said:
"It was 2 opinions against 1."


Again, truth is not democratic. That you would think so reveals you to be an infantile idiot.

You made the thread about guns, we have been talking about shotguns. Thank you for taking the time to read our posts.
 
  • #60
271
4
Again, truth is not democratic.

Then why did he have to lie about it, and claim I had no support when it was clear I did?

Stop blindly agreeing with the admin, you look like an idiotic member of the Republicans just agreeing with someone because he has power.
 
  • #61
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
36
LOL, now you're attacking Republicans? This thread just keeps getting better and better.

- Warren
 
  • #62
There was a recent news here about a young woman who was raped. Without going into further details the attacker had a gun, the young woman was taken in different areas and repeatedly...

Now the boyfriend saw it at the beginning of the assault and when he saw the attacker had a gun he decided to call 911 first. When he came back the attacker was gone and so is his girfriend. It's very tragic. On that situation things may be different if the boyfriend had a firearm and was properly trained to handle one.

I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess or carry guns, but they should at least be required to attend a seminar on handling firearms..etc, and some psychological testing, background test..

Or just study martial arts :)
 
Last edited:
  • #63
22
0
1) It's "viruses".

2) The reason most viruses are for Windows is simply because that's what most people use. I haven't used OpenBSD myself, but I have no doubt that I could write something to screw it up royally after some experience with the system.
 
  • #64
1,100
0
franznietzsche said:
Slow-drying paint? I get the purpose of the rest, but i don't get how that one is a deterrent.

This is simple. You paint it on your drainpipes and when a theif jumps on it to climb then will slip down.

The Bob (2004 ©)
 
  • #65
jimmy p
Gold Member
358
44
Ooh is that like anti-climb paint. I hate that bloody stuff. Encountered it many times when retrieving the football from behind the local Scout Hut... as if it isnt bad enough having spiked fences...
 
  • #66
1,100
0
jimmy p said:
Ooh is that like anti-climb paint. I hate that bloody stuff. Encountered it many times when retrieving the football from behind the local Scout Hut... as if it isnt bad enough having spiked fences...

Lol. Should control the ball. :tongue2:

The Bob (2004 ©)
 
  • #67
271
4
There was a recent news here about a young woman who was raped. Without going into further details the attacker had a gun, the young woman was taken in different areas and repeatedly...

Did they ever find the rapist?

Are you sort of suggesting that everyone or close to everyone on the street carry a gun to avoid this?
 
  • #68
russ_watters
Mentor
20,581
7,249
The_Professional said:
On that situation things may be different if the boyfriend had a firearm and was properly trained to handle one.
Yes, if that were the case, the situation would be different: both the boyfriend and girlfriend would likely be dead.
I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to possess or carry guns, but they should at least be required to attend a seminar on handling firearms..etc, and some psychological testing, background test..
I agree, but with severe restrictions.
 
  • #69
russ_watters said:
Yes, if that were the case, the situation would be different: both the boyfriend and girlfriend would likely be dead.

I've thought about that. It's also a possibility but since the news was pretty vague, and it didn't go into details on how far the attacker was or whether the attacker was facing behind. Just one of the many assumptions.

Did they ever find the rapist?

They didn't find the rapist yet. But they have a sketch based on eyewitness reports. And another thing is that some people heard what was going on and was too afraid to call the cops.

Are you sort of suggesting that everyone or close to everyone on the street carry a gun to avoid this?

Not at all.
 
  • #70
271
4
Hey Chroot, you claim I didn't have support in the thread about OpenBSD?

Don't lie, it'll come back to bite you in the ass:

Kronchev wrote:

he has a point, and yes i have MUCH experiance with all of that. virus writers do so for fame, if someone wrote a virus for openbsd (and there ARE viruses for it, dont think there arent), they wouldnt get much publicity as few people use it. also, security and virus-proofness are two completly separate things. if you run a virus, you are giving it free access to do what it wants, thats how they work. since the only people using BSD and any unix variant are experianced with computers, theyre not going to do something stupid like that.

Who do you think you are? Castanza?
 
  • #71
1,414
5
Dagenais said:
Then why did he have to lie about it, and claim I had no support when it was clear I did?

Stop blindly agreeing with the admin, you look like an idiotic member of the Republicans just agreeing with someone because he has power.


WHAT THE )*&([email protected]^(*&@$??????

Are you asserting that truth is democratic? And as for agreeing i openly admit ignorance on the issue of OpenBSD viruses (i'm not even entirely clear on what OpenBSD is, i jsut assumed it was forum or server software or some such), all i said is that "majority rules" does not apply to truth, unless you are about 5 years old you should have the intellectual maturity to recognize this.
 

Related Threads on An Alternative to Guns

Replies
70
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
64
Views
4K
S
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
6K
D
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
W
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
C
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
Top