Debunking “you're more likely for a gun used against you”


PDA






thunderstorm
April 24, 2007, 03:22 PM
Looking for some help or a good response to if you have a Gun more likely for it to be used against you (me).

If you enjoyed reading about "Debunking “you're more likely for a gun used against you”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
torpid
April 24, 2007, 03:27 PM
A popular reply is that if the gun is that easy to take away from a person, then the person should have no difficulty in simply taking it right back.

torpid
April 24, 2007, 03:28 PM
Oh, and welcome aboard! :)

WinchesterAA
April 24, 2007, 03:31 PM
I've done a couple of "bad guy goes for my gun" scenarios with my roomate and a plastic dummy pistol.

He can never get close to me before I would have shot him atleast 3 times, and when I had it secured in a holster he couldn't get it out of the holster before I beat him down and then shot him, so I think I unknowingly picked up a good bit of pistol fighting skills from somewhere. I'm confident enough with it that I don't really worry about such a thing happening, and If I've got the drop more or less on some would-be robber that wants my gun then there's no doubt in my mind that my pistol would stay in my hand.

30 cal slob
April 24, 2007, 03:34 PM
thunderstorm,

how is it that cops and soldiers won't have their guns taken away from them?

what magical status is bestowed upon them?

MD_Willington
April 24, 2007, 03:34 PM
Get an airsoft pistol and see if they want to try...

"hey stop shooting me" {/ whiney voice

"but you said you'd take it away and use it on me.. muwahahahaha"

FireArmFan
April 24, 2007, 03:36 PM
As far as concealed carry goes, they cant take what they don't know is there.

WinchesterAA
April 24, 2007, 03:43 PM
30calslob, my father had been a cop for 8 or 9 years, and was pursuing a suspect in a carjacking. Suspect rushed him and grabbed his .357 and shot him in the chest (.46" from his heart)

Suspect appologised to my dad shortly before his partner shot the suspect.

This was 20 somethin years before I was even born, but wow.. Reading the confession the perp gave was absolutely chilling. Reading what my dad reported was even more chilling.

It does happen though.

helpless
April 24, 2007, 03:44 PM
As far as concealed carry goes, they cant take what they don't know is there.

I agree with this.

I also agree with the airsoft pistol, Get one that hurts and tell this person to take it.

I believe there is a difference. I have heard of would be victems taking guns away from attackers and turning them on the bad guy but never the other way around.

I think it comes down to who has the will to use it.

The bad guy wants something from you. i.e. wallet purse sex...

The good guy wants to live.

I believe the good guy wants to live more than the bad guy wants what he wants.

And if this is not the case than so be it. If you dont want to live that is your problem.

It is everyones responsibility and right to defend themselves.

Deanimator
April 24, 2007, 04:01 PM
Debunking “your more likely for a gun used against you”

This comes up about three times a week in usenet. Just respond:

"Can you cite for me an example where this happened which did not involve a police officer attempting to apprehend someone without the use of lethal force?"

They of course will NOT be able to. If they're honest, they'll admit it, and in all likelihood disappear.

If they can't cite an example and won't admit it, or try to change the subject, ask them:

"Do you know anyone who can take ANYTHING from ANYONE after being shot to death?"

At THIS point, they must either say "no" or start telling insane lies.

Somebody who takes this tack and won't be honest, can't be convinced. They can however be used as a horrible example of dishonesty and stupidity for others.

Carl N. Brown
April 24, 2007, 04:01 PM
I know multiple cases where women defended themselves
with guns; I know of no case where a woman was disarmed
by an attacker.

ZeSpectre
April 24, 2007, 04:05 PM
Can't find the post (wasn't on THR) a while ago somebody was having the same discussion with a roommate. The roommate was basically saying his Kung-Fu trumped the other guy's "gun-fu" so they were practicing with a soda bottle and Mr. Kung-fu kept grabbing the bottle away.

Well apparently Mr. "gun-fu" said it wasn't an accurate representation because there was no telling if he had "fired" so he went and got an airsoft gun, then proceeded to warn Mr. "Kung-fu" that the airsoft pellets hurt a lot.

The story goes that Mr. Kung-fu suddenly got a lot more timid and was pinged a whole bunch of times without successfully disarming Mr. "Gun-fu".

The psychology of facing an "actual" gun shouldn't be overestimated but I doubt it should be underestimated either.

Deanimator
April 24, 2007, 04:08 PM
how is it that cops and soldiers won't have their guns taken away from them?

I've got an entry in the usenet rec.guns FAQ on this subject! :)

This comes up especially often in the context of women with guns.

I just take their "logic" and run with it.

If a woman confronted by a violent attacker would just give her gun to an assailant, should we have female police officers and soldiers? Won't they wander the battlefields looking for enemy soldiers to give their M16s to? What happens when a female fighterpilot encounters the enemy? Will she just land her F15 at the first enemy airfield she finds? And let's not even THINK about female captains of nuclear missile subs!!! :eek:

Of course this gibberish arises out of a combination of the timidity and incompetence of those who posit it, not to mention a BIG dose of misogyny against women.

OneBagNomad
April 24, 2007, 04:10 PM
My response to anyone that parrots that rediculous garbage at me is to break contact. While it may not be the case, that cliche statement just reeks of cowardice and a weak personality/mind, to me. Not to mention that they clearly don't think very much of you if they're saying that to you. I'll probably catch a bunch of backlash for this, and I know it's not the kind of response the poster was looking for, but I'm being honest.

helpless
April 24, 2007, 04:15 PM
My response to anyone that parrots that rediculous garbage at me is to break contact. While it may not be the case, that cliche statement just reeks of cowardice and a weak personality/mind, to me. Not to mention that they clearly don't think very much of you if they're saying that to you. I'll probably catch a bunch of backlash for this, and I know it's not the kind of response the poster was looking for, but I'm being honest.

i agree

deltacharlie
April 24, 2007, 04:16 PM
This question is usually posed by an anti who is flat out ignorant about cqb. I've been training in armed and unarmed combat for many years and any anti who wishes to "demonstrate" how they (one-on-one) can get my gun out of my hand(s) before I shoot them or break their wrist is always welcome to try.

Those who have taken up the challenge have gone away with injured fingers or wrists for their trouble. And frequently they continue to mutter defiantly under their breath that it was harsh or unfair, meanwhile my gun is still in my hand and firmly in my control.

Just give them the usual, "Whatever" :rolleyes: and walk away. They don't get it, they don't want to and they never will.

Not saying it cannot ever happen to me or anyone else, I'm just all for lighting up anti's any chance I can get ;)

ingram
April 24, 2007, 04:25 PM
If you focus merely on the idea of having a gun in your hands and a criminal taking it away from you while aware and ready, antis aren't going to pay any attention to your arguments. You are lopsiding the debate into a very specific situation that is not the only thing the antis are reffering to..... I hope the avoidance from their point of view is deliberate on your part because it is otherwise quite mind boggling to me.

Anti's are also reffering to a criminal breaking into your home, getting one of your guns and shooting you, a family member or otherwise welcomed guest taking one of your guns, accidentally shooting a friend, family memer or self, etc... even arguments that it makes suicide a more ready and willing option....

Be cognizant of the full scope of their argument.... don't pick and choose a situation in which our logic is the clearest, and then debunk the idea solely with that. It may be great for patting each other on the back, but an anti will see it as a purely one dimensional argument and will not be convinced.

I wholeheartedly agree with the fallacies of the "more likely" statements, but when it comes to winning a debate, you need to explore the full range of possibilities.

Thumper
April 24, 2007, 04:25 PM
Kellerman's study is widely regarded as flawed. Here's a pretty good breakdown:

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

ATW525
April 24, 2007, 04:26 PM
Looking for some help or a good response to if you have a Gun more likely for it to be used against you (me).

This statement is 100% accurate, but only if you're suicidal. Suicide is the number one way people have their gun used against them.

WinchesterAA
April 24, 2007, 04:49 PM
ATW, that's not really "used against them" is it? That'd be more along the lines of "used for them" or somethin...

They wanna die, pistol takes them there, it's for their benefit.. you know, as counter-intuitive as that statement might be.

Kaylee
April 24, 2007, 04:50 PM
sure wish that was true last week. Fifty-odd people didn't seem up to the "just taking it away and using it against him" task.

Maybe 'cause it's easier said than done.

Robert Hairless
April 24, 2007, 05:08 PM
Venus Ramey recently used her .38 revolver to shoot out the tires on the car of people who were stealing her property (http://news-buzz.info/a/gun-toting-beauty-queen-stops-intruder). There were several people. They were there while she did it. Some watched while she did it. Some ran away.

No one took her gun away and used it against her. Some were arrested because of what Venus Ramey did.

The people Ramey confronted in the act of theft were younger and stronger than she is. Ramey is an 82-year-old woman. She can't walk without a walker. This incident is not the first time she used her gun to protect herself and her property. She lives alone on a farm.

Ask the person how he can believe such nonsense if several vigorous people didn't take away the gun of a feeble 82-year-old woman.

If there were any truth at all in that statement, the taxpayers of this country could save a fortune. We could have cops and soldiers equip themselves by taking away the gun of anyone who tries to kill them.

TallPine
April 24, 2007, 05:13 PM
At THIS point, they must either say "no" or start telling insane lies.
That pretty much describes most anti-gun "arguments" ;)

Justin
April 24, 2007, 05:20 PM
Looking for some help or a good response to if you have a Gun more likely for it to be used against you (me).

This is why we do retention training. Duh!

gunsmith
April 24, 2007, 05:31 PM
then why didn't anyone "take" the Virginia Tech shooters gun?

Boats
April 24, 2007, 05:52 PM
The few times I have heard this one I simply told the speaker to quit projecting his/her own personal weakness upon the rest of society.

Just because they'd let someone take a gun away from them says nothing about my odds in a like situation. My odds run much more strongly towards stopped perp.

SaMx
April 24, 2007, 06:29 PM
ask them to cite a study that shows this. tell them that the argument seems like BS and if they can't back it up it doesn't mean anything.

Carl N. Brown
April 25, 2007, 11:19 AM
I have noticed among anti-gunners that their speculations
always seem to trump statistics or actual tests.

You can sneak a Glock "plastic hijacker special" past
a metal detector or Xray.
If you remove the barrel, the slide, hammer,
firingpin, all the springs--in short you can slip the
plastic handle with none of the metal parts essential
to fire a cartridge past a metal detector. And the
plastic handle will still show up on Xray.

The Teflon on the KTW "cop killer" bullet enables the
bullet to penetrate a bullet proof vest.
The teflon on the KTW bullet actually causes more friction
in penetrating Kevlar body armor and REDUCES penetration
in Kevlar vs the same bullet without Teflon.
The teflon on the KTW bullet causes it to "stick" on curved
windshield glass or auto sheet metal parts, making the
bullet more likely to penetrate than to ricochet.
And KTW, who only sold to police and whose bullets were
never used to kill a cop, went bankrupt and no longer
produces ammo.

Most anti-gun talking points are on the level of urban legend.

Dr. Dickie
April 25, 2007, 11:52 AM
My understanding (I thought I read this somewhere) is that this is based on the fact that police officers had their weapons taken away from them.
Course, it is understandable that a LEO may get their gun taken. They are more likely to have their gun out, visible on their side. They are interacting a WHOLE lot more with bad guys. They are more likely to find themselves wrestling with a bad guy. Etc, etc.
Also, I suspect that a LOT more training has taken place over the last 10 or 20 years that deals with weapon retention, so this does not happen as much as it used to.
Again, it is my understanding that this was never based on actual statistics.

dasmi
April 25, 2007, 11:55 AM
A friend tried this one on me. I put my hand in the shape of a gun, and told the person to take it before I raised it up and said bang.

Telperion
April 25, 2007, 12:25 PM
Ask why they think an attacker can disarm you before you can shoot, but could not take your phone away from you before you dial 911.

Guy B. Meredith
April 25, 2007, 02:02 PM
When people make assertions, it is their responsibility to prove it correct. You do not have the responsibility to disprove their statement.

I think this assertion was originally directed to women who were being told that they were wimps and would not use the gun and so the perpetrator would grab it. The woman is always the loser per this line of thought.

orygunmike
April 25, 2007, 02:06 PM
From this site: http://www.2asisters.org/education/ninemyths.htm
======================================================
* Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.

Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse . From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19]
Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.

LeafsFan
April 25, 2007, 02:21 PM
Boats said: Just because they'd let someone take a gun away from them says nothing about my odds in a like situation. My odds run much more strongly towards stopped perp.

Correct.

Buying a gun is only a part of the self-defense process. You must both learn how to use it and develop the mindset for using it. This means being willing to shoot a criminal who is advancing on you instead of freezing up and letting him get close enough to "take your gun away from you". (or shoot you/stab you/bludgeon you with the weapon he himself brought with him when he broke into your home.)

People don't rise to the occasion in times of crisis, they default to their highest level of preparedness. If you're not prepared, your default setting is that of a sheep.

ozwyn
April 25, 2007, 02:31 PM
some old numbers from the .gov may give you some information to use on this issue

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Lot of stuff to sort through to see meaningful numbers.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm is the root website.


I seem to recall at one time looking at the FBI numebrs and determining the more realisitics odds were more like 80% that the gun owner would have the gun and NOT have it used against them. But I can't find my source for a dang anymore.

Zundfolge
April 25, 2007, 02:34 PM
If its so easy to take a gun away from someone and use it on them, then criminals wouldn't carry/use guns to commit their crimes because it would be too dangerous.



Too many antis ascribe supernatural powers to criminals. :rolleyes:

JP1954
April 25, 2007, 02:45 PM
I remember many years ago a martial artist friend of mine said he wanted to try something out. He handed me his .357 revolver and told me to hold it up to his back and pull the trigger the moment I noticed him starting to move. After I did the obligatory point in a safe direction and verify for myself the cylinder was empty, we proceeded with the test. On double action mode I could not drop the hammer on him before he was able to grab the gun and deflect it. On single action mode I dropped it on him before he could get half way turned around.

The point I learned from this is that if you are going to use a firearm to defend yourself, you are at risk of losing the weapon if you are too close to your adversary. Maintaining distance is key IMO.

That being said, I've lived with liberals all my life and I have learned that more often than not, what they say is not what they mean. To get to the truth you have to read between the lines. When they say don't count on your gun for defense because it can be taken away from you what they really mean is that they don't consider you worthy of having firearms and
they want to have more control over you. In the end their ultimate aim is not gun control. That is just one means to the end which is complete and total domination over society.

Politically correct = Intellectually void
Is = whatever you want it to mean if you are a liberal caught in a bold faced lie.
Liberal = A person suffering from the mental illness of Liberalism which causes the victim to believe things are facts based solely on emotions and without any reasoning being applied.

Notch
April 25, 2007, 03:00 PM
I have had the " your gun will jus be used against you" crap thrown at me. It is simple...
In the anti gun environment we live in ( and most all will admit that is true) the media would PLASTER stories of folks having their OWN gun used on them...WHEN is the last time you heard about it happening?

EVER heard of it?

NOW how many accounts do we see a month (on average ) concerning would be felons getting dropped in their tracks by a good guy with a gun?

Reality speaks for itself!

Nomad, 2nd
April 25, 2007, 03:14 PM
Evil smile... Ya gatt get it first. (Or: Your welcome to try.)

Alternately, If I choose to while they are looking at it... and try to say something like that I already have my offhand on my BUG... Wether I choose to show them...

WinchesterAA
April 25, 2007, 03:52 PM
I think the effect would be more heartwarming if you gave the anti an airsoft gun or something and let him/her shoot at you while you try to take it away from him/her.

Doesn't really take much effort, just some semi-quick reflexes.

It's a lot like snatching something from someone then waving it in their face to taunt them while they try to grab it back but never can.

Deanimator
April 25, 2007, 04:02 PM
EVER heard of it?
I've been asking for over TWENTY years in usenet, and FidoNet before that.

So far, nobody's been able to give me an example.

tuckerdog1
April 25, 2007, 04:09 PM
Couldn't care less about that stat, true or not. If I'm in a situation where I need a gun, I want to have one, and I'll take my chances on having it taken away ( fat chance that's gonna happen ).

Tuckerdog1

RCouch
April 25, 2007, 04:28 PM
The only situation that I can think of is a person that is so afraid of the gun that they can't use it, in which case they probably shouldn't have it to begin with. If I'm a BG and see a gun pointed at me, even if that person is shaking, I don't think I'd take a chance unless I'm drunk or high on drugs.

Deanimator
April 25, 2007, 04:30 PM
Couldn't care less about that stat, true or not. If I'm in a situation where I need a gun, I want to have one, and I'll take my chances on having it taken away ( fat chance that's gonna happen ).

The more lies we can refute, the easier it will be for you to LEGALLY have that gun. The alternative is Chicago, where the masses are ignorant, apathetic, and believe whatever lies they're told and you're as likely to be prosecuted for defending yourself as any degenerate is for causing you to NEED to defend yourself.

iocane
April 25, 2007, 04:56 PM
So some person is claiming that guns are dangerous to us and can be used against us. After they take away are guns are they planning to shoot us with the gun? Sounds like another reason for there not to be gun laws. They want to take away our guns, and they say the guns taken from us can be used to kill us. Mmmmm, so thats why they want to take away the guns.

Dr. Dickie
April 25, 2007, 05:26 PM
Actually, we could use this.
Just repond to them with:
"That is why we should be allowed to have machine guns. As you have never heard of someone taking away a machine gun from someone and using it against them."
What can they say? They cannot say they have heard of it happening, and if they say:
"That's becuase no one owns a machine gun."
Or even if they say it correctly that few people own one. Just repond:
"So, what has that got to do with your argument? The fact is, no one has had their machine gun taken away and used against them."
:rolleyes:

Cpl Nobbs
April 25, 2007, 09:28 PM
"prove it"

so far no one has been able to.

akodo
April 25, 2007, 09:58 PM
first off, there are instances where honest law abiding citizens are able to take guns away from armed robbers, and use said guns against robbers....but it is extremely rare.

It IS possible, just not very probable. Police, who are tasked a bit different than an armed citizen (cops can't run away and let someone else deal with it, we can, and cops are the ones who eventually may need to wrestle an unarmed person to the ground etc etc) are much more vunerable to being disarmed and having the gun used against them because of the need to subdue people, yet even for them it is extremely rare.


But lets just for a minute say it is easy. Lets say it works 9 times out of 10. But that 1 time where it doesn't work, what happens? They get shot multiple times in the torso. What criminal would take even a 10% of getting shot over $20. They are going to go for an easier target, the risk vs reward is too high.

Also, if it is really easy, what prevents the legally armed person from just taking it right back?

Pax Jordana
April 26, 2007, 10:57 PM
I hate to BTTT this, but I'm gonna anyway because i'm a bad person (where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?)

Saw this on google news when I got on:

http://www.nbc10.com/news/13207512/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

during the robbery and a struggle went on and the gun discharged," said Sam Brackeen, a friend of the neighbor.

The alleged would-be robber was shot in the head and chest. (emphasis mine)

Just remember! It goes BOTH WAYS! :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Debunking “you're more likely for a gun used against you”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!