If I Only Had a Gun

I'll have to sit down and watch it when I don't have any homework to do.

But, speaking from personal experience, I went to the gun range for the first time in my life about 2 months ago, and I couldn't aim worth shit at 20-25 ft. Handguns and the recoil associated is a LOT more than I think most people expect.

I'm going on 24 and in pretty decent shape, so if I'm having trouble wielding a small to medium-caliber handgun, I'm suspecting many others couldn't hit the broad side of a barn without proper training, experience, and muscle control.

~HotShotX
 
Yea, they also talk about how in a crisis situation your body is not as functional and you are also hit with tunnel vision. That's why cops need to be constantly training to have muscle memory, cause one mess up can be your life.
 
Yea, definitely agree with that.

I also found it interesting how much your body is affected during crisis scenarios. Seems like you are more safe going with no gun, cause you aren't as big of a target.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']
Interesting 20/20 special about gun's and how just owning one doesn't mean you are safe.

[/QUOTE]

Don't have time right now to watch it, but I would like to.

I do take issue with that statement though. Just wearing a seatbelt doesn't mean your safe. Just driving the speed limit doesn't mean you're safe. There are no guarantees with anything designed to protect your life.

The entire point of owning and/or carrying a gun is simply an equalizer, for most people. In a room full of people, the one person that has a gun automatically has power over the rest if he chooses to. If a second person has one though, he is almost on equal ground as the potential crazy with a gun.

And I also find the timing of this so-called "documentary" very suspect.
 
"automatically has power" - no.

"improves your odds" - perhaps.

And please do view something before applying a "so-called" to it. Or don't admit to not viewing it and condemning it in the same post.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And please do view something before applying a "so-called" to it. Or don't admit to not viewing it and condemning it in the same post.[/quote]

It's easier to condemn something you have absolutely no knowledge about. Makes the Haterade go down easier.

As for guns, I won't own one because I've seen more accidents that come in from self-inflicted gunshots than anything else. Either that or someone tried to stop a robbery and shot the wrong person instead.

You guys remember when Sean Taylor got killed? He had a gun and they shot him. If he hadn't tried to pull his piece, he might be alive today. If you pull a gun on someone that's crazy enough to commit a felony, he's probably going to decide to shoot you before you get the chance.

I know some people will say that you can't defend your home without a gun but remember the point is to come out alive at the end of the encounter. Pulling a gun will drastically increase the chance that someone is getting carried out in a bodybag. Everyone thinks it'll be the bad guy and they think they're great shots at the range but you can't simulate fumbling around at 2AM with adrenaline coursing your body. You can't simulate the disbelief you'll feel when you shoot someone that's hopped up on PCP and they don't even flinch.
 
Actually, I thought he had a machete.

[quote name='depascal22']It's easier to condemn something you have absolutely no knowledge about. Makes the Haterade go down easier.

As for guns, I won't own one because I've seen more accidents that come in from self-inflicted gunshots than anything else. Either that or someone tried to stop a robbery and shot the wrong person instead.

You guys remember when Sean Taylor got killed? He had a gun and they shot him. If he hadn't tried to pull his piece, he might be alive today. If you pull a gun on someone that's crazy enough to commit a felony, he's probably going to decide to shoot you before you get the chance.

I know some people will say that you can't defend your home without a gun but remember the point is to come out alive at the end of the encounter. Pulling a gun will drastically increase the chance that someone is getting carried out in a bodybag. Everyone thinks it'll be the bad guy and they think they're great shots at the range but you can't simulate fumbling around at 2AM with adrenaline coursing your body. You can't simulate the disbelief you'll feel when you shoot someone that's hopped up on PCP and they don't even flinch.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='depascal22']You can't simulate the disbelief you'll feel when you shoot someone that's hopped up on PCP and they don't even flinch.[/QUOTE]

Points for channeling frightened grandmothers everywhere.
 
There probably are people who think that using a gun is as easy as it looks on TV, so I can see the point of this story. But I think what thrust is getting at is that this could also be seen as part of a push for gun control.
 
[quote name='rickonker']But I think what thrust is getting at is that this could also be seen as part of a push for gun control.[/quote]

As if media outlets have any other stance on gun control?

I will agree with one thing stated; nobody would ever bring a handgun to any situation where a gun is needed unless it was the only option available. If I had to defend my home i'd use my M4 first and my shotgun if the carbine wasn't an option. Control of a pistol isn't an issue of strength but control of your reaction to the recoil (as in you just let it do it's thing and not to try to correct it). Carbines are infinitely more forgiving and reflex sights make it safer for yourself.

With all that said if I had to draw a gun on someone I still don't think i'd be prepared and I go shooting at least once a month.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']I'll have to sit down and watch it when I don't have any homework to do.

But, speaking from personal experience, I went to the gun range for the first time in my life about 2 months ago, and I couldn't aim worth shit at 20-25 ft. Handguns and the recoil associated is a LOT more than I think most people expect.

I'm going on 24 and in pretty decent shape, so if I'm having trouble wielding a small to medium-caliber handgun, I'm suspecting many others couldn't hit the broad side of a barn without proper training, experience, and muscle control.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

2cmvluu.jpg


That's from my first time shooting. 35 feet with a revolver.

Just because you suck at guns, it doesn't mean everyone else does.

~Liquid 2 (LOOK AT ME REMEMBER MY NAME I USED COLORS TO MAKE IT STAND OUT MORE BECAUSE MY NAME ISN'T ASSOCIATED WITH EVERY SINGLE POST I MAKE)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does anyone legitimately think that guns could be outlawed in the states?

Seriously now. Dispense with the fearful rhetoric or the pompous righteousness. I just want a simple answer to that question insofar as it can be simple, since I doubt I can negotiate a yes/no.

Personally I just don't see it ever happening, no matter who is in Congress, at any and all levels, percentages belonging to parties being anything between zero and absolute. It just doesn't seem possible. So why is it talked about in such a way that it will, can, and is already happening?

Remember: This isn't an attack on either side, and really not a discussion for either side. It's more about possible conclusions and how viable they can come to be.
 
[quote name='Strell']Does anyone legitimately think that guns could be outlawed in the states?[/quote]

Our nations capitol and our largest city have both banned guns. Whats to stop other parts of the country from following suit? Granted the Heller decision overruled the DC law there have been movements to circumvent the ruling.

With that said you can't ban guns. It won't happen unless it's on the local level (such as San Fran; going against state and federal laws when it had the law enacted).

I figure we'll see a heavy tax on ammunition so we can't afford to train/play with our guns or we'll be so burdened with unnecessary features on the guns that we won't be able to buy them since they can't be manufactured (see the current law microstamping in Kalifornia that no manufacturer has been able to create a working model of and the soon to be heard smart gun technology in the Kali senate).

Rights are lost overtime and not in one sweeping motion.
 
Didn't watch, so I'm not going to comment on the video specifically, but of course owning/carrying a gun doesn't make you any safer. I don't think it's really about safety anyway, it seems to be more about control. If you really wanted to make sure you were safe you would wear a bulletproof vest and chain mail 24/7 (perhaps having a gun is just a little easier...).

Sometimes I think people just watch too much TV (honestly I'd say that about most of the things people do) and think if they have a gun they can pull it out and blast the bad guy or maybe just brandish it and the criminal will chicken out and run away. Somebody would have to be an idiot to try to pull a gun if they were actually being threatened at gunpoint themselves though, as they'd probably just be more likely to get shot, so it might make people feel safer (or more in control), but I doubt that it would really make any difference in 90% of the situations where someone would think having a gun is useful.

Protecting your house makes a little more sense, but honestly if somebody's going to break into your house they'll probably do it while you're not there, and a security system would probably be a better deterrent anyway.

So IMO the only reasons that really make sense to own a gun are if you hunt or just like shooting guns in a range. You're never going to be totally safe, and having a gun won't really make you any safer.
 
What a loaded segment. Basically, the give the people some time shooting and show them how to draw from a holster. They then send the student to class with the gun (modified glocks that fire paint) and tell him that he'll have to use it in a crisis situation LATER. Well, they don't wait, and they send a guy in the room shooting and see what the person's reaction is. Most people are taken by surprise and fail.

My response is "Noooooo SHIT". That said, I think they don't know what "safety"means. You're not safer with the gun, and you're not safer without the gun.If a person has the intent to indiscriminately shoot; you're a target no matter what. "Safe" would imply being in an impenetrable room in an armored suit, and that's only if there's a gunman.

No one RATIONAL thinks that having a gun makes you unstoppable, but if someone is going to come in shootin', or knifin', or swingin' a lead pipe at my head; I'd rather have a CHANCE to do something. If I'm going to get shot at point blank range, I'd rather have it happen after I tried to take down the assailant. Think about all the people in mass shootings that died. Is there any guarantee that if one had their own piece, it could have been averted/lessened? No, but no one was saved without having gun either. Oh sure, there's this argument that having the weapon makes you a target....but you're already a target. If you have a bulls-eye painted on your chest, what's the difference if you paint another one on your legs? If you're in his line of sight, you're a target. Gun or no gun.

The more people who are armed, the stronger the deterrent. That's what the Concealed carry laws are REALLY about;making a criminal think "OK,if I do this, what are my chances of not being shot?"

Being a good shot doesn't have ANYTHING to do with being cool under stress. Not everyone has the constitution to be in a Special Ops unit.
 
For 5 years I had to qualify twice a year with a beretta, doing both firing range and through a moving course. I carried a gun everyday at work using a gunbelt and out of bordem would constantly be practicing unsnapping my double retention holster. Even then I still would only be somewhat confident in my abilities in having enough muscle memory to remove the gun from the holster and fire. Let alone doing that while trying to find cover.

As the program states, the required training by half the states doesn't excede what they showed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
And please do view something before applying a "so-called" to it. Or don't admit to not viewing it and condemning it in the same post.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, my mistake, I didn't realize it's ABC news, so of course it's not a documentary -- or even close. But going by threads where I post videos and everyone comments/bashes without watching, I thought it was the cool thing now.

I watched it. I really don't understand the point of they are trying to get at other than people panic in crisis situations. Guns or no guns, high stress situations are tough. Gee, I had no idea.

There are countless situations where having a gun may be a good thing; often just happening upon a crime in progress before you are seen. This program only addresses one very narrow set of crisis types and seem to be trying to form an argument that having guns, in general, are bad because of their controlled little experiment.
 
Reality's Fringe;5746610 said:
What a loaded segment. Basically, the give the people some time shooting and show them how to draw from a holster. They then send the student to class with the gun (modified glocks that fire paint) and tell him that he'll have to use it in a crisis situation LATER. Well, they don't wait, and they send a guy in the room shooting and see what the person's reaction is. Most people are taken by surprise and fail.

My response is "Noooooo SHIT". That said, I think they don't know what "safety"means. You're not safer with the gun, and you're not safer without the gun.If a person has the intent to indiscriminately shoot; you're a target no matter what. "Safe" would imply being in an impenetrable room in an armored suit, and that's only if there's a gunman.

No one RATIONAL thinks that having a gun makes you unstoppable, but if someone is going to come in shootin', or knifin', or swingin' a lead pipe at my head; I'd rather have a CHANCE to do something. If I'm going to get shot at point blank range, I'd rather have it happen after I tried to take down the assailant. Think about all the people in mass shootings that died. Is there any guarantee that if one had their own piece, it could have been averted/lessened? No, but no one was saved without having gun either. Oh sure, there's this argument that having the weapon makes you a target....but you're already a target. If you have a bulls-eye painted on your chest, what's the difference if you paint another one on your legs? If you're in his line of sight, you're a target. Gun or no gun.

The more people who are armed, the stronger the deterrent. That's what the Concealed carry laws are REALLY about;making a criminal think "OK,if I do this, what are my chances of not being shot?"

Being a good shot doesn't have ANYTHING to do with being cool under stress. Not everyone has the constitution to be in a Special Ops unit.
Click to expand...


I like how your main example is about massive public shootings, but then you claim that concealed weapons would be a deterrent to these situations.

"ok, if I do this, what are my chances of not being shot?" low. "good, that's what I want and if it doesn't happen I was going to shot myself in the face anyway at the end!"

Like any gunman that went on a public shooting ever said to themselves, "oh dear what if 2-3 of the 50 people I am shooting has a small gun!!?!?!???! Maybe I should reconsider...."
 
[quote name='gareman']
Like any gunman that went on a public shooting ever said to themselves, "oh dear what if 2-3 of the 50 people I am shooting has a small gun!!?!?!???! Maybe I should reconsider...."[/QUOTE]

There are several examples of shooting sprees being ended by armed citizens and off-duty cops. That cuts short a good deal of their likely expected death toll.

The problem is, the media, and thus populace, focuses on the shooting spree happening itself, not how it ended.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']There are several examples of shooting sprees being ended by armed citizens and off-duty cops. That cuts short a good deal of their likely expected death toll.

The problem is, the media, and thus populace, focuses on the shooting spree happening itself, not how it ended.[/quote]


I don't doubt that, but that doesn't support the idea that citizens carrying guns are a deterrent to these situations. Also this maybe good news for people who view these tragedies as quantitative.
 
I didn't think anyone ever thought, or would argue, that a concealed weapon could be a deterrent to bad stuff happening.

Edit: Well I guess in the Wild West, it was. And I suppose if there were a massive culture shift and nearly everyone started carrying guns, it would be.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I didn't think anyone ever thought, or would argue, that a concealed weapon could be a deterrent to bad stuff happening.

Edit: Well I guess in the Wild West, it was. And I suppose if there were a massive culture shift and nearly everyone started carrying guns, it would be.[/quote]

That person whom I was replying to does.

But in all honesty I am completely on the fence about gun control.
 
My take, as always:

Guns for home protection--ok as long as they're kept out of the reach of children.

Concealed guns in public--don't like them (off duty cops are ok though). You likely won't have a chance to use it to defend yourself (I was robbed last year, had a gun on me before I knew what was happening so no way I could have pulled it out) and I don't like the idea of citizen's playing vigilantes/cops and trying to intervene.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My take, as always:

Guns for home protection--ok as long as they're kept out of the reach of children.

Concealed guns in public--don't like them (off duty cops are ok though). You likely won't have a chance to use it to defend yourself (I was robbed last year, had a gun on me before I knew what was happening so no way I could have pulled it out) and I don't like the idea of citizen's playing vigilantes/cops and trying to intervene.[/quote]

Your take actually changed my mind last year. That and nobody took my personal claymore devices seriously.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I didn't think anyone ever thought, or would argue, that a concealed weapon could be a deterrent to bad stuff happening.[/quote]
This guy would.

In 2002–five years after enacting its gun ban–the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: “The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.”....During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault–Australia’s equivalent term for rape–increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2%.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Sorry, my mistake, I didn't realize it's ABC news, so of course it's not a documentary -- or even close. But going by threads where I post videos and everyone comments/bashes without watching, I thought it was the cool thing now.

I watched it. I really don't understand the point of they are trying to get at other than people panic in crisis situations. Guns or no guns, high stress situations are tough. Gee, I had no idea.

There are countless situations where having a gun may be a good thing; often just happening upon a crime in progress before you are seen. This program only addresses one very narrow set of crisis types and seem to be trying to form an argument that having guns, in general, are bad because of their controlled little experiment.[/quote]

That kind of scares me right there. So it's good to have a bunch of people with guns walking around shooting whatever they perceive to be a crisis?

"I DOT He twas rapin ya?" "He was giving me the Heimlich!"

You really expect every one to make split decision perfect judgments at all times?
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']That kind of scares me right there. So it's good to have a bunch of people with guns walking around shooting whatever they perceive to be a crisis?

"I DOT He twas rapin ya?" "He was giving me the Heimlich!"

You really expect every one to make split decision perfect judgments at all times?[/QUOTE]

There is some merit to what you are saying. Untrained people with deadly tools are never a good thing. However, we trust mass populations of people with deadly tools every day (like cars). Just because something is more specifically designed for killing people, doesn't mean it will cause more death than anything else that can and does.
 
[quote name='Quillion']This guy would.[/QUOTE]

There was actually no such acknowledgement in those Austrailan stats. It was the author conclusion.

Furthermore the rate at which firearm murders drops was the fastest since the gun ban.

He also misrepresents a state head of crime stats as being for the entire country.

That guy has no credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top