Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does being an atheist have to do with supporting gun rights?
Must mean something, inasmuch as Sam Harris himself says that because of his atheism, even most of the people who follow him are surprised if not dismayed that he's not not anti-gun, given the circumstances of the real world.
I have a can of wasp spray in my car as well as a small can in my purse, I also carry a heavy metal flashlight at night. I've studied Krav Maga for two years but I also think a good solid weapon would come in quite handy. When I walk my dog early in the morning, I often carry a golf club and the small can of spray.
I have a can of wasp spray in my car as well as a small can in my purse, I also carry a heavy metal flashlight at night. I've studied Krav Maga for two years but I also think a good solid weapon would come in quite handy. When I walk my dog early in the morning, I often carry a golf club and the small can of spray.
But they all actually take more dedication to violence than learning to use a firearm, especially in terms of a variety of different kinds of attacks. That's the reason firearms initially surpassed swords and bows...because it was much easier and quicker to train rabble farmers to use muskets than bows or swords. It took a several hundred years before firearms actually became more dependable as weapons.
I have seen people mention tear gas and pepper spray. just so you know, they do not effect everyone. I do know more than just a few people who are not effected by either tear gas or pepper spray.
Or is the realistic chance of my being attacked low enough it probably isn't worth it?
I figure theres two ways of looking at this, the first is the risk / cost / benifits. The true risks of something, what benifit does a particular self defense measure give you, whats effectiveness vs what are the costs?
If your middle aged living in a nice area, with no real vices/hobbies that up your risk the odds are going to to be really really low that you end up in a violent incident. That doesn't mean doing nothing at all is the correct course of action, but it should provide context, after all the vast majority of people get through life without issue. While the issue is obviously serious, spending alot of time and effort on self defense while driving a car with a horrible safety record f/e isn't maximising your odds.
The second is what concerns you. People feel unsecure with issues in a disproportionate way to the actual odds of those events occuring depending on their particular concerns, basically if an issues bothering you why not address it though knowledge of the risk helps add context.
I have seen people mention tear gas and pepper spray. just so you know, they do not effect everyone. I do know more than just a few people who are not effected by either tear gas or pepper spray.
Especially if he's got a knife...not effective soon enough or decisive enough. Even a gun is barely so.
First, sorry if this is the wrong forum - this is not a 'live-off-the-grid' question. But this seemed like the closest subject.
I'm a middle aged man who is not physically imposing. I'm 5'8" with an average build. Someone once said to me 'You don't look like you would hurt anyone'. He meant it as an insult, I take it as a compliment. In fact, it often helps that people are generally not threatened by my presence. People get relaxed, they are nice to me and are easy to deal with.
I don't drink alcohol and live a boring middle class, middle aged old fogey life. I don't cut people off in traffic and I'm polite to people. Even if I disagree with you, I'd rather hear your point of view than argue. In public, I do what most people do - I watch my surroundings and notice who is around me. In case of conflict, my first thought is how to defuse, deescalate and get out of there.
So it's all good. I don't feel I have a big need for self-defense. But that doesn't mean I have none. The flipside of being non-threatening is people who mean harm might see me as an easy target. I have to imagine there will be cases - very rare cases - where somebody just decides to do me harm. Maybe they intend robbery, maybe the voice in their head, maybe poor impulse control.
I know the guidelines say 'Don't ask for the best kind of -', but I wonder what people's thoughts are? Would you recommend some training in physical martial art (Krav Marga, Aikido), or pepper spray or taser?
Or is the realistic chance of my being attacked low enough it probably isn't worth it?
When I was young at the time to build up physically, I dropped out on that. I didn't feel like being beaten by a 4'2" person, while I was 6 feet tall. If anybody who was familiar with fighting, they would say the sizes don't really matter.
There was an internet game, which was called ?Heaven. It was the preceders of the renowned World of Warcraft. In ?Heaven, everybody had their ways to survive. One of my friend chose to be a musian. And when his character played his instrument, all the enemies danced.
Okay, now in the hard way, you might want to practice boxing. It's the an effective art for a westerner. But some people said boxing causing brain damages. So you have to beware.
If you want weapons, then a pepper spray with a pair of handcuffs. A pepper spray could deal with a crowd of up to 7 men in the normal condition.
If you meet psychopaths, believe me: the psychopaths are unstoppable. No known anti-personnel weapons could stop them.
Guns are best because in more than 99 percent of encounters the mere presence of the gun deters the attacker.
You'd think this but if you look at cities like Chicago and the neighborhoods where most gun attacks happen, there all in areas where both the attacker and victim are likely to be armed. There are some bars and clubs where a shooting happens every weekend and someone shoots back. Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws, yet the areas where most shootings happen are those neighborhoods where most people tend to ignore the law and carry a gun anyway. where the shootings happen most are the areas where you'd expect more armed people to congregate, so there's no deterrent aspect. shooting first deters or disables the attacker, whether they're armed is irrelevant.
If you meet psychopaths, believe me: the psychopaths are unstoppable. No known anti-personnel weapons could stop them.
"Psychopaths" are not any different from anyone else in their ability to withstand a pistol round--check the meaning of the word.
But for violent people who may be sustained by certain drugs or highly aggravated mental states, hand grenades, .308, and major caliber handgun rounds to the head do work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
