Anti-Gun People: What is the proper course of action if you are attacked?

I think I already know the answer, but I just want to hear you say it.

Suppose all guns are banned. And only the criminals have them at this point. Because, as we all know, criminals don't follow laws. So what is the proper course of action to take if someone breaks into your house with a gun? Or robs you at gunpoint on the street?

What are we supposed to do? Walk us through this.

 

Ah, this logic again. Because apparently without guns around, the criminals that are doing home invasions have access to the now incredibly expensive home-made firearms that magically appear because all criminals are gun smiths.

Problem comes when the gun-nuts can't grasp that lowering gun related crime lowers it further than increasing unrestricted gun access and removing gun-control. These criminals are getting their firearms from originally legal sources, and couple with the accident rate gun owners have, it means unrestricted firearms cause more damage than if gun-control is in practice.

What the right wing gun-nuts desperately cling to is the idea that because you can't eradicate all gun related crime, gun related accidents and gun suicides (which they term as all crime ever, regardless of the relevance to firearms involved) then it is therefore completely useless. Sadly they deliberately ignore that in comparison to their gun fanaticism, gun related crime is less than if they implement their policies. Strangely enough they also can't seem to grasp that more gun violence is worse than less gun violence, even if the latter isn't completely eradicating it.

Of course if you point this out, gun-nuts ramble on about the United States. Ignoring that those "illegal guns" come from legal sources, usually shipped in from neighbouring states that have practically free travel to and from in order to smuggle. While simultaneously ignoring where their logic is refuted by the rest of the civilised First World implementing gun-control with extreme success, even in Europe where ex-SOVIET firearms could've easily poured into their criminal undergrounds.

Oh well, I guess it's just that good ol' American genetic inability to adhere to laws that work everywhere else that's causing the problem. Right? Right? Hahaha.

 

Obviously, the best solution in this instance is to start digging underground, build a shelter and live there forever and ever in fear of all of the criminals running around with guns.

 

Red Herring for dinner tonight ! Can you think of a more intelligent way to convey your points ?

Your attitude in my thread was abhorrant, I'll show you how one should act in yours and just say I disagree with your "premise". Call me a communist, but I want to see guns controlled and regulated better. I'm tired of seeing people getting shot up on TV. Gun injuries are really nasty...

 

Guns are just going to magically disappear because of these laws? Show me an example of that in the past. We had prohibition of alcohol in the early 20th century, how did that work out? We have the prohibition of certain drugs, how's that working out?

Does South Chicago have less gun violence with their restrictive laws? What anti-gun nuts can't grasp is less restrictive laws, like conceal carry, reduce crime. Of course if you point this out, anti-gun nuts talk about free travel in order smuggle, as if moving from state to state is smuggling, and that outlawing guns wouldn't cause a huge international black market. How's that cocaine prohibition working out for you? These insane anti-gun nuts then talk about first world country crime rates being reduced by gun prohibition. That simply is not true.

Of course, you anti-gun nuts still haven't answered the OP's question.

 

Oh yes, obviously. Because guns are a magical infinite resources that design and build themselves when factories and distribution shuts down.

Which is why all the old guns became such a OVERWHELMING problem in all the other civilised First World nations that implemented gun-control and bans. Right?

Oh boy, let's compare a prohibition issue in which something that wasn't a national problem that creates crime was re-legalised and in the process heavily regulated, resolving the few issues involved with the industry in the first place, to a national problem that causes crime and the prohibition and heavy regulation of has overwhelmingly worked in every other civilised First World nation that has enacted it?

Like I said, you gun-nuts are desperately grasping at straws.

Whoops. Perhaps you should read.

"Problem comes when the gun-nuts can't grasp that lowering gun related crime lowers it further than increasing unrestricted gun access and removing gun-control. These criminals are getting their firearms from originally legal sources, and couple with the accident rate gun owners have, it means unrestricted firearms cause more damage than if gun-control is in practice.

What the right wing gun-nuts desperately cling to is the idea that because you can't eradicate all gun related crime, gun related accidents and gun suicides (which they term as all crime ever, regardless of the relevance to firearms involved) then it is therefore completely useless. Sadly they deliberately ignore that in comparison to their gun fanaticism, gun related crime is less than if they implement their policies. Strangely enough they also can't seem to grasp that more gun violence is worse than less gun violence, even if the latter isn't completely eradicating it.

Of course if you point this out, gun-nuts ramble on about the United States. Ignoring that those "illegal guns" come from legal sources, usually shipped in from neighbouring states that have practically free travel to and from in order to smuggle. While simultaneously ignoring where their logic is refuted by the rest of the civilised First World implementing gun-control with extreme success, even in Europe where ex-SOVIET firearms could've easily poured into their criminal undergrounds."

Strange. It would appear I addressed every issue involved, so much so that your reply to me was to repeat the same ignorant gun-nut arguments that had already been refuted or shut down in the very post you replied to.

Try again?

 

What is the proper course of action if you are attacked?

Is the question over your head? Obviously so, considering your lame responses to my other points. For instance, humans build products based on demand. If there's a demand for guns, they will be built. They're just machines, and don't require unobtainium to make. Despite any magical lack of demand in your make-believe world, you still ignore the 300 million guns already in the US. But I guess that's part of your make-believe world too.

 

So faced with a complete shut down of the entire gun-nut argument against gun-control being presented here, twice, you desperately fall back on OP's hilariously redundant fallacy?

Oh dear.

 

Ah, so simple questions are a fallacy now? You cannot answer a simple question. That speaks volumes.

 

The question was already answer a few posts above this by myself. Complaining over and over again because it was answered in a way that didn't adhere to the fallacy that was presented isn't, strangely enough, giving you an argument.

But i'm sure if you go "Why you no answer? Huh, didn't think so! Therefore yous wrong" enough times it'll magically make gun-control no longer work in the rest of the civilised First World and give you and changed reality. Hahahaha.

 

The first thing to do is not get killed. In order to enhance safety I advise you to show the criminal around your house and point out the items that are easily transported and which can be sold quickly for cash. Since the criminal knows you don't have a gun he or she is likely not to expect you to shoot them so they will be a little more relaxed about the whole situation.

If you're robbed at gunpoint on the street then do much the same. Hand over what the criminal wants, if you have it. Again the criminal will know you are unarmed and is less likely to be stressed out by the whole thing. If firearms were owned by everyone then the criminal would be expecting you to pull out a gun at any second, whereupon of course he or she would have to shoot you.

 

Who suggested there wouldn't be guns around? Since when does a gun ban=no guns? Can you please cite for us the method of rounding up 300 million guns that will not take decades to complete, assuming it's even possible to complete (which it isn't).

Who's arguing for unrestricted access? The problem with your argument of gun control=less gun crime is the phrase "gun crime", as if such crime occurs in a seperate bubble that if it gets reduced, all other crime rate categories don't get affected. Which is absurd. Sure, a highly restrictive and rigously enforced gun control program will probably reduce gun crime over the long haul. What difference exactly does that make if the difference is simply made up, or even increased overall by other methods?

Unless you can make a coherent argument that fewer guns=less crime (not "gun crime"...just crime), then, quite simply, you don't have an argument.

Again, you predicate your entire argument purely on the basis of gun-related crime, and ignore every other crime statistic. Not a sound argument at all. There's only one real advantage to a banning of all guns, which is precisely the type of events that get touted and used for increased gun control---massacres. Without guns, massacres are much less capable of happening. Unfortunately, while the level of tragedy is many times that of an individual murder, the massacre rate is not even worth mentioning.

To take a statistic that barely registers, as a legitimate rationale for banning guns, would not be a sound argument either.

 

Well, your response can be summed up in two words: bend over. Hey, at least it's honest.

 

Just removing the legal supply won't necessarily do much to limit the supply of illegal guns. There is a massive supply of illegal drugs imported from all over. Making them illegal really hasn't done much to deplete supply.

How many guns would criminals need to import in order to maintain the current illegal supply? There are an estimated 40,500 guns used in crimes each year. That is a high estimate and includes guns used in any kind of gun crime. 320 metric tons of cocaine are imported into the US every year. We also import well over 1,000 metric tons of marijuana and hundreds of tons of other drugs. It wouldn't take much for this network to throw a few guns onto some of their shipments and thus maintain the current supply of illegal guns in the US.

 

I think in here somewhere may have been a question about what to do if you need a gun and dont have one.

how about one of those super high intensity flashlights? The kind that would temporarily blind someone.

if that would work seems actually better than shooting.

 

Then i suggest you turn the TV off. Because when only big tragedies are shown and not the smaller ones you get a distorted view about what is more dangerous.

 

LOL! Home-made? Is this a joke? Are you not aware of the black market, bro? It's where the vast majority of all your street criminals get their guns. Do you honestly think gang members are passing background checks? Get real. If you ever ventured outside of your ivory tower into an actual inner city, maybe you wouldn't believe in magic anymore.

And I live on the Mexican border, so people smuggle all kinds of (*)(*)(*)(*) across down here; people, guns, drugs, etc. No wizards. Just criminals.

Can't help but notice you still didn't answer the thread topic. You just tried to redirect it. So I'll ask you again. What is the proper course of action if you get attacked? You do have an answer, I assume?

You didn't answer my question. Why is this so difficult? I just want to know what we're supposed to do.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Your solution is to simply appease the criminal and give them whatever they want without any resistance?

 

Live in Australia where we restricted guns but criminals are unlikely to break into your house with a gun because a) guns are not THAT easy to get a hold of unless you know a bikie gang member and b) no reason to have one since unarmed robbery carries a lesser sentence and c) homeowner is unlikely to have a gun so you do not need to defend yourself if caught

Ever heard of the term "escalation"? It has sold the "friends of the NRA" (i.e. Armaments industry) a LOT of guns - and the joke is, they sell to both sides

 

Yes Thanks to TV the average perception of a gunshot injury is some small but only slightly painful wound in a shoulder that is being dabbed dry by the sex kitten of the week

NOT like that in real life

 

Is your second hand CD worth more than the life of the 15 year old girl kicked out from home because Mommy's new boyfriend got her pregnant? Would you rather shoot her and kill her and her unborn baby?

 

New Jersey passed some of the strictist gun laws in the country. An active working police officer has to get a purchasing permit and go through a series of background checks, the process takes weeks before a cop can buy an off duty gun. Its extremely difficult for the average citizen to get a handgun permit and you can forget about a concealed carry permit. With all this in place the murder rate has changed very little.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/njcrimn.htm

Believing banning guns will make any huge dent in murder rates or crime is pie in the sky wishful thinking. We need to address whats putting these kids in the mental state that they have the capacity to mass murder others.
Anti Gun people are not stupid nor dumb they have to realize that the real problem with these mass shootings are the shooters mental state and that if it werent a gun it would be other means. I posted in another thread the worst school massacre in american history was a bombing, the bath massacre. Remember Tim McVeigh no gun. Where theres a will to kill theres a way gun or not.

 

So then let's adjust the argument for Australian standards since only one person has actually answered what I've asked, and I want some more answers. I don't know why everybody keeps dodging the question. Suppose somebody breaks into your house, robs you on the street, tries to rape you, whatever....... with some other kind of weapon. Still armed. What is the appropriate course of action if you have no gun to defend yourself?

In fact, I might even have to ask you a different question. How does anyone even commit crime without a weapon? I don't think I could take an unarmed criminal seriously. I'd have a hard enough time stopping for English police with their silly little whistles and billy clubs. Unless I'm outnumbered, then no guns = no threat as far as I'm concerned.

 

My wife's best friend is 4'5" and 85lbs. Explain, in detail, EXACTLY how she should protect herself from a 6', 200lb attacker. Be specific.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this posted in the correct thread? If so...what in the world are you babbling about?!

 

Mate I would use the most effective weapon man has devised to date "Zer leetle grey cells"! I other words whatever is to hand. Had someone break into secured living quarters and open the door to my room, then ask me to have sex with him (I was actually awake with one of the worst sore throats" I simply said NO! pushed him back out of the door and slammed the door in his face. IF he had been armed I would have kicked him in the thigh (men guard the groin area so the thigh is more accessible and quite painful in itself) and THEN slammed the door or I would have hit him with whatever was to hand (possibly the laptop) or just threw some shoes at him

Hell mate I am a NURSE. I would rather battle a burglar ANY day than try to restrain some bloody idiot going through alcohol withdrawal - with the burglar I do not have to worry about not hurting him

Wow! Has the NRA done a good job on American thinking - just when I think they cannot get more brainwashed.............................

 

Oh, Geezus! You forgot to ask if they would also shoot the string of baby ducklings following behind her.