Beyond Deadly Force ... Options To Use (n/a)

Status
Not open for further replies.
DavidWhite said:
If someone asks for my wallet/keys/phone/etc I will give it to them. Realistically if someone has a gun already pointed at you are you going to be able to draw and fire before you yourself are turned into a human colander? Unlikely. Real world most people are somewhere between 3 and 4 seconds from the draw to the first shot when the turd hits the oscillating device.
Click to expand...


I did begin the thread asking about de-escalation tactics. Believe it or not some folks are actually trained to be able to disarm a criminal but the training and the will to so must be absolutely correct. I don't recommend anyone trying it but there are no doubt some on here that have had the training. There are some really good self defense instructors on this planet.

Keeping yourself safe doesn't have to involve a gun, but some use them as another tool in the box. If you're old and a bit feeble you may have to use something to equalize the situation or learn how to de-escalate the situation with a cool disposition and the right words.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I don’t understand how this could happen. Isn’t against the law for a 15 year old to own a firearm? someone should make a law that says a 15 yr. old can’t to own a firearm, then these sorts of things wouldn’t happen.
Click to expand...

I assume you are being sarcastic
 
David Megginson said:
Yes, both, actually. News media (whatever their political persuasion) cover the exceptional, not the routine, because the routine isn't news. I remember decades ago when my local paper ran an April Fool's edition — they'd had a reader survey that told them people wanted more good news, so everything on the page was positive. One of the lead headlines was "[x] thousand planes land at Kingston Airport without crashing."

I don't personally know anyone who has been killed or injured during a robbery, but I know two who died in household accidents (one while cleaning his gutters, and another while trying to move a dresser down the stairs). Neither one made the headlines, because that kind of death is, sadly, too common to be news.
Click to expand...
News media aren’t about keeping people informed, they’re about making money.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
“Suicide attempts are often impulsive acts, driven by transient life crises,” the authors write. “Most attempts are not fatal, and most people who attempt suicide do not go on to die in a future suicide. Whether a suicide attempt is fatal depends heavily on the lethality of the method used — and firearms are extremely lethal. These facts focus attention on firearm access as a risk factor for suicide especially in the United States, which has a higher prevalence of civilian-owned firearms than any other country and one of the highest rates of suicide by firearm.”
Click to expand...
This is a good example of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your conclusion is that suicides in the US are more likely to be successful because guns are accessible so rejoicing guns would decrease the number of successful suicides. Its also possible that the US has more people motivated to actually kill themselves, so they use the most effective tool available. See, Japan.
 
Daleandee said:
Keeping yourself safe doesn't have to involve a gun, but some use them as another tool in the box. If you're old and a bit feeble you may have to use something to equalize the situation or learn how to de-escalate the situation with a cool disposition and the right words.
Click to expand...

I've had some training on de-escalation, enough to know that it's a very difficult thing to learn because people are so different and people who are intent on doing harm have a fundamental and unknown dysfunction. My take on the training I had was that it takes years of training and technique to be effective. It everyone could do it, every police officer on the force would be a master hostage negotiator.
 
Lindberg said:
This is a good example of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your conclusion is that suicides in the US are more likely to be successful because guns are accessible so rejoicing guns would decrease the number of successful suicides. Its also possible that the US has more people motivated to actually kill themselves, so they use the most effective tool available. See, Japan.
Click to expand...
The quote isn’t mine - it’s the authors. And it summarizes decades of research on this reality. I know from my training that suicides are indeed preventable in many cases and that access to guns makes such prevention much harder. Frankly, I think we can all imagine someone in despair because of an event who gets drunk and, being drunk, depressed (from the alcohol), and uninhibited (from the alcohol), shoots themselves; were they sober they may not have even contemplated suicide, let alone killed themselves.

Something to ponder: why are people pushing back on the possibility (let’s call it that, for discussion) that access to guns increases suicides rather than saying “so what”? It would seem the issue is of potential concern yet people wish it not to be true.

Regardless of our disagreement over the data, I sincerely hope you or your family don’t have to deal with such a tragedy. I suspect there are at least a few people on this site who have been directly affected by this.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
The quote isn’t mine - it’s the authors. And it summarizes decades of research on this reality. I know from my training that suicides are indeed preventable in many cases and that access to guns makes such prevention much harder. Frankly, I think we can all imagine someone in despair because of an event who gets drunk and, being drunk, depressed (from the alcohol), and uninhibited (from the alcohol), shoots themselves; were they sober they may not have even contemplated suicide, let alone killed themselves.

Something to ponder: why are people pushing back on the possibility (let’s call it that, for discussion) that access to guns increases suicides rather than saying “so what”? It would seem the issue is of potential concern yet people wish it not to be true.

Regardless of our disagreement over the data, I sincerely hope you or your family don’t have to deal with such a tragedy. I suspect there are at least a few people on this site who have been directly affected by this.
Click to expand...


I’ll gladly say, “So what?” I’m less concerned with someone wanting to kill himself than with someone wanting to kill me.

And, yes, I’ve had contact with suicide a few times. In fact, two weeks ago the brother of a family friend hung himself. Tragic, heartbreaking, and we all grieve and question how we could have seen it coming and intervened. But we aren’t wasting time worrying about how the young man had access to a rope.

Regarding your example about the drunk shooting himself - why not the same concern about his access to alcohol as his access to a firearm? My point is that there is usually a chain of circumstances leading to a suicide, and breaking any one link might prevent the tragedy. We should try to identify links that are effective and address only the at-risk person, without impacting others.
 
dtuuri said:
I'm noticing how often violent criminals are able to be tracked down in urban areas because of security cameras. Every day you see and read (well, not @Kristin apparently) about an unprovoked murder in some big city and a week or two later you'll read about the suspect being arrested. So, if the perpetrators knew there was no way they could avoid being identified and tracked doing their crime, maybe they wouldn't do it at all, huh? What we need are more cameras! Somebody smarter than I am may be able to invent a personal 360° camera lens that could record the wearer's surroundings and transmit the data to a network when triggered by the victim, perhaps via smartphone? Then the network could ping other users in the area to upload their observations and alert law enforcement. Can it be done?

As one who used to be a good shot (in high school I was the first winner of the annual "Grand Aggregate Trophy" in our rifle club) and also qualified on the M-16 in basic training (USAF), I think carrying a concealed handgun is kind of naive. Unless you walk around with the thing in your hand ready to fire it, how are you gonna get it out and use it during a surprise mugging? Around the home, you probably ought to have a shotgun. Loaded and within easy reach. What could go wrong?

Nah, cameras are the answer. Just need to find someone to invent the system.
Click to expand...
Do you think that will be acceptable in the USA? They have a lot of cameras in the UK, and even more in China. Even with a wide-open road, no one breaks the speed limit driving in China, so it seems very effective as a deterrant for some crimes. I'm feel safe walking there, however, while it works for their society, it isn't acceptable here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/states-push-back-facial-recognition-police-77510175

I'll note that your idea is different from the UK and China implementation in that you specifically mention the potential victim needs to start the camera/recording network and so would be more acceptable here. Interesting ideafor deterrence, if the perp thinks there's a good chance of being caught and the victim has time to start the system.
 
Bob Noel said:
I assume you are being sarcastic
Click to expand...
There’s not a sarcastic bone in my body. So I don’t understand the same thing about Chicago guns are illegal there right? yet it the highest shooting rate. Where the criminals getting all the guns? Are they making them? I don’t remember learning how to make guns in shop class when I was in high school.
I wish somebody would explain this to me.
 
MauleSkinner said:
News media aren’t about keeping people informed, they’re about making money.
Click to expand...
Every business is about making money, but there are news outlets (again, of all political persuasions) that do it more ethically than others. It's just important to understand the limitations of what we're dealing with: even from the most ethical news outlet imagineable, you can't judge the risk of something — whether we're talking about crime or aviation — just from the existence of the occasional dramatic news story, because news outlets aren't bureaus of statistics. It's not their job to write about the 999,999 people who weren't murdered in the city last week.
 
Morgan3820 said:
There’s not a sarcastic bone in my body. So I don’t understand the same thing about Chicago guns are illegal there right? yet it the highest shooting rate. Where the criminals getting all the guns? Are they making them? I don’t remember learning how to make guns in shop class when I was in high school.
I wish somebody would explain this to me.
Click to expand...
Maybe someone should make a law that prohibits using guns for criminal purposes.
 
David Megginson said:
Every business is about making money, but there are news outlets (again, of all political persuasions) that do it more ethically than others. It's just important to understand the limitations of what we're dealing with: even from the most ethical news outlet imagineable, you can't judge the risk of something — whether we're talking about crime or aviation — just from the existence of the occasional dramatic news story, because news outlets aren't bureaus of statistics. It's not their job to write about the 999,999 people who weren't murdered in the city last week.
Click to expand...
News media make it more obvious that profit is the primary motive.

we’ll, profit and political persuasion.

either way, the product they’re selling isn’t what they’re advertising.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
There’s not a sarcastic bone in my body. So I don’t understand the same thing about Chicago guns are illegal there right? yet it the highest shooting rate. Where the criminals getting all the guns? Are they making them? I don’t remember learning how to make guns in shop class when I was in high school.
I wish somebody would explain this to me.
Click to expand...
Ahhh Chicago, FauxNews' favorite whipping post. Remember when they celebrated them not getting the Olympic bid in favor of Brazil? America first my arse!
They come from other, loose standard states and are sold on the streets. I suspect you know this. Ya, some are stolen but either way they dont originate from responsible gun buyers or dealers. The supposed slippery slope that has kept firearm sales records on paper and in the hands of the dealers allows the bad actors to continue.
The 2A sez Keep and Bear not Manufacture, Sell and Profit but the loudest voices are doing just that.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
The quote isn’t mine - it’s the authors. And it summarizes decades of research on this reality. I know from my training that suicides are indeed preventable in many cases and that access to guns makes such prevention much harder. Frankly, I think we can all imagine someone in despair because of an event who gets drunk and, being drunk, depressed (from the alcohol), and uninhibited (from the alcohol), shoots themselves; were they sober they may not have even contemplated suicide, let alone killed themselves.

Something to ponder: why are people pushing back on the possibility (let’s call it that, for discussion) that access to guns increases suicides rather than saying “so what”? It would seem the issue is of potential concern yet people wish it not to be true.

Regardless of our disagreement over the data, I sincerely hope you or your family don’t have to deal with such a tragedy. I suspect there are at least a few people on this site who have been directly affected by this.
Click to expand...

My friend did it by drinking antifreeze. Russia has twice the suicide rate of the U.S. yet not by firearm. They like to jump off tall buildings or lie on a railroad track. Both methods are fast and effective. Russia has way more murders than the U.S. as well as more suicides yet far fewer gun crimes. Russian gangs love to chop people up in pieces, as they do in many other countries that have strict gun control. In India hanging yourself seems to be popular.
 
Robert Gee said:
Ahhh Chicago, FauxNews' favorite whipping post. Remember when they celebrated them not getting the Olympic bid in favor of Brazil? America first my arse!
They come from other, loose standard states and are sold on the streets. I suspect you know this. Ya, some are stolen but either way they dont originate from responsible gun buyers or dealers. The supposed slippery slope that has kept firearm sales records on paper and in the hands of the dealers allows the bad actors to continue.
The 2A sez Keep and Bear not Manufacture, Sell and Profit but the loudest voices are doing just that.
Click to expand...
I like Chicago. On a Saturday night sometimes the gunshots have a kinda musical beat.
 
Rushie said:
My friend did it by drinking antifreeze. Russia has twice the suicide rate of the U.S. yet not by firearm. They like to jump off tall buildings or lie on a railroad track. Both methods are fast and effective. Russia has way more murders than the U.S. as well as more suicides yet far fewer gun crimes. Russian gangs love to chop people up in pieces, as they do in many other countries that have strict gun control. In India hanging yourself seems to be popular.
Click to expand...
A friend was a Mormon missionary in the South Pacific and he said the preferred method for women was drinking bleach. Ban cleaning products!
 
Here are a couple videos to view if you are open to changing your mind. If not, then so be it...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Do you think that will be acceptable in the USA? ...

I'll note that your idea is different from the UK and China implementation in that you specifically mention the potential victim needs to start the camera/recording network and so would be more acceptable here. Interesting ideafor deterrence, if the perp thinks there's a good chance of being caught and the victim has time to start the system.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm thinking a miniature lens would be worn somewhere on the clothing like those bigger security cameras I've seen advertised with some sort of a 360° field of vision. It would update images on a continuous loop locally on the person, say their smart phone's database, like a cockpit voice recorder. Then it would transmit the images when the owner or maybe the thief triggers it somehow. I'll leave the details to the inventor. :) So, it would be voluntary and the more participants, the better. Heck, everybody could just wear a fake lens and avoid the expense, like a fake decal in your window saying you have a security system when you don't.

An optional feature could be a stink bomb that sprays the perp with skunk oil, but I can see "Murphy" having a good time with that.
 
Lindberg said:
:confused:
So why aren't all the murders happening in those states?:confused2:
Click to expand...
Duuhhhh. Maybe better to ask yourself why you dont hear about them. Imagine what it would be if rednecks and hillbillies live packed in on top of each other.
violent-crimes-FBI-e1415631900676.jpg

representative, I couldnt swipe the 2020 FBI stats
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Frankly, I think we can all imagine someone in despair because of an event who gets drunk and, being drunk, depressed (from the alcohol), and uninhibited (from the alcohol), shoots themselves; were they sober they may not have even contemplated suicide, let alone killed themselves.
Click to expand...

How then did the gun commit the suicide? In that scenario it seems that the alcohol would be the item that we should be screaming about banning.

I asked the question before but it went unanswered. Does the misuse of an item by a few mean that the majority aren't allowed to have it? If this were the case there are a number of things in the world that do good that bring about bad results when people with evil intent uses them. I contend that if a person is committed to self destruction there is little that will prevent them from finally succeeding.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the tool they use we should focus more on the person themselves. However you want to argue the point the fact remains that guns do not kill people, people kill people.
 
NC Pilot said:
Here are a couple videos to view if you are open to changing your mind. If not, then so be it...
Click to expand...
Steve comes up in my feed, I enjoy his banter with hecklers. Hes a pretty good second rate comedian. I suggest you see the original for context and see if you hear the same thing and make your own counter arguments.. From what I saw of the rebuttal he is arguing minutiae and semantics not the actual arguments. Couldnt watch it all, it takes a Certain type to enjoy being riled up and breathlessly screeched at constantly ie. Levin, Limbaugh or Hannity fans:mad::biggrin::goofy:
But really, it takes a pretty poorly informed person to be swayed by any Personality
 
Last edited:
Robert Gee said:
Duuhhhh. Maybe better to ask yourself why you dont hear about them. Imagine what it would be if rednecks and hillbillies live packed in on top of each other.
violent-crimes-FBI-e1415631900676.jpg

representative, I couldnt swipe the 2020 FBI stats
Click to expand...
Imagine if you moved the goalposts with every comment and couldn't post without name calling. I guess there's no need to imagine that. Also no need forb you to respond since I won't see it.
 
Lindberg said:
:confused:
So why aren't all the murders happening in those states?:confused2:
Click to expand...
Lindberg said:
Imagine if you moved the goalposts with every comment and couldn't post without name calling. I guess there's no need to imagine that. Also no need forb you to respond since I won't see it.
Click to expand...
So I win? You asked a fallacious question is all. I begrudgingly tolerate your ignorance and accept your concession.
 
Last edited:
All of this is a smokescreen. It is not about public safety. Any reason will suffice, when the actual goal is disarming of the populace. The real reasons are rarely stated as they would be unacceptable to most people.

the fact is the 2nd amendment is there to guarantee the rest of the amendments. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
the fact is the 2nd amendment is there to guarantee the rest of the amendments. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Click to expand...
Im sure you're just ill-informed not a liar or repeating lies a liar told you. It did also concern hunting because the Aristocracy thought they owned the game of the land...oh, and slave patrols.
 
Robert Gee said:
Im sure you're just ill-informed not a liar or repeating lies a liar told you. It did also concern hunting because the Aristocracy thought they owned the game of the land...oh, and slave patrols.
Click to expand...
OK Can you Show me the word “hunting” or its 18th century equivalent in the US Constitution that relates to the Second Amendment
 
Come on gentlemen, if you want to argue the second amendment you can do it by PM. My intent was to have this thread focus on ways to keep yourself safe without having to resort to deadly force.

There has been some great information shared here and I appreciate it. Thanks for the contributions!

Your cooperation is appreciated.
 
Come on, man. Thats no fun.

The Big C doesn't mention a pistol for self defense either but the SCOTUS said it shall be so, the same as they have said that certain guns can be regulated because they have "no legitimate sporting use.
The Crown owned the land and everything on it. The Revolution ended that...ergo 2A is also for hunting:)
Its might be on the same page that defines what "well regulated" means.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top