News How can teaching gun safety in schools help prevent gun violence?

[WarPhalange]

Those who postulate that guns are not useful in self-defense situations due to various illusionary factors (he'll get you from behind, you won't have enough time etc.) have fully resigned themselves and others to the status of "victim".

Open your eyes, pay attention to your surroundings. Take responsibility for your own protection!

You don't have to kill someone with a handgun to defend yourself.

Pulling a gun on someone who already has one pointed at you is suicide. Likewise someone who has a knife and is 5ft or closer to you.

Yes, open your eyes, pay attention to your surroundings. Don't walk dark alleys at night and you'll probably never be mugged.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Indeed, the mere possibility that a homeowner might be armed is itself a deterrent to all but the most suicidal crooks. That is a deterrent that could easily be lost if the gun-control folks get their way. My wife and I live in a very rural setting, about 15 minutes (at high speed) from the nearest Sheriff's office or State Police barracks. 15 minutes is a very long time to wait for help if someone is determined to harm you. I don't ever expect to have to defend myself and my wife against a home-invasion-type incident, but I have the means to do so, if the worst should happen.

Situational. If more than 2 people decide to invade your house it's game over. Truth is, any criminal with a half-brain will attack you when you are most vulnerable; more experienced criminals may even put you in a "comfort zone.' I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen? We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.

A Rottweiller or Pitbull is more effective at protecting your home than your Glock 17.



Jordan.

 

[seycyrus]

Pulling a gun on someone who already has one pointed at you is suicide.

Assuming that a criminal already has a bead on you is a bit presumptuous. There's a whole lot of space-time available before it comes to that.

If the criminal already has deadly intent in mind, then pulling a gun is your most likely chance of survival. There is no reason why one should assume that a criminal that threatens you doesn't really mean you any harm.

Likewise someone who has a knife and is 5ft or closer to you.

Actually, the tuller drill shows that the threat distance is greater than that.

But then again, why would you assume that the criminal will only be goaded towards hostile intent *if* you draw your gun?

It is quite reasonable to assume that a criminal will be disuaded by an armed victim.

 

[seycyrus]

Situational. If more than 2 people decide to invade your house it's game over.

Not even close to being true, if the homeowner is armed with a gun.

Truth is, any criminal with a half-brain will attack you when you are most vulnerable;

They will try to attack you when they *think* you are most vulnerable. Surprise, you have a gun!

more experienced criminals may even put you in a "comfort zone.'

Where are you getting this psychoanalysis of the common criminal?

I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen?

Very often, when the victim is armed.

We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.

The reason you don't see it is because it's not a big sell for the news channels.

A Rottweiller or Pitbull is more effective at protecting your home than your Glock 17.

Breed doesn't have half as much to do with it as the ability to wake up the homeowner due to barking etc. A little yap dog can do that just as well. If it's a smart homeowner, she has a gun.

 

[drankin]

Guns are cleaner and a lot cheaper to feed than rottweillers. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[drankin]

I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen? We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.


Jordan.

Jordan, this is the third time I've posted this link: http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx" People successfully defend themselves all the time. Just type "burglar" in the search engine.

 

[turbo]

Situational. If more than 2 people decide to invade your house it's game over. Truth is, any criminal with a half-brain will attack you when you are most vulnerable; more experienced criminals may even put you in a "comfort zone.' I'm not disagreeing that a person may be capable of turning on his attacker but let's be honest, how often does that happen? We'd be seeing a lot of heroes on the news if that was the case.

A Rottweiller or Pitbull is more effective at protecting your home than your Glock 17.



Jordan.

I don't think you read my post very carefully. I'm saying that I (and the vast majority of us, by extension) will most likely never ever have to defend ourselves from a home-invasion criminal, BUT the fact that we have an individual right to own weapons with which to defend ourselves should make most criminals consider if they should break in and risk getting killed. The right to own arms is a deterrent because the criminal likely doesn't know who is armed and who is not.

That said, I practice with my pistols, and I am confident that I could hold off a group of people until the cops could get here. If you let a Rottweiler out to attack armed intruders, the likely short-term result is a dead dog. I'll keep my guns thanks.

 

[Jordan Joab]

I think the handgun owners are correct. Crime decreased the minute more people started buying guns. Every tax-paying American should be armed; by 2010 crime rates will be near 0%.

I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. You keep your guns, I'll keep my dog. I greatly appreciate and respect your opinions. Close the thread.



Jordan.

 

[drankin]

That's all we are saying, Jordan. Let those law abiding folks keep their guns, "safely". And those who are not comfortable with them certainly don't have to own them. Us gun folks just don't want those who wouldn't own one to tell us that we shouldn't. The fact that burglars don't know who is armed and who isn't is a deterent that keeps them out of your house (if you didn't have a dog). I agree, a dog is a good deterent as well. Better in the fact that they will be barking at that window the burglar is attempting to breach causing him to look elsewhere for his meth money.

 

[WarPhalange]

Assuming that a criminal already has a bead on you is a bit presumptuous. There's a whole lot of space-time available before it comes to that.

If you're dealing with a mugger that doesn't make sure his weapon is ready before he tries to mug you, then you can probably just walk away while he tries to figure out how to walk and breathe at the same time.

What "space-time" are you talking about exactly?

If the criminal already has deadly intent in mind, then pulling a gun is your most likely chance of survival. There is no reason why one should assume that a criminal that threatens you doesn't really mean you any harm.

Compare the amount of muggings vs. the number of people still alive after them and then tell me that again. Not all thieves are cold-blooded killers. It sucks to lose your wallet, but thinking you'll pull a John Wayne and shoot the guy before he can react is stupid. This isn't a kung fu movie, either. You won't spin kick the weapon out of his hand. There's a much bigger chance of pushing him over the edge to make him kill you than to just

Actually, the tuller drill shows that the threat distance is greater than that.

Yup, about 20 if I recall.

But then again, why would you assume that the criminal will only be goaded towards hostile intent *if* you draw your gun?

It's reasonable to assume that someone who just wants a quick buck won't go through the trouble of killing you. I don't know who told you that all petty thieves are also mass murderers. It's no different than pot smokers not necessarily being crack addicts.

Theft and mugging carry shorter sentences than murder and you don't have as many cops involved when it's just theft, meaning lower chance of getting caught.

It is quite reasonable to assume that a criminal will be disuaded by an armed victim.

If he can tell that the would-be victim is armed ahead of time, sure. He wouldn't want to go through the trouble or take the risk. But do you honestly think he's just going to let you pull out your gun? Especially if he has a weapon of his own already drawn? That's just fantasy at that point.

 

[drankin]

Basically, if someone has a gun on you, you better do some persuading. That's a tough situation. I keep my pistol in a holster inside my belt behind my right hip. If I'm reaching for my wallet, I could just as easily grab my pistol. It would be a matter of the situation, environment, soberiety of the mugger, and cahonas as to which one I would grab. It's dumb to even debate what to do in such a contrived scenario that I'm not likely to ever encounter. But, if someone pulls a knife on me, he's in for a surprise. Even then, I wouldn't necessarily fire but I can pretty much guarantee that mugger is going away empty handed.

 

[WarPhalange]

But, if someone pulls a knife on me, he's in for a surprise. Even then, I wouldn't necessarily fire but I can pretty much guarantee that mugger is going away empty handed.

If he's more than 15 feet away from you, then maybe. If he's within stabbing distance, then he's going empty handed and you'd better pray you're going to a hospital and not a morgue.

 

[B. Elliott]

If he's more than 15 feet away from you, then maybe. If he's within stabbing distance, then he's going empty handed and you'd better pray you're going to a hospital and not a morgue.

You'd be pretty suprised how quickly you can jump away from someone. The first thing I would do in that situation (if they were within 15 feet) is increase the gap even more. While I am trying to get away, and while they are trying to close the distance, I easily have enough time to draw my pistol. I have much more practice than the average person, so after that instance, I'd be looking down at a dead would-be attacker.

While we can argue hypothetical situations all day long, facts are facts. A pistol is an effective tool which is readily available if the situation is right. You can not argue against that fact.

I say the glass is half full, not half empty.


One of the many reasons I carry a pistol is due to an experience I had when I was young. I was outside playing with the family dog, a small Schnauzer, when a roaming Rottweiler and Akita came into our yard. The two dogs instantly attacked me and our dog... tearing her to pieces and cutting me up pretty bad. My mother looked out the window and saw what was happening so she grabbed a pistol we had in an upper kitchen cabinet, ran outside and instantly fired it into the air. It was enough to get the attacking dogs attention and scare them away. We called the police who later found the dogs and had them put to sleep.

In the end, after three long days of suffering, we lost our family Schnauzer which I grew up with (she was around before I was even born). The pistol my mother had access to saved my life. If another situation like that was to happen today, I wouldn't have to worry about loosing another pet or having my life on the line.

A bullet between the eyes is an excellent problem solver.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While we can argue hypothetical situations all day long, facts are facts. A pistol is an effective tool which is readily available if the situation is right. You can not argue against that fact.

I say the glass is half full, not half empty.

Apparently, so do the police. Based on this thread, one might think that guns don't offer any protection, and the police are just fooling themselves.

 

[B. Elliott]

Apparently, so do the police. Based on this thread, one might think that guns don't offer any protection, and the police are just fooling themselves.

Thankyou Ivan! Excellent example.

 

[drankin]

If he's more than 15 feet away from you, then maybe. If he's within stabbing distance, then he's going empty handed and you'd better pray you're going to a hospital and not a morgue.

What exactly is your point? I'm safer against a mugger if I have a knife? This thread has really regressed. I'm surprised Evo hasn't shut it down yet.

Ever heard the saying, "don't bring a knife to a gun fight"?

The topic of the thread is "False Sense of Security?". If it were a false sense of security cops wouldn't need to carry guns. For crying out loud.

If someone had the discipline to learn true knife fighting, they wouldn't be mugging people. I've studied martial arts for 15yrs of my life, I know what it takes to be proficient with a weapon. I've seen bullies try to get beyond their first belt only to drop out after realizing a bit of humility. Thugs don't make good fighters. I've been stabbed at by two thugs at the same time and came out with mere scratches primarily because of their lack of skill which goes hand in hand with being a thug in the first place. I'm getting older, I'm done fighting with my hands...

 

[WarPhalange]

Apparently, so do the police. Based on this thread, one might think that guns don't offer any protection, and the police are just fooling themselves.

Yes, because the police get mugged on the street and people break into police stations.

Just in case you missed my point, the Police are the ones who get to the crime scene en masse and ready to shoot. They are rarely taken by surprise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, because the police get mugged on the street and people break into police stations.

Because the police have to be prepared for dangerous situations and the unknown, which are two reasons why I keep guns.

Just in case you missed my point, the Police are the ones who get to the crime scene en masse and ready to shoot. They are rarely taken by surprise.

So, no one but a police officer can be ready to shoot in a dangerous situation? They have to pull their weapon, just like anyone else. And just like anyone else, someone can get the advantage with an armed cop. They don't walk around with their gun drawn and ready to fire.

They usually keep their weapons at the ready when at home. They almost always have personal weapons, and I know that many carry their weapons when off-duty. The only difference between a cop and the typical person is that the average citizen is far less likely to need a gun. And that may not even be true in many cases. There are cops who never use their weapon during their entire career, but there are people in the inner-cities whose lives are in jeopardy every day.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ivan, the cops are in the business of seeking out trouble and terminating it. They use guns as an instrument of offense as much or more than they use it as an instrument of defense. Their need for guns is not representative of the need faced by the public.

Also, nearly all British cops do not carry guns. So, the need for guns is not a universal truth as much as a situational one.

 

[LowlyPion]

So, the need for guns is not a universal truth as much as a situational one.

In the US it may even be a historical one, which of course may indeed be another aspect of our situation. But given the way the continent was settled, and the reliance on a gun both for providing sustenance as well as protection, it is a part of the way of life. No guns would perhaps be an easier sell if it wasn't so much a part of heritage.

Uses for a gun for sustenance and protection surely have dropped on a per capita basis with the advent of organized law enforcement and neighborhood supermarkets. Perhaps more to the point though, the perceived need of a gun may reasonably be seen to lag actual need, if only as a holdover from tradition. (Clearly a hypothesis that I can offer no direct proof of except to suggest it as a possibility.)

This is not to say that there are still no assaults or property crimes, but they could be addressed if no one had guns and never had. But that would require an extreme act of Federalism to initiate and that is unlikely to ever be accepted by a people that are themselves selected toward independence and its preservation.

 

[seycyrus]

If you're dealing with a mugger that doesn't make sure his weapon is ready before he tries to mug you, then you can probably just walk away while he tries to figure out how to walk and breathe at the same time.

There's a world of difference between a mugger having his weapon ready and him having a bead on you.

What "space-time" are you talking about exactly?

The space and time that bot exist before the bad guy has his gun drawn and aimed at you.

Compare the amount of muggings vs. the number of people still alive after them and then tell me that again. Not all thieves are cold-blooded killers.

Who's going to be the first in this thread to ask the other guy to provide some evidence? :)
If a thief isn't a cold blooded killer then readying your weapon for defense isn't going to turn him into one either.

It sucks to lose your wallet, but thinking you'll pull a John Wayne and shoot the guy before he can react is stupid.

Oh he can react all he wants. Him running away when confronted with an armed victim is his most likely reaction.

This isn't a kung fu movie, either. You won't spin kick the weapon out of his hand. There's a much bigger chance of pushing him over the edge to make him kill you than to just

Stop with the victim mentality. I shouldn't have to worry about pushing him over the edge.

It's reasonable to assume that someone who just wants a quick buck won't go through the trouble of killing you.

It's even more reasonable to assume that he will run away when faced with a weapon.

I don't know who told you that all petty thieves are also mass murderers

Feel free to stop with the straw men at any time.

If he can tell that the would-be victim is armed ahead of time, sure. He wouldn't want to go through the trouble or take the risk. But do you honestly think he's just going to let you pull out your gun? Especially if he has a weapon of his own already drawn? That's just fantasy at that point.

He doesn't have a choice. And he certainly doesn't have his gun drawn on me already. The moment he comes within my danger zone is the moment that my hand would be on top of my weapon.

But why are we even postulating this imaginary situation where the crack shot criminal has me in his sights at *his* optimal distance? How about if I was already tied up?

 

[seycyrus]

If he's more than 15 feet away from you, then maybe. If he's within stabbing distance, then he's going empty handed and you'd better pray you're going to a hospital and not a morgue.

Your chance of defeating a knife wielding attacker intent on doing you harm is greater at *any* range if you have a gun compared to if you do not.

 

[mheslep]

...Also, nearly all British cops do not carry guns.

A lazy wiki check shows that statement probably should be modified to most, or the majority. It appears if one calls in a bank robbery cops w/ guns will appear shortly, as all UK police force units have armed 'firearms units' upon which they can call.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_unit

 

[sketchtrack]

First off, law enforcement types generally carry Glocks with a round in the chamber - you don't want to waste time chambering a round if you need the gun on short notice. You are unfamiliar with the safeties on Glocks. Glocks have several safety features, but every one of them is overridden by pulling the trigger. There is a lever built into the trigger that prevents the trigger from being squeezed unless the lever in depressed. There is a firing-pin block that prevents the gun from going off if it is accidentally dropped. The block retracts only when the trigger is squeezed (past the point allowed by the lever). The last safety feature is that the firing pin is not cocked against its spring (and then released) until the trigger is fully depressed.

Glocks are very safe unless you squeeze the trigger, at which time you disable all three safety features in progression. Glocks have a fairly long trigger pull for this reason, and take a bit of getting used to. The guy pulled the trigger or the gun would not have discharged.

I stand corrected, but still. He first gave it to his assistant to unload for him, she obviously failed. Then he is waving the gun around with his finger on the trigger in a classroom. There is no doubt that the guy shooting himself was due to pure stupidity. If you take a gun safety coarse, then they teach you not to rely on some ones word that a gun isn't loaded. You should always check for yourself, and then double check, especially before waving it around a classroom. And even still, it is just bad manners to hold a gun in a classroom with you finger on the trigger because the people in the room don't know if it is loaded.

And what is with his assistant going to hand him the AK, after he had already shot himself, so that he can finish the talk.

 

[turbo]

His assistant was unfamiliar with safe firearms handling procedures. Cops carry full magazines with one round in the chamber. Unloading a semi-auto pistol requires 1) ejecting the clip and 2) cycling the slide to extract the round in the chamber. Apparently she did 1) and failed to do 2). This was compounded by the cop's failure to follow procedure. When you are handed an "unloaded" semi-automatic weapon and you did not unload it yourself you MUST cycle the action to confirm that it is indeed unloaded. No exceptions.

 

[drankin]

I just thought it was funny that he tried to continue with the class with .40 cal bullet in his leg like it was a minor interruption. Wow! what a soldier! LOL

When someone hands you a firearm, you always inspect the chamber no matter what anyone else tells you.

 

[turbo]

I just thought it was funny that he tried to continue with the class with .40 cal bullet in his leg like it was a minor interruption. Wow! what a soldier! LOL

When someone hands you a firearm, you always inspect the chamber no matter what anyone else tells you.

It's lucky for him that his force did not standardize on the Glock Model 20 in 10mm Auto. He could have lost his leg. That's my Glock of choice. When it was introduced, it was widely expected to be accepted by law-enforcement, but many cops couldn't handle the recoil and couldn't qualify with the weapon, so it never gained popular support. The only down-side for me is that the ammunition is not extensively stocked and is a bit pricey. Nice gun, though. Think of a .45 ACP on steroids.

 

[B. Elliott]

When you are handed an "unloaded" semi-automatic weapon and you did not unload it yourself you MUST cycle the action to confirm that it is indeed unloaded. No exceptions.

I fully agree. Even if I've confirmed that the weapon is unloaded, I still never point it at myself or anyone else. I always act as though a weapon is loaded, even if I know it isn't. I actually had to teach a few friends of mine this when we went on a shooting trip. A few of them were handling the weapons too carelessly and it scared me quite a bit. I hated coming off as a 'parent' too them, but I wasn't about to risk someone getting shot.

 

[sketchtrack]

I fully agree. Even if I've confirmed that the weapon is unloaded, I still never point it at myself or anyone else. I always act as though a weapon is loaded, even if I know it isn't. I actually had to teach a few friends of mine this when we went on a shooting trip. A few of them were handling the weapons too carelessly and it scared me quite a bit. I hated coming off as a 'parent' too them, but I wasn't about to risk someone getting shot.

Maybe a firearm safety coarse should be required to graduate public high school.

 

[drankin]

Maybe a firearm safety coarse should be required to graduate public high school.

Once upon a time they HAD target shooting as a sporting activity in public high schools. It was mainly .22 cal rifles but I'm sure they learned safety for a week or two before they could even handle their guns. That kind of thing needs to come back. Now that it is understood with some finality that we will always have guns in our community, what better way to teach kids firearm safety than in the classroom?