11/03/2008 7:20pm, #21Originally Posted by It is Fake
11/03/2008 7:21pm, #22Originally Posted by GuiltySpark
11/03/2008 8:35pm, #23Originally Posted by 7thSamurai
For a woman in a wheelchair being choked from behind, a .357 has at least once shown to be quite an effective equalizer.
11/03/2008 9:05pm, #24
Ok, I'll bite. While there are likely exceptions to every rule, I disagree that possessing a firearm makes you equal with anyone who is not in possession of a firearm at the time of the fight. This is not dueling pistols at dawn.
In your example, the shooter was in a wheelchair. Presumably, she was choked although I struggle to really believe that he was attempting to kill her for a pocket book. I wonder if the bruising on her neck is not related to having a purse or chain jerked. Not that it wouldn't happen in some situations, but it's a leap (IMO) to go from someone who mugs people to someone who kills for a pocket book. I'll accept that it has happened in the past and will likely happen in the future, but my experience is that most criminals don't just murder for **** and grins.
Basically, when present your firearm, you cease being equal with you unarmed opponent. Do you shoot to disarm, disable, or kill? Are most shooters even proficient enough to shoot to disable? If a drunk on the street starts a fight with you with his bare fists and you shoot him, are you equal? Where do you draw the line between being on equal grounds and using excessive force?
11/04/2008 1:46am, #25Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin
It honestly seemed like something you would find on MAP (no offense intended)
I mentioned a few reasons. Being a martial art's "expert" is a fairly open qualification.
Steven Segal (because I know you guys love him), Ashida Kim, That LT X guy. There's tons of Martial art's "experts" out there. Tons of false ''experts' too right? It's impossible to really decide who's an expert and who isn't.
Also, an expert in which martial art? If I'm a black belt in Aikido or Iaido, does that justify me owning a gun? Or BJJ or Judo? Martial arts covers way too many spheres. How do you qualify which art should give someone access to owning a firearm and which shouldn't?
Shooting and martial arts both encompass muscle memory sure but having been shooting for 24 years and doing martial arts for about 9, I personally don't see how they really relate to one another.
it would be an easier argument to suggest only soldiers or LEOs should own firearms since they have the training.
Also it sounds like you're talking about guns in purely a self defense role. Many people shoot guns recreationally. Some people simply collect firearms but still require a licence. Having a black belt in Karate just to collect vintage firearms seems a little extreme.
I think the concept you're trying to debate is too narrow and not really considering firearms in general.
Last edited by vigilus; 11/04/2008 1:58am at .You are not free whose liberty is won by the rigour of other, more righteous souls. Your are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic, you suck the honourable man dry and offer nothing in return. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it
11/04/2008 7:16pm, #26Originally Posted by GuiltySpark
OK, there was a certain amount of ambiguity in my thread title. It could have been a little more precise in terms of what I meant to ask had I worded it a different way. Perhaps it should have read, "Should a civilian have significant ability in hand-to-hand combat before he or she considers carrying a pistol for the purpose of self-defense?"
11/04/2008 9:45pm, #27
Firearms training is a martial art IMO. Seriously.
Are we talking about public policy or personal policy here? If we are talking about public policy, I think legislation barring firearms to people that haven't taken a certain amount of martial arts training is ridiculous. If we are talking about personal policy, I think people "should" take some sort of firearms training for whatever purpose that they are interested in.
Great equalizers huh? This seems like another semantics argument, **** that ****.
11/05/2008 8:36pm, #28
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Isn't the great equalizer referring to genetics playing less of a role in potential effectiveness with a gun versus say fists? I don't think the quote/saying has anything to do the fact that you still have to learn how to use a gun.
11/05/2008 9:19pm, #29
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
I've heard the rule of thumb is that a trained person needs 15 feet to deploy a weapon against an attacker. Unlike cops, civilians can't draw the weapon early and hold it down near their leg to prepare for the situation.
Given this, I think it'd be a good idea to have some level of fighting ability in close. Weapon retention would be good, or just being able to make room to draw & aim.
11/16/2008 11:33am, #30
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
Sadly, I've noticed that a lot of weapons retention training is available to LEOs only.