If you live in Illinois and you're female, what should you do if attacked? ...

[spin]

Remember Illinois does not allow concealed or open carry of a firearm.

So I found this web page from the Illinois State Police informative.

Before you fight

Fighting for your safety may be necessary. However, if you start out fighting you cancel any other options that might be open to you. Since many attacks on women are not sexually motivated, and are designed to degrade and humiliate, talking your way out of it may be easier.

* There is documentation of assailants that left a would-be-victim alone after she told him that she was pregnant and it would kill her baby. (Some case were women that were too old to even have a baby.)
* Telling an attacker that you have VD or AIDS can discourage him.
* It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.)
* Use your imagination and you can think of others.

The above methods are particularly important if your assailant has a gun or knife, or there is more than one attacker. (Fighting would probably be futile.)

****snip****

Articles common to your handbag that make useful defense weapons.

* nail file
* rat tail comb
* teasing brush
* pens and pencils
* keys
* anything rigid

Concentrate on these areas only when combating an assailant.

* groin
* eyes
* ears
* nose
* throat

You should not swing at an assailant. Roundhouse or overhand blows are easy to deflect or evade. Your movements should be made with all your strength, and should be straight jabs. Remember that screaming may be just as important to your defense as any weapon.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm

Actually some very good advise here.

However, I'm glad that my daughter lives in Florida and has a concealed weapons license. She carries a .22 mag snub nosed Smith and Wesson revolver and a switchblade knife.

[unpossibles]

1. a bit of widom I've learned and shared with people

act completely batshit crazy. Seriously. Start screaming nonsense at a trashcan.

Criminals generally want an easy victim: no one wants to fuck with crazy because they are seen as unpredictable at the very least, and potentially dangerous at the worst. This works better if you're not wearing a tux or formal clothes I suppose, but it's still worth considering.

But the important lesson is to not be a target they will see as easy: pay attention to your surroundings, stay in well lit areas with foot traffic if possible, act confident but not cocky (some would see cocky as a worthy challenge), and if necessary go completely nuts.

[jaxx]

2. I talked to my state rep a couple weeks ago about concealed carry

and he assures me it won't pass in IL. He says the pubs don't have the votes. Which was fine with me because I don't want it in our state and had called him to say so.

[PavePusher]

3. Ah, you too like your victims defenseless.

:puke: According to the State Police....

[jaxx]

5. No, I don't like nuts with guns walking around like they're some kinda hero waiting for a moment.

Careful you don't puke on your shoes.

[spin]

15. All the statistics show that people who carry concealed...

very rarely misuse the privilege.

For example take a look at the Florida Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report located at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

First notice that the report covers October 1, 1987 - August 31, 2009 and is updated monthly. That's a LONG time

Next note that during that 22 year period 1,593,602 licenses were issued and 627,864 are currently valid.

Look near the bottom of the chart and you will find that in 22 years only 167 licenses were revoked for a crime after licensure where a firearm was utilized.

So looking at this data, I would doubt that people in Florida who have concealed weapons licenses are "nuts with guns walking around like they're some kinda hero waiting for a moment."

The ones I've known are very rational people who actually go out of their way to avoid confrontation. Data from other states shows that Florida is not unusual. While those who have concealed carry permits are not angels, they as a group commit far less crime then almost any other group.

[Hangingon]

94. But you do have nuts walking around with guns and using them.

It is the normal people who are defenseless.

[Xenotime]

195. That's the big question. How to defend yourself from the nuts.

Doing everything listed above will not work when they can just shoot you and take your stuff.

[rd_kent]

113. Just goes to show how truly ignorant you are on the attitude of most CCW permit holders.

You should talk to a few, get info straight from the source.

[jgraz]

7. And you, too, like more guns in the hands of rapists

See, both sides can demagogue.

[jaxx]

9. Nuts with guns.

Who qualifies?

[TheWraith]

10. So a rapist isn't dissuaded by laws against rape...

...Which are FAR more stringent and more likely to be prosecuted than firearms violations. But they're so terrified of carrying a pistol without a permit that they'd never do it?

Your position makes no sense.

[jgraz]

31. It wasn't intended to make sense

It was intended to show how stupid PavePusher's comment was.

[TheWraith]

78. So what's unreasonable about letting people carry weapons for self defense?

I don't, because I'm lucky enough to live in the middle of nowhere and also be the size of a small elk. So it's unlikely that I'll have a problem. But not everybody is that fortunate, and it would be damn easy for somebody my size to overpower an unarmed woman, or a smaller man, or an older person.

The idea that somehow if law abiding people carry guns they're instantly going to turn into criminals is nonsense. Worse yet, it's elitist nonsense, the same ridiculous scare tactic that the right wing indulges in by claiming that if gay people are allowed equal rights then they'll start trying to force everyone else to be gay. I for one don't pretend that I know better what's good for my neighbor than my neighbor does.

[Treo]

14. can you give any statistic of how many rapists are CHP holders?

NT

[spin]

17. The percetage would be in the mud...

as a group people with concealed carry permits commit far less crime with firearms then almost any other group.

A study needs to be done to determine why. It really doesn't make commonsense.

[Treo]

23. When have you ever known a grabber let a little thing like the truth stop them? NT

[spin]

25. True, they live in their own little fantasy world...

fueled by movies and TV programs that foster the delusion that all firearm owners are looking for a chance to blow someone away.

[jgraz]

29. projection, thy name is spin.

Pretty weak stuff, even for you.

[spin]

55. Well, how did you manage to come up with such a distorted view...

of those with concealed carry permits.

I suspect stereotyping and lack of knowledge or experience with actual people who legally carry weapons concealed. This would not be surprising as your profile says you live in Berkeley Ca.

To be fair, just how many gun owners do you know and how many of those have concealed carry permits?

By the way, I was looking through your journal and I might try your recipe for ketchup. I like hot sauces and I could easily spice your recipe up to make truly hot ketchup by adding some Dave's Ultimate Insanity Hot sauce.

Twice as hot as Dave's Insanity Sauce. Dave's Ultimate Insanity Hot Sauce is the next level up the ladder of insanely hot sauces. This sauce should be used as a cooking ingredient, one drop at a time.
Heat Level: 10+
Size: 5 oz
Ingredients: Red habeneros, tomato sauce, hot pepper extract, onions, red chiles, garlic, cane vinegar, vegetable oil, xanthan gum and spices.
http://www.insanechicken.com/Dave-s-Ultimate-Insanity-Hot-Sauce.html









Sounds like a plan to me.

[jgraz]

114. Dude, you can't make homemade ketchup and then pour bottled hot sauce into it.

Start with the ketchup recipe. Get some dried chiles (New Mexico, Ancho, California and/or Guajillo), toast them in the oven (350 degrees for 6 minutes), and put them in a closed paper bag for 5 minutes.

Then cover them with boiling water and soak for 20 minutes. Put the peppers and soaking water through a food mill and use the resulting chile paste instead of the tomato paste. Substitute 1 tsp ground, toasted cumin for the cloves (or you can leave the cloves in).

That gives you a chili sauce base. You can mix in crushed fresh peppers if you want more heat -- but I'd roast them first to draw out a bit of the moisture.


And no, I don't hold these views because I live in Berkeley. Though I probably live in Berkeley because of what I believe -- at least in part.

[spin]

118. Thanks for the advise on the spicy ketchup...

makes good sense.

My question was how many gun owners and concealed carry permit holders do you know living in Berkeley.

While I could be wrong, it seems logical that I would know more gun owners than you, as I live in a very rural area of Florida where hunting is common. My next door neighbor who rents his home has a concealed carry permit as does his landlord. One of my grandson's elementary teachers, a woman, has a concealed carry permit. She's a great teacher considering the fact that Florida pays teachers little. She loves her job. My daughter and her husband have carry permits, and my daughters close female friends usually carry revolvers or pistols in their cars but are now planning to get carry permits.

Before I retired I lived in the Tampa Bay area. The majority of my male co-workers owned firearms and a good percentage had concealed carry permits. A few of the female co-workers also owned firearms and a very few had permits (that I knew of). The majority of the regular shooters at the range I belonged to had carry permits and carried.

In this rural area of Florida it would be unusual for me to know many university professors. I could easily formulate many incorrect views of these professors and make false statements about their motivations and beliefs and their loyalty to this country.

[jgraz]

121. Since you live in Florida, how many people do you know under 80?

I don't mean to poke fun, but come on. Berkeley isn't exactly a walled city. We are allowed to interact with the rest of the country. Some of us even moved here from somewhere else.

[spin]

122. I got a laugh out of your comment...

still you haven't answered my question. How many people do you know who own firearms and how many have carry permits?

[jgraz]

128. It's still a silly question

Like most Americans, I know many people who own firearms and some who worship them. Both my brothers are NRA members. One of my ex-girlfriends is a collector and a champion skeet-shooter. My own mother had a carry permit for years (for all I know she still does). And another friend of mine had a gun for 20 years before he blew out the back of his head with it.

Now I have a question for you: how many times have you seen the results of gun violence? Ever been close enough to actually smell the blood? Ever had a loaded gun pointed at you? I often wonder how many of the "all guns all the time" crowd have ever had to deal with the less heroic aspects of firearm ownership...

[Treo]

130. In answer to your question

Now I have a question for you: how many times have you seen the results of gun violence?
Several, worked in an ER for a couple of years, also worked as an EMT was also assigned to a field hospital for awhile. Short answer, yes

Ever been close enough to actually smell the blood?

Had it all over my scrubs/ slash uniform been puked on , pissed on and vomited on too. Had a Hep B titer every six weeks for two years due to an occupational exposure also. Short Answer yes



Ever had a loaded gun pointed at you?
Yup , been shot too

I often wonder how many of the "all guns all the time" crowd have ever had to deal with the less heroic aspects of firearm ownership...

Don't know, don't care I choose to exercise my right to armed self defense

TYPO

[PavePusher]

133. Who's saying "all guns, all the time"?

I would like to see a quote, please.

And, in the places you want me to be disarmed, are you going to have some process for guaranteeing my physical safety?

[jgraz]

137. Your ideology illustrates it perfectly

Your personal safety is not guaranteed by owning a weapon. In fact, it's often the opposite.

Also, do you need some kind of guarantee of personal safety before you'll go somewhere? Do you demand that from airlines before you board a plane? Do you don a full biohazard suit to protect you from possible swine flu infection? Or do you just never leave the house?

Of course, most deadly accidents happen in the home, so you'd better just go ahead a build that big plastic bubble you've always wanted.

[Treo]

140. I don't demand a guarantee of personal safety y

I demand the right to make my own risk assessment and take the steps I deem necessary to alleviate the risks given I don't violate your rights so doing.

Now, please tell me how the mere possession of a firearm by me violates the rights of any other human being on the planet

[jgraz]

143. Because it's never just the "mere possession" of a firearm.

It's also pro-corporate policies that insure that firearm manufacturers can never be sued. It's about preventing local communities from setting their own standards for gun safety. It's about the right to use deadly force against anyone who seems even remotely threatening.

And, of course, it's about the election of right-wing politicians whose only common interest with regular voters is support for so-called "gun rights".

[Treo]

145. Nice duck and weave

Now tell me how my gun, in my holster, that you won't even know I have (unless I'm OCing)if you don't attack me. Tell me how the mere fact that I posses this object infringes your rights in any way

[jgraz]

147. Yes, nice duck and weave

Are you saying that you support the rights of gun victims to sue manufacturers? That you'd be in favor of letting communities like Chicago decide their own handgun policies? Or maybe you think that Texas' "Stand Your Ground" law should be repealed.

The problem is, it's never just one gun in one holster. If that was all we were talking about, there would be very little to discuss.

But of course, you knew that.

[Treo]

148. Please note I directly answer your questions

You should try it some time
Are you saying that you support the rights of gun victims to sue manufacturers?

If their injuries were due to a negligent defect in the firearm in question, yes. If you want to sue Smith and Wesson because some whack job like Cho Sung Hui shot up V tech, Hell no! You can sue Vtech for not allowing the students the means to protect themselves though

That you'd be in favor of letting communities like Chicago decide their own handgun policies?

Absolutely as long as they don't violate the second amendment

Or maybe you think that Texas' "Stand Your Ground" law should be repealed.

Oh HELL no. I hope it passes in Colorado

Again, how does my owning and carrying a firearm infringe on your rights?

[jgraz]

152. The reason you don't get your questions answered is you ask bullshit questions

And my answers are clear, but not perhaps as simplistic as you'd like. Go ahead and read my post again-- you'll find not only a direct answer to your question, but an explanation of why your question is problematic.

As an example, let me turn my questions around to be "Treo" style:

How are your rights violated by a mother in Gary, Indiana suing a gun manufacturer over the death of her child?

How are your rights violated by allowing Chicago to set their own handgun policy?

How are your rights violated by not letting Texans shoot at whomever they feel like?

[Treo]

154. My "Bullshit question"

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

Please explain the meaning of this phrase.

Please tell us how removing it entirely from the sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." would change the meaning of the sentence in any way

How are your rights violated by a mother in Gary, Indiana suing a gun manufacturer over the death of her child?

If her child was killed because the firearm had a defect in it sue ahead. If Kliebold and Harris illegally obtained said firearm and murdered her kid W/ it that's not W/in the manufacturer's control.
While we're here please explain the legal theory that holds a manufacturer accountable for my willful mis-use of his product? If i fire up my lawn mower and hit you in the face W/it is that Toro's fault?

How are your rights violated by allowing Chicago to set their own handgun policy?

I may (god forbid) wish to move to Chicago someday, I'd like to know that my second amendment rights will be honored.

How are your rights violated by not letting Texans shoot at whomever they feel like?

Can you actually substantiate that law abiding texas gun owners are wandering around DFW blowing away anyone they choose W/ no legal repercussions?

Typo or two

[jgraz]

158. Now who's avoiding questions?

Note that you did not answer a single one of my questions. Of course, like yours they were constructed in a way that makes them unanswerable, so I'll let it go.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

Please explain the meaning of this phrase.

Do you really need this explained, or do you just think I don't have an explanation?

Anyway, I'll assume you know about Federalist 29 and the Stevens dissent to Heller. I agree with Stevens' interpretation, taken from U.S. v Miller: "(The Second Amendment) protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons."

In other words, as long as you're under the command and control of a state-run militia, you should be able to keep a firearm. Now you may say we're all effectively part of a militia, which is one (bogus) interpretation, but that doesn't prevent the non-military use of your firearm from being regulated.

In fact, it doesn't prevent the military use of your firearm from being controlled. For example, why can't the State of Illinois say that militia members may only carry long guns into the Chicago city limits? If you've declared yourself part of the IL state militia, aren't you obligated to follow their orders?

[krispos42]

203. 10 USC 311

All males between the ages of 17 and 45 are in the militia. I figure it's roughly 50 million people, all of them men.

[PavePusher]

149. La plus ca change, la plus c'est le meme chose....

"It's also pro-corporate policies that insure that firearm manufacturers can never be sued."

Lie, fabrication, or just ignorance? Gun manufacturers can be sued, if their products are defective. They can not be sued if their products are misused or abused by the end owner. Just like any other industry. You can't sue Honda or Chevy if you get hit by a drunk driver. You can't sue Capitain Morgen's either. You might be able to sue the bar, if you could prove they knew s/he was potted, and kept selling them alcohol. You might be able to sue the person who sold a criminal a gun, if you could prove they knew the buyer was a criminal, or intended criminal use.


"It's about preventing local communities from setting their own standards for gun safety."

As long as those standards fit within the meaning of the Constitution, no problem. FYI, bans do not fit the Constitution.



"It's about the right to use deadly force against anyone who seems even remotely threatening."

If you use lethal force, the evidence better be on your side, no matter what tool you use: gun, fist, knife, rock, 2x4, poison. The standard of proof is invariably a little stricter than "anyone who seems even remotely threatening".


I've addressed your points multiple times, would you do me the courtesy of going back and addressing mine?

[jgraz]

157. Once again, you're dead wrong.

"It's also pro-corporate policies that insure that firearm manufacturers can never be sued."

Lie, fabrication, or just ignorance? Gun manufacturers can be sued, if their products are defective. They can not be sued if their products are misused or abused by the end owner. Just like any other industry. You can't sue Honda or Chevy if you get hit by a drunk driver. You can't sue Capitain Morgen's either. You might be able to sue the bar, if you could prove they knew s/he was potted, and kept selling them alcohol. You might be able to sue the person who sold a criminal a gun, if you could prove they knew the buyer was a criminal, or intended criminal use.

No, not just like Honda or Chevy. You can sue them for negligence. You cannot sue a gun manufacturer for negligence. You can only sue them for negligence per se. What "negligence per se" means is that, in order to not have your case dismissed, you'll need to show that a gun manufacturer knowingly violated an existing statute before you can sue them. No other industry has that protection (though many are lobbying for it now that we've given it to gun makers).

And you sure as fuck CAN sue Captain Morgan's if you're hit by a drunk driver. You can sue Captain Morgan's if it rains tomorrow. You may not win, but there's no federal law preventing you from suing.

Of course, access to the courts is yet another fundamental right most of you pro-gun "civil libertarians" don't care about.

[PavePusher]

144. You're tap dancing again...

and avoiding the questions.

My personal safety is my own responsibility. The government will not (by case law) and can not (by lack of sufficient resources) take on that burden. I take certain reasonable precautions to ensure a reasonable level of safety. I do not claim that a firearm will guarantee anything, but it would arguably be potentially useful in some situations. If you wish to restrict my options, you should be willing to take on the responsibility for the increased risks. If you are not, I am not under a moral obligation to comply with your wishes. I may chose to do so if I believe the risk is acceptable, or I may take myself elsewhere, or I may take the steps neccesary to circumvent you without causing you alarm.

And, for the record, I'm in military aircraft maintenance, have safety training out the butt, and have been doing this for 19 years. Haven't dropped an aircraft yet. Never shot anyone off-duty. Might have in Kenya when they had their coup attempt in the early 80's (well before I was old enough to join the military), but never had time to verify it, to busy staying alive.

Now, would you like to start addressing the questions I've asked?

[jgraz]

151. As usual, the answer is far more complicated than you're willing to tolerate

The way that I work to guarantee the safety of my community is by tutoring at-risk kids. And by supporting anti-poverty programs. And demonstrating for affordable health care.

The core issue here is you seem to think you can solve all your problems by shooting at them. Your personal safety is not threatened by sensible gun policy. It's threatened by a society that accepts conditions that lead directly to criminal behavior.

Like I said, it's complicated.

[PavePusher]

156. Avoidance is definitely your forte.

"The way that I work to guarantee the safety of my community is by tutoring at-risk kids. And by supporting anti-poverty programs. And demonstrating for affordable health care."

Good. Thank you for those efforts, I think those are excellent things to be doing. Please carry on.



"The core issue here is you seem to think you can solve all your problems by shooting at them."

Where have I ever claimed or implied that? Cite, please...



"Your personal safety is not threatened by sensible gun policy."

Correct. Now please show me some. Your idea of 'sensible' seems to mean that I don't get to have or use firearms for responsible self defense. I don't find that 'sensible' at all.



"It's threatened by a society that accepts conditions that lead directly to criminal behavior."

True. Not holding people accountable for their actions, for starters. Reducing education to a teach-the-test joke comes to mind. A self-reinforcing cycle of welfare-poverty is another.


"Like I said, it's complicated."

Yes, and I can tolerate the debate on it.



Now, one last time, if you restrict my resources for self-defense, are you going to be responsible for my safety?

[jgraz]

159. Your really need to practice what you preach

Can you cite one time when I've said that you "don't get to have or use firearms for responsible self defense."? Just one?

[PavePusher]

161. I concede the point, you have not made a direct statement

to that effect.

In my perception, however, you have certainly been implying it throughout the thread. If I'm wrong, please clarify your position for me so I can understand. Thanks, and my apologies.

[jgraz]

165. To clarify...

I don't think anyone *should* be prevented from owning firearms, nor do I think anyone *should* be given unlimited access to firearms. What I think is that our current approach to gun ownership is resulting in more people getting shot than is necessary.

I also believe that the Constitution does NOT grant an individual right to own firearms outside of a state-run militia. On this issue, states should be given the opportunity to act a "laboratories of democracy". If Texas wants a wild-west policy, let them try it out. If New York wants a more restrictive approach, they should have that option.

Most of the debate on this group stems from a lack of any practical evidence. We draw analogies to cases in other countries, but no one has really tried any of these ideas here. I think the Second Amendment gives states much greater latitude in managing their own gun policies, and, IMHO, we'd be a lot better off if we allowed that to happen.

[PavePusher]

171. Thank you.

I disagree with you, but now I better know where and why.

"I also believe that the Constitution does NOT grant an individual right to own firearms outside of a state-run militia."

Technically, you are correct. The Constitution does not 'grant' anything. It recognizes pre-existing 'unalienable rights' and says what the Federal government may NOT do, and by the fact that the States have agreed to it, what the State governments may NOT do. I do not believe there is any evidence that the Founders meant for only the Militia to have arms. If you think there is, please point it out to me.



"On this issue, states should be given the opportunity to act a "laboratories of democracy". If Texas wants a wild-west policy, let them try it out. If New York wants a more restrictive approach, they should have that option."

That has been the case for quite some time. I'm not sure how long the experiment needs to continue, "gun control" seems to have failed in every stated and claimed objective. Meanwhile, places with very limited restrictions on guns seem to have, in general, lower average crime rates than highly restricted places. I think we need to address the root problems of crime before further restricting one of its tools (you touched on this earlier up-thread). A tool that, incidently, can and frequently is used to defend against crime.


I'll get back to this later, got to go deal with real life for a while, thanks for the (ahem) strenuous debate.

:thumbsup:

[Treo]

163. OK Direct question here

Under what conditions would you allow me to own a firearm?

Under what conditions would you allow me to carry it on my person in public?

Under what circumstance would you allow me to use it in self defense ?

Last question; If you could ban private firearms ownership in the U.S. would you?

[jgraz]

166. Direct but complicated answers here

Under what conditions would you allow me to own a firearm?

Whatever conditions the commander of your state-run militia allows.

Under what conditions would you allow me to carry it on my person in public?

See question 1.

Under what circumstance would you allow me to use it in self defense ?

If you're granted a firearm under the rules of your state militia, you should be able to use it if your life is threatened. Of course, one would hope that before you were granted a firearm, you were given proper training in how to solve problems without resorting to deadly force.

Last question; If you could ban private firearms ownership in the U.S. would you?

Wow, with that kind of power I would do a lot of things :evilgrin:. I don't know that a blanket ban would work, anymore than you know it wouldn't. What I'd like to see is the states given free reign to try a wider variety of gun policies.

[Treo]

167. you're so full of shit your eyes are brown

Please note my proper use of "your" and 'You're"

[jgraz]

170. So you whine about not getting direct answers and then you whine when you get them

I guess you just like whining.

[Treo]

172. If you're going to troll in the "gungeon"

At least have the testicular fortitude to be an honest grabber. At least I'm honest

I oppose NCIS background checks

I support permitless carry (AKA Vermont style carry)

I think the gun control act of 1968 is bullshit

As is the NFA of 1934 If i want to buy a fully functional M 249 at Wal Mart I should be able to

I believe that the mere possession of a fire arm by anyone shouldn't be a crime.

And if it were up to me I'd issue an M-14 (not an M1A an M-14) to every male in this country on his 18th birthday.

You know exactly where I stand.

Please don't try to bullshit me into believing that if it were up to you there wouldn't be a single firearm in civilian hands in this country.

[jgraz]

173. You don't like it when people refuse to fit into your demonized stereotypes, do you?

Not all of us are black-and-white, binary thinkers. You should try a little thinking in the gray areas. After all, what's the point of evolving that nice, wrinkly neocortex if you're just going to use your reptile brain?

[spin]

150. Thanks for the answer...

now I have a little more respect for your opinions.

To answer your questions...

I've been very fortunate to have never witnessed the results of a shooting.

Yes, I have had loaded firearms pointed at me.

One was a double barreled 12 gauge shotgun in Mississippi. I was driving down a back road that happened to end up in this fellow's yard. As I was headed back out, he ran out of his house and pointed the shotgun at me at asked, "What the hell are you doing in my yard, son. Are you poaching my chickens?"

It's amazing how big the barrels looked on that shotgun. I was very polite. I said, "No sir, I was just riding down this road and it ended up here."

He replied, "Boy, you better get your ass out of here."

And I did.

Another incident occurred when I was moving from Ohio to Florida and had arrived at my mothers house. My wife's cat had escaped outside and she was concerned. At three in the morning she heard it meowing outside. We went outside and retrieved the cat and I decided to smoke a cigarette. After smoking, I waked up to the door and opened it to find myself face to face with my step dad who had a loaded .22 magnum cowboy style revolver pointed at my stomach.

He said, "Halt." I raised my hands slowly and said, "Roy, it's only me."

It seems that a few days before someone had stolen his fishing equipment out of his pickup truck. When he heard noises outside his bedroom, he retrieved his revolver. He checked the bedroom my wife and I had been in and seeing no lights assumed we were asleep. Just as he was going to go outside, I opened the door to come in. I was very lucky that he didn't just react and shoot.

Once an AP drew down on the car my commanding officer and I were in as we drove up to an aircraft on the fight line that had crypto gear on board. Chances are his weapon was unloaded, that incident probably doesn't count.

There was one incident at the range where I was sitting across the table from a very experienced shooter who was looking over another shooter's firearm. I noticed that several times the muzzle of the .45 auto was pointed at me. Usually, I point out this fact when it happens in a polite manner. But I decided to ignore the shooters muzzle discipline problem as he was a good friend and had been a competitive shooter for 40 years or so and was also a firearms instructor.

As I remember, he was talking to the firearms owner about some work which he could do on the firearm. As he was talking, he racked the slide on the .45 and a round popped out of the chamber. I remember my friend's face turned pasty white. He apologized, realizing that he had had the weapon pointed at me. I smiled and said, "No big deal." In my mind, I crossed another one of my nine lives off the blackboard. Never again will I fail to bitch when some fool accidentally points a firearm at me.

I also have never had to use a weapon in self defense and sincerely hope I never have to.

[jgraz]

28. As soon as you tell us how many rapes are prevented by CHP holders

Or are you only allowed to speculate if you're pro-gun?

[votingupstart]

30. so you have no facts one way or another - yet you still dont want women (or anyone else)

to have the option to defend themselves.


Classic

[jgraz]

32. Once again, the ability to think abstractly is key

Go back and re-read. See if you can figure out what's really being said.

[votingupstart]

34. see if you can figure out why your wrong (again)

guns cause crime like forks make people fat

[jgraz]

38. Did I mix up "your" and "you're"?

Oh wait, that was you.

[Euromutt]

46. Says the guy who doesn't know "demagogue" isn't a verb

People who throw stones...

[jgraz]

48. Language evolves

Those of us who use college-level words in everyday contexts know this. Those who masturbate over the dictionary don't.

[Euromutt]

56. By that token...

... using "your" where you mean "you're" is perfectly acceptable, along with saying "I could care less" when you mean "I couldn't care less" and mixing up "they're," "their" and "there."

Strikes me you're wielding a bit of a double standard there: when somebody else uses incorrect English, they're idiots, but when you do, it's just peachy.

And thanks for the veiled insult. I'm less than surprised you have to stoop to the level of personal abuse to palliate your sordid inferiority complex.

[jgraz]

81. It depends on how you use English

Your/you're is a bit of a shibboleth of poor grammar and intellectual imprecision. It's unlikely that they'll merge since that would be following a fairly unusual path of linguistic evolution. Possessive pronouns and stative verbs rarely use the same words.

On the other hand, verbing nouns is a fine tradition dating back the earliest language. It's pretty much where all verbs come from.

[votingupstart]

125. another classic example of you having no facts so you try to change the argument -- noted again

[jgraz]

141. Do you know what a "fact" is?

You might want to refresh your recollection.

[votingupstart]

153. you mean those little things you seem not to have - again n/t

[jgraz]

160. Keep trying.

If you need help, just let me know. I'm here for ya, buddy.

[votingupstart]

164. avoiding the questions as usual - noted n/t

[votingupstart]

124. oh teh noes - still no facts n/t

[Treo]

35. Nice Straw man

You implied that easier access to firearms for LAW ABIDING citizens would somehow increase the number of guns in rapists hands. No one ever implied some huge demographic of CHP holders tha stopped rapes. So explain the correlation between armed law abiding citizens and armed rapists

[jgraz]

37. Once again, the ability to read for context is key

Go back and read it again. We'll wait.

[Treo]

41. OK I went back

I don't think the post that started this was demagoguery. Laws forbidding citizens to carry firearms are routinely ignored by criminals.Criminals prefer unarmed victims as did the the poster who stated that his local rep promised him that CC would never pass in Illinois

[jgraz]

42. PavePusher was, in effect, calling jaxx a rapist -- or pro-rape, at the very least

If that's not demagoguery, what would you call it?

[Treo]

44. No

He said (truthfully) that jaxx would prefer that the victims are unarmed. If Illinois NEVER gets shall issue CCW the criminals are STILL going to be carrying guns. Jaxx' position tilts the balance of power in favor of the bad guys

[jgraz]

47. This is why the gun group is so tiring

He said jaxx would prefer that *his* victims were defenseless. Not unarmed -- *defenseless*. The wording is pretty clear.

Again, why do you guys act so tough when it comes to handgun revenge fantasies, but you run for the hills when asked to stand behind what you actually say?

[Treo]

50. One word

I don't think you can base that on one word

[jgraz]

51. You cannot be serious.

Are you really saying that we should read people's posts, omit key words and ascribe whatever meaning we want? Is that really how you want to play it?

[Treo]

54. IMO

Defenseless and unarmed are interchangeable I assumed we were discussing "his" and "your"

[jgraz]

59. "Defenseless and unarmed are interchangeable"

I think I see your problem...

[PavePusher]

74. Stipulation:

An individual suffers from some disease, birth/developmental defect or injury, such that they do not have use of legs and one arm. The remaining useable arm is only 1/3rd the strength of a normal arm. Such a person is confined to a wheel chair, can not run or engage in physical resistance to an attacker. You deny them the legal opportunity to own and employ a gun for self-defense, despite a demonstrated capability to do so.

Unarmed=Defenseless.

You can change the parameters a multitude of different ways and end up with the same result.

Are you offering to provide security for these people? Or just abandoning them to the tides of fate?

[jgraz]

79. Yes, that's exactly the most hysterical interpretation possible

And no, you don't win a prize.

[PavePusher]

82. A citizen working the late shift on a military base stops for gas or food

on the way home from work. As he/she approaches the store entrance, 4 or 5 thugs surround her/him and display weapons and demand their money. After giving up the cash, the victim is then assaulted and maimed or killed anyway. Are you going to be there to take the injury for them? Are you going to care in any way shape or form other than "Well, at least the victim wasn't armed. That would just have made things worse!"?

[jgraz]

83. I was wrong. That one was even more hysterical.

This is fun. It's like Penthouse Letters for paranoids.

[PavePusher]

84. It's called...

Stuff that actually happens.

I'm glad your world is a little safer than mine. Stay there.

Especially since you refuse to address the point.

[PavePusher]

72. O.K., sorry it took me so long to get back to this.

I had to actually do something productive for a while today.

I believe I owe jaxx an apology for imprecise use of language.

Sir or Ma'am, I did not mean to imply that you are a rapist or that you desire to be one. My humble apologies to you and anyone else who took it that way. I posted hastily and did not fully explore all possible interpretations of what I wrote. I will certainly endevour to be more exact in my meaning in the future.

What I intended to say was that jaxx seemed to preferred victims (of actual criminals) to be disarmed. The "puke" smilie was intended to refer to the State Police advice to potential rape victims, not to jaxx's apparent position, although I, personally, am sickened by people who think this way. If that was not your intent I will owe you another apology, but for now, that is the way it reads to me. I would appreciate any clarification you could provide.

[Treo]

36. here's a few

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/11/03/woman-shoots-rapist-who-came-back-to-rape-her-for-a-second-time/
As reported, a rape victim shot and killed an attacker in Cape Girardeau, MO when he broke into her home to rape her for a second time this week. The 57-year-old woman shot 47-year-old Ronnie W. Preyer, a registered sex offender, in the chest with a shotgun after he cut the power to her apartment and then broke through her locked basement door. Preyer had previously broken into the woman’s home, punched her in the face, and then raped her in her bedroom. The county prosecutor has stated that the woman acted properly in defending herself, and will not face charges.


As he attempted to rape her, Pittaras reached into a nightstand, picked up her pistol, and shot the man dead.
http://www.rightsofthepeoplecalifornia.com/guns/gun_facts/how_to_stop_an_armed_rapist.php

My Eyewitness News, Memphis, TN, 2/21/2008
A convicted sex offender was shot and killed after he broke into a Tennessee home, intending to rape two young sisters inside. The younger sister escaped after being tied up and ran to her aunt’s house next door for help. The sisters’ cousin, a Right-to-Carry permit holder, shot the intruder after the intruder attacked him.


Southern Sentinel, Ripley , Miss. , 8/11/04

When an 88-year-old Ripley , Miss. , woman opened her door to a stranger asking for help, the man proceeded to force his way into her home, rape and rob her. The woman managed to escape from her attacker, however, and retrieve her handgun. She fired three shots that sent the rapist fleeing. After she provided a clear description of the man, police immediately identified a known suspect and soon made an arrest. When they found the suspect, he was bleeding from a gunshot wound under his arm.

http://www.pro-2nd.com/Armed%20Citizen.htm

[jgraz]

40. Remind me to review the concept of "anecdotal evidence" with you.

Unless you'd like to go look it up yourself...

[Treo]

43. anecdotal evidence

Doesn't change the fact that these folks were better off W/ guns than W/out

Here's some more "anecdotal evidence" for you when I was 18 I got jumped by a carload of punks w/ baseball bats and tire irons this anecdotal incident ended W/out loss of life or injury on either side when I produced a pistol and made it clear I wasn't takin' an ass-whoopin that day. I was better of W/ a gun than W/ out one.

As long as that's a decision I get to make for myself I will carry a gun

[jgraz]

49. And other folks were worse off with guns, and others were better off w/o guns

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence: it's anecdotal.

[Treo]

52. Fine, let the evidence be anecdotal

Let self defense choices be up to the individual. You do your own risk assessment, you make your own decision , you live W/ the consequences. But don't presume to make the choice for me

[jgraz]

58. There's a reason we don't base laws on anecdotal evidence

We make choices for each other all the time, based on what's best for society. I help decide how fast you can drive past a school and you help decide how much I should pay my employees.

Just because many people have safely driven through school zones at 50 mph, that doesn't mean that we should let individuals make their own choices about how fast they want to drive.

Now, why are we exempting choices about how many and what kind of deadly weapons should be available to the general public?

[Treo]

62. Choices

I help decide how fast you can drive past a school

My driving to fast in a school zone endangers other people the mere fact that I posses a weapon does not

you help decide how much I should pay my employees. Only the market should decide how much you pay your employees ( Bad example I am anti union to the core)

Just because many people have safely driven through school zones at 50 mph, that doesn't mean that we should let individuals make their own choices about how fast they want to drive.

Instead of taking away everyone's right to drive we enact a speed limit and punish those who transgress because their transgression violates the rights of others. In the same manner we enact laws regarding reckless endangerment or brandishing a weapon instead of violating everyone's right to life (and the defense there of) and we punish those who transgress

Now, why are we exempting choices about how many and what kind of deadly weapons should be available to the general public?

Was I not supposed to notice the segue from concealed carry of a hand gun to the AWB ?
I'm an absolutist there as well "Arms" is defined as a point effect munition and I think that any citizen should be able to own any weapon that's on the basic TO&E for an 11B W/ crew served or better jointly owned by a community armory

HTML MISTAKE

[jgraz]

92. "I am anti union to the core"

I don't even know what to say to a colossally ignorant statement like that. Once again, the gungeon reveals itself to be our own little Free Republic game preserve.

[Treo]

99. Out of my whole post you cherry picked THAT?

You're a joke

[jgraz]

108. That's a pretty malignant cherry.

[Treo]

109. Since the primary focus of this thread is SD let's steer it back to that mmmkay? NT

[jgraz]

112. These discussions are rarely about self defense.

[Treo]

116. And yet another drive-by posting

What ARE these discussions about oh wise one?

[jgraz]

129. On this forum? They're usually a pissing contest about who hates "criminals" more

We also get:

+ Argument for argument's sake
+ Arguments about the argument
+ Rehashing of the previous thread's argument
+ Personal attacks
+ Exercises in circular logic
+ Attempts to pretend words don't have meanings
+ Stealth (or open) advocacy of far-right politics

Just to name a few...

[Treo]

131. Far right politics

is anarchy (on the EXTREME end) I don't think most legal gun owners are anarchists

ETA
Attempts to pretend words don't have meanings

Words like , "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

[jgraz]

134. Most reich-wingers are anarchists

How many times does someone have to reflexively bleat "government is teh bad" before they count as an anarchist? That's the sentiment behind most anti-union, pro-free-market ideology, and it also drives a lot of the "screw the legal system, I got a gun" attitude.



Attempts to pretend words don't have meanings

Words like , "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

I was thinking more of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

[Treo]

138. So all gun owners are Reich wingers?

I didn't say that the EXTREME RW wasn't anarchists ( just like the EXTREME LW is totalitarian) AAMF thats exactly what I said. I said most GUN OWNERS aren't anarchists. Nice try though

I was thinking more of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Ok, so tell us what this particular subordinate clause means. Explain to us how completely removing it from the sentence changes the meaning on the sentence

[jgraz]

139. Of course not. But you can't deny that a majority of reich wingers are pro-gun.

And vice versa.

[Treo]

142. No, I never said that

and to prove it let me try to say it again, in a different way. Nice try

[PavePusher]

132. Yes, you've used the top six so far.

I'm curious to see how you pull off that last one.... :evilgrin:

[jgraz]

135. Oh, thanks for the reminder

+ "Because I said so" arguments

[Treo]

146. Are you avoiding my question?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

Please explain the meaning of this phrase.

Please tell us how removing it entirely from the sentence "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." would change the meaning of the sentence in any way

[Treo]

155. I'll take your silence as a yes NT

[Euromutt]

184. Most of those come from you, jgraz

Not so much the "rehashing of the previous thread's argument," admittedly; that usually happens because of you when you regurgitate the same prohibitionist talking points and pretend they haven't been thoroughly addressed in a few dozen earlier threads.

I can't accuse you of advocacy of "far-right politics," but frankly, I think you have about as much idea of what constitutes "far right" as the average person who calls Obama a "socialist" has of what socialism actually is.

But you do manage to throw in quite an amount of faith-based assertion, blissfully free of supporting evidence, don't you? So you should add that to your little list.

[Euromutt]

64. Because government refuses to take responsibility for the protection of individual citizens

Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Castle Rock v. Gonzales... That last one was really spectacular, when the SCOTUS ruled that the Castle Rock, CO police didn't have an obligation to enforce a restraining order, even though state law at the time explicitly said they did, and this was also printed on the order itself. When the government refuses to take responsibility for the protection of individual citizens, it relinquishes the authority (that is, the legitimate exercise of power) to deprive those citizens of the means to protect themselves.

When a less-than-lethal weapon is developed that is so effective that law enforcement officers stop using firearms because they no longer deem them necessary, we can revisit this issue.

[Treo]

67. Do you really WANT government to take responsibility for you individual safety ?NT

[Euromutt]

87. It's a moot point anyway

There isn't a government in the world that actually accepts responsibility if it fails to prevent something bad from happening to its citizens.

Actually, the process goes the other way: I doubt any government that adopted legislation that restricted the right of regular citizens to own firearms, or other items suitable for self-defense, fully considered the implications, namely that hampering citizens' ability to defend themselves should have obliged the government to compensate. Of course, the primary reason no government ever stopped to consider that is because the goal of gun control measures has practically never been to improve public safety; it's been to disarm "undesirables," be it ethnic minorities in the United States, leftists in western Europe, and dissidents almost anywhere else, with public safety merely serving as a fig leaf.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Our paid consultant for the Joyce Foundation finally showed his face again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. The Joyce Foundation = Discovery Institute For Guns

Like that other 'scientific' institute for the gullible, the JF people constantly project pronoia:

i.e. they like to believe they are more popular than they really are. Since they both do a great job
of convincing those who already agree with them, this usually goes unchallenged. They both avoid substantial
discussion with people who don't share their particular beliefs.

As for our particular PR flack:


I doubt he'll be working for them for long, if he still is.
He can't even sell gun control on Democratic Underground without insulting Democrats and progressive independents
who chose to arm themselves.

Seems he has forgotten a simply law of organizational politics: Don't Make The Boss Look Bad.
His glaringly obvious lack of research before posting in the recent 'katana control' thread implies
that the JF's vetting process is on the same level of competence as some of ACORN's chapters.

Further, he constantly implies that those who do own firearms were somehow beguiled into doing so by the NRA, et al
or are RW shills here to corrupt innocent DUers into buying a gateway gun.

Being from an area not known to have a lot of legal gun owners, this is probably a case of BEIKVFMcG.

The fact that illegal gun owners will be little hindered, if at all, by laws the Joyce Foundation might like
doesn't occur to him, as he believes as devoutly in them as the most stump-ignorant fundie believes in Creationism.

And, like the Discovery Institute variety of fundie- to disagree with him is not only factually incorrect but evil.

He truly and honestly believes that if you don't agitate for, or oppose, stricter gun control laws you actually
want people to die- or are simply indifferent to suffering.

A lower crime rate, even with a higher # of guns in the hands of Americans as well as a higher rate of gun ownership
doesn't matter.

He has faith, and that is more important than fact for a True Believer.

[PavePusher]

71. I'm not trying to arm the criminals.

But many here demonstratably desire to disarm the victims.

Any of you care to explain that?

[jgraz]

91. Paranoid fantasies and stunted critical thinking skills?

That's my only explanation for why you believe what you do. You think in terms of armed vs unarmed "victims", when you should be addressing the core problems that turn women into "victims".

Working to address violence against women may not be as fun as buying a new toy at the gun store, but it's the only way to actually reduce the frequency of these situations, armed or (sic) "defenseless".

[PavePusher]

97. I'll bet a month's paycheck..

That the foremost thought in a woman's (or a man's) mind as they are being raped is NOT "What unfortunate combination of circumstances, chance, abuse, neglect or societal indifference brought this rapist to this point in life".


"...but it's the only way to actually reduce the frequency of these situations, armed or (sic) "defenseless"."

A lead slug into the abdomen or cranium of the rapist will certainly "reduce the frequency of these situations".

You are correct that we need to address root causes, but I also think it is possible, both legally and morally to attack the problem from both sides at once.

[Treo]

100. A GLOCK 19

Will do a hell of a lot to address the REAL issue of that woman being a victim then and there

[jgraz]

103. Wow, 100 posts before someone posted the name of a gun in all caps

That's gotta be a new record for this group.

[PavePusher]

105. That is the way the word is supposed to be written.

It's one of their trademarks.

But hey, ignorance is bliss, right?

[jgraz]

107. Even better.

After all, how can we properly show our love if we don't know how to write the name of our god?

[Treo]

110. I actually don't care for GLOCKs

I was just picking a name you grabbers would recognize. I carry a CZ and don't own a GLOCK.

That said, are you at least going to present an opposing viewpoint or are you just drive-by posting this morning?

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. Thanks for confirming the faith-based nature of your approach to gun control

It's just unpossible for you to imagine someone might rationally decide to arm themselves. They must be gun worshippers, unwilling to accept the word of the (self-proclaimed) prophet jgraz, he of the Joyce Foundation Bible and Tract
Society.

Of course, you might just be an Elmer Gantry or Jim Bakker of gun control, looking to get some coin from the coffers
of the JF. I tend to think you are mostly sincere, and actually believe what you post.

[PavePusher]

123. So, now accuracy = gun worshipping. Uh-huh.

If I corrected you on a point of aviation maintenance, would I then be an "airplane worshipper?

Look, I've tried to deal with you politely and stick to the issues, but you're now off the reservation as far as I can tell. Do please stop trying to be an ass.

[Pavulon]

126. god nor the police will be there when you need them..only you

and that little voice that is screaming about not wanting to die. hey the police will come stand over your body and someone may say something about god at your funeral.

everyone says they want to get along and never hurt a thing but when it comes to your ass most people tend to want to wake up the next day. just an observation.

[Katya Mullethov]

180. That would be John Moses Browning then

[PavePusher]

182. +1! That reminds me...

Time to go sacrifice a calf to my 1911...

O.K., I need three vestal virgin escorts, who's gonna volunteer?

[spin]

6. I'm beginning to believe that gun laws should be left up to the states...

the state voters can determine the laws that they want.

But I do believe in some national laws, for example: requiring a background check for the purchase of a firearm from a dealer.

[PavePusher]

73. Any state that ratifies the Constitution...

Has therefore agreed to abide by it. I do not understand why this legal point is so difficult for non-laymen to comprehend.

The Constitution was written to be understood by the common man. Want to wreck it? Let the lawyers and courts get involved. Sigh.

[spin]

77. The reason I made that comment was...

that if we allow the state voters to determine gun laws in their states, eventually all states will allow shall issue concealed carry. Look how it has spread across the nation in just a few years.

[PavePusher]

80. Well, you may be right...

but I'm an impatient sort. Citizens and legal aliens shouldn't have to 'wait' to exercise their Civil Rights.

Yeah, I know, breeeeeathe.......

[Treo]

86. Civil rights are human rights

And they belong to every human being on this planet not just citizens and legal aliens

[PavePusher]

98. To a point, yes.

If you are in a country that you are not a citizen of, you probably don't have the right to vote in their elections. Lots of other examples, but this isn't the place for an exhaustive list.

[Treo]

101. You're right

I was thinking in terms of self defence, rights against self incrimination, right to life and so on

[PavePusher]

104. +1 n/t

[DonP]

39. Pssst, it's not the GOP pushing for it!

It's the downstate Dems in short, pretty much everyone outside the Cook County area is for it. South of I-80 and West of I-294 and many of us have a big ass D behind our names.

I'm assuming you never leave Illinois or Wisconsin then ... ever ... for anything ... because you'd immediately be surrounded by all those "batshit crazy gun nuts" everywhere else.

You made one call against it, we had 5,000 people turn up to march in Springfield this Spring for concealed carry.

You're the one out of the mainstream.

[jaxx]

117. I live downstate.

I am the mainstream. One nice thing about IL is that we don't have to worry about the marchers showing up with their guns.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I don't think a gun in the hands of someone inexperienced with them

would be anything but a disaster. That is why I am for RESPONSIBLE ownership, which means you have to know how to shoot the thing, handle it safely, AND know what to do in an emergency situation. No good to have a gun and have the rapist take it from you.

[spin]

11. Very good point...

for example, my daughter has been shooting handguns since she was nine or ten years old. She learned how to shoot and how to safely handle weapons from me.

She also had eight years of judo and jujitsu training with one of the best instructors in the U.S. That training taught her how to remain calm in an emergency.

Too many people buy a firearm for self defense and have little or no idea of how to use it. Many of the concealed weapons classes here in Florida only require a student to fire a few rounds at a target several feet away. I would advise anyone unfamiliar with a firearm to find a good instructor that requires you to fire at least 50 rounds through your handgun at different ranges.

I would also advise anyone who carries to join a firearms range and practice on a regular basis. You might find shooting an enjoyable hobby and met some new friends at the range.

[jgraz]

8. You forgot the most important part

Sign yourself up to be used as a cheap political pawn by men who love guns.

[Warpy]

13. No shit

I once told a thug if he wanted me, he was going to have to pick me up and carry me. I then sat down. He left.

[Katya Mullethov]

60. self edit

wrong slot

[Treo]

88. You're lucky he didn't kill you NT

[Warpy]

106. I became an unpredictable target

and, while I was risking a kick, chances were very good he'd just move on.

I took control of the situation. Thugs feed off control and humiliating the other person.

Besides, I was in no mood to feed into his crap.

[Treo]

111. and you're still lucky he didn't kill you

That said, what you did worked

[votingupstart]

33. or you could be a victim and be touted for gun control

see your argument does not work.

[PavePusher]

75. Are you offering to personnaly provide for my security?

I hope so, you'd be the first to ever take me up on this offer.

[PavePusher]

174. oops, self delete.

Question partially answered in another thread, I forgot and started a somewhat attacking comment. My bad.

[Saturday]

12. I've made it to a relatively ripe old age

and never felt the need to fear my fellow human beings and walk around with a gun.

[spin]

19. Well congrats to you...

you can consider yourself fortunate.

I've lived to a ripe old age and I've never had a house fire. I have fire alarms throughout the house and a fire extinguisher fifteen feet from where I'm sitting.

[Treo]

20. Most CHP holders will NEVER use their gun

But those who do will need them right now. The New life Church Shooting and the Ogden Utah Mall shooting were both stopped by CHP holders before the police showed up.

[Piwi2009]

176. I worked for the police--that didn't stop us from having a shooting

right there at the station.

A guy burst in brandishing a gun and he got shot right in the mustache! Good thing we had guns on our side. I couldn't help but think--yeah, we had cops defend us, but only because it was their workplace. I shudder to think if it hadn't been a police station, but a regular workplace and this guy burst in where a bunch of defenseless women worked, how easily he couldve taken us all out, and it would be US lying on the floor in a pool of blood. The answer to bad people with guns, is good people with guns.

[spin]

178. "The answer to bad people with guns, is good people with guns. "...

I like that!

[Treo]

16. Ask Katey what to do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO7qon9rzoY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYF8Z7rZ050&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hh3eoZEwN4&feature=related

[spin]

26. Those were some really good videos, thanks. (n/t)

[Treo]

27. She has a page full of them at youtube NT

[Lithos]

18. I remember reading where "pissing in your own pants"

literally was something that could dissuade a rapist. Not sure how that goes, but it seems to be similar to the "vomit" idea.

L-

[spin]

21. Also number two has been suggested...

which should also deter a rapist.

If I were a female, I would like the option of jamming a revolver in the attackers stomach and pulling the trigger several times to give him a severe case of indigestion.

If I were really a woman, I probably would aim a little lower. Every woman that I ever taught how to shoot would eventually shoot low on a silhouette target. When I would mention that they wanted to shot for center body mass, they would just smile at me.

[Treo]

22. Why would you want to get that close to an attacker? NT

[spin]

24. Obviously, you don't want the attacker to get close...

which is why you practice situational awareness. My reply was to another poster's suggestion that a woman piss in her pants to deter a rapist. Obviously this tactic would be used as a last resort and close range, not at 15 or 20 feet.

At that range a revolver in the stomach can be very effective.

[jeepnstein]

70. At less than three feet...

you are better off firing into the attacker's groin area. This is how they teach cops to shoot and for good reason.

You hold the weapon tightly to your hip and fire. This aids in weapon retention and inflicts an extremely debilitating injury. You stand a good chance of hitting a major blood vessel, breaking a hip bone, or the lower spine in that area. The point of aim is a triangle roughly between the hip bones and the lower pubic area.

[spin]

168. Good advise. Thanks. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

45. Y'know, there's a whole genre of porn videos dedicated to that sort of thing these days

Stuff of the "Max Hardcore" variety. I wouldn't rely on bodily effluent to dissuade a sexual assailant, he might be one of the ones who gets off on it.

I believe the Springfield XD has a patented "muzzle protector"; translation: the guide rod extends beyond the muzzle so that you don't push the slide out of battery if you're forced to jam it against someone's body. I need to get my wife to the range to try one.

[Treo]

53. Could have gone my whole life W/ out that information mutt NT

[Euromutt]

90. Um, sorry about that, Treo

FWIW, I never heard of Max Hardcore until he was convicted on obscenity charges not too long ago. Which, if I may digress for a moment, was an utterly bogus case; the guy was convicted of distributing material that violated "community standards" (or somesuch) after some FBI agents ordered some of his stuff off the web and had it mailed to Tampa, FL. Now, it seems to me that if there's a demand in some locality for this kind of material--which there apparently by dint of the fact that someone in that locality mail-ordered the stuff--the material ipso facto cannot violate "community standards." It may violate what certain members of the community would like to think its standards are, but the very fact that supposedly a member of the community (since the Feds didn't identify themselves as such when ordering) took the initiative to have the material brought into the community falsifies that notion.

From the descriptions of Hardcore's work, I'm so not interested, and I'll admit I can't see why anyone would be into it, but by all accounts, no laws were broken in the making of it, and freedom is all about letting mutually consenting adults do stuff even when you can't see the attraction of it.

[Treo]

120. You do know I was kidding right? NT

[spin]

57. One of the reasons I like revolvers over semi-autos...

is that you don't have to worry about the revolver going out of battery if you ever have to jam it into your attacker's body.

Probably why snub nosed revolvers are often called belly guns. They also work much better if fired through a jacket pocket.

I do like my S&W Model 642 for concealed carry. Hopefully, I'll never have a reason to use it.

[Euromutt]

93. I understand your choice, but I'm left-handed

Very few realistic options for left-handers where revolvers are concerned. That cylinder swinging out to the left is a deal-breaker right there. Sure, Charter Arms makes a left-handed model, but being a Charter Arms gun, it's not a Ruger or S&W, and that really says it all right there.

My wife's right-handed, mind you, so all the above is of no concern to her, but I can't help her master a weapon I wouldn't use myself.

[spin]

115. It is strange that S&W or Ruger never thought of producing a

line of left handed revolvers.

I know a retired police officer who was left handed and always had a hard time qualifying on the range with a revolver mainly because of the difficulty of reloading. When his department finally went to the Glock 19, his scores and time improved dramatically.

[spin]

66. Man, I am out of date...

I had to look up Max Hardcore on the net.

[Katya Mullethov]

61. There are Illinois legal alternatives

Here is Sue Hupp demonstrating one of the Illinois tongue depressors .



Her experiences with self defense were merely anectdotal .
Are they easily dismissed ? Apparently so .

[Treo]

63. This insanity assumes that your attacker is going to sit there while you force yourself to puke NT

[spin]

65. I thought of pepper spray after reading the advise on the Illinois State Police page...

However there's a catch. You can't carry it if you live in Chicago.

Information on Pepper Spray Laws & Restrictions

****snip****

ILLINOIS: Legal with restrictions. The use of Pepper Spray is legal for carrying by a person 18 years of age or older. In the City of Chicago it is illegal.
http://www.peacemakerpepperspray.com/page/894784

Remind me to never live in Chicago.

[Treo]

68. Katey rides again

Katey on pepper spray

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uc0ok-nldw&feature=channel_page

[spin]

76. You have to admit, she makes a powerful point. (n/t)

[Euromutt]

89. Yeah, that one irritates the snot out of me

Frankly, I dare anyone who dismissively refers to OC as "seasoning" to take a full can in the face and then try saying that immediately afterward. I'd be a lot more inclined to take Katey a bit more seriously if she didn't sound suspiciously like she's just acting out Oleg Volk posters.

Here's some actual evidence: "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska," published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 72, Issue 3 (April 2008). The money quote from the abstract (http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.2193%2F2006-452&ct=1):

Red pepper spray stopped bears' undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters. All bear-inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required).

Short version: bear spray works. I can't find the article right now, but the lead author also analyzed use of firearms to defend against bear attacks, and found that use of a firearm caused the bear to break off only 2/3 of the time, and that it took, on average, four shots to stop the bear. And that's long gun rounds we're talking about, not whatever handgun Katey is waving about there. One of the big advantages of bear spray is that shot placement doesn't matter anywhere near as much.

Also, a can of bear spray will set you back ~$50. A Ruger Alaskan will set you back over $900.

That having been said, OC definitely does have its limitations against humans. In particular, people with a history of having been arrested or incarcerated have more likely than not been exposed to the stuff a few times before, and while that doesn't reduce the physiological effects, knowing what's coming does greatly reduce the psychological impact of being hit with the stuff, which means that on repeat offenders in particular, OC isn't anywhere near as effective as it is on the "uninitiated." My brother-in-law took a course which involved being sprayed in the face with OC, and he managed to force one eye open with his support hand and place two rounds into a target at short range with his strong hand. Still, that doesn't completely invalidate OC as a defensive weapon, but you do have to be aware of the potential limitations.

[GreenStormCloud]

95. OC has some other limitations.

First, let me say that I carry OC as well as my guns. But one has to be aware of the wind when you use OC. Further, my wife has asthma and I fear that if I had to use it when she is around and she inhaled some of it, then she could have a serious, possibly fatal asthma attack. I carry OC because if the situation allows me to try OC, and if it then works, I will be very happy to have avoided a shooting.

[Treo]

102. She was talking about using OC on a human

And I think she DID work W/ Oleg Volk on some of those videos.

[spin]

136. OC spray can be effective on a human...

but you have to buy some VERY good spray. There's a lot of cheap crap out there that may not be successful.

My local police dept uses a spray called Sabre Red. They make a version for the civilian market that I believe is extremely potent and can be purchased on Amazon.com.



http://www.amazon.com/Sabre-Red-Pocket-clip-75oz/dp/B001NRC6JC/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=hi&qid=1253650394&sr=1-6

[Euromutt]

177. I suggest you watch that video again

And pay particular attention to the first 14 seconds or so. Hell, just the opening two sentences will do.

[Treo]

179. She mentions 2 legged predators as well NT

[GreenStormCloud]

96. That advise is all wrong and will get women hurt.

Read Strong on Defense by Sanford Strong. Kinda pricey, even on Amazon, but worth the price. In the real world, the advise in the OP will not work. Violent criminals are NOT reasonable people so attempts to reason with them are futile. Fight like hell from the start and run away as soon as you have the chance.

Move to a state that allows CC.

[spin]

127. The article did have some good suggestions...

Articles common to your handbag that make useful defense weapons.

* nail file
* rat tail comb
* teasing brush
* pens and pencils
* keys
* anything rigid

Concentrate on these areas only when combating an assailant.

* groin
* eyes
* ears
* nose
* throat

You should not swing at an assailant. Roundhouse or overhand blows are easy to deflect or evade. Your movements should be made with all your strength, and should be straight jabs. Remember that screaming may be just as important to your defense as any weapon.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm

Without some training using a nail file against a rapist may not be successful. Considering how much junk is normally in a woman's purse, it might be wise for her to carry the nail file in her hand.

Some working pens are actually designed to be weapons.

Aluminum Benchmade Pen & Tactical Defense Tool w/ Blue Ink 1155-1

Benchmade Info:
# Low Profile, Slim Tactical Sizing
# CNC Machined Body Cap and Grip
# Non-Reflective Anodized Components for Tactical Applications
# Replaceable Ink Cartridges by Fisher Pen Company
# Screw on cap screws on opposite end for writing
http://www.bladehq.com/item--Aluminum-Benchmade-Pen--3575



For those unfamiliar with the Benchmade Company, they produce high quality knives.

Still, a person without training attempting to discourage an attack by a determined individual is at a disadvantage. That applies to those with firearms as well as those using combs, pens or hair brushes. Still fighting is better than submitting and often is successful.

[GreenStormCloud]

162. True, ordinary things can be used as weapons.

But the entire tone of the article is wrong. It begins with, "Before you fight...", and advises trying other stuff first. That is completely, totally wrong. In a violent crime situation, you absolutely must fight from the start. You can't be submissive, hoping for a better chance to fight later. It is highly unlikely that you will get a better chance. The criminal seeks to establish dominance from the start, and once he has that dominance he is aware that he needs to keep it. He will make the woman's situation worse.

Fight immediately !! Don't bother with talking, or doing something disgusting, or anything like that. Often it doesn't work anyway. Go for the eyes and don't be gentle, try to actually gouge the eyes out of their sockets. Bite !! Women have bitten of parts of rapists before, - fingers, penises, one woman even bit off his tongue when he tried to force a french kiss.

Much of the advice in that article takes the tone of a "civilized defense". But violent criminals have become savage animals and can not be defeated by genteel means. You have to go animal on them, fight like hell from the very start. Fight fast, fight hard, and you increase your chances. Of course, having a gun is helpful, but the OP stipulates Illinois.

Also, for the sake of your safety, don't be afraid of hurting someone's feelings. Some guy is trying to approach you and your gut says, "Danger", trust your gut. Even if the guy really does just want to admire your car, so what if he gets offended if you take off in it w/o talking to him? He can get over the offense much easier than you can get over the crime if he is a criminal.

[spin]

169. Good post and good advise. (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

175. Thank You. N/T

[Euromutt]

186. I'd recommend reading Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear"

I do have to acknowledge that I found the tone of his observations about firearms to be more than a little annoying, and they do appear to be rather strongly colored by the fact that his mother fatally shot an abusive boyfriend when he a small boy, and he and his sister were in the house, leaving him rather averse to firearms. But that doesn't invalidate the lessons you can learn from the main body of the book.

One important one, as GreenStormCloud rightly notes, is that you shouldn't be afraid of hurting someone's feelings. Assailants are well practiced at exploiting our social conditioning to be polite, with techniques like "loan sharking" (doing you a favor you didn't ask for, and then pretending you owe them), "forced teaming" (referring to "we" when it really means "you") and others. If you're familiar with the list, it's actually remarkable how many you encounter in other predatory situations, like people trying to recruit you into Amway. That happened to my wife and me, and she counted every single technique on de Becker's list.

And I can't adequately express how correct GreenStormCloud's point is that, once you're aware that you are in fact being attacked, the time for non-violent alternatives is over. And I would add, not only in a practical sense, but also in a moral sense: once you are being aggressed against, your assailant has broken the social contract, and you do not owe it to him--or anybody else--to respond in a "civilized" manner before resorting to countervailing force. You don't owe it to anybody to fight "clean" or "fair" either; you didn't ask for this fight, and are therefore under no obligation to behave according to rules imposed by someone else.

[spin]

189. Boy, that book is HIGHLY rated on Amazon.com...

So I decided to order it. Should be a good read and a good book to pass along to someone.

[Treo]

193. It's not a deep read you'll be done W/ it in a day or two

He is pretty down on weapons

[GreenStormCloud]

194. I ordered it from Amazon a couple of days ago.

Got email from them saying it shipped Friday. I decided for it when another book I am reading, Meditations on Violence said that it listed ways that people will use to get close to you.

[SteveM]

181. What is disturbing is no mention of cell phones or other PDAs...

There are some safety "experts" who recommend a "safety" call when moving from, say, a building to your car. But every time I see someone on the street using a cell phone, they are (pardon the expression) dead to the world. They don't see much more than jiggling tunnel vision, hear next to nothing and are often unaware of autos, and pedestrians who must step by a wandering cell phone user. The use of a cell phone in dark, unpopulated areas seems almost an invitation to attack.

[spin]

183. Criminals look for vulnerable people...

a person walking down the street in a bad neighborhood at night while on a cell phone is vulnerable because he/she has his/her head up their ass.

In fact, a person walking one the street in a good neighborhood while on a cell phone is also a target.

[friendly_iconoclast]

187. Virginia Mountainman called that 'situational awayness'....

..in a rather good discussion of self-defense techniques:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x224494#224796

[spin]

192. I remember that post, his response was classic. (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

185. Such "safety experts" have their heads up their asses.

How is a cell phone going to help me while a mugger is hitting me on the head? At best, the police will arrive to draw the chalk outline around my body. (OK, at best the ambulance will arrive to take me to the hospital.)

Instead, I rely on being aware of the situation around me, and on facing a potential threat with my hand on a .38 in my pocket. If the situation develops into a more dangerous one, then I escalate accordingly.

[spin]

191. Got to love those .38 revolvers in a pocket...

I find my S&W Model 642 38+P one FINE carry weapon.

[backwoodsbob]

188. if I had a daughter

I'd give her my .357

[spin]

190. She couldn't carry it legally in Illinois...

or even own it in Chicago.

Are you recommending that she just avoids complying with the law? God forbid is she were caught. I would imaging honest citizens get the book thrown at them.

[Xenotime]

196. We were in Chicago and felt very safe knowing there were no guns.

Please don't have her start carrying for some misguided purpose. She needs to be tough, efficient and independent but not to the point where it could seriously injure or kill somebody else.

[Euromutt]

197. No guns in Chicago?

Do you seriously believe there are no guns in Chicago? Oh, dearie me.

No, there may be no legally owned handguns in private hands, but the criminal elements has ways and means of acquiring them. They're there, and you're not fooling anyone except yourself if you think otherwise.

To illustrate, let's look at that Illinois State Police informative from the OP:

The above methods are particularly important if your assailant has a gun or knife, <...>

"Has a gun?" I hear you cry, "How can that be? This is Illinois, where carrying a handgun is illegal!" And yet, oddly, muggers and the occasional rapist don't seem to care about that particular law, just like they don't care that armed robbery and/or rape are against the law too.

Funny, that.

[spin]

198. Report: Chicago gun violence costs $2.5 billion a year....

March 3, 2009 12:16 PM

The social costs of gun violence in Chicago total about $2.5 billion each year, according to a report released Tuesday by an academic group formed to research effective ways to reduce violent crime.

"Gun Violence among School-Age Youth in Chicago," the first report from the University of Chicago Crime Lab, used interviews, focus groups, police data and social research to characterize factors underlying Chicago's escalating murder rate.
Expanding upon previous research that every crime-related gunshot wound causes around $1 million in social costs, the report's four authors calculated the annual cost of gun violence at $2.5 billion, or $2,500 per Chicago household.

The cost reflects in part the repellent effect of violence upon city populations, pushing more people into outlying communities, said Crime Lab director Jens Ludwig, a professor of social service administration, law, and public policy at the university.

"Every city is trying very hard to encourage families to live in the city to support the tax base so that we can improve city services for everyone in the community," Ludwig said. "But gun violence winds up making that much more difficult."
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/03/report-chicago-gun-violence-costs-25-billion-a-year.html

[GreenStormCloud]

199. What you felt was an illusion of your own mind.

The reality is that Chicago has the nation's highest murder rate. It also has the highest crime rate.

Self-defense is not a misguided purpose. Some street criminals can be stopped only by doing serious injury to them, or killing them. That is a simple fact. The time that you would spend waiting for the police to get there after you call 911 could easily be the rest of your life.

[spin]

200. There are probably "safe " neighborhoods in Chicago...

and you may have been in one. I have lived in "bad" neighborhoods and sill felt safe, mainly because I was familiar with the neighborhood and the people. I was alert and practiced situational awareness. I also was armed and had a concealed carry permit.

I agree that a young woman needs to be tough, efficient and independent. But why would you say that she shouldn't seriously harm someone? Why should she suffer serious injury or death so that some fool who has no right be be part of a civilized society can have his way? She should have the right to use lethal force, including the ability to defend herself using a firearm.

I live in Florida where we have a "stand your ground" law. If you are somewhere where you have a right to be and are not engaged in criminal activity and you are violently attacked, you have no duty to retreat.

Many disagree, but I feel it's a reasonable law and has spread to many other states since enacted in Florida in 2005.

It is interesting to read news articles from that time period.

Florida’s New "Stand Your Ground" Law Angers Gun Control Groups

A new law took effect over the weekend in Florida that has gun control advocates scrambling to warn tourists that they could be shot if they aren’t careful

Florida has a new law that gives legal protection to anyone who shoots another person, if the shooter feels that his life is in danger or a felony is about to be committed. Before the law was passed, Floridians could carry concealed guns in public places, but they had to attempt to flee from at attacker first, and could only use a gun as a last resort when safe avoidance of injury was otherwise not possible. The new "Stand Your Ground" law states that if a person feels their safety is threatened, they can stand their ground and shoot if necessary to eliminate the threat as long as they’re somewhere they have a legal right to be, such as a public street or a parking lot, and as long as the person shot is not a police officer. Gun control advocates pounced on the new law immediately, issuing statements to the media and passing out fliers to tourists to irresponsibly frighten them into thinking that they might be shot if they argued about anything with anyone while they were in Florida.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, perhaps the nation’s strongest anti-gun lobby, is handing out leaflets at Miami International airport to make sure tourists to Florida are aware of the new law. The leaflets say "do not argue unnecessarily with local people," and "if someone appears to be angry with you, maintain to the best of your ability a positive attitude, and do not shout or make threatening gestures." Yes, that’s really what they say. Perhaps the Brady Campaign folks haven’t even read the wording of the law, which does not give anyone the right to shoot someone who is shouting or gesturing at them. Gov. Jeb Bush has denounced the Brady Campaign as "pure, unadulterated politics," and the tourism industry in Florida says that Florida is a very safe place for tourists and the Brady Campaign is "one group’s political agenda." Supporters of the law and many residents say that it will make Florida safer.

Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign, says that they have shipped information about the law to more than 120 leading U.S. and international journalists, as well as to trade publication editors in the travel industry and editors at consumer travel magazines. The inflammatory ads, which are being placed in key gateway cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and selected overseas markets, read: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous or frightened residents to use deadly force. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads." The flyers being handed out suggest ludicrous rules visitors should follow: Avoid unnecessary arguments with local people; stay in their cars and keep hands in plain sight if involved in a traffic accident or near-miss; and maintain a positive attitude and avoid shouting or threatening gestures if someone appears to be hostile toward them.

Gun control advocates say that because of Florida’s new law, an argument on the highway, a disagreement in a restaurant, or a dispute over belongings on a beach could lead to unnecessary use of force. But what they purposely avoid saying in their literature is the important fact that the law does NOT give people the right to use deadly force to defend possessions or to win an argument. The law clearly states that a person can shoot without fear of prosecution only if "he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." The law extends the existing "Castle Doctrine" law, which says that a person’s home is their castle—people can use deadly force if they feel threatened by an intruder in their home. This new law simply expands that law to include people being able to defend themselves in public places where they have a lawful right to be.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-6-2005-78297.asp

As usual all the dire predictions by the Brady Campaign proved false.

[Piwi2009]

201. Anti gun liberals with delicate sensibilties are absolutely appalled when I tell them that

I worked in a restaurant during the summer we had a mass shooting at another restaurant. One our our female coworkers, a black lady who had to walk around a lot in a bad neighborhood, was regularly armed. She once playfully pulled the gun out and brandished it around.
This is the point where I was supposed to be horrified and upset, right ? But I wasn't. I knew her and knew she wasn't going to shoot any of us. I also knew if we were robbed she knew how to use that gun and would defend us. People who live in rarefied atmospheres just can't understand that.

[Xela]

202. This is what one has to resort to in Mexico City...

Recent tragedy in Mexico City.

Warning: Graphic security cam video, but no nudity or gore and no close ups...
http://tu.tv/videos/balcera-en-metro-balderas-df-impresiona

I was a few blocks away when it took place.

News Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090919/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_subway_shooting_5


Xela

[old mark]

204. Call police and wait 40 minutes. nt

[spin]

205. There's so much violence in Chicago...

that all the cops are tied up.

SAD!

edited for typo

[phasma ex machina]

206. Carry some donuts in your purse to make the police show up faster? nt

[spin]

207. LOL...good one (n/t)