guns can be used defensivelyVilham wrote:
Aside from the fact that in no shape or form is a gun a DEFENSIVE armament. Body armour is defensive. A gun is an offensive weapon, that is the entire point in them.RAIMIUS wrote:
/fail
High explosives are NOT useful defensive weapons for the general public. A Glock is.
High explosives are also regulated by the NFA. This debate is about firearms, not C4 or RDX.
We're not even talking about federal buildings (they are already off-limits)
So a gun provides resistance to attack?nickb64 wrote:
guns can be used defensivelyVilham wrote:
Aside from the fact that in no shape or form is a gun a DEFENSIVE armament. Body armour is defensive. A gun is an offensive weapon, that is the entire point in them.RAIMIUS wrote:
/fail
High explosives are NOT useful defensive weapons for the general public. A Glock is.
High explosives are also regulated by the NFA. This debate is about firearms, not C4 or RDX.
We're not even talking about federal buildings (they are already off-limits)
No, it doesn't, a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
the best defense is a good offenseVilham wrote:
So a gun provides resistance to attack?nickb64 wrote:
guns can be used defensivelyVilham wrote:
Aside from the fact that in no shape or form is a gun a DEFENSIVE armament. Body armour is defensive. A gun is an offensive weapon, that is the entire point in them.
No, it doesn't, a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
contradiction of terms. A good saying none the less and that isn't what im disputing. A gun IS an offensive weapon. Im making no other point than that.SEREMAKER wrote:
the best defense is a good offenseVilham wrote:
So a gun provides resistance to attack?nickb64 wrote:
guns can be used defensively
No, it doesn't, a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
Guns can deter people from attacking in the first place.Vilham wrote:
So a gun provides resistance to attack?nickb64 wrote:
guns can be used defensivelyVilham wrote:
Aside from the fact that in no shape or form is a gun a DEFENSIVE armament. Body armour is defensive. A gun is an offensive weapon, that is the entire point in them.
No, it doesn't, a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
Also:
SEREMAKER wrote:
the best defense is a good offense
What's your definition of defense?Vilham wrote:
a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
the gun itself in that case doesn't stop them attacking you. Their fear of the gun does. The gun is still an offensive weapon. The fear of the gun is the defense there.nickb64 wrote:
Guns can deter people from attacking in the first place.Vilham wrote:
So a gun provides resistance to attack?nickb64 wrote:
guns can be used defensively
No, it doesn't, a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
Also:SEREMAKER wrote:
the best defense is a good offense
Fuck you, if I need to bring cordite onto a bus or a plane to feel safe you have no right to tell me I can'tRAIMIUS wrote:
/fail
High explosives are NOT useful defensive weapons for the general public. A Glock is.
High explosives are also regulated by the NFA. This debate is about firearms, not C4 or RDX.
We're not even talking about federal buildings (they are already off-limits)
Hence being a good defense to carry one ...Vilham wrote:
the gun itself in that case doesn't stop them attacking you. Their fear of the gun does.
if a guy who's beating me up stops doing so because i just filled him with 671 grains of diplomacy, i'd say the gun stopped them attacking me.Vilham wrote:
the gun itself in that case doesn't stop them attacking you. Their fear of the gun does. The gun is still an offensive weapon. The fear of the gun is the defense there.nickb64 wrote:
Guns can deter people from attacking in the first place.Vilham wrote:
So a gun provides resistance to attack?
No, it doesn't, a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
Also:SEREMAKER wrote:
the best defense is a good offense
The only flaw and its a huge one is that it completely depends on the other persons reaction to the gun, they might not be afraid of it. It also requires an act of aggression to actually make anyone afraid anyway, pointing a gun at someone is aggressive action not a defensive one.. Hence actually its not a defense to carry one.Stingray24 wrote:
Hence being a good defense to carry one ...Vilham wrote:
the gun itself in that case doesn't stop them attacking you. Their fear of the gun does.
Hurricane, that would mean you stopped him by ATTACKING him, not defending against him.
Seriously is this that hard for you guys to comprehend? I don't care about right or wrong here, as far as im concerned attacking someone that attacks you is fine. But stop deceiving yourself into believing the action that is an offensive one is a defensive one.
A gun is an offensive weapon.
edit - woops quote myself not hurri
Seriously is this that hard for you guys to comprehend? I don't care about right or wrong here, as far as im concerned attacking someone that attacks you is fine. But stop deceiving yourself into believing the action that is an offensive one is a defensive one.
A gun is an offensive weapon.
edit - woops quote myself not hurri
Last edited by Vilham (2009-08-20 17:57:17)
west-phoenix-az wrote:
What's your definition of defense?Vilham wrote:
a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
Its at the top of the page....west-phoenix-az wrote:
west-phoenix-az wrote:
What's your definition of defense?Vilham wrote:
a gun simply counters an attack with an attack of its own. That is NOT defense.
resistance to attack
So you would deny a right a woman from a gun? Since we all know guys can pretty much overpower a lot of women. A gun would tip the balance towards the woman.Vilham wrote:
Its at the top of the page....west-phoenix-az wrote:
west-phoenix-az wrote:
What's your definition of defense?
resistance to attack
Think about this, if 50% of the population was armed and trained, do you think someone would want to rob anyone? The criminal will have a 50% chance of getting shot, and that's pretty high.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
"In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."
In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
Motor Vehicles: 43,900
Falls: 12,600
Poisonings: 10,600
Drownings: 4,500
Fires: 4,100
Choking: 2,800
Firearm: 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)
* For Children 14 and Under
Motor Vehicles: 3,059
Drownings: 1,024
Fires: 883
Choking: 213
Firearm: 181 (2.7% of fatal accidents)
Falls: 127
Poisonings: 80
"In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."
In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:
*1995 Fatal Accident TotalsJames Madison wrote:
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (56)
Motor Vehicles: 43,900
Falls: 12,600
Poisonings: 10,600
Drownings: 4,500
Fires: 4,100
Choking: 2,800
Firearm: 1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)
* For Children 14 and Under
Motor Vehicles: 3,059
Drownings: 1,024
Fires: 883
Choking: 213
Firearm: 181 (2.7% of fatal accidents)
Falls: 127
Poisonings: 80
You are using a very specific and limited definition here.Vilham wrote:
Aside from the fact that in no shape or form is a gun a DEFENSIVE armament. Body armour is defensive. A gun is an offensive weapon, that is the entire point in them.RAIMIUS wrote:
/fail
High explosives are NOT useful defensive weapons for the general public. A Glock is.
High explosives are also regulated by the NFA. This debate is about firearms, not C4 or RDX.
We're not even talking about federal buildings (they are already off-limits)
Pistols are almost always considered defensive weapons. The only exception I know of is the H&K MK23 Mod 0.Webster's wrote:
1 : serving to defend or protect <defensive fortifications>
2 a : devoted to resisting or preventing aggression or attack <defensive behavior>
The use of force can be a legitimate part of one's defense. Simply look up some legal codes. Lethal force is almost always authorized if similar force is used by the attacker. This is known as--surprise--"SELF DEFENSE."
Oh it's not the worst. But it's certainly not Didneylan.Macbeth wrote:
Pretty ironic that the home where the leader of the richest nation on Earth lives, is only a few blocks away from said nation's worst ghetto.Red Forman wrote:
lol well right down the street from the white house there is whole neighborhoods filled with guns so meh....
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I just got a Seecamp pistol (.32) a week or so ago.
This weapon is perfect for EVERY DAY pocket carry. I've never befor seen such a tightly made pistol. It's f'n gorgeous. Since then, the only time I've been unarmed is when I've slept or been naked.
How does it look compared to other common carrys?
I'm probably going to get this done to it ($1500 though)
This weapon is perfect for EVERY DAY pocket carry. I've never befor seen such a tightly made pistol. It's f'n gorgeous. Since then, the only time I've been unarmed is when I've slept or been naked.
How does it look compared to other common carrys?
I'm probably going to get this done to it ($1500 though)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
depending on what I'm wearing, my concealed pistols are
Walther P22
Berreta tomcat .25 ACP
or
Glock 26
Walther P22
Berreta tomcat .25 ACP
or
Glock 26
I'm as much a fan of firearms as the next fellow, but certain folk in this thread are a little... *high-pitched whoop* ...out there
All great guns. As you stated depending on what I'm wearing... When I was up north I carried a glock 23. Here in FL the 23 was too big for shorts. So I got a S&W .357 model 60. Meh'. Then came the Kimber Ultra Carry II. Again, Meh'... I was looking at Kelteks and kahrs when I found seecamps. Give em a looksie...SEREMAKER wrote:
depending on what I'm wearing, my concealed pistols are
Walther P22
Berreta tomcat .25 ACP
or
Glock 26
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
lol where did i say anywhere that attacking someone is wrong? I didn't. You are the one claiming attacking is wrong. Yet to make yourself feel better you try to make what is an attack into a defense, just so that you don't think you are doing something wrong.Cybargs wrote:
So you would deny a right a woman from a gun? Since we all know guys can pretty much overpower a lot of women. A gun would tip the balance towards the woman.Vilham wrote:
Its at the top of the page....west-phoenix-az wrote:
resistance to attack
Think about this, if 50% of the population was armed and trained, do you think someone would want to rob anyone? The criminal will have a 50% chance of getting shot, and that's pretty high.
And cyborg, please don't start with this bullshit about gun laws. I dont give a shit. Seriously. Have your guns. I don't care. That isn't even remotely close to what I was debating. Go back to EE...
Yah finally someone who gets it.RAIMIUS wrote:
You are using a very specific and limited definition here.Vilham wrote:
Aside from the fact that in no shape or form is a gun a DEFENSIVE armament. Body armour is defensive. A gun is an offensive weapon, that is the entire point in them.RAIMIUS wrote:
/fail
High explosives are NOT useful defensive weapons for the general public. A Glock is.
High explosives are also regulated by the NFA. This debate is about firearms, not C4 or RDX.
We're not even talking about federal buildings (they are already off-limits)Pistols are almost always considered defensive weapons. The only exception I know of is the H&K MK23 Mod 0.Webster's wrote:
1 : serving to defend or protect <defensive fortifications>
2 a : devoted to resisting or preventing aggression or attack <defensive behavior>
The use of force can be a legitimate part of one's defense. Simply look up some legal codes. Lethal force is almost always authorized if similar force is used by the attacker. This is known as--surprise--"SELF DEFENSE."
Im not saying there is anything wrong with attacking someone to stop the attacking you, as I have stated, what 4 times now? I am merely saying that you ARE attacking someone when you shoot them. As you can see by definition one, a gun is not a fortification to anything. It cant be used to block any attack, you have to actively use it in a counter attack.
DEFENSIVE (from definition 1 and 2a)
Defensive armaments are...defensive! They are "devoted to resisting attack."
Things do not need to be passive to be defensive.
Defensive armaments are...defensive! They are "devoted to resisting attack."
Things do not need to be passive to be defensive.