Ship of Fools: The best handgun for concealed carry

Thread: The best handgun for concealed carry Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025433

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

I know 'best' is difficult at erm best but for my money I go with a North American Arms 22 Long Rifle Mini Revolver, an impressive piece of engineering. Unloaded it weighs less than five ounces and can arguably kill better than a butter knife. [Biased]

Personally I load the first two chambers with birdshot figuring they're fair warning (you can of course adjust chamber position on the fly depending on the circumstance) and the last three with hollow points presuming some folk are slow on the uptake and need killing. Yes, I know that 22 hollow points won't likely expand much but whatever - I prefer to think the assailants won't.

It fits well in a belt pouch I found at Log Cabin Designs and based on my recent experience at an alleged screening would very likely be unnoticed (the Rolling Stones concert in LV NV - my camera has more metal): nice.

So what do you use to defend yourself?

(I've no affiliation with NAA but they're currently offering rubber grips on this specific handgun as the sale of the month if you're interested.)

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

I was at greatest danger of being shot in USA. So I gues my preference for defence is to live on the other side of the pond. Small arms are nicely out of range.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I think I'd just take along a sensible woman. See today's shots of yesterday's encounter with a crazed cleaver-wielder (sorry I can't find a link)in London.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I think I'd just take along a sensible woman. See today's shots of yesterday's encounter with a crazed cleaver-wielder (sorry I can't find a link)in London.

If you can face down a pack of Cub Scouts you can face down anybody.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Moron, I think you've got the SoF Purgatory board confused with the City-Data Forums Politics and Other Controversies forum.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Its simple. Obviously the best hand-gun for concealed carry is a cheaply printd plastic one that blows up and hurts the fool who tried to fire it. If they were all like tht than the rest of us who don't carry guns would be safe from being shot by those that do. Or at least we'd see that they had a gun and could react appropriately.

QED.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

So what do you use to defend yourself?

Delighted to say the issue hasn't arisen yet. But then I'm only 48 so there's still a little time left to be in a situation where I might wish I had a gun handy. Though on the other hand there are situations when it's probably been as well I haven't had a gun handy..... [Devil]

Read an interview lately when Colin Farrell said he would never have a gun in his US home. Said he couldn't trust himself with it, just in case he ever fell off the wagon. Or if one of his kids got a hold of it and had an accident with it. He seemed to be more afraid of what the presence of a firearm would do, rather than the absence of it.

And having grown up in 1970's Northern Ireland where the chief threat to the public was bomb-blasts - well, not much call for a concealed weapon there either. It would be just one more piece of metal to travel through my body like a knife through butter come the explosion. And possessing personal firearms certainly did no good for those who were, sadly, shot in their own homes. It appears a terrorist assailant is rarely polite enough to permit one the time to fetch it.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

I favour a thermo-nuclear hand-grenade.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I think I'd just take along a sensible woman. See today's shots of yesterday's encounter with a crazed cleaver-wielder (sorry I can't find a link)in London.

Sensible women are really hard to conceal, though - have you seen the holster that you need.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I think this would be best for you moron - I, for one, wouldn't trust you with anything else.

Thank God for bans on all hand guns where I live, concealed or not.

[ 23. May 2013, 17:47: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

"The best handgun for concealed carry" around here is not one. If I recall correctly, it's worth at least 4 years in jail and a probable lengthy if not lifetime firearms ban. Someone else may have more specific info.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I think I'd just take along a sensible woman. See today's shots of yesterday's encounter with a crazed cleaver-wielder (sorry I can't find a link)in London.
If you can face down a pack of Cub Scouts you can face down anybody.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Bentonville really that much of a hard-knocks town, Moron?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
So what do you use to defend yourself?

A well-run police force and judiciary.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

So what do you use to defend yourself?

My wife can whup anybody.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I hear a well funded set of social programs is profoundly effective at lowering crime. I wouldn't know myself, being an American, but it sounds credible.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
Bentonville really that much of a hard-knocks town, Moron?

Only when you're a... well, you know...

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

So what do you use to defend yourself?

Sarcasm and wit, because they are deadly when mentally jousting with an unarmed opponent.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

So what do you use to defend yourself?

Depends what I am trying to defend against.

For black bears I just sing loudly, and that usually scares them off.

Brown bears might require a 6 gauge shotgun, though it is rather difficult to conceal. Put 8 or 10 slugs in each shell and aim for the shoulders: that slows it down and makes it harder to maul you. A popgun isn't very useful in that case: even with a heart full of .44 slugs they can take unfortunately long to realize that they are supposed to be dead. Government crews in Alaska are required to carry a pair of .375 magnum rifles on each field crew, but the shotgun gives more force at short distances, and if the bear is out of range you aren't in danger yet.

For snakes a walking stick with a forked end is convenient for encouraging them to get out of the way if they aren't already doing so, and can also be used to pin the head down while you cut it off with a shovel or pocket knife. Some folks prefer a .38 loaded with birdshot, but it has a bad habit of making holes in your shoes in tight spots.

The walking stick is good for cougars as well - you want to make yourself look big so it decides not to attack. If it does jump you won't have time to pull a gun, but a judo flip on an outstretched paw might work if you have quick reactions. (Try to twist the cat in the process, as most damage is done with the rear claws.)

I haven't encountered anything else that I've needed to defend myself against.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ah, the Second Amendment to the two greatest commandments.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

So what do you use to defend yourself?

As the great Viv Stanshall said, in answer to the same question:

Good manners!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Shipmates, you can have another 2nd Amendment discussion here, that's not a problem.

But let's avoid this thread becoming a discussion of the merits of different named gun brands. This is SoF, not a "Which" survey on the comparative value of specific weapons.

I suspect we've also got to be very cautious re both Commandment 9 and Commandment 7. Selective product promotion isn't on here, nor is anything which might be construed as product misrepresentation. Low legal risk of course; not one we can afford to take, however.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
I favour a thermo-nuclear hand-grenade.

Nah. Portable phaser, removed from its handgrip, slips nicely into any pocket or purse, stun and kill settings.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

True Patriots conceal carry a bald eagle. Not only are they deadly in close quarters, they freak out your attacker. And the symbolism is worth every penny.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Handguns are illegal here.

The biggest danger I have to defend myself from is motorists opening their car doors as I ride past. If I hear the latch of a door I scream very loudly.

I didn't work this out logically - it just happened. [Hot and Hormonal]

Apart from that I thank people for giving way (yielding) even if the law requires them to. I believe that courtesy defuses a lot of potentially nasty situations.

I know that sounds naive, but mostly it's worked. The worst time I was attacked I realised that I didn't have it in me to kill someone else, though I did throw a drunk over my hip once when I was younger.

Huia

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

Personally I am prepared to sic my hens on 'em.
But then, I am an Austalian.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
The worst time I was attacked I realised that I didn't have it in me to kill someone else, though I did throw a drunk over my hip once when I was younger.

I sometimes wonder if I could pull the trigger but if there ever is a time when an assailant is threatening innocent life I believe I could do it, although with the typical reservations. My tinnitus is bad enough it would have to be a pretty bad situation... I carry earplugs though.

And 'drunk over your hip'? One of the reasons I post here is to elicit stories.

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I think I'd just take along a sensible woman. See today's shots of yesterday's encounter with a crazed cleaver-wielder (sorry I can't find a link)in London.
Sensible women are really hard to conceal, though - have you seen the holster that you need.

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
I think I'd just take along a sensible woman. See today's shots of yesterday's encounter with a crazed cleaver-wielder (sorry I can't find a link)in London.
Sensible women are really hard to conceal, though - have you seen the holster that you need.

Have you ever met a sensible woman? Is there such a thing?

[Devil]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

It's obvious why you don't meet sensible women, New Yorker.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
So what do you use to defend yourself?
A well-run police force and judiciary.

That'd be nice. But a just about acceptibly-run police force and judiciary are still better than any handgun. In fact I believe in almost all forseeable circumstances this side of a war zone not having a gun makes me safer than having a gun - and random bystanders on the street having guns is scary.

[ 24. May 2013, 16:46: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Moron,

Having lived in several areas where anyone wandering out alone at night is likely to get mugged, I took the precaution of not going out at night alone as I had no car.

Having lived in an area of the world where life was cheap, I took the precaution of not going out at night and locking my doors and windows.

As to protection at other times I understand that I am too old and fat to learn one of those fancy self defense techniques. So, I am prepared to hand over my money if someone points a weapon at me. I have no glorious dreams of shooting someone mean and desperate enough to take my life for money.

So, I suppose you could say I protect myself by acting rationally. Try it sometime.

Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :

I expected we were going to have that stupid philosophical discussion about whether it is guns, bullets, or people that kill people.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Guns don't kill people. I do.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Having lived in several areas where anyone wandering out alone at night is likely to get mugged, I took the precaution of not going out at night alone as I had no car.

Easier to move to a city where there are no areas that dangerous! (There aren't in London)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
moron: So what do you use to defend yourself?

My dog usually keeps too obtrusive people at bay.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Guns don't kill people. I do.

Is there something you would like to tell us, Mr Nati?

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron
So what do you use to defend yourself?

Generally I use a technique called "not feeding paranoid delusions and obsessions about hypothetical situations of conflict".

I highly recommend it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

When Jons in the Nati are outlawed, only outlaws will have Jons in the Nati.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
So what do you use to defend yourself?
A well-run police force and judiciary.

Indeed. Under the Firearms Act (Canada) and the Criminal Code of Canada, the only people who may carry handguns are armoured car guards (some, but not all) and a handful of people who work in very remote areas.

Handguns in Canada

There was one elderly gentleman in my town who went a bit gaga and developed the unfortunate habit of brandishing a rifle when greeting strangers at his door.

The police paid him a visit and took his guns away.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

My sharp tongue is like a two edged sword. That is all the weapon I need. Anyone who carries a gun is a fool in my opinion.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Carex:

quote:
Brown bears might require a 6 gauge shotgun, though it is rather difficult to conceal.

IIRC, Omar from The Wire favoured a long coat to conceal his shotgun.

As far as the weapon in the OP is concerned a .22 suffers from a lack of penetration and, in the event of a Sandy Hook style incident the OPer is likely to be gunned down whilst fiddling with his piece.

Still, a Freudian would say that lack of penetration and fiddling with one's inadequate piece offers a contributory explanation for America's love affair with the gun so it seems strangely appropriate somehow. Bummer of an epitaph, though.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
As far as the weapon in the OP is concerned a .22 suffers from a lack of penetration and, in the event of a Sandy Hook style incident the OPer is likely to be gunned down whilst fiddling with his piece.

Still, a Freudian would say that lack of penetration and fiddling with one's inadequate piece offers a contributory explanation for America's love affair with the gun so it seems strangely appropriate somehow. Bummer of an epitaph, though.

Not that a barrel barely over an inch long allows for much velocity but it's not a slow round and tends to spin around inside the target; I've often thought I'd rather be shot with a .38.

'At least he died trying SOMETHING': could be worse.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Frankly, one is always better off hanging around with blonde friends who carry hattori hanzo.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
'At least he died trying SOMETHING': could be worse.

Yeah. It's possibly slightly better than "He got a whole bunch of people killed by drawing a gun in a tense situation and survived."

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Yeah. It's possibly slightly better than "He got a whole bunch of people killed by drawing a gun in a tense situation and survived."

I prefer:

"Man, flouting statist laws prohibiting his human and constitutional rights to arm himself as he damn well pleases, wounds assailant ending risk to innocents. He shrugged off hero accolades by saying 'aw shucks - anyone could have done the same, unless they're lemming types'."

It's a bit long I admit but you just need to reduce font size on the grave stone.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Is there really such risk living in a place such as Bentonville?

Confirms that its best to live on the European side of the Atlantic...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
...I've often thought I'd rather be shot with a .38...

Well, don't let us stop you.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
As far as the weapon in the OP is concerned a .22 suffers from a lack of penetration and, in the event of a Sandy Hook style incident the OPer is likely to be gunned down whilst fiddling with his piece.

Still, a Freudian would say that lack of penetration and fiddling with one's inadequate piece offers a contributory explanation for America's love affair with the gun so it seems strangely appropriate somehow. Bummer of an epitaph, though.
Not that a barrel barely over an inch long allows for much velocity but it's not a slow round and tends to spin around inside the target; I've often thought I'd rather be shot with a .38.

'At least he died trying SOMETHING': could be worse.

Really, if you're going to pull that thing you want the immediate capability to off someone so, ideally, you need a '45 with a round in the chamber in case anyone ponderin'. A '22 with two rounds of birdshot means that in a life or death situation you are wasting vital seconds mucking around trying to find the right bullet which, I understand, is a bit more stressful when someone is discharging live ammunition in your general direction than on the target range.

Whilst being hit by a '22 isn't pretty they can be rather easily deterred by, for example, strategically placed cigarette cases which, if a homicidal loon is trying to put a cap in your ass, to use the vernacular, is somewhat less than optimal. In any scenario where you are going to be pulling a gun you need to be able and willing to kill someone. That is what they are there for. If you are reading this in Somalia or Syria or you rob drug dealers for a living then you need a weapon that is optimally lethal. If you are a law abiding citizen then really, you do not need a gun especially not at Rolling Stones concert which, lets face it, attracts a rather different demographic than they did back in the day when they had the Hells Angels as security.

Basically, in the event of your squaring off with someone who knows what they are doing with a gun my money is on an extremely tragic 'Alas, poor Moron' thread in All Saints accompanied by a 'Why God, why?' thread in Hell. You are basically carrying a gun of doubtful efficacy in the event that you will actually need it because you want to stick it to The Man. On behalf of The Man let me say leave the wretched thing at home, locked away securely. And if you are concerned with your masculinity then check your spam filter. There is almost certainly someone prepared to sell you some blue pills that can help with that.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Back in the day shipmste who was a gun owner (and who often posted on a gun site) dropped an OP into SoF by mistake. At least he admitted to it and we had a laugh.

Concealed gun? Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner.

Fly extra safe. Pyx_e

[ 25. May 2013, 20:29: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Yeah. It's possibly slightly better than "He got a whole bunch of people killed by drawing a gun in a tense situation and survived."
I prefer:

"Man, flouting statist laws prohibiting his human and constitutional rights to arm himself as he damn well pleases, wounds assailant ending risk to innocents. He shrugged off hero accolades by saying 'aw shucks - anyone could have done the same, unless they're lemming types'."

It's a bit long I admit but you just need to reduce font size on the grave stone.

I'd prefer "Nobel Prize Winner" on mine. Frankly I think mine's more likely to be true.

[ 25. May 2013, 22:43: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Whilst being hit by a '22 isn't pretty they can be rather easily deterred by, for example, strategically placed cigarette cases which, if a homicidal loon is trying to put a cap in your ass, to use the vernacular, is somewhat less than optimal.

I continue to hope a round of birdshot from an unexpected quarter (the overwheming benefit of a teensy gun) in the neck or eyeball may well give someone pause.

quote:

Basically, in the event of your squaring off with someone who knows what they are doing with a gun my money is on an extremely tragic 'Alas, poor Moron' thread in All Saints accompanied by a 'Why God, why?' thread in Hell.

You think the typical USA mass murderer 'knows what they are doing'?

I figure anyone who calls himself moron has the moral advantage, at least.

And PLEASE note the lower case m. TIA.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
You think the typical USA mass murderer 'knows what they are doing'?

Presumably they do know what they are doing in respect of their weaponry, or they would not be, or be in the process of becoming, mass murderers. That, and not their philosophical coherence, is going to be the relevant consideration.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Presumably they do know what they are doing in respect of their weaponry, or they would not be, or be in the process of becoming, mass murderers.

They only know more than people who haven't familiarized themselves with this stuff for decades and who must risk public ridicule and state sanction in order to combat them.

God bless the NRA for their public education efforts. [Votive]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:

God bless the NRA for their public education efforts.

If only there was some way to tell which career direction the students were going to follow subsequently...

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
You think the typical USA mass murderer 'knows what they are doing'?

I think they know what they are doing better than the average NRA trained person with a gun, let alone an untrained person with a gun. After all they are actually using their gun to shoot other people rather than being most likely to create a self-inflicted wound and to make a bad situation a hell of a lot worse because they have something that encourages them to not back down.

Where they are mistaken is in thinking either carrying or shooting other people with a gun is a good idea. And their motivation.

quote:
I figure anyone who calls himself moron has the moral advantage, at least.

On what grounds?

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

Tom said it as well as anyone, I guess. There is no easy way out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKqO0FeaCFQ

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
For black bears I just sing loudly, and that usually scares them off.

Brown bears might require a 6 gauge shotgun, though it is rather difficult to conceal. Put 8 or 10 slugs in each shell and aim for the shoulders: that slows it down and makes it harder to maul you. A popgun isn't very useful in that case: even with a heart full of .44 slugs they can take unfortunately long to realize that they are supposed to be dead. Government crews in Alaska are required to carry a pair of .375 magnum rifles on each field crew, but the shotgun gives more force at short distances, and if the bear is out of range you aren't in danger yet.

For snakes a walking stick with a forked end is convenient for encouraging them to get out of the way if they aren't already doing so, and can also be used to pin the head down while you cut it off with a shovel or pocket knife. Some folks prefer a .38 loaded with birdshot, but it has a bad habit of making holes in your shoes in tight spots.

The walking stick is good for cougars as well - you want to make yourself look big so it decides not to attack. If it does jump you won't have time to pull a gun, but a judo flip on an outstretched paw might work if you have quick reactions. (Try to twist the cat in the process, as most damage is done with the rear claws.)

I haven't encountered anything else that I've needed to defend myself against.

The goal should be not to use the gun. No-one generally carries any weapons, but I do have sympathy for carrying a rifle in grizzly or polar bear country. Best to avoid the areas where they are in general. Most people never use the gun they carry. Bear bangers are the first thing to use.

There's a psychology of carrying a gun that can make some people bolder than they would elsewise be. I have only seen this with wildlife, but suspect that it emboldens the carrier of a handgun in the same way re other human beings. No amount of training can change the immediate experience of emotions and their connection to the trigger finger.

Posted by GloriousBattle (# 10771) on :

This thread needs some humour. Check out this review:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/ralph/gun-review-hr-1871-pardner-pump-protector-12-gauge/
I own this gun. Owned it even before I read this.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Tom said it as well as anyone, I guess. There is no easy way out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKqO0FeaCFQ

Indeed. "Never compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon" is a seductive approach.

But for those of us that prefer to live, Stand Your Ground Laws lead to increased homicides. There are times to draw the line. But glorifying them rather than coming to that conclusion regretfully and realising that cock-up is the most likely consequence shows a callous disregard for human life.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
You think the typical USA mass murderer 'knows what they are doing'?

It is the difference between your target being everybody or being one, particular person.

quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
I expected we were going to have that stupid philosophical discussion about whether it is guns, bullets, or people that kill people.

Silly, it is the loss of blood and/or damage to internal organs which kills people.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Gee, I thought it was God. Or Satan.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
No-one generally carries any weapons, but I do have sympathy for carrying a rifle in grizzly or polar bear country. Best to avoid the areas where they are in general.

Just stay near someone you can outrun. If a bear comes charging run in the direction that keeps the other person between you and the bear.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

@moron You're an american right?

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
God bless the NRA for their public education efforts.

Joke post surely?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Now I love Mr. Petty. You can just hear Jesus singing that song as we beat and spat on and flogged and nailed him up can't you? No really. He just wouldn't back down. Or maybe He went through that, through us not backing down, so that we can keep on not backing down; He backed down for us so we don't have to. And Don Rumsfeld is His apostle: "We have a choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we chose the latter.".

I mean just look at the way Jesus will back everyone down, apart from us good guys of course, when we're really up against it!

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
God bless the NRA for their public education efforts.
Joke post surely?

If I'm going to be around folks with guns I'd rather be around folks who have had NRA safety training than around folks that haven't.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
No-one generally carries any weapons, but I do have sympathy for carrying a rifle in grizzly or polar bear country. Best to avoid the areas where they are in general.
Just stay near someone you can outrun. If a bear comes charging run in the direction that keeps the other person between you and the bear.

If a bear asks to eat you, give him your friend as well. Or rather, first. And turn your cheeks to it and skedaddle.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Don Rumsfeld is His apostle: "We have a choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we chose the latter."

On Current TV there is currently a guy advertising his show who presumes to mock Rumsfeld: pretty nervy ISTM, coming from a 'reporter' who never played at Don's level.

But I admit I am probably the most arrogant SOB you'll ever run across negatively reveling in mocking others who have played at higher levels.

Durnit.

Still and all you do what you can with what you have. [Biased]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Yeah, if'n only Jee-zus udda hadduh Vulcan Minigun in Gethsemane uh ?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
No-one generally carries any weapons, but I do have sympathy for carrying a rifle in grizzly or polar bear country. Best to avoid the areas where they are in general.
Just stay near someone you can outrun. If a bear comes charging run in the direction that keeps the other person between you and the bear.
If a bear asks to eat you, give him your friend as well. Or rather, first. And turn your cheeks to it and skedaddle.

Yep. A grizzly can cover 100 yards of uneven ground in six seconds.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
God bless the NRA for their public education efforts.
Joke post surely?
If I'm going to be around folks with guns I'd rather be around folks who have had NRA safety training than around folks that haven't.

Indeed. And to use an analogy if I'm going to be around rabid dogs I'd rather be around rabid poodles than rabid rottweilers. This doesn't mean I want to be around rabid dogs at all.

If folks are carrying guns other than (a) on a range or (b) hunting or some other specific gun requiring activity (or in bear country) or (c) in a military situation or (d) because they have a restraining order out against a small, finite list of specific people and have reasonable cause to expect those people to breach the restraining order then it is because they have fantasies of using them on people. If they have those fantasies then they are automatically very dangerous and being trained by the NRA only makes them very slightly less dangerous or worrying. On the other hand the NRA goes out of its way to infect people with those fantasies.

[ 28. May 2013, 11:58: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

If folks are carrying guns other than (a) on a range or (b) hunting or some other specific gun requiring activity (or in bear country) or (c) in a military situation or (d) because they have a restraining order out against a small, finite list of specific people and have reasonable cause to expect those people to breach the restraining order then it is because they have fantasies of using them on people. If they have those fantasies then they are automatically very dangerous and being trained by the NRA only makes them very slightly less dangerous or worrying. On the other hand the NRA goes out of its way to infect people with those fantasies.

I doubt my secretary has "fantasies" about shooting someone.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I think Justinian, you're leading in the direction of mood, personality, and what is acceptable to express. It is unfair to describe a national personality, except to say there is a tendency in one direction or another via shared cultural history.

Consider: you have been served a meal in a restaurant, and it's pretty good, but they brought you the rice rather than the potato. Do you complain and send it back, say nothing and eat it anyway, eat it anyway and inform the waiter that it was wrong? In some places, the confrontation would be generally avoided, and at most eating it anyway and telling the waiter. I have the impression that Americans would tend to confront more, being more concerned about rights than other nationalities.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

If folks are carrying guns other than [..4 random reasons..] then it is because they have fantasies of using them on people. If they have those fantasies then they are automatically very dangerous and being trained by the NRA only makes them very slightly less dangerous or worrying.

I'd say that this kind of brainless nonsense was more worrying, actually.

I don't carry a gun - I don't even own a gun, for all kinds of reasons, not least because about the only thing that passes for crime in these parts is 19-year-olds trying to sneak in to bars.

I do have smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors in my house. This doesn't mean that I "fantasize" about my house burning down, not do I "fantasize" about dragging my children out of the house before they asphyxiate. We have, however, practiced what to do if there was a fire, just like millions of other families, and I check that the alarms are functioning correctly on a regular basis.

I don't expect my house to burn down, but I would like to maximize my chances of not being found dead in its smoking embers if it does.

I'm sure you'd like to tell me that my smoke alarm doesn't kill anyone, whereas if I had a gun it would be 20 times more likely to kill me or a family member than a criminal.

Let's start with the smoke alarm. Yes, you're right - there is little downside to owning a smoke alarm - the greatest risk it poses is falling on someone's head because I haven't fixed it to the ceiling properly. But that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about your characterization of everyone who carries a gun outside your special categories as "fantasists." The most recent numbers I can find suggest that in the USA, there are about 800,000 aggravated assaults (basically, assaults involving a deadly weapon) every year, and about 360,000 house fires. Yet the people who are concerned about assault are the fantasists? What about people who carry mace or pepper spray - are they fantasists too, or is there just a gun-shaped hole in your logic?

Now let's consider the "20 times more likely to shoot me or a family member". Yes, as a statistical aggregation of data, you're right. A useful caution? Sure. Something to think about if you're considering purchasing a gun? Sure. Does it mean that the gun purchased by a particular individual is 20 times more likely to shoot him? No, because this statistical aggregation hides the details. Common-sense precautions can make it essentially impossible for a toddler to get hold of your gun, for example. Suicides? Yes, you're more at risk if you have a gun, because you have an easy, certain, quick way of killing yourself. About the only bit of firm data that came out of the Brady Bill is that when a cooling-off period for gun purchases was introduced, the suicide rate went down. I gather there was a similar effect in the UK when acetaminophen started to be sold in only limited quantities.

These are all reasonable things to think about. But dismissing gun owners as "fantasists" because they don't come to the same set of conclusions as Justinian is unreasonable.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Leorning Cniht, this is nonsense. There is no comparison with a passive safety device like a smoke detector and a gun. You might compare seat belts or a first aid kit the same meaningless way. Or broccoli, which you cannot eat if you don't have any.

A gun is a weapon, a smoke detector isn't. The only similarity is that you cannot have a smoke detector alarm if you don't possess one, just like you cannot shoot anything or anyone if you do not have a gun. Nor can you eat broccoli if you haven't grown or bought some.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
These are all reasonable things to think about. But dismissing gun owners as "fantasists" because they don't come to the same set of conclusions as Justinian is unreasonable.

I don't know. It's only an unreasonable point to make if you can show that a good percentage of those 800,000 assaults could have been prevented (or ameliorated in their severity) by the victim having a handgun.

As far as I can tell from the statistics, the reverse is actually true, in that having a weapon makes you more, not less, likely to become a victim of gun violence. So, that being the case, holding to the fantasy that having a gun protects you is exactly that: a fantasy.

I've one particularly lovable nutter on my FB page who's suggested that events in Woolwich would have turned out very different if we Brits had all been armed. My answer to that would be: yes, yes it would. But not in a good way.

Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :

Outside a sporting and vermin control context, why would anyone want to own/carry a firearm if they can't imagine themselves using it on someone else if they are feeling threatened, or because they see someone else being threatened?

Of course they're fantasists! They're using their imaginations and either coming up feeling frightened and/or heroic. But it's still psychopathic bullshit, fed by a bunch of sociopathic idiots (the NRA) who only care about their `right' to blow away anyone they deem unworthy of existence---all in the best possible taste of course because we wouldn't want to be anything other than loyal upstanding citizens of the USA.

Anyone with half a brain can work out that only highly trained people can be entrusted with firearms in life threatening situations, and they still make mistakes.

Ordinary normal human beings in high stress abnormal situations either freeze or panic, very few, whatever their fantasies tell them, remain cool, calm, detached, and act with intelligence and competence. And that is without even presuming that access to a weapon, let alone use of it, is even an option when it comes to the few seconds that actually count.

This whole discussion is just so out beyond the edge of sanity it's truly hilarious. And yet so many are convinced it's sane. Just like nailing a human being to a piece of wood seemed to some like a good idea at the time.

[ 28. May 2013, 16:03: Message edited by: Alisdair ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I think Justinian, you're leading in the direction of mood, personality, and what is acceptable to express. It is unfair to describe a national personality, except to say there is a tendency in one direction or another via shared cultural history.

Consider: you have been served a meal in a restaurant, and it's pretty good, but they brought you the rice rather than the potato. Do you complain and send it back, say nothing and eat it anyway, eat it anyway and inform the waiter that it was wrong? In some places, the confrontation would be generally avoided, and at most eating it anyway and telling the waiter. I have the impression that Americans would tend to confront more, being more concerned about rights than other nationalities.

So. Americans are more confrontational than othes according to you, and you think this is a good reason for them to carry guns. Rather than simply making it more likely that people who will "Stand my ground" no matter what the circumstance will keep escalating because they have a gun - and someone is going to get shot.

And my "List of random reasons" was the list of reasons I could think of to carry and fire guns that don't have anything to do with humans as targets (I forgot things like the biathlon). And two that do. As for the 800,000 aggravated assaults, how many of them do you think would have been helped by extra guns? And how many of them do you think a gun would have just made worse, with the risk of stray bullets? And how many of them do you think happened precisely because there were people carrying guns. Remember the Tueller Drill - at close range bringing a gun to a knife fight doesn't help much (although it does more than bringing a knife to a gun fight).

As for mace and pepper spray, those things hurt like hell but as a rule don't kill people. This isn't a hole in my logic. It's a difference in kind between the gun and pepper spray.

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by moron:
So what do you use to defend yourself?
A well-run police force and judiciary.

That must be really heavy.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0