WaterfowlForum.Net

Nema

assateague wrote:Here's the way I see it:


I have to ask permission to protect myself. In many places, the answer is "no, you may not protect yourself". It really does boil down to something that simple. And that's fucked up.


Why may I not protect myself? Because "maybe something bad will happen". Well, again, that's bullshit. Many, many people are being told "no, you may NOT protect yourself", based purely on some hypothetical, possible "damage". But yet this "hypothetical" is generally based on the actions of those idiots who commit crimes, and we all must pay the price, in being made more of a victim than we should be. Because of the actions of others, I may not protect myself or my family. I know you're not much into the Bible, but this really sums it up nicely:

Proverbs 18:5

"It is not good to show partiality to the guilty by perverting the justice due the innocent. "

That's well said and a compelling argument, at!

It's one thing for us to talk about it, but imagine this. And really, seriously think about it:


A 110 pound woman, who gets leered at every time she goes somewhere. Stared at while pumping gas, looked at in the grocery store parking lot, and so on. Many places have, in effect, told her "sorry about your luck. Hope you don't get raped".

I can defend myself, at least for a while. But she is completely defenseless, and CANNOT have a weapon to defend herself. Just take a minute to imagine what that feels like. To be 100% at the mercy of society, and hopefully not be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or else she's dead.

Because some bureaucrat or politician won't let her have a gun, so she could keep herself from being dead. That's just wrong.

Preaching to the choir brother... everywhere I go, women stare at me with lusting eyes. It gets old I tell ya, constantly worried I may be raped. I'm not a piece of meat dammit!

Just kidding.... might get old eventually, but I'd do my best to enjoy it.

That does happen to me. Constantly. However, I don't think these girls have seen 110lbs in a long time...

Goldfish wrote:That does happen to me. Constantly. However, I don't think these girls have seen 110lbs in a long time...

Not since the 5 grade probably.

Reminds me of a funny story on my brother. We were grabbing lunch on a normal work day in jack in the box or something and a hefty gal walks up to my brother and says "you know, you're a very handsome man, you should smile more often" then turns and walks off. I could barely contain my laughter, all he could do was blush. The next time we talked to his then fiance I couldn't wait to ask her if he'd told her the story. He hadn't, btw.

assateague wrote:It's one thing for us to talk about it, but imagine this. And really, seriously think about it:


A 110 pound woman, who gets leered at every time she goes somewhere. Stared at while pumping gas, looked at in the grocery store parking lot, and so on. Many places have, in effect, told her "sorry about your luck. Hope you don't get raped".

I can defend myself, at least for a while. But she is completely defenseless, and CANNOT have a weapon to defend herself. Just take a minute to imagine what that feels like. To be 100% at the mercy of society, and hopefully not be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or else she's dead.

Because some bureaucrat or politician won't let her have a gun, so she could keep herself from being dead. That's just wrong.

I think that's a very valid point, at, that I've never really thought about. Several questions, though. Do you think an attractive woman has a higher chance of being raped than an unattractive one? Sounds ridiculous, but you hear a lot about 89 year old women raped, and you also hear that rape is not a sexual urge but a control issue. I realize that through our eyes the answer is obvious, but we're not rapists.
Secondly, what do you think of stun guns, pepper spray, and very loud hand held horns? I honestly have no idea of how effective they would be, but they would reduce the chances of collateral damage to innocent bystanders. That is really my only concern in this. Were it not for fear of my child, wife, or someone's grandmother getting hit by a stray bullet I would chip in to provide everyone with a decent handgun. Or design a bullet/shotshell similar to a "flu-flu" arrow that has an effective range of 10 feet, say? I'm not sure how to do it, but I am sure someone could figure it out. Energy dissipated, or materials fragments within a certain distance?

Glimmerjim wrote:

assateague wrote:It's one thing for us to talk about it, but imagine this. And really, seriously think about it:


A 110 pound woman, who gets leered at every time she goes somewhere. Stared at while pumping gas, looked at in the grocery store parking lot, and so on. Many places have, in effect, told her "sorry about your luck. Hope you don't get raped".

I can defend myself, at least for a while. But she is completely defenseless, and CANNOT have a weapon to defend herself. Just take a minute to imagine what that feels like. To be 100% at the mercy of society, and hopefully not be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or else she's dead.

Because some bureaucrat or politician won't let her have a gun, so she could keep herself from being dead. That's just wrong.

I think that's a very valid point, at, that I've never really thought about. Several questions, though. Do you think an attractive woman has a higher chance of being raped than an unattractive one? Sounds ridiculous, but you hear a lot about 89 year old women raped, and you also hear that rape is not a sexual urge but a control issue. I realize that through our eyes the answer is obvious, but we're not rapists.
Secondly, what do you think of stun guns, pepper spray, and very loud hand held horns? I honestly have no idea of how effective they would be, but they would reduce the chances of collateral damage to innocent bystanders. That is really my only concern in this. Were it not for fear of my child, wife, or someone's grandmother getting hit by a stray bullet I would chip in to provide everyone with a decent handgun. Or design a bullet/shotshell similar to a "flu-flu" arrow that has an effective range of 10 feet, say? I'm not sure how to do it, but I am sure someone could figure it out. Energy dissipated, or materials fragments within a certain distance?

I'd rather my loved one get hit by a bullet that stopped a rape than for a rape to occur simply because one worried too much about "innocent bystanders"

Eric Haynes wrote:

Glimmerjim wrote:

assateague wrote:It's one thing for us to talk about it, but imagine this. And really, seriously think about it:


A 110 pound woman, who gets leered at every time she goes somewhere. Stared at while pumping gas, looked at in the grocery store parking lot, and so on. Many places have, in effect, told her "sorry about your luck. Hope you don't get raped".

I can defend myself, at least for a while. But she is completely defenseless, and CANNOT have a weapon to defend herself. Just take a minute to imagine what that feels like. To be 100% at the mercy of society, and hopefully not be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or else she's dead.

Because some bureaucrat or politician won't let her have a gun, so she could keep herself from being dead. That's just wrong.

I think that's a very valid point, at, that I've never really thought about. Several questions, though. Do you think an attractive woman has a higher chance of being raped than an unattractive one? Sounds ridiculous, but you hear a lot about 89 year old women raped, and you also hear that rape is not a sexual urge but a control issue. I realize that through our eyes the answer is obvious, but we're not rapists.
Secondly, what do you think of stun guns, pepper spray, and very loud hand held horns? I honestly have no idea of how effective they would be, but they would reduce the chances of collateral damage to innocent bystanders. That is really my only concern in this. Were it not for fear of my child, wife, or someone's grandmother getting hit by a stray bullet I would chip in to provide everyone with a decent handgun. Or design a bullet/shotshell similar to a "flu-flu" arrow that has an effective range of 10 feet, say? I'm not sure how to do it, but I am sure someone could figure it out. Energy dissipated, or materials fragments within a certain distance?

I'd rather my loved one get hit by a bullet that stopped a rape than for a rape to occur simply because one worried too much about "innocent bystanders"

With all due respect, Eric, that is a pretty selfless, humanitarian viewpoint. I am not sure I can say the same. To paraphrase, you are saying that you would rather a child of your's die, rather than a stranger get raped. Is that correct?

Glimmerjim wrote:

assateague wrote:It's one thing for us to talk about it, but imagine this. And really, seriously think about it:


A 110 pound woman, who gets leered at every time she goes somewhere. Stared at while pumping gas, looked at in the grocery store parking lot, and so on. Many places have, in effect, told her "sorry about your luck. Hope you don't get raped".

I can defend myself, at least for a while. But she is completely defenseless, and CANNOT have a weapon to defend herself. Just take a minute to imagine what that feels like. To be 100% at the mercy of society, and hopefully not be at the wrong place at the wrong time, or else she's dead.

Because some bureaucrat or politician won't let her have a gun, so she could keep herself from being dead. That's just wrong.

I think that's a very valid point, at, that I've never really thought about. Several questions, though. Do you think an attractive woman has a higher chance of being raped than an unattractive one? Sounds ridiculous, but you hear a lot about 89 year old women raped, and you also hear that rape is not a sexual urge but a control issue. I realize that through our eyes the answer is obvious, but we're not rapists.
Secondly, what do you think of stun guns, pepper spray, and very loud hand held horns? I honestly have no idea of how effective they would be, but they would reduce the chances of collateral damage to innocent bystanders. That is really my only concern in this. Were it not for fear of my child, wife, or someone's grandmother getting hit by a stray bullet I would chip in to provide everyone with a decent handgun. Or design a bullet/shotshell similar to a "flu-flu" arrow that has an effective range of 10 feet, say? I'm not sure how to do it, but I am sure someone could figure it out. Energy dissipated, or materials fragments within a certain distance?

Those items sound ridiculous to me. If someone were to attempt to rape my wife, girlfriend, mother etc...., I don't want them to ever wake up, would make the world a better place. A way to protect innocent bystanders would be great, but don't take away the ability for those to defend themselves waiting for that technology.

Guys life is life. You have to protect yourself and your family at all costs. I would hate for someone else to get hit with a stray round but that is why I practice. Am I an expert. With the thousands upon thousands of rounds I have put down range and all the military training I have had NO. But I feel that everyone should be able to carry a gun that wants one. You would see a change in the way criminals acted. I don't think Eric wants to see his child die at all and for you to even imply that's want he means makes me feel you are a dumbass. I think Eric is saying he wants that lady to kill the SOB that is trying to rape her and that he would not blame that lady if his child was shot. Would he be sad I would say yes what father would not be devastated. I would like to see an America that people had the right to protect themselves and if they were to shoot someone trying to do something horrible to them then so be it. People would quit if people will stand up for themselves. If someone was trying to harm me or my family I will use deadly force and I will sleep good at night knowing I did what I did to protect mine.

Bad17 wrote:Guys life is life. You have to protect yourself and your family at all costs. I would hate for someone else to get hit with a stray round but that is why I practice. Am I an expert. With the thousands upon thousands of rounds I have put down range and all the military training I have had NO. But I feel that everyone should be able to carry a gun that wants one. You would see a change in the way criminals acted. I don't think Eric wants to see his child die at all and for you to even imply that's want he means makes me feel you are a dumbass. I think Eric is saying he wants that lady to kill the SOB that is trying to rape her and that he would not blame that lady if his child was shot. Would he be sad I would say yes what father would not be devastated. I would like to see an America that people had the right to protect themselves and if they were to shoot someone trying to do something horrible to them then so be it. People would quit if people will stand up for themselves. If someone was trying to harm me or my family I will use deadly force and I will sleep good at night knowing I did what I did to protect mine.

Exactly.

Eric Haynes wrote:

Bad17 wrote:Guys life is life. You have to protect yourself and your family at all costs. I would hate for someone else to get hit with a stray round but that is why I practice. Am I an expert. With the thousands upon thousands of rounds I have put down range and all the military training I have had NO. But I feel that everyone should be able to carry a gun that wants one. You would see a change in the way criminals acted. I don't think Eric wants to see his child die at all and for you to even imply that's want he means makes me feel you are a dumbass. I think Eric is saying he wants that lady to kill the SOB that is trying to rape her and that he would not blame that lady if his child was shot. Would he be sad I would say yes what father would not be devastated. I would like to see an America that people had the right to protect themselves and if they were to shoot someone trying to do something horrible to them then so be it. People would quit if people will stand up for themselves. If someone was trying to harm me or my family I will use deadly force and I will sleep good at night knowing I did what I did to protect mine.

Exactly.

Thank you Eric.

MURICA

Bad17 wrote:Guys life is life. You have to protect yourself and your family at all costs. I would hate for someone else to get hit with a stray round but that is why I practice. Am I an expert. With the thousands upon thousands of rounds I have put down range and all the military training I have had NO. But I feel that everyone should be able to carry a gun that wants one. You would see a change in the way criminals acted. I don't think Eric wants to see his child die at all and for you to even imply that's want he means makes me feel you are a dumbass. I think Eric is saying he wants that lady to kill the SOB that is trying to rape her and that he would not blame that lady if his child was shot. Would he be sad I would say yes what father would not be devastated. I would like to see an America that people had the right to protect themselves and if they were to shoot someone trying to do something horrible to them then so be it. People would quit if people will stand up for themselves. If someone was trying to harm me or my family I will use deadly force and I will sleep good at night knowing I did what I did to protect mine.

I in no way implied that Eric "wants" to see his child die. For you to infer that is absurd. It's called a rhetorical, philosophical question, Bad17. If you can't deal with those without going to the "dumbass" stage perhaps you should wait until you're out of high school and have a little life experience prior to opining with adults. I was trying to be as respectful of Eric's position as I can be, just attempting to put it into different terms that explain my view of his point. By the way....I am trying intently to give you some respect, too. If you want to see me when I'm not....keep up the pejoratives.

Well high school was long ago for me. Also to your rhetorical question sure wasn't read as that and it think others may have felt the same way. I guess I would not have even thought to have made a rhetorical question like that. To me as a father that is not a rhetorical question to ask and to your like experiences remark I have had many life experiences if you would like to chat about them feel free to pm me and I can list my military record for you with all my combat experience and I will have adult conversations with adults maybe you should review your statement and think about your rhetorical question.

Bad17 wrote:Well high school was long ago for me. Also to your rhetorical question sure wasn't read as that and it think others may have felt the same way. I guess I would not have even thought to have made a rhetorical question like that. To me as a father that is not a rhetorical question to ask and to your like experiences remark I have had many life experiences if you would like to chat about them feel free to pm me and I can list my military record for you with all my combat experience and I will have adult conversations with adults maybe you should review your statement and think about your rhetorical question.

In light of your response.....you betcha. I'm gonna spend a whole lotta time reviewing and considering my question. Thanks for the advice! I'll get back to you as soon as I come to a better understanding! I never said I was quick, and sometimes I just miss the boat.

GJ - I can appreciate and respect your view on the subject. You've clearly spent some time considering the situation.

But, I'd be willing to bet that not one single rape/murder/kidnap victim had those thoughts while they were being assaulted. I'd also bet most (if not all) wished they'd had a gun while they were being attacked.

Talking about hypotheticals and "what if" extenuating circumstances is great stuff for a forum, but when the shtf all that shit goes out the window when survival is on the line.

DeadEye_Dan wrote:But, I'd be willing to bet that not one single rape/murder/kidnap victim had those thoughts while they were being assaulted. I'd also bet most (if not all) wished they'd had a gun while they were being attacked.

This. I've never heard of a single rape victim who was glad they didn't have a gun.

Here's another thing that gets to me, and it applies in all of these situations (at least in those states which won't allow a person to have a gun with them):


Courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have ruled that law enforcement does not owe any individual protection, only a general societal protection. Not certain how it came up, but victims and families of victims sued, saying that police didn't protect them adequately. It was repeatedly ruled that no person has an individual right to protection by law enforcement.

So, for example here, the police have no legal obligation to protect ME (or whomever the case may be). Their job is only to provide security to society as a whole. Ok, fine, I'll take care of myself. "Oh, no you won't, we won't allow that." Well what the fuck. So police don't have to protect me (from a legal standpoint), and I'm not allowed to- does anybody else think that's a little bit stupid?

Maybe some of those folks have needed a restraining order, they were so threatened. How quaint. Hopefully they can roll it up into a tight little spike and stab that homicidal, stalking maniac in the eye, because the state won't let them carry a gun.

As for tazers, pepper spray, or any other LTL methods, I say the heck with that. If someone attacks me, I don't want to scare them off. I want them hurt. Because they have already demonstrated a lack of control (for whatever reason) that makes then a danger to society. From a practical standpoint, if one of those doesn't work, you're still in a bad place. How much noise does proper spray make? How about a tazer? But I can almost guarantee that, no matter where you are, somebody will hear a bunch of gunshots, and somebody will call the police. A woman pepper sprays an attacker and he fights through it, she's done and nobody will know. If, on the other hand, she pulls the trigger 5 times, even if she only wounds him (or misses), I can almost guarantee that he's going to un-ass the area quickly, and she'll see another day.

Just my two cents.

Thank you. I will be adding "un-ass" to my vocabulary.


Good points as well.

Can't take credit for it. That one's pretty common in the military.

DeadEye_Dan wrote:GJ - I can appreciate and respect your view on the subject. You've clearly spent some time considering the situation.

But, I'd be willing to bet that not one single rape/murder/kidnap victim had those thoughts while they were being assaulted. I'd also bet most (if not all) wished they'd had a gun while they were being attacked.

Talking about hypotheticals and "what if" extenuating circumstances is great stuff for a forum, but when the shtf all that shit goes out the window when survival is on the line.

That's very true, Dan, and that's the main reason it scares me. Trained cops fire 18 shots and don't hit their targets. Mom, who's been to the range 3 times, instantly under a huge amount of stress, and I'm afraid I can just see carnage of innocents.
Perhaps I'm just looking at it wrong. Under the right conditions I'm all for her unloading in an attacker, but when the armed teacher concept came up I thought about the several people I know that are teachers. One of which is my sister. Putting a gun in her hands with a room full of kids is a recipe for disaster. But I agree 100% that in the hands of someone responsible and confident it is the best answer.

Glimmerjim wrote:

DeadEye_Dan wrote:GJ - I can appreciate and respect your view on the subject. You've clearly spent some time considering the situation.

But, I'd be willing to bet that not one single rape/murder/kidnap victim had those thoughts while they were being assaulted. I'd also bet most (if not all) wished they'd had a gun while they were being attacked.

Talking about hypotheticals and "what if" extenuating circumstances is great stuff for a forum, but when the shtf all that shit goes out the window when survival is on the line.

That's very true, Dan, and that's the main reason it scares me. Trained cops fire 18 shots and don't hit their targets. Mom, who's been to the range 3 times, instantly under a huge amount of stress, and I'm afraid I can just see carnage of innocents.
Perhaps I'm just looking at it wrong. Under the right conditions I'm all for her unloading in an attacker, but when the armed teacher concept came up I thought about the several people I know that are teachers. One of which is my sister. Putting a gun in her hands with a room full of kids is a recipe for disaster. But I agree 100% that in the hands of someone responsible and confident it is the best answer.

The fact the you don't consider ANY rape, the right condition worries the living fuck out of me.

How many times have you been raped Jim? If it ever is about to happen, please don't defend yourself with a gun because I personally don't trust you with a gun yet...

How silly does that sound?

Glimmerjim wrote:

DeadEye_Dan wrote:GJ - I can appreciate and respect your view on the subject. You've clearly spent some time considering the situation.

But, I'd be willing to bet that not one single rape/murder/kidnap victim had those thoughts while they were being assaulted. I'd also bet most (if not all) wished they'd had a gun while they were being attacked.

Talking about hypotheticals and "what if" extenuating circumstances is great stuff for a forum, but when the shtf all that shit goes out the window when survival is on the line.

That's very true, Dan, and that's the main reason it scares me. Trained cops fire 18 shots and don't hit their targets. Mom, who's been to the range 3 times, instantly under a huge amount of stress, and I'm afraid I can just see carnage of innocents.
Perhaps I'm just looking at it wrong. Under the right conditions I'm all for her unloading in an attacker, but when the armed teacher concept came up I thought about the several people I know that are teachers. One of which is my sister. Putting a gun in her hands with a room full of kids is a recipe for disaster. But I agree 100% that in the hands of someone responsible and confident it is the best answer.

Valid points, but I think you are failing to recognize the value of the "possibility" that a victim may be carrying a gun as a deterrent.

How many armed robberies at Target stores since their "request that customers leave guns at home"??...and today a murder in one of their stores?? How very coincidental.

When Johnny-thug knows he's targeting nothing but sheep, he's one bold sonofabitch...toss in the potential that a few (or several) may actually be wolves in sheeps clothing??? Different situation altogether.

All the feel good gun control laws do is create a target rich environment where dickweeds can operate with impunity.

Glimmerjim wrote:

DeadEye_Dan wrote:GJ - I can appreciate and respect your view on the subject. You've clearly spent some time considering the situation.

But, I'd be willing to bet that not one single rape/murder/kidnap victim had those thoughts while they were being assaulted. I'd also bet most (if not all) wished they'd had a gun while they were being attacked.

Talking about hypotheticals and "what if" extenuating circumstances is great stuff for a forum, but when the shtf all that shit goes out the window when survival is on the line.

That's very true, Dan, and that's the main reason it scares me. Trained cops fire 18 shots and don't hit their targets. Mom, who's been to the range 3 times, instantly under a huge amount of stress, and I'm afraid I can just see carnage of innocents.
Perhaps I'm just looking at it wrong. Under the right conditions I'm all for her unloading in an attacker, but when the armed teacher concept came up I thought about the several people I know that are teachers. One of which is my sister. Putting a gun in her hands with a room full of kids is a recipe for disaster. But I agree 100% that in the hands of someone responsible and confident it is the best answer.

Far too many factors during the commission of a crime against an armed person to really have a discussion that means anything.

Lets consider the rape of a woman that has a concealed handgun (licensed or not). What would some of the considerations be?

Semi auto........is a round in the chamber and the hammer back on a single action or is it a double action?
In a rape situation, is the gun handy or does she have to dig through her purse to get it?
In a rape, consider the range to be short, aiming isn't even a consideration, just point an pull the trigger (or do you have to rack the slide?).

With a revolver, it is only a matter of pulling the trigger (assume it is double action).

What is going to stop the crime?
The sight of the gun?
The mere sound of the gun?
Hitting the assailant in a non vital spot?
Hitting the assailant in the nuts?
Killing the assailant?

Even with a concealed weapon, you have to be able to access it and deploy it and most importantly, control it. It negates the reason for carrying a weapon if your assailant takes it from you.

Now consider all these factors and others too and also the time lapse of the attack and I contend that a gun is often not a deterrent to attacks on a woman.

You guys are right, we should just give all women a whistle and wish them the best of luck.

3legged_lab wrote:You guys are right, we should just give all women a whistle and wish them the best of luck.

Wouldn't have to if they'd stay in the house like they're supposed to.

clampdaddy wrote:

3legged_lab wrote:You guys are right, we should just give all women a whistle and wish them the best of luck.

Wouldn't have to if they'd stay in the house like they're supposed to.

They have to go get groceries from time to time.