| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2014 06:45:59 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
In fact, if you're armed with a gun, facing an opponent inside 21 ft and they are armed with a knife, club or other weapon, you are at a disadvantage. A typical assailant can cover that distance in 1.5 secondsâ€Â¦ I've done the drills with dummy weapons there's a lot less time before you'd be dead in those situations, even IF you did have a gun. It's not like the movies where the guy with the gun is the guaranteed winner. |
...and unless your opponent is really really handy with his knife, and assuming that I have a quality 45mm semi-auto handgun I still believe that the odds are very much in my favour.
Also, we I consider the training I had in my youth, even unarmed I still had a chance since I might possibly jam some intruders nose through his brain.
You are right, it is not like the movies, but I still (even today) would like my chances.
Ray |
You must mean a .45 caliber. Unless my inch to metric conversions are wrong, a 45mm weapon is more like a small cannon, not a pistol caliber, at least not one you'd fire more than once â€Â¦ ;)
Assuming that you have your weapon drawn and ready to fire, you would have the advantage. If you don't, can you draw and fire at least once on a moving target in that 1.5s while your body is dumping adrenaline into your system by the barrel?
Message edited by author 2014-05-14 23:40:23. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 07:04:47 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I would rather not face such an opponent at all, but your assumption is that my chance of survival is greater if I am strangled, beaten or stabbed than if I am shotâ€Â¦any of them will make me just as dead. |
You seem to be intentionally obtuse and prone to reframing rather than answering the question posed.
To be clear, my "assumption" is that you chance of survival is greater if you are threatened with being strangled, stabbed or beaten, than if you are threatened with being shot with a gun. that is the situation posited in the originally-posted scenario, not a comparison of corpses in the morgue ... |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 09:07:02 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I would rather not face such an opponent at all, but your assumption is that my chance of survival is greater if I am strangled, beaten or stabbed than if I am shotâ€Â¦any of them will make me just as dead. |
You seem to be intentionally obtuse and prone to reframing rather than answering the question posed.
To be clear, my "assumption" is that you chance of survival is greater if you are threatened with being strangled, stabbed or beaten, than if you are threatened with being shot with a gun. that is the situation posited in the originally-posted scenario, not a comparison of corpses in the morgue ... |
I absolutely agree with you... And this is why I want to be able to continue to own a gun. |
|
|
|
05/14/2014 11:39:12 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I would rather not face such an opponent at all, but your assumption is that my chance of survival is greater if I am strangled, beaten or stabbed than if I am shotâ€Â¦any of them will make me just as dead. |
You seem to be intentionally obtuse and prone to reframing rather than answering the question posed.
To be clear, my "assumption" is that you chance of survival is greater if you are threatened with being strangled, stabbed or beaten, than if you are threatened with being shot with a gun. that is the situation posited in the originally-posted scenario, not a comparison of corpses in the morgue ... |
I guess I don't understand your question then. My chances of survival are the same under any threat, because a threat in and of itself is not going to cause any harm. It is actions, in other words, making good on the threat, that creates the potential for harm. I can threaten to blow up the city of NY with a nuclear device or threaten to give the secretary at work a paper cut. In and of themselves, both threats cause equal amounts of direct physical harm. Simply saying that I'm being threatened with one of those things isn't really a valid question.
Is your question, "Would I rather be strangled, stabbed, beaten or shot?" How about none of the above. I will say that a firearm is one of the most effective response to any of those threats should it become evident that the person or persons making those threats are serious about making good on them and the situation. The best response is usually just to remove yourself from the situation. Leave, run away, or whatever, but that's not always possible.
Now, if I'm threatened by someone capable and intent while I am unarmed and cornered, my survival would depend entirely on the actions of the other person. I don't have any control over the outcome. They may let me live, they may not. I might wind up in a vegetative state from being beaten so severely, but it's in their hands entirely.
I don't have a nuclear device BTW, but I do have a wickedly sharp piece of letter size paper on my desk at work and the band-aid to prove it.
Message edited by author 2014-05-14 23:45:20. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 01:40:19 PM · #130 |
My question is, given that you are unarmed, would you rather defend yourself from someone attempting to kill you with a knife, club, bare hands, or a gun?
Your assailant is "another ordinary citizen" and not a Navy SEAL, Mossad agent, 10th Degree Black Belt, or any other "specialized" sort of person, just someone angry enough to want to kill you. You start out about ten feet apart, on opposite sides of the poker table (if I recall the originally-posed scene). You are wearing shoes and loose clothing. You swear you've never dealt from the bottom of the deck.
Any other "conditions" you need specified in order to address the heart of the question? |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 03:59:03 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
My question is, given that you are unarmed, would you rather defend yourself from someone attempting to kill you with a knife, club, bare hands, or a gun?
Your assailant is "another ordinary citizen" and not a Navy SEAL, Mossad agent, 10th Degree Black Belt, or any other "specialized" sort of person, just someone angry enough to want to kill you. You start out about ten feet apart, on opposite sides of the poker table (if I recall the originally-posed scene). You are wearing shoes and loose clothing. You swear you've never dealt from the bottom of the deck.
Any other "conditions" you need specified in order to address the heart of the question? |
I need to understand the basis of your assumption they won't be armed. I think that to be extremely unlikely given that they apparently wish to kill me. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 04:38:06 PM · #132 |
Facripesake, people, answer his QUESTION!
Would you rather be attacked, from across a poker table, with a gun, a knife, a club, or bare hands?
I've never SEEN so much obfuscation thrown at a simple question... |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 04:41:35 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Facripesake, people, answer his QUESTION!
Would you rather be attacked, from across a poker table, with a gun, a knife, a club, or bare hands?
I've never SEEN so much obfuscation thrown at a simple question... |
I've been attacked across a poker table by a number of clubs. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 05:52:22 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Facripesake, people, answer his QUESTION!
Would you rather be attacked, from across a poker table, with a gun, a knife, a club, or bare hands?
I've never SEEN so much obfuscation thrown at a simple question... |
I've been attacked across a poker table by a number of clubs. |
Me too... and then when I saw the spades come out... I really started to worry. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 06:42:02 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Facripesake, people, answer his QUESTION!
Would you rather be attacked, from across a poker table, with a gun, a knife, a club, or bare hands?
I've never SEEN so much obfuscation thrown at a simple question... |
It's a loaded bullshit question based on the rather shaky premise that some sort of law can restrict the weapon your opponent chooses.
Clearly, I'd like him to not attack me. Otherwise, I'd like him to have a club, and me a gun, so I can have a minimum legal justification to decorate the walls with the biological bits where his piss poor decision making originated.
There, now answer my question why don't ya? Explain the basis of your assumption they won't be armed if there are anti-gun/knife/club laws on the books. I think that to be extremely unlikely given that they apparently wish to kill me.
Message edited by author 2014-05-15 18:44:21. |
|
|
|
05/15/2014 10:58:40 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Facripesake, people, answer his QUESTION!
Would you rather be attacked, from across a poker table, with a gun, a knife, a club, or bare hands?
I've never SEEN so much obfuscation thrown at a simple question... |
That's not the question that was originally asked, was it? The word used was not "attacked", it was "threatened" which has a significantly different meaning, especially in this context. Words do have meanings, obviously in this case the actual meaning of the word lead to a meaning different from what the poster meant to ask.
The answer is simple. It really doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2014 11:56:42 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
|
I've been attacked across a poker table by a number of clubs. [/quote]
and I've been attacked across a poker table by clubs with numbers on them. Some of them had iconic images. |
|
|
|
05/21/2014 12:55:55 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by Erastus:
Originally posted by bohemka:
I've been attacked across a poker table by a number of clubs. |
and I've been attacked across a poker table by clubs with numbers on them. Some of them had iconic images. |
I've been asked to relay a message:
Originally posted by Ghost:
I've been attacked across a poker table by a gun.
|
|
|
|
|
05/21/2014 06:00:59 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Cory:
There, now answer my question why don't ya? Explain the basis of your assumption they won't be armed if there are anti-gun/knife/club laws on the books. I think that to be extremely unlikely given that they apparently wish to kill me. |
Good grief  cory, no one that I know of made any such assumption.
What is being advanced is that the chances of being killed are heightened with the presence of guns say compared to baseball bats, and that this would particularly hold true in instances of mass killings.
Seeking stricter registration, storage and handling rules are not from my perspective anti-gun rules per say, they are merely mechanisms that can be put in place to heighten the safety for all concerned.
I most certainly am not a gun hater, never have been, but I do favour more stringent controls.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/21/2014 09:04:28 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by William Pattrick:
The finest railway mystery that I know also happens to be the shortest. It goes like this:When my fellow companion in the railway carriage
suddenly asked me if I believed in ghosts, I replied:
"Well . . . er . . . no."
"Neither do I!" he chuckled—and vanished. |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Erastus:
Originally posted by bohemka:
I've been attacked across a poker table by a number of clubs. |
and I've been attacked across a poker table by clubs with numbers on them. Some of them had iconic images. |
I've been asked to relay a message:
Originally posted by Ghost:
I've been attacked across a poker table by a gun.
|
|
Message edited by author 2014-05-21 21:05:21. |
|
|
|
05/21/2014 10:27:34 PM · #141 |
| It's not legal to kill someone on purpose, so if we make gun ownership not legal, then it will be twice as not legal to shoot someone. That should fix the problem for good. |
|
|
|
05/21/2014 10:41:58 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
It's not legal to kill someone on purpose, so if we make gun ownership not legal, then it will be twice as not legal to shoot someone. That should fix the problem for good. |
Oh thats just like having gun free zones where criminals can not carry firearms into them...which they dont obey
|
|
|
|
05/22/2014 06:08:07 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
It's not legal to kill someone on purpose, so if we make gun ownership not legal, then it will be twice as not legal to shoot someone. That should fix the problem for good. |
Oh thats just like having gun free zones where criminals can not carry firearms into them...which they dont obey |
Hey I know... why don't we arm everybody with full automatic weapons and mandate that they have to carry them everywhere and in plain view.
Think how safe everyone would be then.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/22/2014 09:34:16 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
It's not legal to kill someone on purpose, so if we make gun ownership not legal, then it will be twice as not legal to shoot someone. That should fix the problem for good. |
Oh thats just like having gun free zones where criminals can not carry firearms into them...which they dont obey |
Hey I know... why don't we arm everybody with full automatic weapons and mandate that they have to carry them everywhere and in plain view.
Think how safe everyone would be then.
Ray |
Ray, you seem to be suffering from bipolar extremism. ;)
--
Really, I do honestly believe that either extreme is bad - I don't much see what is all that wrong with what we have today. There could be some small improvements without a doubt, but there's no way in hell I'd support any change or restrictions or registration, as I really do think it is a VERY slippery slope. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:21:53 PM EDT.
