[quote]pushharder wrote:
Folks (sheep) like you also can’t help thinking things that just don’t prove out in the real world. Hum your John Lennon “Imagine” lyrics and melody all you want…the wolves are still waiting.[/quote]
Ever heard Tool’s cover of “Imagine?” That is a heavy song
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Folks (sheep) like you also can’t help thinking things that just don’t prove out in the real world. Hum your John Lennon “Imagine” lyrics and melody all you want…the wolves are still waiting.
Ever heard Tool’s cover of “Imagine?” That is a heavy song
[/quote]
Wasn’t that done by A Perfect Circle?
It is a great song.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
My wife carries a Ruger SP101 loaded with +P hollow point .38 ammo. No hammer to get snagged, double-action (just pull the trigger), short barrel for ease of use at short distances, easy to conceal in purse, highly effective stopping power at close quarters.
[/quote]
SP101 is a good gun. I almost bought one, but I am still waiting till I find one for $300 dollars. I want the good deal. Good gun though. Feels good in my hand.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
BTW, I was hoping for an intelligent insight into why people in the US feel the need to carry guns when the risk of needing it is so infinitesimally small however if character attack is more your thing then by all means…[/quote]
It only takes one time of needing a gun to make you wish you had carried one. It is legal here for us to carry them and since the criminals carry firearms, it only makes sense for us law abiding citizens to protect ourselves by carrying one.
I personally do not carry one however I have in the past and it does make you feel safer. Want my wallet? Ok, let me get for you… BANG! Robbers will think twice before mugging random people because they can’t tell for sure who has one and who doesn’t. We don’t have people carrying ak47s here like they do in other countries but the crime rate is still high enough to justify carrying a pistol.
[quote]elano wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
BTW, I was hoping for an intelligent insight into why people in the US feel the need to carry guns when the risk of needing it is so infinitesimally small however if character attack is more your thing then by all means…
It only takes one time of needing a gun to make you wish you had carried one. It is legal here for us to carry them and since the criminals carry firearms, it only makes sense for us law abiding citizens to protect ourselves by carrying one.
I personally do not carry one however I have in the past and it does make you feel safer. Want my wallet? Ok, let me get for you… BANG! Robbers will think twice before mugging random people because they can’t tell for sure who has one and who doesn’t. We don’t have people carrying ak47s here like they do in other countries but the crime rate is still high enough to justify carrying a pistol.[/quote]
OK, someone prepared to actually debate an issue instead of making dumb assumptions about other people.
In the UK, the criminals don’t need to carry a gun because they can be pretty sure that the person they are attacking doesn’t have one, therefore gun crime is far lower. See it works both ways (though it is probably way too late to put the genie back in the bottle in the US)
Couple of questions for you. Have you taken an advanced driving course? Have you practiced driving on a skid pan? When was the last time you checked the pressures in the tyres in your car?
All 3 of these steps are far more likely to save your life than carrying a gun. I just find it odd that so many Americans are soooo hung up about their NEED to carry a gun.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Grab the gun at the first bump and it’s right there in your hand for the second one.
The media has nothing to do with it. Common sense does.
[/quote]
See that’s where you are wrong, it is not common sense, it is your feeling of insecurity which is fed by the media, just because you do not realise that doesn’t mean it is not true.
fine, as I already stated, none of my business and you are the one taking the risk.
I never told you what to do with your time or money, I never made judgements about you (though you are happy to do it about me without ever having met me.)
You never actually made a point other than implying that your wife is at higher risk than the average for a US citizen (which is tiny.)
No, I don’t want to, I prefer where I live. Of course the Barrio would be more dangerous however that has no bearing on whether US citizens are really at a high enough risk of violent attack to need to carry firearms.
And you base this assesment on what exactly? I mention Mexico and your imediate response is tiny women living in a barrio in fear of being beaten up by her drug addicted husband. And it is me having issues understanding what a racist stereotype is?
I am exactly as well travelled as I think. See, I know how well travelled I am, I did the travelling.
You may feel that I come across as naive, but then you appear to be coming from a position of irational fear so I can see how it would appear that way to you.
As for condescending, I am trying to talk to you on a level, if you choose to feel inferior to that position then this might be in some way linked to the insecurities that lead you to irationally view the risks in your life. I am of course only guessing here based on the average risk level in the US, having never met you and knowing nothing about the inherent risks that you face in the area in which you live.
Also, not sure why you keep calling me a sheep given that I am the one that is espousing a view that is divergent to the majority on this thread.
As for my age, I would hazard a guess that I am ballpark the same age as you at 32.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Why do you struggle so futilely in deciding to only do one, the driving course? Is it completely outside your realm of possibility that one could take a driving course AND a self defense with firearms course?
This thread is not about safe driving although it’s extremely benevolent of you to mention ways to reduce risks while behind the wheel.
This thread is not about cancer although it would be extremely benevolent of you to mention ways to reduce risks in this regard.
This thread is not about the dangers of common household drugs like Tylenol and aspirin although it would be extremely benevolent of you to mention ways to reduce these risks.
This thread is not about STDs although it would be extremely benevolent of you to advocate use of condoms.
And a reminder to you that YOU were the one that made the hypocritical “dumb assumption” that because YOU felt secure without weapons that women worldwide should share that same sense of security.[/quote]
This thread is about how people percieve danger against the reality and their irational responses based on that perception so the point I made was perfectly valid.
I have never equated my feelings of safety (or otherwise) to what other people should do. I have merely mentioned that a lot of people have strange priorities when it comes to how to keep themselves and their families safe.
I see this a lot at the gym with people who want to train ‘for the street’ instead of training because it is fun.
I stand by my point which is that for the majority of people in the US, having a gun is pretty low down the list of things that is going to decrease their risk of being hurt. The fact that they feel safer with the gun is a separate issue.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hey, I meant no offence to Meesus Push, I just personally find it hard to understand why a proportion of US citizens feel that their risk of being attacked is so high that they need to carry guns.
I guess in a way it is a conditioned thing, and if I had been brought up in the US I might well feel different.
I certainly notice a real difference in the way that ideas are presented through the US media to how they are presented in Blighty or even here in Mexico.
Interestingly (for me at least) the media in the UK is steadily moving more towards a US style so it is possible that there will be increased pressure for the acceptance of weapons for self defence in the UK (though I doubt it would ever get passed into law.)[/quote]
Some innocent bystanders in a jewelry store might disagree that Mexico is safe:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Westclock wrote:
My future wife and daughter are both going to be the proud recipients of a .38 snub nose with the hammer sawed off.
You know, Smith & Wesson makes hammerless 38 snubbies?
My wife carries a Ruger SP101 loaded with +P hollow point .38 ammo. No hammer to get snagged, double-action (just pull the trigger), short barrel for ease of use at short distances, easy to conceal in purse, highly effective stopping power at close quarters.
I’ve told her many times if she is ever attacked to simply empty all five rounds in the upper torso of her attacker.
At 5’3", 110 lbs., this gives her a clearly superior position in a violent confrontation that she is clearly likely to lose otherwise, no matter how much MMA/physical defense experience she may have.
She has drawn her weapon(s) in situations at home where she suspected an intruder (all false alarms so far) and I can tell you even though I am twice her weight and astronomically stronger than her, I would never want to face her or another woman similarly armed.
Of all the people in this world, women deserve the right to keep and bear arms. It is a silly, misguided notion to maintain a mindset that firearms are for men and women should look at other avenues of self defense first.
The gun is the instant “equalizer” for a woman.[/quote]
The disabled woman in this 911 call could have used an “equalizer”.
Also, a good example of how when seconds count police are only minutes away.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
That’s exactly what you said in one of your previous posts. The exact quote is, “any time or money spent on that gun would actually be better spent elsewhere.”
[/quote]
way to misquote me! I actually wrote:
I am also logical and deductive enough to realise that the risk of a violent attack needing a gun as defence is so tiny that any time or money spent on that gun would actually be better spent elsewhere.
Obviously I was talking about me. For you the situation may be different, for instance if you live in a higher than average risk situation. Which brings me on to:
So which is it? Are you in a higher than average risk situation and therefore need a gun? Or are you using a gun to cover feelings of inssecurity not based on reality?
Again, is your wife one of these or not? If not, your point again caller?
So when I mentioned Mexico your assumption was that I must live in some dusty barrio filled with drug addled violent boyfriends?
Why would this be your assumption of how the majority of Mexico is unless your viewpoint of Mexico is a racist one. I am not suprised by this as the US media doesn’t exactly do its best to portray Mexico in anything approaching a true light.
I would be flat out stupid to decide that. I didn’t. You have thrown it out their as a straw man argument along with making assumptions about me based solely on a couple of posts.
How the hell do you know what I know or what I don’t know? Again I made no such assumption, you have incorrectly inferred instead of actually disputing my basic point.
again you are making assumptions about my world view that are not coherent with my posts. Possibly you would like that to be my world view as you have a basic idea how to argue against that viewpoint. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
Sheep in the UK are pretty safe from Wolves given that there are no wolves in the UK. I would imagine that deaths by wolf for your average US sheep lie several million points lower on the actuary tables than by human as well. So the fact that they feel safe protected from the wolves by the humans is a pretty good analogy for gun ownership in the USA.
So at 48 you still argue by throwing false arguments out and misquoting people. Are you used to no-one in your family disagreeing with you by any chance?
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Some innocent bystanders in a jewelry store might disagree that Mexico is safe:
[/quote]
Exactly my point. They ran in firing as they went, no-one inside had a chance to react. And at least one of the gunmen was injured by the gun of someone who was on their side.
So you have a situation where the guys in the shop would not have been helped at all by carrying guns. And there are millions of people in Monterrey who were not involved so the chances of being in the shop in the first place are small enough to be insignificant.
[quote]KBCThird wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
KBCThird wrote:
Vicomte wrote:
SSC wrote:
I can always tell when walking around campus when a girl is suspicious. Apparently logic doesn’t appeal to them - because just maybe my class is in the same direction as hers. Unless some girl is in the middle of Englewood at two o’clock in the morning, it’s all mental.
Ha! I thought I was the only one. They glance back, then lock their head straight ahead and step up the pace a bit; if they’re wearing a skirt, they will suddenly become self-conscious and hold the hem down, like you’re going to try to disrobe them right there. It never occurs to them that you might just be taking a similar route that you’ve used for the past three years. My reaction varies between amusement and annoyed incredulity.
And apparently it never occurs to you that the phrase “better safe than sorry” might be going through their heads.
OP, you do seem to provide some over-the-top examples of peopel who live in unnecessary and unproductive fear, as well as examples of an attitude that could certainly be considered paternalistic (and therefore somewhat patronizing)
…but the fact is that these attitudes exist for a reason. I dont know that the other extreme, a cavalier disregard for ones own safety as well as the physical well-being of others would be any more desirable. I think the poster above me has a similar attitude - unless you have a reason to trust someone, why should you?
There’s a difference between being prudent and being silly. The situation I described is an example of this ‘unnecessary and unproductive fear’. You’re walking in a dark alley by yourself in Compton? Fine. You’re at school in a suburban town in the middle of the day while surrounded by people? A bit silly. What does moving a bit faster and acting scared do to deter an attack, exactly? Like people mentioned before, you act like a victim, you become one. Encouraging people to act like prey in obviously nonthreatening situations is fear-mongering.
Not all attitudes exist for a reason. Fear can be useful, or it can be incapacitating. I mentioned being prepared for trouble as the best option, rather than trying to avoid it all the time, through ridiculously inflated means. Try to avoid it, sure, but be prepared for it to happen, because eventually it cannot be avoided, and then you’re fucked. The scared girl who runs from men in the supermarket is going to be easy prey for the guy in the alley.
If you have no reason to distrust someone, why would you? They should remain somewhat neutral until they are revealed as either or. Be cautious and observant, and be prepared if something goes down. But don’t turn white, hold down your skirt and pray to your god to save your ass.
Fear is only productive if you make it productive. The discussion in this thread is about people who use fear for nothing but to feel afraid.
I disagree. I’m a 250 lb male, I was walking in the middle of the day but it was an area that I’m not from and not familiar with and there was nobody in sight. I heard someone coming up from behind me, not running but moving fast, not trying to be quiet, but no exactly announcing his presence either. I discretely cast a glance over my shoulder and as this guy closed the distance between him and me I drifted over to the right to see if he would alter his path. He didn’t, just kept moving on. Probably a guy out for an afternoon jog, even if it was on the coldest day in the last month. That is not a hypothetical, imaginary situation by the way. That did happen the day before yesterday, and that is how I behaved. But what did I lose in that situation? What sense would it have made NOT be be aware of his presence?
I agree with most of what you said, mostly about being prepared, but disagree that this is thread is fear-mongering and with teh rhetorical question “If you have no reason to distrust someone, why would you?” that’s just a flip of the question “if you have no reason to trust someone why would you?” Maybe most of this discussion is really just semantics, and it’s more a question of awareness and precaution than it is fear and paralysis.[/quote]
I think we actually agree on all points. I glance at people walking behind me, as well. What I don’t do is assume they are about to rape me. Without fear, I observe my situation in order to decide how I should act, like you. First, I listen. If I don’t like what I hear, I glance. If I don’t like what I see, I might move, like you, to test the proverbial waters. If I don’t like the result of that, things get interesting. But fear has no place in it, and assumptions are likewise irrelevant. If you disagree with the flip of your question, logic dictates you disagree with the original. I think we were both talking about simple awareness, rather than assuming safety or threat.
Not everyone is trying to kill you, and not everyone isn’t trying to kill you. But anyone might do either. Be ready.
And the gun debate is nonsense. Guns are good fer killin’ when killin’ needs to be done. If you find a better way, let me know, because I want one, too.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Westclock wrote:
My future wife and daughter are both going to be the proud recipients of a .38 snub nose with the hammer sawed off.
You know, Smith & Wesson makes hammerless 38 snubbies?
My wife carries a Ruger SP101 loaded with +P hollow point .38 ammo. No hammer to get snagged, double-action (just pull the trigger), short barrel for ease of use at short distances, easy to conceal in purse, highly effective stopping power at close quarters.
I’ve told her many times if she is ever attacked to simply empty all five rounds in the upper torso of her attacker.
At 5’3", 110 lbs., this gives her a clearly superior position in a violent confrontation that she is clearly likely to lose otherwise, no matter how much MMA/physical defense experience she may have.
She has drawn her weapon(s) in situations at home where she suspected an intruder (all false alarms so far) and I can tell you even though I am twice her weight and astronomically stronger than her, I would never want to face her or another woman similarly armed.
Of all the people in this world, women deserve the right to keep and bear arms. It is a silly, misguided notion to maintain a mindset that firearms are for men and women should look at other avenues of self defense first.
The gun is the instant “equalizer” for a woman.
The disabled woman in this 911 call could have used an “equalizer”.
Also, a good example of how when seconds count police are only minutes away.
Women in the U.S. need not worry about this thing because it is so doggone statistically impossible for it to happen. Just ask a British guy who lives in Mexico; he’ll put your mind at ease because he is so fuckin knowledgeable about statistics and what concerns American women need have. Don’t sweat it, girls.
[/quote]
Maybe the British guy in Mexico should do a proper cost benefit analysis, keeping in mind that precautions taken to avoid slight risk of harm can be reasonable when the magnitude of harm is great.