Guns, Guns Guns

Let's expand the point. Why must the defender be a special fighter? Why can't we ALL defend ourselves?

The 2nd Amendment asserts that we should be able to.

DDHvi wrote:

If no one has a gun but the gunman, no one can fight back, and no one can stop the gunman from killing people.

From:

http://conservativetribune.com/obama-gu ... 2015-10-04

There used to be a tradition, (too often violated in practice) of the Christian Knight - a defender of the weak, loyal, a fighter against the evil ones, etc. Look at the knights of the round table legends.

Note that productive work requires defenders in our present world, otherwise the crooks and thugs take over. Those with the weapons and the knowledge of how to use them tend to determine who gets defended, whether the people, or the big shots.

Slight side-step on topic.

Gunman on rampage - defense options.
Note - defense options are based on cold-blooded logic.

1) Run. Get distance from gunman. Preferably place wall or other solid obstacle between yourself and gunman in the process. Downside is that you need a fairly good idea of where the gunman is so that you don't run into him or end up giving him a clean shot at you. Nevertheless, generally the best option.

2) Hide. If the gunman cannot find you, he probably will not hurt you. Remember that concealment does not equal cover. Hide behind very heavy desk, bullets will probably not penetrate. Hide behind paper screen door, bullet will get through easily. Remember that hiding severely impacts mobility. If discovered, you are a target, so make sure your hiding place is a good one.

3) Negotiate. Very risky option. Gunman holds all the (metaphorical) cards and probably wants you to die. You don't want to die. Mutually opposed desires, chance of compromise negligible tending towards non-existent. Option not recommended unless you have superior firepower on your side to force negotiations as means of ensuring safety of other would-be victims.

4) Attack. High risk but potential payoff is generally worth it. Only use if options 1 and 2 are non-starters for any reason. Advantages are that gunmen do not expect to be attacked and the sheer surprise factor will usually get you maybe two or three seconds as they mentally adjust to the new situation. Disadvantage is that they probably have a better weapon, so you may need to find some way to ensure that they either do not see your attack or cannot respond properly to it. Suicidal attack is an option, but should only be used as an absolute last must-protect-others resort and even then, only if you can guarantee that you will take them down with you (example: straight out of glass window on fifteenth floor of building). Mass attacks may also work, assuming enough people are willing to sacrifice themselves to run the gunman out of ammo. Mass attacks are not recommended.

5) Panic. Totally non-recommended. No upside to this option. Reduces chances of survival by significant margin. Reduces chances of survival of others nearby dramatically. Increases chances of non-attacker-related injuries and fatalities considerably. Suggested course of action if panicking - stop. Suggested course of action if someone nearby is panicking - either knock them out or get away from them so that they can serve as a sacrificial distraction for you while you pursue option 1. Using them as bait for option 4 is also possible, but not recommended due to inability to predict how they will act.


Suggestion - Teach students how to react to presence of gunman including various survival strategies. Drill repeatedly.
Option - If gunman is captured alive, use for medical experimentation (drugs testing) as the *********** may as well contribute something back to the society that they lashed out against.

DDHvi wrote:

If no one has a gun but the gunman, no one can fight back, and no one can stop the gunman from killing people.

Wrong. People can fight back (see option 4 above). A gun is an all-range weapon, so getting in close to punch/kick/bite/whatever is highly problematic, but it is still possible assuming that some cover (or even concealment) is available. Once you get in close enough that you can push the gun aside (or up or down), the gunman will be open to your counter-attack. I personally recommend starting with the classic knee to the groin followed by a scrape down the shin and a heel-stamp on the foot. These attacks are easily chained into a single motion and any one of these will significantly degrade the mobility of the gunman. If all three connect, they won't be moving for a while (unless they're wearing armor).
A punch to the solar plexus followed by an elbow strike to the nose as they bend over in pain also works well (and can be chained) but has a higher chance of killing the gunman via driving the nasal bones into the brain. Not that it really matters.

Of course, the problem is getting close enough to do it. In order to stop a gunman, you generally need to ignore things like fear or even your own survival instincts.
Nevertheless, it can be done as long as intelligence is applied. Anyone who says it can't probably hasn't studied fighting styles, tactics and/or strategies.

Michael Everett wrote:

DDHvi wrote:If no one has a gun but the gunman, no one can fight back, and no one can stop the gunman from killing people.

Wrong. People can fight back (see option 4 above). A gun is an all-range weapon, so getting in close to punch/kick/bite/whatever is highly problematic, but it is still possible assuming that some cover (or even concealment) is available. Once you get in close enough that you can push the gun aside (or up or down), the gunman will be open to your counter-attack. I personally recommend starting with the classic knee to the groin followed by a scrape down the shin and a heel-stamp on the foot. These attacks are easily chained into a single motion and any one of these will significantly degrade the mobility of the gunman. If all three connect, they won't be moving for a while (unless they're wearing armor).
A punch to the solar plexus followed by an elbow strike to the nose as they bend over in pain also works well (and can be chained) but has a higher chance of killing the gunman via driving the nasal bones into the brain. Not that it really matters.

Of course, the problem is getting close enough to do it. In order to stop a gunman, you generally need to ignore things like fear or even your own survival instincts.
Nevertheless, it can be done as long as intelligence is applied. Anyone who says it can't probably hasn't studied fighting styles, tactics and/or strategies.

That's part of the reason I don't see the need for high capacity magazines for civilian use. Your best bet for this is while they're reloading and if they have to reload more often, people will have more opportunities to take action.

Perhaps a better answer would be in the USA to just have people exercise there Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms? Which is kinda what the founding fathers intended.

Concealed carry. If only one out of 25 did so, most if not all school gunman, who pretty much already have shown their character, would be eliminated before many deaths could occur.

You do not run away. You show courage and stand your ground if possible, access the tactical situtation and then take care of business. Like in eliminating the deadly threat.

Like shooting the dirty dog dead dead dead. I know this upsets lots of wimps on this forum, but sometimes you need to be shocked. Some of us have the experience and training to do this.

Sad but true. Killing people sucks, let me tell you. But sometimes it must be done and done quickly. I am not proud of my past history. What was done was done. My point of view.

Personal note. It may be time for me to move on. This is a science fiction forum. Perhaps we need to kill lots of internal sections completely. Folks here do not have a clue. Repectfully.

Also my speelling has gone away. Strokes. Getting old sucks, let me tell you. Either time for my walk or a good nap. Not sure which yet. Maybe both. Now up again to one hour walking daily.

HB, I wish you the best with your health challenges. As the Duke of Edinburgh said on his 90th birthday "As you get older bits drop off". Many on this forum have medical issues to cope with, so I'm sure that we do understand.

You can just not attend this part of the forums as is your right, but I personally find it to be quite educational. As most men don't understand women, I still don't understand conservative Americans. Respect them yes, and am getting closer to understanding, but still enjoying the voyage of discovery. I hope that you stay.

As to your suggestion that the answer to gun violence is more guns, I reiterate that the USA has many more civilian guns than any other developed country, yet has extraordinarily more shooting incidents per 100,000 people than any other similar country.

As to insinuating that those who favour gun control are wimps, I have been a hunter, trapper, nightclub bouncer, in uniform, commanded military units, and have a number of legal guns. I just happen to like that we have 1/29 as much chance of being shot in this country as you do in yours.
An interesting statistic in the recent press is that in the past year there have been 47 US citizens shot by police for each one shot by terrorists.

HB of CJ wrote:Perhaps a better answer would be in the USA to just have people exercise there Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms? Which is kinda what the founding fathers intended.

Concealed carry. If only one out of 25 did so, most if not all school gunman, who pretty much already have shown their character, would be eliminated before many deaths could occur.

You do not run away. You show courage and stand your ground if possible, access the tactical situtation and then take care of business. Like in eliminating the deadly threat.

Like shooting the dirty dog dead dead dead. I know this upsets lots of wimps on this forum, but sometimes you need to be shocked. Some of us have the experience and training to do this.

Sad but true. Killing people sucks, let me tell you. But sometimes it must be done and done quickly. I am not proud of my past history. What was done was done. My point of view.

Personal note. It may be time for me to move on. This is a science fiction forum. Perhaps we need to kill lots of internal sections completely. Folks here do not have a clue. Repectfully.

Also my speelling has gone away. Strokes. Getting old sucks, let me tell you. Either time for my walk or a good nap. Not sure which yet. Maybe both. Now up again to one hour walking daily.

I was reading the Blaze and noticed this article about the Muslim cleric in Australia believes that Muslim children should not sing the National Anathema. In addition, he believes immigrants should not swear a citizenship oath. Let's translate: We are not going to follow Australia's laws but are going to only follow sharia law. I hope you keep your powder dry and guns oiled because Australian citizens are going to need firearms. Oh wait, you don't have any. Do you think the Muslim extremists are going to follow the law of no weapons?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/01/australian-islamic-leader-says-muslim-schoolchildren-shouldnt-have-to-sing-national-anthem/

Australia has been warned by the Muslim extremists ahead of time that they intend to cause mayhem and destruction.

I agree that was a particularly annoying news article, and everyone I know (left or right) believe that they should either fit in or leave.
Overall we are not overly concerned by our muslim citizens as they only make up 2% of our population, and most of those don't make waves. The small number of idiots like this are unlikely to be a real threat to our way of life. Certainly we don't see any connection with such stupidity and general gun ownership. Plenty of trained and professional official people with guns to sort them out.

smr wrote:I was reading the Blaze and noticed this article about the Muslim cleric in Australia believes that Muslim children should not sing the National Anathema. In addition, he believes immigrants should not swear a citizenship oath. Let's translate: We are not going to follow Australia's laws but are going to only follow sharia law. I hope you keep your powder dry and guns oiled because Australian citizens are going to need firearms. Oh wait, you don't have any. Do you think the Muslim extremists are going to follow the law of no weapons?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/01/australian-islamic-leader-says-muslim-schoolchildren-shouldnt-have-to-sing-national-anthem/

Australia has been warned by the Muslim extremists ahead of time that they intend to cause mayhem and destruction.

The history of terrorism in Australia, if I even use the term, is predominately bikie gang related.
Of the two bombings that weren't (at least that I can think of) one was against a Jewish school and the other is unknown but needed someone highly placed in the government to pull off.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

HB of CJ wrote:Perhaps a better answer would be in the USA to just have people exercise there Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms? Which is kinda what the founding fathers intended.

Which is what is causing the problem in the first place. There is A REASON the US is way worse than pretty much all other developed nations in this regard. More people with guns = More people using guns. It is not a complicated equation.


Suggesting the solution is more guns is like suggesting the fix for massive flooding is more rain. You know... to wash away all that first rain that's causing problems for people!

In Switzerland, every single man that has passed basic training owns a firearm. They have one of highest rates of gun ownership in the world while having one of the lowest rates of gun crime.

In 2014 there were 173 attempted and completed homicides, of which 18 involved firearms (10.4%). 41 of them were completed, therefore Switzerland had a murder rate of 0.49 per 100,000 population, the lowest raw figure and lowest rate for 33 years, since the start of the nationwide coordinated collection of statistical data, despite a strong growth of inhabitants (from 6.4 million to 8.1 million, +27%) over the same period.[15]

I guess that puts the rest of gun availability versus use argument. I do not go looking for trouble but the day that they try to take my right to bear arms means war. It's the day of the start of the 2nd American revolution. I am a former soldier and I took the oath to defend the constitution against foreign or domestic enemies. Look up the oath that a person in the US has to swear to enter in the military. Now, let's take idea of banning guns and just look how much illegal drugs enter the country everyday. Drugs are illegal and they can not stop the flow. By banning guns create a new illegal business opportunity like they did with booze in 20's, not to smart! So to the gun hating Nazis please suggest some sensible ideas before posting to the forums. I know lets just enforce the current laws and regulations on the books.

gcomeau wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:Perhaps a better answer would be in the USA to just have people exercise there Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms? Which is kinda what the founding fathers intended.

Which is what is causing the problem in the first place. There is A REASON the US is way worse than pretty much all other developed nations in this regard. More people with guns = More people using guns. It is not a complicated equation.


Suggesting the solution is more guns is like suggesting the fix for massive flooding is more rain. You know... to wash away all that first rain that's causing problems for people!