help refute this argument?

H

hologon

New member
My girlfriend, a half-anti/half-resigned woman, brought up an interesting argument.

Generally she is very anti-gun because it is an object designed solely to cause injury (yes, we've been over the baseball bat/knife argument before and she just doesn't care for my rhetoric) and she thinks that they shouldn't exist, period -- despite all my arguments that it can be a tool for 120lb computer geeks like myself.

She suggested that guns (1) in the hands of criminals make them more willing to threaten the use of force and (2) make victims more unwilling to try to run while under the point of a gun.

Basically, she says that if criminal only had hand-to-hand weapons (chain, baseball bat, knife) they would think twice because they need to be close-up rather than at a distance.

This is a little off-kilter (debatable in many ways), but her second argument is where I have trouble:

Victims, knowing that a bullet has a good deal more range than a hand-to-hand style weapon, would be less willing to try to run away if a criminal approaches them with a gun.

Since a gun has a much longer range, victims would be afraid to try running, whereas they would be more willing to run in the case of a weapon that could not be deployed at range.

Having been at the targets myself, I know just how hard it is to hit a bit of paper at 7 yards, much less a moving one. But the sheeple don't know that, and the possibility exists, whereas for a baseball bat, lethal range at 14 yards is greatly minimized.

Any comments?

Thanks.

-Jon
 
Bring up the point that it is a proven fact that a man armed with a knife can close a distance of 20 feet before a trained LEO can draw and bring his pistol to bear.

Also, other than trained and clear-headed persons (gangbangers fit this category) are rarely able to hit anything at more than contact range. Even trained LEOs often empty their mags at a suspect without making a single hit.
 
Some merit in her thoughts. From what I hear, gun totin' criminals don't expect to have to get physically involved. The cowards think that the threat is enuf.

I remember reading, I think it was about Jimmy Hoffa, to always run towards a gun and away from a knife. Course that's if you have the prowess to wrestle the gun away, not sure if that would apply to me. Jimmy wasn't a shrinking violet.
 
Some truth, but not much. And she is also excluding a large majority of the population, by which I mean the elderly, children, the overweight, the out-of-shape middle-aged-soccer moms, and anyone else who can't outrun a young thug in good condition.
If you can't outrun a man, it doesn't matter how close he has to get.
 
She is wrong about the sole purpose to cause injury. Shooting has the second most participants at the Olympic games, track and field in number one. If her argument were correct more 11,000 homicides and non-negligent manslaughters would be committed in a population of 280,000,000 awash in 238,000,000 guns. They are more commonly used for decoration than for injuring people.

If guns suddenly disappear and criminals did not have them you could expect a tactics change. Whenever the military has a new weapon they develop a tactic to employ it effectively. If the criminal element becomes suddenly armed with clubs or knives the tactics would undoubtedly change.

1) You would be mugged from behind and attacked without being threatened first. Hit over the head with a bat or stabbed in the back then robbed while you were on the ground are two examples. We also see this tactic when a mugger hides under the car and slashes your Achillie's tendon with a straight razor as you stand next to your vehicle to unlock it. There immobilize the victim first, so the robbery may occur without the person running off.

2) You would begin to face multiple attackers so that you could not run off. You get surrouned by two or more people.

3) Attacks would not usually occur on an open sidewalk, but more frequently in the corner of a parking garage at the mall or in an elevator where the victim could not run. Being surrounded by immobile objects rather than multiple persons.

4) In an open area you would be approached and restrained by physical force using physical contact immediately to prevent escape. The guy walks up to you grabs your arm as he puts a knife point to your throat pulling you into the blade point.
 
Criminals will always have guns, no matter what laws are passed. Tell her to show you a real way to ensure that criminals will not still have guns and you'll be all for it.
 
Get her John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" and have her read it. It has all the statistical information to show the benefits of guns in our society.
 
If all guns were banned, the same channels that bring cocaine in from Columbia can be used just as easily to bring in guns.
 
Point out to her for background that today's federal law can mandate up to 20 or 25 years for a felon with a gun; depends on circumstance. Now, assuming magic, Poof!, all guns are gone from the civilian population.

What "dis-incentive" would she recommend for somebody using his combination lathe/mill to make black-market guns? Or bringing in black market guns along with illegal drugs?

Next question: Whom does she think would have these guns? What would they use them for?

Per an article in the Atlanta Constitution, in around 1993 we had some 56,000 homicides in the US. Some 16,000 with firearms, and of these, some 14,000 with handguns. Granting that all homicides are down, now, and shooting-deaths are down, now: We would still have at least two-thirds of our present homicides! And I'll bet that some of the "used to use guns" type of bad guys would resort to knives, clubs, or hands and feet.

The problem ain't guns, it's people. But you know that.

Still, does my mother have a right of self-defense? At 89, with osteoporosis, I doubt she'll use karate. Violence occurs within seconds; police response is measured in minutes. Does my mother have any civil rights to her life? Duh?

My world-view includes the words "duty" and "responsibility to family and self". Have I no duty to protect my family? Or myself? No responsibility for their well-being? My own, as primary breadwinner?

Or should I rely on a life insurance policy of the paper kind, rolling on my back supinely, begging for mercy? And hoping the insurance company can "repay" me for bad guys taking the lives of my wife and my children?

If I thought I was that much of a moral coward, I'd go for a handful of phenobarb and a bottle of bourbon.

Sorry I'm an old curmudgeon, but I'm fed up with people who whine over the realities of the world we live in. There are bad people "out there", running loose without keepers or leashes. I have a God-given right to protect myself from them, and I'm uninterested in the sophomoric opinions of the socially and emotionally immature.

And anybody who wishes may quote me.

Okay. Rant mode off: Get a copy of Paxton Quigley's "Armed and Female". She was a proponent of the GCA of 1968 who saw the light. It's a darned good read. Your wife definitely needs to read it.

Art



[This message has been edited by Art Eatman (edited March 20, 2000).]
 
The small fiberglass crossbows ( pistol size) are easy to buy or make. I think we would see a lot more of them if there were no guns. However, the fact is that there will always be guns. They will be stolen from the police/military (especially if demand results in prices high enough for the increased risk of getting them in this manner), manufactured in home workshops and possibily even manufactured by the drug cartels if the demand results in high prices.If the demand (and people willing to pay big money) is there the supply will be there. That is human nature. Ever see how AK47 knock-offs are made in the remote mountain villages of Pakistan? All done with tools far more primitive than what you can find in Sears.
 
As mentioned, how is an elderly person or one with a disability supposed to protect themself? I knew of someone who carried a .380 illegally because he had paraplegia and he flat out told me that he can't run away from an attacker. If someone walks with a cane or is in a wheelchair, do you think that they will be able to outrun their attacker or use martial arts?

Yes, it's true that someone with a knife can close the gap on someone with a gun before the gun can be drawn; 20-25 feet is all it takes and even if shot, the one with the knife can still drive the knife into the opponent by the momentum of their movement.

Make no mistake, the knife is just as deadly or deadlier at close range than a gun in the hands of a skilled user, sometimes even a not-so-skilled user. And, the knife (or similar stabbing implement) is currently legally available everywhere with no waiting periods or background checks (like that would do any good anyways).

I have a problem with "bullets have longer range so victims are less likely to run, but they would run if confronted with a knife". Again, a skilled knife operator will use the knife with the attitude of "you (the victim)will feel the blade, not see it". Whether a person is confronted with a gun or a knife aren't both of those bad?

I mean your GF seems to think that someone being attacked with a baseball bat or a knife is somehow better off or it's not as bad as being attacked with a gun. Frankly, if someone is going to inflict bodily harm on someone else, regardless of the tool, it's something that's unacceptable. The "lesser of the two evils" argument is bs.

I don't buy the argument that guns make crime easier. There's a trade-off between technology and skill of the operator. Sure, someone with a full-auto AK can go shoot up a crowd, how many will the perp kill? Maybe many, maybe none. The infamous Hollywood shooting had 0 kills yet they had some pretty good firepower. They used the technology to make up for their lack of skill.

If a perp is going to strangle or stab someone (less technology), that requires more skill to get close to the mark, strike proper targets, and take them out. Success rate can be higher because the perp has to be much more careful about how they carry their plan out.

Take this into consideration. Playing the violin is very, very hard, not too many people do it and many try but give up. Does that stop people from learning it or doing it? Not at all. So, killing someone by strangling them from behind in a public place may be harder to do, but that doesn't mean that someone can't/won't do it.

On the other hand, washing your hands after using the toilet in a public bathroom is very easy and simple to do. Does that mean that everyone does it or will do it? No. So, even though a gun may seem "easier" to kill people, it doesn't mean that will occur if the operator lacks skill or even if they have skill. So, the "guns are easier to kill people" doesn't fly.

Hypothetically, if all guns didn't exist and their illegal manufacture didn't exist, you'd still have crime committed by people using knives, hammers, telephone cords, then fists and feet.

Why? Because you've done nothing to get rid of the evil driving force of the humans behind the evil actions. A fully-loaded, full-auto AK in the street is pretty much harmless until a perp comes by, picks it up and uses it.

The other problem is that people want an end to the violence. They think us "gun enthusiasts" don't want that. I think it's safe to say that none of us want violence. Getting rid of guns won't curb the violence, but since the gov and media says so, people will believe it because they want that magic pill that will solve all the world's ills.

The world is far from perfect and it will never get close to being so. You will always have violence. History has shown that gun or no gun, violence is simply inherent with animals and mankind.

Does your girlfriend really think that getting rid of guns is going to get rid of violence, when throughout history, people have been killing each other 1000's of years before the first gun was a lightbulb in someone's head?

As far as thinking guns shouldn't exist, well tough. They exist and they will forever exist no matter what you do. I wish criminals, disease, and politicians didn't exist but they do. Again, sometimes the world isn't the pretty dream place you want it to be and sometimes you've got to accept that.

So, what to do. The Paxton Quigley book is a good read. I think over at the Gun Owner's of America homepage they have some articles that you can download. Look for one by a lady named Katherine Von Tour (I think that's her name). It's about an anti who turned because of real-world situations. Find another GF if all else fails.
 
Ask her if she longs for a return to the days of swords, when, all other things being equal, the youngest and fittest would be the victor in a duel.
The point is, guns are an equalizer-they give the 86 year old granny greater "strength" than her 20 year old 250 lb. assailant.
Not everyone can run, and we aren't created equal in the physical department. Besides, running is giving in. The best way to lower crime is to fight back effectively, not to run from it. Fighting violent crime is everybody's business. If she wishes to be a coward and allow the criminals to rule, that's her choice, but she's promoting crime by taking that stance.

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
 
Ask her why she wears perfume.---If she says
it's because she stinks--then you can tell
her that when it comes to fighting--you stink
too.
But seriously--this is a pointless debate,
the more you try to refute these arguments
the more she will find.
Guns have been demonised by the media at
every opportunity and some people just have
the indoctrinated mindset.
What you need to make clear to her is very
simple--you have your gun to defend yourself
and you are not prepared to walk unarmed in
the Wild World.
If she keeps on arguing then she wants out.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Art Eatman:
Still, does my mother have a right of self-defense? <snip> Does my mother have any civil rights to her life? Duh?[/quote]

Art, the right to life is not a civil right, but rather a basic human right, and self-defense is an extension of that right.

My life is mine to do with as I please; no one has the right to take it or do harm to it.



------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
 
A couple of quotes from our founding fathers helps on arguments like these.

I am thus far a Quaker, that I would gladly argue with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation, but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power." -- Writings of Thomas Paine 56 (M. Conway ed. 1894)

Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and perhaps, I could not surrender if I would --- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

Life is the most valuable possession we have. The right and the means to defend that life are absolute. Thomas Paine has it right. I would gladly lay aside my arms if the whole would, but there is always the criminal element within our society that never will. Criminals will always get the weapon that they feel will give them power over others. If anyone believes otherwise, forget arguing with them, they are beyond hope.

As to the weapon argument, I will use the one which I feel affords me the best means of protection. To each person the weapon may be different. It just so happens that guns afford the best protection in most circumstances. John Lotts book proves this point.

Hope this helps,

Richard



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Personally I don't think the type of weapon is all that relevant to the victum's response.

If the weapon (knife, bat, gun) is presented at close quarters in conjunction with a sufficiently threatening attitude that makes the victum believe at the gut level that they are in danger; then I think the victum will fall back on programmed responses. They'll either freeze up (and/or wait and see), flee or attack. My guess is that "freeze up" would be, by far, the most common. I really don't think the type of weapon makes a difference on the response elicited.

As noted, this is only my opinion. If I were a student - this question would make an interesting research topic. One way to study it would be to analyse a large number of confrontations and see if there is a difference in victum response related to the type of weapon used. A lot of variables to be controlled, but with a sufficiently large sample it shouldn't be that difficult.

But until someone does that study, all else is opinion or theory. Your girlfriend has one, I have another - but both are just opinion.

Good luck with convincing her about the value of being able to keep and bear arms.


------------------
Jim Fox
 
http://feminist.com/rainn.htm
According to the U.S. Department of Justice:

[All statistics are taken from: Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.]

One of every four rapes take place in a public area or in a parking garage.
29% of female victims reported that the offender was a stranger.
68% of rapes occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.
At least 45% of rapists were under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
In 29% of rapes, the offender used a weapon.
In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.

********************

In 71% of rapes no weapon was used, for the sake of argument why didn't these women just run away? What does your g/f have to say about that.
 
45King: Yes, I know. However, most who dream up all these weaselish arguments against guns don't even know about "natural rights".

Our great and glorious Gummint, however, does get exercised about some folks' civil rights as to life. Remember the three civil-rights workers in Mississippi?

It seems that the government believes that some had a civil right to life, after they were dead. They also seem to believe that those like my mother have no civil right to life, while they are alive.

Duh?

Regards, Art
 
All I can say is that my wheelchair cant run very fast.
You might say I’m a chance victim anytime I go out in public.
The strength in my upper body is better than ever. That doesn't mean
I want to fight with an attacker. Put it this way, I want the fight to be
over before it can get hand to hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top