O/T Gun Control

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:24 pm

Got this in a email from my brother-in-law.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

Gives you more to think about when comes to the right to bare arms, don't you think?

DrDan · Post by **DrDan** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:11 pm

I have a friend (girl) who is a liberal Common Pleas Court Judge. She actually told me that even though she shoots trap on occasion and has a shotgun in the house she would rather try to run from an attacker than shoot him (her). My god what gets into peoples minds that they have no concept of self preservation.

DrD

John Wade · Post by **John Wade** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:09 am

DrDan wrote:I have a friend (girl) who is a liberal Common Pleas Court Judge. She actually told me that even though she shoots trap on occasion and has a shotgun in the house she would rather try to run from an attacker than shoot him (her). My god what gets into peoples minds that they have no concept of self preservation.

DrD

Flight, Freeze, Flee - Running is a form of self preservation and if an option, for most may very well be the course of action most likely to lead to survival.

I do a lot of work on employee dog attack prevention part of which is looking at how a person responds to a visceral attack. (Running is usually not an option obviously) People that are in unfamiliar confrontational situations lose their fine motor and mental skills. In the situation described above, most could have a gun and it would never clear its holster let alone hit a target. To be honest I'd bet that would be true of the majority of list members. In a prior occupation I went through hundreds of street confrontations. The first bunch were hell, tunnel vision, adrenalin shakes afterwards all the stuff the books and training say happens. In spite of all the training there is an element that just has to be experienced several times before thinking clearly let alone hitting the target is likely. That's why the adjective "seasoned" is added to warrior.

It would be better if people with guns just wore them in plain sight. The deterrent argument has a lot going for it.

navaman · Post by **navaman** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:28 am

i don't know if it's still going on but awhile back in the state of arizona, if you legally owned a gun you were permitted to wear in a holster ,so long as it was exposed to the public. when it came into effect arizona's voilent crime dropped dramatically.

John Wade · Post by **John Wade** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:52 am

navaman wrote:i don't know if it's still going on but awhile back in the state of arizona, if you legally owned a gun you were permitted to wear in a holster ,so long as it was exposed to the public. when it came into effect arizona's voilent crime dropped dramatically.

Ive heard about this too and I'd really be interested in learning whether they looked into how many exposed guns it took to deter violent crime. I don't imagine any where near the majority wore guns exposed publicly. What percentage of the population does it take? 1% to ? before criminals consider it a deterrent? Nothing like a visual aid to make a presentation hit home.

navaman · Post by **navaman** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:14 am

i'm interested too. if i get time today i think i'll research it. if i get some stats i'll be sure to post it for everybody to read.

ratherbefishin · Post by **ratherbefishin** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:28 am

I would think looking down and seeing the red dot of a lazer sight centered on their chest would have a wonderful way of refocussing the attention of any criminal and helping them decide that where ever they were, they don't want to be,and whatever they were planning on doing, deciding not to.....sort of basic instinct you might say...

VixChix · Post by **VixChix** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:03 am

A woman running vs. shooting...
I had a conversation recently on how women and men are different in shooting. One of the things that came up, was that women are *generally* slower to shoot. It's our nature. We hesitate, we want to wait and make sure of everything before we shoot. We're not as good at the quick shots. Guys are better at shooting first and analyzing it later, while women tend to analyze first before the shot. It's not always in our best interest!

Having said that - it can be overcome with conditioning/practice and not every woman is so encumbered.

John Wade · Post by **John Wade** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:38 am

VixChix wrote:
Having said that - it can be overcome with conditioning/practice and not every woman is so encumbered.

Absolutely true for a man or a woman. However that's a piece of it and not the majority. Simulations just can't prepare one for the real thing. I did the training for Canada Post federally and I can teach someone how to defend themselves against a dog attack. However, they rarely do. They end up taking the bite. So the majority of training is focused on prevention and extraction (getting away:D ) It has to be experienced several times and that's not just going to happen for most. That's why so many cops, despite extensive training miss their man in spite of close range. Whereas non lethal weapons that are used far more often like tazers and pepper spray hit their targets the majority of time. They use them pretty much every Friday and Saturday night outside Billy Bob's tavern and strip club. I will say though that simulation training has come a long way.

I think running is the best option for most. The problem is it isn't really an option in the real sense once the adrenalin has been engaged. Then it's strictly instinct. Fight, freeze and flee and it can't be predicted. You never know what you're going to do and it seems to vary from type of emergency i.e. medical emergency for someone else vs. an attack. The former I engage every time. The latter I'm prone to freezing at least without considerable experience in those types of scenarios. I've been in situations where the guy I was with (Don't misunderstand. This wasn't SWAT type stuff. I don't have that type of back ground.) that had a reputation of bravado but no experience brought a whole new meaning to the term back up. When I needed him, he'd backed up right out of any usefulness. He was embarrassed afterwards but needn't have been. With better training and some street experience he'd lose the greenness. It was my mistake not his. He was lucky. I had to learn the hard way.

BigTiny · Post by **BigTiny** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:12 am

Running away is rarely an option. Career criminals will work to eliminate the possibility of escape for their target. They don't want to go to the effort of chasing them down. Also, women are targets way more than men, while the attackers are predominantly male. Very few women can outrun a man in a sprint. Being armed is your best defense, with martial arts training being a plus as well. Both is even better. I have interviewed more victims than I care to recall, and I think it is better to fight back. The victims that attempted to run usually wound up being attacked from behind. Every one of the people I saw who offered armed resistance survived without becoming a victim.

Pepper spray can work, but it works differently on different people. If it doesn't work, the attacker will most likely become very violent with the victim. From what I have seen it is about a 70/30 split on spray working/not working.

Stun guns or tasers are very effective, and if you don't want to carry a firearm, they are your best bet. The limitation of these is they are usually no good against multiple attackers. My Glock 26 is only good for 11 attackers maximum, so after that I have to go hand to hand.

marmot · Post by **marmot** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:43 am

I was involved in martial arts for five years when I was a teenager (a big teenager at that). At that point, I could pretty much disarm most attackers without thinking about (not to mention that I was hell on wheels with a nunchaku and a bō); however, the first rule in martial arts is to always seek an escape route before fighting. I remember an incident while I was still in high school where a group of thugs left me with no escape route. I spent an afternoon explaining to the authorities what had occurred because all five of these guys had to be taken to the hospital. Let's say that no one messed with me after that day; however, I never felt good about the confrontation.

With respect to carrying: I drive through an area of town everyday where pulling a gun on one of the locals would be like pulling a gun on the don at a mafia sit down.

IMHO, it is best to mind one’s P’s & Q’s and get the heck out of Dodge as quickly as possible when in one of these areas. That said, if they come to my area looking for trouble, they will surely find it.

VixChix · Post by **VixChix** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:18 am

I'm not terribly fearful walking around in the dark. I think if women act confident, they aren't as likely to be victimized.

I'm all for trusting your God-given gut instint - if a situation doesn't feel right, get out. Otherwise, act as if you have nothing to fear.

When I walk my dog very late at night I always carry a small can of pepper spray, strapped around my wrist and in my hand with my thumb at the ready. It's not for people though, it's for dogs that run loose and unsupervised. My dog won't start a fight, but if attacked it will finish it - it's in her breed. I'm confident I can extract her from any situation, as I always keep her leashed, but if she's being attacked by another off-leash dog I'll let her do her thing and use the spray to minimize vet bills.

We can't legally carry handguns here - but we can carry sturdy umbrellas, canes, "dog spray" and use common sense and gut-instinct in our favour.