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

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thunderstorm

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
110
Location
STL MO
Looking for some help or a good response to if you have a Gun more likely for it to be used against you (me).
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
As far as concealed carry goes, they cant take what they don't know is there.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Debunking “your more likely for a gun used against you”
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
how is it that cops and soldiers won't have their guns taken away from them?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

i agree
 
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 ;)
 
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.
 
Looking for some help or a good response to if you have a Gun more likely for it to be used against you (me).
Click to expand...

This statement is 100% accurate, but only if you're suicidal. Suicide is the number one way people have their gun used against them.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Venus Ramey recently used her .38 revolver to shoot out the tires on the car of people who were stealing her property. 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Gun in Home
Replies
15
Views
744
Timthinker
T
H
  • Locked
Gun more likely to be used against a relative in the home?
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
SCKimberFan
S
LiveLife
  • Locked
Movie gun myths/reality comparison/debunked
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
Justin
Justin
G
  • Locked
John Lott Interview
Replies
0
Views
645
Guntalk
G
The_Shootist
  • Locked
History Channel - Beast of Gevaudan
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
HOUNDDAWG
H
Back
Top