Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumDoes anybody have a common sense solution
for an individual when they are assaulted by another? Does anyone have a common sense solution for when that happens?
Now, before the statistics, Federalist papers, psychological assessments, international comparisons, constitutional dissertations, survey studies and other assorted esoteric reasoning appears that's not what I'm looking for.
What common sense solution do you offer people at the time and location of the assault?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)nobody ever gets mugged in a police station? Why is that?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)a camera or an air horn or something.
The bad guys typically don't assault people where there is help available. Remember that woman who was raped and murdered screaming for help, I think it was in New York, and nobody helped?
Yelling "fire" might work sometimes, but I wouldn't ask anybody to bet their life on it.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)alarm to go off every time the police assaulted a suspect?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Oswald was killed by Ruby because he threatened to "sing"
tama
(9,137 posts)just like other animals. Choice depends on situation.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)how badass fast you are. Do you think that advice is sufficient for a fifty year old woman with a bad knee?
I thought you were asking about common sense 
I have no idea what you are fishing for - suggesting that fifty year old woman with a bad knee should nuke Iran???
rrneck
(17,671 posts)In the guns forum. Foreign affairs is thataway.
Most of the people I know wouldn't stand a chance against an attacker who had no weapon at all, much less against one with a club or a knife.
Common sense is a sort of applied solution. I'm asking for a solution that most anyone could apply to the problem of assault when it happens.
Didn't look which group this was...
This is probably not the practical solution that you are looking for, and easier said than done, but not feeling afraid does work miracles.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)But the question that immediately follows is would you ask someone to stake their life on it?
I'm expecting this thread to sink like a stone.
tama
(9,137 posts)Fear of death. Just a fear. A conscious symbolic and temporal projection from imaginary event or situation to present emotional state and action. Very different from whole-body instinct flee-or-fight reactions to threatening situations here and now, which are highly energized ("addrenaline rush" etc) and focused here-and-now moments.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)the objective is a solution for physical violence at the moment it happens.
"If I knew where I was going to die I wouldn't go near the place." -- Irish proverb (I think)
Those who engage in peaceful revolutionary tactics against oppressive violent regimes have lot's of practical experience and know-how on how to prepare for such situations, how to face and overcome fear and not to act out of fear but from compassion. Same with most Eastern martial arts. There are many ways to practice and prepare.
Guns are for cowards.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...that some of the foremost practitioners of Eastern martial arts, the Japanese Samurai, adopted the use of firearms after they were brought in by the Portuguese. There are martial arts today that train in the use of firearms.
tama
(9,137 posts)beside the point.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)against personal assault will just get the shit kicked out of you or get you killed. Protest tactics work because A) a whole bunch of people engage in them as a group and B)there is a legal framework that legitimized a political objective. None of those conditions exist in the event of a personal assault. There is no law or a crowd of people to help.
Martial arts requires extensive, continuous training to even hope to be effective. Only a talented athlete could hope to use martial arts against a single attacker, much less more than one. Most people don't have the time or ability to be that kind of athlete.
tama
(9,137 posts)I know it can be hard to let go of, but not impossible.
Mention of martial arts was about their ability to build character and freedom from fear. Not about Hong Kong movies and kicking ass.
does one escape the "frame of fear" when assault immanent? How do you think your way out of an assault?
thinking just slows and confuses the body. Fear in the context of this discussion is just a thought.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)And if you mention "natural fighting skills" I'm going to laugh my ass off.
tama
(9,137 posts)and almost lost your balance, but managed to correct and didn't fall and get hurt? Did *you* (as a thought - form) consciously think how to move your feet to correct and keep your balance? Or did *you* (as human body) just act automatically without thinking?
Similarly, most people don't have any idea how fast they can run - without thinking.
like most people I learned how to recover from a stumble while learning to walk. It's called training.
Have you ever had somebody twice your size and strength shove you on your ass?
A person's body can only perform within its physical limitations, no matter how much we may want to do otherwise. It takes training and a healthy well designed body for that to be effective. And that is of course provided one has an avenue of escape to run to. Its generally a bad idea to turn your back on your opponent unless you are sure you can escape. In the real world, they'll just chase you down and stomp the shit out of you.
tama
(9,137 posts)and beaten. It was good lesson to learn about foolish pride. It was a bitter pill but after a while I gathered my strength and I thanked the guy with anger management problem who gave me that valuable lesson.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...and have known a few masters and grandmasters in a handful of different disciplines. None of them ever said anything about kicking ass. Building character is the essence of many martial arts but courage is not freedom from fear. Only fools are not afraid in the face of violence and danger. Courage is the strength to do what is needed in the presence of fear.
tama
(9,137 posts)fear has many faces and aspects. You can keep on building mental images to feed and grow fear, which affects how you react and makes you more likely to surrender to fear and panic and act out of fear with tragic consequenses. Or you can practice to recognize and accept and face your fears, which builds character and gives you aura of confidence, which strangely enough tends to keep you out of trouble.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...can "feed and grow fear" but training is what should affect how you react.
"...gives you aura of confidence, which strangely enough tends to keep you out of trouble."
I don't see a scientific foundation for this so I would take BNT over PFM but a BFG beats BNT. 
tama
(9,137 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)For a long time I struggled with giving up the one you have now. Less is more. 
translation:
BNT = Bujinkan Ninpo Taijutsu
PFM = Pure f'ing magic
BFG = Big f'ing gun
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)Protest tactics work when a government respects the rights of individuals. The sad fact is that sometimes folks like He Zhi Hua have a very bad day. Such incidents are the very reason for our 2A protections. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/27/he-zhi-hua-protestor-crushed-to-death-by-steamroller-in-chinese-government-relocation-drive-_n_1918494.html?GEP
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Demanding respect don't mean shit when they can drag you out of your house and disappear you.
tama
(9,137 posts)if I read my Jefferson correctly, "2A protection" was protection against standing army and all the tyranny and despotism (MIC, military imperialism, etc. etc.) that follows from Government of standing army. You people lost that battle long long time ago, and "2A protection" is absolutely meaningless against US standing army and other government mechanisms of violent oppression.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)...do not make it so
what do you plan to do when the fight starts, regardless of who starts it?
tama
(9,137 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)I'm not offering you solutions, go find your own fucking solutions!
And to tell you the truth, of course I plan in the sense of imagining and daydreaming all kinds of stuff, I just don't plan to stick to any plan. What happens happens, it's all out of control anyway so why not relax?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)What's yours?
tama
(9,137 posts)that require "solutions" by obsessing about such situations.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)listened to the rain and thought about how to answer your question. Then I gave up thinking about it.
Do you like ponies?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)if I can get enough barbeque sauce on it.
You asked what I was fishing for earlier. I never expected a solution, or even a straight answer. I got what I expected: a brilliant display of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalized thinking surrounding one of the oldest problems in human history. An awful lot of people can't even approach the problem. Interesting.
what did Einstein say about problem solving?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I'm not aware of a solution for that problem. Neither, apparently, was Einstein.
Multiple attempts at a solution are a luxury. Even in our rather safe, mundane world there are some problems you may only get to try to solve once.
Old joke:
In an army parachute training class the Sargent was explaining how to deploy the reserve parschute. A recruit raised his hand and asked, "How long do we have to deploy the reserve chute"? The Sargent replied, "The rest of your life son".
tama
(9,137 posts)"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." - Albert Einstein
rrneck
(17,671 posts)that pitted two opponents in a chess match. One was a nerdy chess master, the other a prize fighter. The board was in the center of a boxing ring. The chess master made the first carefully considered move. The fighter responded by punching him out of his chair.
It seems they had two different solutions to the same problem.
The movement of one's level of awareness must be allowed to go either up or down in search of a solution, depending on the problem.
tama
(9,137 posts)but perhaps there are also other dimensions besides up and down. In your example the boxer didn't level with the chess player (or another boxer of same weight class). A classic joke about complexities of superiority-inferiority complexes, which may very well be at the root of the problem. So perhaps in this particular problem the solution is not in birds-eye-view level of top-down normative quest for what everybody (else) should be doing, but movement of awareness to level with various layers and scales of environment starting from most immediate?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)is immanent serious injury or death by someone intent in doing you harm. His reasons for doing so are moot. Your feelings on the matter are moot. You won't get to determine how you think about it. Gravity is unavoidable, you are falling, what kind of parachute do you have?
You can't change physics with attitude. That's just magical thinking. At the time of the assault, you have one chance and a mistake could kill you. And the question remains, what common sense real world solution gives you the best chance of survival?
tama
(9,137 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)I'm looking for a solution that resolves the disparity of force between attacker and victim. That force is real and immediate, as are the consequences.
Do you know how to change a flat tire? There are any number of processes for that, some better than others. None of them will work by thinking about it.
tama
(9,137 posts)Yes. I appear helpless and cute and then a handsome German Alpine Jaeger comes to rescue. Just plain common sense.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)An assault is another inconvenient real world problem. Thankfully, much more rare, but the consequences of failure are much worse. All I'm asking for in the OP is a workable, common sense solution for that problem.
but you use all your energy to argue against common sense, which does not need any additional definitions, descriptions or prescriptions, but is as such already the solution.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)offer in the way of a solution?
A good way to tell how well grounded in reality your solution might be is to ask yourself whether or not you would assume responsibility for its failure.
common sense.
"Realism" is a metaphysical philosophical issue open to discussion. Unless you want to beat other participants into submission to accept your metaphysical view.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Such things won't keep you alive any more than they will give you a lift home.
What would you have us actually do?
tama
(9,137 posts)so thank you for that. Personally I'm partial to do-nothing-revolution, but please don't let that restrict your actions in any way. 
rrneck
(17,671 posts)So you would have the victim of an assault do nothing? Just stand There and get her guts stomped out? Does that sound like common sense?
tama
(9,137 posts)does not make me feel victim in any way.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I didn't ask about feelings. The question concerns actions.
tama
(9,137 posts)Besides the most obvious, I just made couple of sandwiches and I'm listening to Finnish-American Wobbly songs.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)That doesn't sound like very sound advice. Reasoning is certainly worth a try, but violence is distinctly unreasonable. Anyone intent on violence will, by definition, be beyond reason.
Yours is one of three options already mentioned in this thread: run, fight, or talk fast. What would you have us do when running and talking have either failed or are not an option?
tama
(9,137 posts)is based on presuppositions that I don't necessarily share. For example, what is violence? Could demand that I accept your definition of violence without questions and stay silent of the notions I may attach to the word be violence?
vi·o·lence/ˈvī
ə ləns/ Noun to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. destructive natural force. Synonyms force - vehemence - outrage - severity - fury
tama
(9,137 posts)can be seen as authoritarian "destructive natural forces" against common sense discussions. 
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Assault. Ass whipping. Beating. Murder. Rape. Mayhem. Physical damage to human physiognomy.
It's not that complicated.
It's simple enough to discuss. Why are you unable to broach the subject?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)Nice to learn Swahili.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)I meditate for peace and patience in dealing with people, unfortunately there are people who do not share my views. I therefore keep my options open. I find target shooting very Zen. It requires patience, concentration and discipline. Compassion works on human beings, some people are driven by animal instincts, adrenalin and drugs.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)You are the very embodiment of culture war.
tama
(9,137 posts)"The very embodiment of culture war" is the nicest thing anyone ever said to me.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I'm a 64-year-old woman ... but I grew up in Brooklyn, NY and even then cities were dangerous places. So my common sense solution is to always be aware of your surroundings and do your damnedest to stay out of dark, lonely or dangerous places.
Furthermore, you need to better define the parameters of the assault. Is this an assault carried out by a stranger? A friend/boyfriend? A family member?
loves_dulcinea
(417 posts)generally you will want something with at least 1.5M scoville heat units, the higher the scoville rating the better the product.
the types of delivery are:
stream; advantage- imparts longer range. disadvantage- firing too close to target can cut through skin
mist; advantage- don't have to aim carefully. disadvantage- range is limited, wind will push it back to you.
foam; advantage- really none that i can think of. disadvantage- shortened range.
i generally would agree with Sekhmets daughter about awareness of surroundings and avoiding dark places. I would also elaborate on the word "lonely" by saying do not be alone if you can help it at all.
learn to use what is available as a weapon. squeeze your keys between you fingers and rake his eyes out.
learn to have the intention to maim an individual, a rapist will emotionally maim a woman, he should be made to look like the monster he is.
uhhh, and other stuff.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)this is some of the things I teach in self defense classes that our dept. puts on.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The circumstances surrounding the assault are not really germane. Let's face it, dead is dead.
Pepper spray is not bad, and a lot of people use it. The real plus is that its less than lethal. Killing people is always wrong, so you don't have to worry about that.
But there are disadvantages. Less than lethal means less effective. They may be able to fight through it. Goggles could become the next bad guy fashion statement. Since most bankruptcies happen because of medical expenses, one swipe with a knife could wreck your life without killing you. Or kill you anyway.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Most people would want to temper their response to the circumstances of the assault. For example, I would not be willing to kill a boyfriend (when I was young and had to deal with such things) who became aggressive because I said NO...but I'd be more than willing to defend myself with the physical force necessary to stop him.... The same holds true with a family member....
Strangers become a whole different ballgame and if you can't avoid being in the situation then you MUST be willing to kill in order to protect yourself....If you're not willing to do so, you have reduced your chances of escaping intact.
I don't know what answer you're expecting to find.... I do know the safest thing to do is avoidance.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)But can we really make a distinction between death by a stranger and death by a boyfriend? There are any number of things that can and should be done prior to the event, but if the event occurs other measures either failed or were not employed and we're left with the same, single, solitary problem. All other considerations become moot. What then?
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)I have a friend who's husband died. She has a teen daughter, both still work the farm and run the produce stand. Three punk males tried to muscle the cash box away from her one afternoon. She took a few hits and then unloaded two cans of wasp spray on them. A good 15' non stop stream to drive the attackers away. The three cretins were arrested in the hospital. Not exactly portable but a powerful in store/in home item to be aware of.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Of course, each assault has to be assessed on it's own merits, but in general, one should avoid the apprehended violence before it occurs. Diffusing a situation should be the goal, rather than escalation. If that fails, then extricating oneself from the situation should be foremost, before the assault becomes battery. This can often be accomplished by walking or running away from the assailant.
As a last resort, when no exit is available, then one may have to stand one's ground, using whatever skills and tools available, keeping in mind that any force used should be commensurate to that of the assailant. Using a handgun in such a situation runs the risk of unacceptable escalation, except in the most extreme of cases.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)That's called a continuum of force.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)So if he is 6'3" 240lbs and drunk I should "duke it out" with him?
Self defense is not a sport, the Marquess of Queensberry rules do not apply.
If I am attacked I will reply with all of the force I can muster, I am the one attacked, I set the rules of defense.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You will have to decide when someone is tall enough or heavy enough to be shot and you will have to live with the consequences.
If some guy shoves you aside to get to the ammo counter, do you apply all of the force you can muster? And technically that would constitute battery.
How about a guy holding a rock, within throwing distance, and he verbally threatens you? That's an assault.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"If some guy shoves you aside to get to the ammo counter, do you apply all of the force you can muster? And technically that would constitute battery. "
Technically it would. If you believe that to be an assault then go for it. As for myself I would consider it to be the act of a rude asshole, and I do not interact with rude people.
As for the other. I have a better rock thrower than he does, it is faster and more accurate. Verbal threats only mean that I raise my awareness another level, nothing more.
You have never been in CQ combat before have you? A strong voice and a few judo moves only get you very dead.
I have decided before, and I do live with the consequences. I pray that neither you, or anybody else has to do the same.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If someone makes a verbal threat and is capable of carrying out that threat, it constitutes an assault. Your response, that you would raise your awareness is appropriate.
And yes, I have been in CQ combat. There were a few guys who didn't like being arrested. Not many, but a few and they were all bigger than me. They took a little persuading and nobody got hurt, at least not permanently.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)CQ combat is close range with a HK91 in the bush. Can't see more than 10 ft due to the cover. He knows you are there and you know he is there. You just don't know "where". Knives, assagias, bolos and machetes all play a part.
Scary shit, damn glad it's over. Still gives me the shakes.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts) Oneka
(653 posts)ST. CLOUD, Minn. (AP) — A 17-year-old Sauk Rapids boy was charged with murder Tuesday in the death of a college student who was punched once in the face in a St. Cloud alley.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Teen-charged-with-murder-in-St-Cloud-alley-punch-3891838.php#ixzz27islK0Cc
Size[or age] really has nothing to do with the lethality, of physical violence.
The perception to a jury, is a whole other matter.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Your link is not about an assault, but rather assault and battery, resulting in death.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)There are only three options when confronted with violence.
Run, submit, or fight.
These are your only choices.
All of these require physical strength, stamina, or skill greater than your attacker, unless you have a tool that negates strength, stamina, and skill.
There is only one tool in existence today that reliably does this: The firearm.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's hard to argue with that.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)If a person considering to invade my home "thinks" they may be greeted with overwhelming force, then they may change their mind. The thought of facing a firearm has therefore prevented a crime. If firearms are banished, then the fear for the criminal is eliminated.
DWC
(911 posts)1. Practice vigilant situational awareness always.
2. Avoid any potentially violent situation if possible
3. If avoidance is not possible and you are subjected to an attack, aggressively exert maximum possible force in your defense to stop the attacker(s).
Semper Fi,
Cary
(11,746 posts)First choice is not to be there in the first place. If you use common sense and street smarts you can avoid being assaulted.
Second choice is to run like the wind. There is nothing glamorous about a real fight. The average real fight last 17 seconds and is nothing like what you see in the movies, and it's street time meaning your assailant could have a knife (deadlier than a gun at short range). If your assailant has a knife chances are you're dead. If not a knife there might be an assailant's friend somewhere nearby. Running is good. Take your wallet, throw it in one direction and run in the other.
Third choice is to grab anything that could be used as a weapon. Equalize your chances as best you can.
Never grapple. Strike and run.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)take a look around. How many of the people you see will be able to employ that solution against a thirty year old assailant that spent half his life in the penal system lifting weights and learning how to brutalize people? Does that really sound like a workable solution for the vast majority of people?
tama
(9,137 posts)social acceptance for your (if I interpret correctly) wish to carry firearm where ever you go?
No problem, be as big coward as you want and need to be, it's your choice.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)very fast, in most of the areas I worked in.
DollarBillHines
(1,922 posts)I think a lot of these people have very little experience with bad situations.
To paraphrase Deputy Fife, "There are two kinds - the quick, and the dead".
tama
(9,137 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I was a US Marine for eight years, twice to RVN, once to the ROK, 4 years stateside as a Small Arms Trainer. 15 years Africa, mainly SA and Rhodesia in ranch security, 10 more years in Asia, S America, and Europe as a personal protection agent.
Been shot three times, knifed a few, non of which were much fun. Retired now, working as a handyman.
Life is good.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
tama
(9,137 posts)baiting drunk macho "accidents prone to happen" and then talking and walking away from the situations without a fight. Usually as good friends.
Not a young man anymore, good to age.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)with 30 silver coins.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)There is no need to insult people here just because you can't come up with an adaquate solution.
It was a fairly simple question. Your reply seems to be "I don't know".
The internet is not the real world. Here's a little experiment for you. Go to a biker bar, pick out out the biggest baddest biker there, slap him on the ear and call him a shitstain moped riding taint son of a dog. Let us know if you're able to think your way out of that one.
Cary
(11,746 posts)For all of my training when you get into a real fight the choreographed movements are useless. For one thing, no one is going to let you execute any of the cool moves. You don't do choreographed moves because that's too slow. You don't think. You just move in the spirit of the style and according to your training.
In my case it's Bagua, Hsing Yi, and Tai Chi. By the way you don't peak in these styles until you're about 60. So, yes, it does work against someone younger. Bagua is about coiling and striking on the move. Hsing Yi is about posturing in the right structure in order to channel energy to and from the opponent through your body and to and from the ground, yielding amazing force even at an advanced age. Tai Chi, believe it or not, is about speed through relaxation.
We have an overlay of something called "pre-heaven power." There's nothing magic about any of this. It's physics. It's not going to guarantee a victory but it can work.
There are no guarantees. Even if you have a gun, there's no guarantee. As I said the opponent could have a friend waiting to blow you away before you even know it.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)your solution is years of training into your 60's. Do you really think that's feasible for the vast majority of people?
Cary
(11,746 posts)I answered the question the best way I know how to answer it. You don't like the way I answered it, that's your problem. Not mine.
Everyone can put up the best fight that they can, if they have to. This was about common sense advice.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)So, what options should people NOT use?
Cary
(11,746 posts)It's a last ditch effort. You do what you can do.
Even total capitulation may work. You don't have a crystal ball.
But are there any self defense options that you feel should not br available for use?
Cary
(11,746 posts)Absolutely workable. I have spent 52 years, mostly in Chicago. I have never been in a real situation.
Running? Not as effective but still workable, avoidance fails.
Grabbing something and using it as a weapon, not ideal but at that point where 1 and 2 have failed it's the best alternative you have. Again, if the opponent has a knife you usually never see it and if you get cut anywhere your capabilities diminish because you're in shock. The knife is very deadly in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, and the learning curve is very short.
Throwing the wallet and running the other way may help. Again, it is a fallback position.
Low kicks are probably the next alternative but if the opponent has a knife it only prolongs things. Most empty hand disarming techniques, forget about it.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)more skill and stamina than most people possess.
Again, look around you. How many people would prevail in hand to hand combat?
Cary
(11,746 posts)I don't think so. Almost anyone can run away. Picking up a stick or any other object? What skill is that?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The effective use of melee weapons takes tremendous training.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Not sure why you don't understand that. It should be obvious.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Care to state the obvious?
Cary
(11,746 posts)This game is boring. Have a nice life.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It's okay to admit you don't know. It should be embarrassing to know and not admit it.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Avoid trouble if you can. Be aware of your surroundings. If you sense trouble, run like hell if you can, even if you happen to be armed with a weapon. You really, REALLY don't want to use a weapon against someone unless you are cornered and have no route of egress.
There is nothing glamorous about a real fight. The average real fight last 17 seconds and is nothing like what you see in the movies, and it's street time meaning your assailant could have a knife (deadlier than a gun at short range).
My edged weapons instructor was a former San Bernardino County Sheriff's Deputy. He had spent some time working as a guard at one of the jails. He had a bunch of videos of prison fights involving edged weapons.
The fights were indeed brief and shockingly grisly. Knowing what a real fight looks like provides a STRONG incentive to avoid getting into one.
Cary
(11,746 posts)There is a very good series, a couple of years ago, on some studies in Blackbelt Magazine.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)a real man doesn't need a gun.
(a real man would be someone like Mike Bloomberg. Using his wonderful beautiful mind for common sense solutions like banning all guns and bullets.)
Common sense means you know when to give your purse/wallet up.
May Michael Bloomberg use every last penny he owns and bring down the blackmailing #1 lobby group who blackmails politicians into voting with them.
A real man will audit the NRA and see where the money trail leads, take away their tax exemption and protect the first amendment rights of those that are shot by an asshole vigilante like Zimmerman in the back coward style because he didn't like what color one is.
A real man needs no gun.
Only an idiot would fight a member of a mafia gang one on one, when the mafia will send any number of people out afterward
This wild wild west tactic is so 1850s, so republican.
Sometimes the real man, real woman will get sand kicked in their face, and you let it pass.
That is what an adult would do.
Don't let the "Mike Dukakis" gotcha question fool you. Real men and women don't need guns.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)You win the irony award for this thread. But Just in case you're serious, what actual solution do you have?
a whole lot of nothing about nothing and a whole lot of rambling just to ramble.
I still don't know what the hell he/she is talking about. 
rrneck
(17,671 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you hire better security or have a better security system making guns not needed
Most career criminals don't use a gun, as they know the sentence they receive will be harsher
Most random crime can be stopped and has through generational change
Making drugs legal and cheap would get the user their drugs legally and not needing to rob
IF you are serious about discussing who commits crime, one needs to take the racial stereotype out of who the perp is
and you need to wonder why some say having more security takes away some phony right or makes a "fascist state" yet having the wild wild west is okay by those same people with the live by the gun, die by the gun mentality.
I find "the gun people" are not looking for a real answer, but some excuse to carry their guns at all time and shoot to kill then say oops, their life was in danger.
Me, I find those gun people are putting my life in danger and will argue any situation where they want a gun, I will say a gun would make it worse.
Keep a gun out of a movie theatre, and the perp won't shoot the place up, if they can't get the gun in the theatre in the first place(or on public property). There are ways, there are machines and yes, I am ok with more security to allow me my freedom to sit in a theatre in peace and watch any movie I want.
(and no, we can't stop 100%, but sometimes having everyone armed only leads to an anarchy situation.)
As for stop and frisk, the problem is who the cops stop, always the miinority group. Make it fair, frisk everyone black and white. (Like they do in NYC at Madison Square Garden since the 1970s when entering, any and everyone is frisked. Don't like it? Don't go.
(and they are not always looking for weapons but drinks, but anyone who goes to the Garden knows to expect that and enters freely knowing it will happen.)
That person in a dark theatre might not be the perp one is shooting at
(and go to a sci-fi movie or convention, if you start shooting everyone in a Darth Vader costume, or Joker costume, you may shoot up the whole place.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)1. A lot of people can't afford to hire their own security or afford the cost of a security system. There are ways to proof your home, but they aren't fool proof and a gun offers an alternative.
2. You're correct that most career perps don't us guns, but most gang members and wannabe's do, they don't give a shit about the consequences. Matter of fact, they consider prison time as a mark of respect.
3. Random crime can't be usually stopped, hence the word random.
4. I agree to ending the war on drugs, that would help reduce the violence associated with drugs.
5. In my job, I don't stereotype criminals.
6. This dumbass thinking that "gun people" just want to shoot people shows just how ignorant you are of gun owners. I know lots of CC permit holders and not one of them think like that.
7. If a venue is willing to provide the necessary security to keep me safe, then, no problem.
8. I am not fine with stop and frisk, this is, IMHO, blatantly unconstitutional, and I speak as a cop.
You will find that most most cops have no problem with citizens carrying concealed weapons, again, I speak as a cop.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)What is a gang? Gang has stereotypical thoughts by most people
Are you referring to a bunch of hooligans drinking in a bar after a soccer game?
Are you referring to the mafia?
A street gang?
only a fool would fight one person in a gang with a gun.
When all the other so called gang members will avenge that death far more violently than if you just walked away. And go after ones family that way too
The old fashioned stereotyped mafia 99% of the time kept it in family and not outside, but of course, the outer reaches of those mobs indeed affected regular people, but as the person who accidentally ran over the head mobsters son who was riding a bike found, no weapon of protection saved that guy from ending up in a vat of acid.
You know lots of permit holders in #6, but then you don't know every single one of them.
Guns don't stop crime. Yet guns will stop people from assembling for fear of the wild wild west.
And if one has a gun in a house and its 3am, and the house has kids, the gun is suppose to be locked up, so the little kid can't access it thinking its a toy.
If a gun is locked up, the break in criminal will have the time advantage and your gun won't do you any good
In NYC in the 1970s, when crime was the worst it ever was, people used gates and ten locks and this and that to protect themselves. If you ask me, all that lead to was those people imprisioning themselves behind bars to make them feel safe. Comes a point that is far more dangerous to ones state of mind than the 1 in a million chance someone would break in.
Might as well never take a bath figuring that way you won't get electrocuted by a lighting storm.
There are ways to make guns obsolete, and/or bullets obsolete. Or one day there will be new methods(much like the physical having an abortion is slowly but surely not needed to have the same result in the privacy ).
BTW-as to gang members, people join gangs when they have no other choices in their life to achieve. Give those kids some opportunities and respect, and they don't need to be in those so called gangs in the first place.
But it is generational, and there always is a new demographic that appears that is prey to gangs.(Of course, it is some mega-rich person at the top of the chain needing the lowest level, just like any corporation).
Things can be done.
Provide people the services say a gang or mafia provides their citizens,(protection, opportunity), and the bad gangs are taken out of the equation. (whomever they might be).
It could happen someday.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)harden the target (throw money at the problem). There's a 1% solution if there ever was one.
But let's imagine for a minute that most people can't hire a private body guard to follow them around 24/7. Some call it the real world. What solution do you offer when someone is assaulted by a larger, stronger, and more aggressive person armed with a knife, club, or even just fists and feet?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)or is your ideal situation the laugh out loud joke in "raiders of the lost ark" when Indy pulls his gun and shoots the big dude with the big knife?
[img]
[/img]
(all he had to do was run the other way and get out of it, but it was a great iconic moment in the movies.)
I survived the fabled "mean" streets of NYC riding subways at 3 or 4 am nightly in the 1970s and was never bothered once. Avoiding the situation when you can, acting like one belongs there, always knowing where you are
OR
the old acceptance canard
grant me the serenty to accept the things I cannot change
change the things I can
and to know the difference
Just back away, it is not being a coward to not fight. Especially when fighting will lead to someones family member being hurt. Having a gun won't save you if they have more guns or are better than you at that very moment in using it.
(applied to world situations- having a drone kill a top level member of a "gang" is alot better than having 20,000 kids die in a war to get the same person, IMHO).
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Turning your back on an attacker with an edged weapon that close to you is a very good way to get killed.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)pulling out a gun and wildly shooting to protect oneselves in an outdoor situation just leads to innocent others being shot and you assume the person with the big knife would follow you or have the stamina carrying that big weapon any distance.
(odds are a cop would be around to arrest a person carrying a major size weapon in public).
Pulling out a gun without knowing if there is a second person in the vicinity working with a perp could easily lead to your getting killed by the second person, and what, have a ten second satisfaction that you shot the first one?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)It doesn't change my opinion of you. Come up with all the "what ifs" you desire to reinforce your beliefs. I could show you stats on CCW shootings vs police shootings or crime rates between the two, but I have a feeling it would fall on deaf ears.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)because there are no stats easily seen for the reverse.
Why?
Because until Mike Bloomberg came around, no one really takes the other side that is of any consequence.
Mike Bloomberg is the first threat to take down the NRA that has the money himself to do it.
He don't need another penny. If he wants to, he can do it himself.
(but of course, should he start a full fledged campaign, millions will flow in from "the silent majority".
the NRA would lose their bully (or is it bullet) pulpit once and for all.
(and lobby groups are falling popularity wise every single day these days.)
Individuals don't like NRA type lobby groups. It's not the NRA that is grass roots, but dirty little secret is, its the other side that is.
The NRA is the CEO of the corporation.(the 1%).
Mike Bloomberg can be the union the common folk(the majority) has to combat the 1%
and btw- if there was zero crime- would you then agree 100% that you can get rid of every single gun and bullet. (yeah sure, the NRA folk would do that, just shows how phony their arguments are. It's all about the gun and bullet and power that it gives those that hold it.)
Without a gun Zimmerman is a nothing. The gun made him power crazy, judge and jury and executioner. That is what guns do. Make those that are holding it think they are Superman(who never needed a gun.)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The NRA is the CEO of the corporation.(the 1%).
Mike Bloomberg can be the union the common folk(the majority) has to combat the 1%
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and his own company had one of the highest rate of employee satisfaction of any company in America, and some of the highest benefits achieved by the day to day workers.
(as mayor of course he doesn't oversee his company now day to day).
you seem to mix up your facts.(but it is a good distraction.)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you are the one claiming he is a liberal Democrat.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/bloomberg-renews-battle-with-teachers-union.html
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)same as Rahm Emanuel is not anti-union.
same as Obama IS a liberal democrat but also protects his and any future presidents rights and never waivers on presidential rights.
but then it makes a good wedge line issue to say otherwise.
and I think it is Andrew Cuomo who is against unions in NY and Andrew is the one who helps delegate money to the city. The mayor really is beholden upon the governor for the allocation of where NY states money is delegated to.
So that is really a distraction to this thread. And like anything (and as a good democrat you should know this-) issues are very complex. Not cut and dried when one is in office. Solutions are not easy and not always the way it should be today, but sometimes becomes more apparent in the future.
(like how the relatively insignificant Bloomy ban on extra large softdrinks only in places the health department rates will lead in the future to much much better for the public good rules and regs.)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in the 1950s, many say not so much at least according to his critics on the left anyway.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)for the problem? Do you have one, or have you prepared another diversionary narrative?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and most likely the odds are you will live another day and maybe the perp will go on to become someone who will cure Cancer or AIDS or something.
Look at the person as a person, not as an animal. It may be your family member that kid will help save down the road at some point
(Karma).
However, going in with a gun in advance of any situation needing a gun, makes it more likely that you will shoot first ask questions later. Even bad people are good to someone.
And there are so many strawmen in these arguments by the person on the side of concealed guns that just don't happen in real life.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)or the most naive person I've ever had a conversation with, either way, you fail in so many ways.
Go on to to cure cancer or AIDS or something.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Guess you (in the broad sense) seem to feel that some don't deserve to be here at all
Who though are you to be the great decision maker?(and who in this case is anyone with a gun wanting to use it against a so called criminal).
I don't like that concept
To me, that makes society a "master race" one
Let's kill off all those that are "bad" (whatever bad is).
Sorry, there is good in everyone, not everyone has the same opportunity to be good.
Would rather be naive than be of this type mentality. That is so wrong.(imho).
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)No, if someone is violently attacking me, I value my life over his. Whatever happens he brought on himself. One can argue you value the life of a armed robber over the life of an innocent person minding their own business.
If someone is doing violent harm to me, there is no "so called" about it
nothing to do with it
Yes, Al Capone was a devoted son and Hitler loved dogs and treat Blondie very well, and maybe he never cheated on Ava either, but they were both sociopaths.
I noticed you don't see the good in a person defending their self from home invaders, rapists, etc. I find that odd.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)long as it is protecting me.
I agree with that.
I agree that more cameras and more security in 2012 lead to less crime and is a good thing.
I fully back Mike Bloomberg in his belief about security and guns.
because the head of state or city #1 job is to protect all men and women to the fullest.
I don't agree on a one to one basis any private citizen has that right. It is anarchistic.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)for security?
I forget who said this, but those that would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither.
Your support of Bloomie tells me everything I need to know about you. I pray we never end up with the America of you visions.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)who are power hungry and will say their life was threatened and shoot anyone that looks different than they do, or whatever they feel.
Sorry but not being able to see a movie in peace because some gun nut might shoot up the place means I have no freedom in the first place
What is it Kristofferson wrote "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
If one has something, they are not 100% free to start.
for years I thought he meant something opposite to what I now believe he meant.
What seemed right in the 1960s does not make it so in 2012. Life has evolved.
one person with one gun is alot more worrysome to me if that person is a vigillante or self-proclaimed protector, because one doesn't know what is on that person's mind
Again, I would trust Mayor Mike 100% and the Zimmerman's zero percent to protect me personally.
and if 100% of all cops would become colorblind, and law abiding, I would trust them more than I do today.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but the evidence says you are wrong. There is no evidence he is a racist, in fact the evidence suggests the opposite.
Zimmerman bought the gun to protect himself, not us.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)He is a cold blooded murderer/assasssin.
Where was the clear and present danger by that time?(not assuming there ever was.)
Society as a whole has been fractured because of his deed.
The awipe that killed the kind doctor in a church thought he was protecting something too.
Bull. That person was an assasssin.
Society as a whole has been fractured because of his deed.
(same with any other asswipe asssassin in the past that altered history of something or someone by their deeds).
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If you listen to the 911 tape, and the witness that said Martin was pounding his head in the concrete, he was walking back to his car. Ask yourself this:
Why is he using using "self defense" as an affirmative defense, under the duty to retreat rules, instead of asking for an immunity hearing under SYG? Here is the thing about trial by media: they put some narrative that sells copy, ideologues will use or distort the narrative for their own purpose, and the truth that comes out in court, what the jury hears, is nothing like what the media said it was. Of course, if Martin were a working class kid from the trailer park, no one would give a shit, because his parents wouldn't be able to hire a lawyer to send press releases to the media.
According to physical evidence and a witness, Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head in the concrete. Dr. Tiller has nothing to do with it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)A jury of Martin's peers(common sense)
or a Jury of Zimmerman's.(cover up)
BTW-sorry, but your last two sentences of the first paragraph above say it all.
Of course, if no crime were announced, no one would be found guilty or innocent.
Just hidden justice.
And in general, putting a gun in a school fight is an unfair advantage and the more Zimmerman's there are out there, the quicker gun laws will change. May take years, but change will happen.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)don't give me the "cover up" shit.
Right, if Martin were a working class white kid, no one would give a shit, partly neither the left or the right actually gives a shit about "white trailer trash" and Zimmerman, being Hispanic, would have the right calling out the lynch mobs.
We are talking about someone who may have been ambushed getting his head pounded in, which can lead to death. This has nothing to do with "school yard boxing".
SYG, or self defense laws have nothing to do with gun laws. Illinois passed the first SYG law in 1961, before anyone started liberalizing CCW. By US common law, SYG dates back to the Progressive era in California and on the federal level.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)ever since I first entered the Academy 30 years ago and all that has happened is that gun laws have become more liberal.
I'm so glad that you've already convicted Zimmerman w/o the trial yet, nice example of innocent until proven guilty,
This just keeps getting better and better.
You do know that this is a progressive website don't you? Perhaps your views are more aligned with the other side. 
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)but you have the meaning all wrong. He certainly wasn't hoping for what you are saying here.
Life has evolved, but the Constitution hasn't evolved to permit what you are advocating.
I don't want to live in a country that would allow what you are preaching here, your views remind me of the leader of the former Soviet Union in the 1940's and quite frankly, that worries and scares the hell out of me. Are you sure you're in the right place?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and he wrote the whole shebang didn't he?
life evolves.
there comes a time when your 2nd so called reading of that amendment and my constitutional rights are in conflict. 2012 is that time.
Your freedoms take away my liberties and you don't even realize it. Did Zimmerman?
Did the people who made laws stating a gun belongs in a bar actually think and apply logic?
I can understand why the NRA and the gun folk are scared of someone like Bloomberg. Never before has someone with more money than the NRA has, come around to fight the lobby group.
And then there is this-
-did you see this story posted by another esteemed poster here on DU in a seperate thread?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AP
NEW FAIRFIELD, Conn. (AP) — A man fatally shot a masked teenager in self-defense outside his neighbor’s house during what appeared to be an attempted late-night burglary and then discovered it was his son, state police said.
Police identified the dead boy as 15-year-old Tyler Giuliano, who was shot at about 1 a.m. Thursday in New Fairfield, a town along the New York line just north of Danbury.
A woman who was alone in the house believed someone was breaking in and called the teen’s father, who lives next door, and he grabbed a gun and went outside to investigate, police said.
The father confronted someone wearing a black ski mask and black clothing and then fired his gun when the person went at him with a shiny weapon in his hand, police said.
Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2012/09/27/conn-man-kills-masked-boy-finds-out-his-son/YNkibrc1bn4NXiu0k30OHN/story.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it is the grass roots machine that it creates. Brady is a lobby group, and has no grassroots.
Ever been to a cop bar?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and no one is (before Mayor Mike) rich enough to fully back a revolt against this group
where 2/3 of the people or more are NOT members.
With the proper major money, the lobby group can be defeated. Wihtout that, of course most politicians are scared to open their mouths just to be defeated.
If someone like Mayor Mike does that, he has a right to support anyone who goes against them.
While I have more important issues for this time period and would not want to see Scott Brown to win, it is Bloomberg's right to advance his issue (as an American he has the right to do whatever he wants, doesn't he?)
It's funny how much that one person scares people.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Nixon predicted, and Clinton learned what happens when you piss off a good chunk of the grass roots. Ask Republican Peter Smith, who lost his seat to Bernie Sanders with the NRA's help.
Everyone is part of a "special interest group" that has at least one lobbyist.
Mike is free to do whatever he wants with his money, but you are saying I don't have the right to oppose him. In fact, you said I don't even have the right to resist violent crime.
Oneka
(653 posts)in conflict, with my "so called reading" of the 2nd amendment?
there comes a time when your 2nd so called reading of that amendment and my constitutional rights are in conflict. 2012 is that time.
Please be specific.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)my right to life liberty and my pursuit of happiness as the Declaration states about rights.
And any woman killed as an innocent bystander has lost her right to privacy hasn't she?
Oneka
(653 posts)My right, is to "own" and "carry" arms, not kill you, or in any way deprive you of your, liberty , or pursuit of happiness.
It is unlawful for me to assault you with a firearm. Carrying and assaulting you are not the same thing.
I don't see how you make that connection.
Not sure what you are getting at with a "privacy rights" argument. A woman killed as an innocent bystander, is just that, and who ever killed her , if caught , will likely face charges for it. The womans family may file suit for a civil rights violation, but it will most likely not
revolve around privacy rights.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)by the NRA folk standard
all he had to do was argue self defense, the woman was trying to kill him
and like Zimmerman, the entire NRA would be behind him.(though for some reason the NRA was not for OJ Simpson.
Rights after all are only found at the end of a gun.
If it don't fit, you gotta acquit.
Zimmerman's cold blooded assasssination of Martin was a gun lynching. Pure and simple.
Same with the murder of Dr. Tiller. And at the Empire State bldg. a few weeks ago, 10 people were injured by cops bullets, so that the perp, in a lifetime fight with the guy he shot, could commit suicide by police bullet.
Those 10 people lost their constitutional right to freedom that day, being wounded by cops shooting as if in the wild wild west.(Thankfully they were all not killed, but survived).
and some man killed his son wearing a mask yesterday, probably doing a little teenage peeping into the window of a neighbor. The man killed his own son. You really gotta laugh sometimes it is so funny and ironic.
Oneka
(653 posts)why you are bringing up OJ Simpson, his situation has little to do with me violating, your rights by carrying a gun.
Zimmerman may indeed have been a cold blooded killer, but the information that is available to the public, paints a different picture, a jury will decide , cold blooded murder, or self defense.
Those 10 people lost their constitutional right to freedom that day, being wounded by cops shooting as if in the wild wild west.(Thankfully they were all not killed, but survived).
Ok, perhaps these cops should face trial for rights violations, and perhaps their boss should also face the same, for his role in arming cops with guns with 12# trigger pulls. While we are at it, maybe we should have that same boss, face trial for his disregard for the rights to freedom, that get violated every day with his "stop and frisk" policy. Of course if you want to use this analogy of NY cops blasting away at a suspected terrorist, then your earlier statement:
I do agree 100% with say a Mike Bloomberg (more security, more cameras, less guns, less bullets).
becomes a circular argument, now doesn't it, since you really only want less guns and bullets, for civilians?
and some man killed his son wearing a mask yesterday, probably doing a little teenage peeping into the window of a neighbor. The man killed his own son. You really gotta laugh sometimes it is so funny and ironic.
Sometimes trajic shit happens, it again has little to so with your assertion that my carrying of a firearm, somehow violates your rights.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Yes this post delves into 20 different ideas not all connected, feel free to seperate those you wish).
as you say shit happens
the NYPD is run by the police commisoner who does what he wants, not what the mayor wants.
LBJ was lied to by McNamara and look what happened.
The different police commisoners have the power over the mayor.
There can't be any question that Bloomberg is better than say Giuliani was, who was in synch with police brutality and the killing of minorities with 41 or 50 shots.
Bloomberg is not like that.
People bringing in OWS have nothing to do with this subject either, so who is using double arguments here.
OJ's rights were violated by his being tried twice for the same crime regardless of his Vegas escapades that he was set up with and nobody got the penalty he did.
I brought OJ up because he was found not guilty by a jury as you brought up Zimmerman will be decided by a jury.
HOWEVER T. Martin did NOT get a jury to decide whether he was or was not guilty of bullying.
He got murdered in cold blood by the NRA getting the stupid gun laws passed.
Who is using circular articles?
The quickest way to insure too much power in a bad president is not to elect another Bush in 2016 and keep the democrats in power of all 3 elected office branches and the courts.
It seems simple.
And your rights are not violated by the Patriot act, being that congress authorized it, and funds it, as the rules in the constitution state. You may not like the Patriot act, but a good president won't much abuse it. A bad one will. It's not the act, it's the person (ah, where did I hear that argument before?)
bringing a gun to a knife fight makes for an unfair fight.
fighting a professional is a losing battle.
and only a professional army should have guns. The common person should not have bullets, even if they collect guns.
I will argue any benefit of any gun by anyone other than an army or a police force.
(Killing a cop is first degree murder in some states, not a smart move to shoot a cop).
Going back to the Kristofferson quote, most perps feel they have "nothing left to lose" so they resort to crime.
Give them life, liberty, freedom, dignity in their lives, then they have something to lose and they don't resort to crime.
And while the racist method of stop/frisk, and get rid of crime is vile and wrong, the idea behind some of the methods(arrest those for minor offenses, and voila, you find out the perps have major crime, and you get rid of the crimnal, but it has to apply fair to all races, people.)
And no, all crime is NOT committed by blacks and Mexicans and hispanics. Last I look major criminal Bernie Madoff was a rich Jewish person wasn't he?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Where ever did you get that idea? That gasbag is nothing more that all those before him, he just wants his 15 minutes of fame. Why hasn't he used his billions to emasculate the NRA? Why hasn't the IRS gone after the NRA? Why have there been no gun control legislation brought up successfully on the House or Senate? Why are there now 49 out of 50 states now with some form of CC laws? If firearm crime is so rampant, as you seem to claim, why has not 1 state moved to either restrict or repeal their CC laws?
You, my mis-informed friend, are wrong in every sense of the word. I don't know why you think that 2012 is the year for the defeat of gun rights, not even Pres. Obama agrees with your position.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and after he retires, he has based on his genes and relatives another 20 years or so to do just that.
If he wants. As an American, he can do whatever his little heart desires.
And he has vowed to spend all his money and not take it with him, and not leave it.
What better way to leave a legacy than one where guns and bullets do not exist? A world of peace and love because someone cared to help bring it about.
won't happen in 2012. Who knows what 2025 will bring. By then there might be some sort of bullet deactivation device to make it all obsolete. All it takes is money and science to invent something like that.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)you just keep on believing your pipe dream.
You know what I find ironic? The fact that I'm a Police Officer and I'm a hell of a lot more liberal progressive than you are, you seem to be more aligned with the RW in your views of the constitution insofar as dealing with crime.
I find that very telling.
tama
(9,137 posts)The real divide is not between left and right but between authoritarians and libertarians. And I like Orwell better than either Hitler or Stalin.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #206)
Post removed
tama
(9,137 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I wasn't quite sure who said it.
BTW, I fully support the Occupy protesters and their message as long as it remains a peaceful demonstration, I've dealt with Occupy protesters in my city and I've found them to be polite, well educated, well meaning people of all walks of life, and have had no problems with them at all.
Y'all keep up the good effort. 
Oneka
(653 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/nyregion/at-black-church-in-brooklyn-bloomberg-defends-stop-and-frisk-policy.html?_r=0
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It does indeed take two to fight. But it only takes one to start it. Your solution would have us capitulate to any demand that implies the threat of violence. Does that really make sense to you?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you gotta know when to walk away
know when to run away
even a punch drunk boxer knows when to throw the towel in.
All it takes is more taxes and money and we have better security
the movie theatre can have security on each and every fire exit, and in the parking lot
All it takes is some money.
Raise the price of a ticket. It's a lot cheaper than a casket.
Same everywhere.
If there are high security on each block, then someone coming in with a gun would be impossible.
and work inward and outward to change things
A gun is a false deity. Your brain can get someone out of any situation.
And the people who left Nazi Germany 2 weeks before they couldn't, got out alive, though they had to give up all their monetary possessions. Yet they got out alive and lived for many many many decades after, some still alive today, heroism was running.
this macho bravado gun bullsheet is just bullsheet. dead=dead.
the object of life is to live by peace, not by killing with a gun
BTW-mike bloomberg is a liberal democrat who only ran as a repub to win, and a winner does what a loser won't. The loser each term that ran against him is not even remembered.
Bravo to Mike Bloomberg for putting his mega money where his mouth is, and in 2014 will be retired from being mayor and can use 100% of his time on this issue, should he choose to.
I for one hope he does.
Mike Bloomberg is the grass root conduit for 75% of the country that is NOT under the spell of the NRA
Mike Bloomberg IS the equalizer against the corporation NRA.
someone said 4.3 million people were members of the NRA. There are 320 MILLION people in the US. The vast majority of people are NOT members of this blackmailing power lobby.
Oneka
(653 posts)BTW-mike bloomberg is a liberal democrat who only ran as a repub to win, and a winner does what a loser won't. The loser each term that ran against him is not even remembered.
Bravo to Mike Bloomberg for putting his mega money where his mouth is, and in 2014 will be retired from being mayor and can use 100% of his time on this issue, should he choose to.
I for one hope he does.
Mike Bloomberg is the grass root conduit for 75% of the country that is NOT under the spell of the NRA
Mike Bloomberg IS the equalizer against the corporation NRA.
So should we all put our faith in Mike Bloomberg? Is Mike, the real savior?
When i am being attacked on the streets of Minneapolis, will Mike Bloomberg, swoop down out of the heavens and save me with a
powerful "stop and frisk" on my attacker?
Your blind faith in Mike Bloomberg is a little creepy. Reminds me of some fundies i know.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)What are the cheese heads from Wisconsin going to attack Minneapolis?
I have zero faith in some solo person with a gun proporting to save me.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)it's the victim's fault if they fail to properly avoid the assault? It's the victim's fault if they can't run fast enough?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)fault? who gives a sheet who's fault it is.
Killing a supposed criminal ruins ones life anyhow. Look how all soldiers have recurrent nightmares from their war days.
A regular person (say a good person) is not meant to have the power to be judge and jury.
A cold blooded killer can handle a killing.
A good kind person cannot handle it.
fault? It doesn't play a role in the situation, it's irrelevant, immaterial and is a statement like the Dukakis question that cost Mike Dukakis his election.
A true liberal would not fight to start off with man to man. A true liberal would back off and to use the nra word- disengage from the start.
Are you saying Gahndi was wrong? Martin Luther King was wrong? Jesus was wrong?
John Lennon was wrong?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)your solution is offer no defense at all? Do nothing to avoid the guilt of hurting someone?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)there is no shame in backing off
What is this second grade and some faux sense of honor?
Remember the song "Billy Don't be a hero" and at the end his disgusted girlfriend got the medal for the dead soldier boyfriend and the song ends "I heard she threw the medal away"
a dead hero is dead.
and odds are, a person involved in a crime who will die, would also die if they had a gun. It would not save them. And if a gang member is involved, killing a gang member will most likely get your spouse, kid, family, friend killed in revenge(and yourself at a later time). You would be if you are a regular person, looking over ones shoulder the rest of your life.
Regular people cannot handle that and life would be made to be not worth it.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)So if you offer no resistance, your attacker will see the wisdom of your benevolence and leave you alone. Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to give someone what they want at the mere threat of violence? That would make the job of brutalizing others exceptionally easy (and profitable).
You do realize the current Republican candidate for president got very wealthy by pushing risk down the economic ladder. Do you also realize that he is, by definition, a fascist. Do you realize he probably doesn't even know it because it's possible to be a fascist and not know it.
Do you realize that you are demanding others assume risk to defend your ideology?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and MLK owned guns and was surrounded by people with guns.
DWC
(911 posts)to intentionally ignorant, cowardly, racist, "herd" mentality.
Semper Fi,
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)over the mass majority of the people who are not NRA members in the world
(let alone the NRA has about as many minority members as Mitt Romney does)
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)What a laugh. Grow up. A "real man" takes responsibility for his and his family's protection. Given the world we live in, that means arming yourself like it or not. Otherwise, you're depending on other armed people to protect you.
tama
(9,137 posts)for example Amish men are not "real men" and need to grow up?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I assure you every house has a weapon in it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)thank you.
(btw real men can be real women. It is not gender specific, just a term.)
tama
(9,137 posts)to Amish pacifism. "Turning the other cheek", ya know.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)that is what it is.
bull.
violence to stop violence leads to nothing.
Becoming the perp does nothing but make you the same mentality as the perp.
Wouldn't you like to think you are better than that?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I consider naive. Your false sense of superiority is just that, false.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)feeling one needs to arm themselves is living in prison
In a way, its like a lottery addict hoping they didn't win the lotto the one week they forgot to play and worrying the whole day or hours after til they can see the numbers called to know they messed up not buying the ticket.(like the one time they would have their numbers called is the one time they forgot. Yeah, sure.
Unless you put yourself daily in situations (ala The Equalizer or "Person of Interest" or Charles Bronson in Death Wish, or that Bernie vigilante guy in the NYC subways looking to get crimnals or think one would), you are stressing out over something that statistically is not going to happen. (And how many years are you cutting off your life because of that stress, and what false sense of security-
what if let's say, you carry your gun everywhere or have it under your pillow, and damn,
the exact time someone breaks in, you are in the can taking a crap and your gun is under your pillow. (or in the shower, or you and your mate are having fun).
Being beholden on that gun is to me, the same as needing that drug or smoke or drink.
That puts you in a prison. Not the criminal. Life is not about being in prison.
(yes, call it corny and naive.)
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)I also think you made a great many assumptions. I don't walk around in constant fear and I do have a weapon on me, or near by, pretty much all the time. I think being able to arm myself for my protection is one of the hallmarks of a free man. I'd would feel imprisoned if I was told by the government I COULDN'T do so.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)because you know what someone who puts their money where their mouth is will blow away the NRA without even a bead of sweat.(and without a gun or bullets).
it is amazing how the gun folks are so scared of one person. Simply amazing.
as they say, one man can change the world. That's America at its finest.
We want a peaceful non-gun, non-bullet revolution against the NRA and Guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it was legitimate self defense. One of the survivors admitted they intended to rob him and two of the surviviors went on to commit other armed robberies and rapes. Just like the African American gentleman who shot a white attacker in a nearby subway months earlier.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)little puny man who couldn't live without a gun.
His punishment did not fit the crime.
Real men don't need guns.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The Delicate Flowers in the DU Gun Lobby NEED their guns.
If they didn't pack heat, they'd be too scared to go to the supermarket, and they'd starve.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts) 
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Are you tough enough to face it?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)you're saying that I shouldn't use violence to stop the violence? Are you fucking serious? Do you have any idea how utterly stupid that sounds? I'll tell you what, if that's how you want to live your life, fine, have at it, however, don't preach how others should should counter violence.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)"to be a man" or women" ) have to follow through any "double dog dare" someone asks you?
You know how immature that is?
Being adult is not doing the stupid thing the criminal "might" be doing.
BTW-ever think the criminal is just as scared of you as you are of them? Not all crimnals are murderers and not all will use the gun. Who are YOU to decide the intent of that person?
Just because the guy in Iran bloviates, does not mean he actually literally means the hyped up words he says. Adults know when to hold back and not start a war over nothing.
[img]
[/img]
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Are you still saying that I shouldn't meet force with force? And if you say that because I am a cop and that I then should, why shouldn't Joe Citizen be afforded the same standard? They have every right to defend themselves against violence as I do, no difference. Why should a citizen have to run away in the face of danger, maybe they can't, maybe they're physically unable to, what then?
Are they then obligated to get an ass whooping or worse because you don't believe that violence shouldn't be met with violence?
Who are you to decide what others do to defend themselves?
Your statement that a gun never stopped a crime is pure, unadulterated BS, there have been many, many articles posted here of CC permit holders stopping a violent crime in progress.
You can spout all the nonsense you want, but that's all it is, nonsense. You don't get to determine how others live their lives or how they chose to defend themselves if faced with a violent situation.
tama
(9,137 posts)Guy who shoots first?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)If a perp comes at me with a weapon, any weapon, then I will respond with appropriate force up to and including deadly force.
Now that force could be my asp, pepper spray, tazer, or my service weapon.
It's up to the perp what level I will use.
tama
(9,137 posts)about political philosophy, "might makes right" or if not, how to live together peacefully and in good cheer?
Interesting to talk to a cop, I'm anarchist Occupy sympathizer. How do you feel about the treatment NYPD etc. have been giving to Occupy movement?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)brutal, abhorrent, uncalled for use of force. Now, that only applies to peaceful protesters, but when the violence starts, then the proper use of force is justified as long as ONLY the necessary use of force is used.
I am a LT with appox. 30 officers under my command and I will not tolerate the brutalizing of peaceful citizens, or for that matter, any unnecessary use of force.
I insist on treating citizens as I would want to be treated, I guess that's why I've never had to discharge my firearm yet and I hope, in the short time I have left before the big R, I don't have to.
tama
(9,137 posts)as well as the rumor that in Spain lots of riot cops called in sick.
Many if not most people active in Occupy movement - and elsewhere - consider that US (among other places) has come to the point where wise words of Declaration of Independence apply - the times we are living are pretty "interesting times". We have seen many (relatively) peaceful revolutions and new constitutions in many countries from Latin America to Iceland to Arab Spring and practically nobody wants to follow the way of Libya and Syria. Peaceful revolutions happen when police and army refuse to shoot people if and when so ordered, and join the peaceful revolution either passively or actively. Lot of activist thinking and discussion is dedicated on this, how to react to police brutality, how to open constructive dialogue with people bearing arms for the state or government which no longer has our consent, so that we don't need to follow the way of Libya and Syria.
First word that comes to my mind is patience, but that too has it's limits. You know cops, how do folks there feel about the situation and where it is going, what's your take on general sentiment there?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)the older cops generally have no tolerance towards the Occupy Movement and would, if they could, go at them like the NYPD, Oakland PD, luckily, our commanders are pretty level headed and realize that bashing in the heads of peaceful protesters is very bad publicity, now the younger crop of officers are much more tolerant and identify with the Occupy Movement while at the same time, enforcing the laws fairly and compassionately, which is something I insist on.
Hope that helps.
I would like to tell you what city I work in but I have this thing with privacy, hope you understand.
tama
(9,137 posts)generation divide, hadn't thought about that. Privacy is good, don't want any trouble for you.
And GO TEXAS!, this just in:
City's ban on Occupy Austin ruled unconstitutional
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12523812
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I fully support the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances.
Keep up the good work with the Occupy Movement, you'd be surprised at how many in the LE community support the movement.
tama
(9,137 posts)which may be significant. General Assemblies have generally not chosen to "petition the Government for a redress of Grievances" because that would mean recognizing Government as political authority over General Assembly. You probably know Jefferson's Declaration of Independence well enough to get the drift. For example Spanish General Assembly, in latest news, has been so loud clear about not petitioning Government but demanding that it resigns, that the Spanish PM is accusing them of attempting a coup. In Greece situation is similar, with the main difference perhaps that many Greeks already consider that it's a failed state and "Government" has lost meaning.
In US OWS chose not to protest Washington but to point at WS as the de facto US Government.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)You are trained, and hopefully apply your training 100% the way it should be.
I thought though that police are suppose to be taught to ask questions then shoot. That is the way it is suppose to be.
And to be honest, you say you are a police officer, for sake of not diverting thread I will agree that you are, and are an honest one and all that. And for the sake of not diverting the thread I won't put my feelings of how SOME are not honest and all that and some shoot first ask questions later especially in the case of minorities.
I do not know any police officer, or person who was in the armed forces(yes, I know them) who say any private person should be armed and shoot at will when thinking the situation might call for force(who decides?)
A professional has the ability to say they did it in the line of work they are in.
A professional has a badge.
Anyone else is breaking the law pretending to be one.
And why is "running away" a bad thing if all live to see another day?
What is this ridiculous code of honor bullsheet? Not fighting takes more courage than picking up a gun. Fighting is the easy way out (imho).
This gun view to me is highly dangerous to most everyone and everything that civilized mankind should be doing in 2012.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and physically impossible.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)have almost 30 years in. Yes, we are taught to ask questions, but not when there is a definite threat of violence or violence is imminent.
I can assure you that most street cops to support law abiding citizens carrying guns, and I believe I have much more experience in this than you do.
You ask who decides, the perp decides when a citizen needs to use force to stop the crime, and where do you get this shoot at will nonsense?
I have yet to see that happen.
Every CC permit holder I've ever met, and in my line of work, I have met a lot, have been very polite and respectful, these are very level headed people who want nothing more than to not have to deploy their weapon, much less use it.
I don't know where you get this idea that they are people just waiting to shoot someone, maybe you can post some stats on this.
You didn't answer my earlier question, suppose the victim can't run away, suppose they are not physically able to, then what, are they supposed to get robbed, possibly injured or worse, killed? Why? Because you don't believe that citizens should meet force with force?
That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far.
Why am I any different than a citizen? Because I'm a cop? No, I'm no different than Joe Citizen when it comes to defending themselves.
Citizens are responsible for their own safety, cops are rarely there to prevent crime, we are retro active, rarely pro active.
Cops are not responsible for the individual citizens safety, unless of course, they're in our custody.
Your views, IMO, are the dangerous ones as you would disarm the law abiding while the perps will still have their guns.
This cop says no and I will oppose you on every front.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)By any and all means.
In 1960s I would not necessarily have agreed
In 2012 I believe it to be true. By any means
A policeman's gun is a drone. The terrorist is the criminal.
See I can separate the two, the common street crime and the mass level crime.
I do agree wht mass crime needs to be taken care of by any and all means.
I do not agree on a one to one basis.
I do agree 100% with say a Mike Bloomberg (more security, more cameras, less guns, less bullets).
I do not understand though why the pro-gun people are anti-force of the USA government.
Something is wildly weird.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)who hates unions as much as he does guns. He also supports Scott Brown, racist staffers and all, so he can still play bankster. Beautiful mind my ass.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)except he is the cop not the vigillante
He will support anyone who agrees to more gun control. Putting his money where his mouth is.To defeat the NRA, one needs folks on both parties to go against them.
So of course NRA folk will name call him, and abuse his right to disagree with them.
It makes me suspect as to what NRA people and gun folk really want.
Because to not realize that every single person on the planet is connected somehow,
and that punk kid you call a criminal is shot dead by a gun person, and that family, maybe like a gun loving hunter who shoots a deer to so called feed a family, this kid is just looking to feed his own family.
I would theoretically trust a Mike Bloomberg 100% and an NRA gun lover 0% and feel safe and secure.
the NRA does not have my interest at heart, because I have no idea what ulterior motive gun people really have. They certainly never say what they really want or need to have all those bullets and guns and it scares me that they decide who is good and who is bad.
BTW-whoever posted about Hitler, I wish there was a drone back then, a bunker busting drone that could have offed Hitler and saved the tens of millions in WW2.
Drones=good.
The bullets that killed millions=bad.
And no, turned the Jews into monsters in WW2 would only have led to even more deaths.
BTW, Hitler himself probably only killed one person himself.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Who is doing exactly what I wish done? Do you know what a vigilante is?
So of course NRA folk will name call him, and abuse his right to disagree with them.
Because to not realize that every single person on the planet is connected somehow,
and that punk kid you call a criminal is shot dead by a gun person, and that family, maybe like a gun loving hunter who shoots a deer to so called feed a family, this kid is just looking to feed his own family.
I don't think a Reaper drone, Predators are unarmed recces, can carry a bunker buster. An F-15 can.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Not by any and all means, by all means within the constitution, The POTUS is not above the law nor are they exempt from the constitution.
I don't agree that mass crime needs to be taken care of by any and all means, and your use of that term scares the hell out of me. That's pretty much what dictators, past and present, have said.
I work within my state and local laws trying to reduce crime and make my city a little safer, I do not go beyond those laws, because at that point, I become no better than the criminals and I won't lower myself to their level however tempting it might be.
I find your views very disturbing and scary.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I also don't believe if you are a good cop, that you advocate anarchy to the law and become judge and jury.Sorry I do not buy it.
and as congress has ok'd (by the constitutional need of congress approval) the president doing anything and everyting needed, it is constitutional.
I also again state that one day guns and bullets will be as obsolete as muskets and cannons in the past.
As to the constitution, well, the declaration states "All are created equal" yet Thomas Jefferson kept slaves(and abused the women slaves he had without their consent). Something always struck me that the founders were not perfect and the constitution and bill of rights is ever changing as was their intent. Some day the 2nd amendment might be different than it is now.(see the NFL refs that made the bad calls last week, and apply them to those in the Supreme Court that interpret it to be any person and not army)
(BTW, it could be said that any female killed as collateral damage or innocent bystander, by someone with a gun has lost her constitutional right to privacy, hasn't she?) The state needs the right to keep that woman safe.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)you seem to have no concept of our constitution. The Pres. is supposed to abide by the constitution, no exceptions, the patriot act is, as far as I'm concerned, is highly unconstitutional.
I don't advocate anarchy, I advocate following the constitution, as I am sworn to do, following the laws of my state and city, not, as you put it, by any and all means. That would make me no better than the criminals.
You are nothing more than an Authoritarian whose views I find repugnant and scary. May you never, ever be in a position to implement what you advocate.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and someone defending them self. Supporting someone to defend themself is not anarchy, it is a natural right of all species, including humans. I find it odd that a liberal would be opposed one of the concepts of the Enlightenment. You are saying that the life of the armed robber or serial killer is more important than the victim, because the victim defending themself would become a vigilante in your mind, never mind that you don't know what the word means.
States don't have rights, they have powers, individuals have rights. Who said anything about states rights?
tama
(9,137 posts)and Jefferson has been called "philosophical anarchist". State monopoly of violence is in anarchic view what is wrong with the state power hierarchy.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The autopsy report on Martin has been published and is available online. He was shot in the front on the chest at close range.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The previous poster claimed that Martin was shot in the back.
The autopsy shows he was shot in the front.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)he/she constantly gets the facts wrong, makes wild and false accusations, and generally has no idea of what he/she is talking about.
Oneka
(653 posts)But the complaint alleges the youth was a passenger in a car that was driving down the alley late Thursday night when it came upon the Minnesota State University, Mankato student walking two female friends home. The complaint alleges the youth told the driver to stop, got out and punched Gleason in the face one time, causing him to fall backward and hit his head. He then got back into the car and indicated to the people inside that he had punched Gleason, the complaint says.
Gleason regained consciousness at St. Cloud Hospital but died there Friday.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Teen-charged-with-murder-in-St-Cloud-alley-punch-3891838.php#ixzz27iuwRJ9n
ileus
(15,396 posts)1. Learn self defense and take weekly lessons. I highly recommend Aikido. 3 seconds and the conflict should be over if you do your part.
2. Carry pepper spray for those events where you can respond with non-lethal devices.
3. Carry your Self Defense safety device; train and know how to use it. Refuse to be a victim...
Oneka
(653 posts)Failing that action, use any and all means available to prevail and stop the threat.
It would help to have the most effective tools at hand to stop that threat, and have the training to use them.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)for me. It's hard but panic is your enemy. I had the last person that assaulted thrown 'under' the jail because I went to high school with the District Attorney and I think he didn't like the fact his friend was attacked. Report it immediately to get a record. My son was also assaulted. The person that assaulted him was arrested and sentenced. Staying calm, thinking and taking affirmative action has been the model for me. Staying calm also saved me from drowning three times in my life.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)would have the same result as you?
Zygoat
(27 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Zygoat
(27 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)An ass kicking is an ass kicking. Dead is dead. Reason goes out the window when the fight starts.
littlemissmartypants
(33,579 posts)My sister assaults me every time she opens her mouth and it isn't her breath doing it...
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Have we completely forgotten how to attach our ideas to reality? It would seem so.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Can. Of. Beans.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)And a good Chianti.
Ffffffffffffff...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,764 posts)The only logical suggestion I can think of is to start by making an assessment of any plans for one's travel, business and residence with an eye toward safety and risk. We all plan to some degree but making conscious plans that logically balance goals, risks, safety and costs is the best option. Know the risks and plan accordingly.
If your plans involve risks to your personal safety, prepare as best you're able. Beyond the predictable risks, there will always be random risks that can't be foreseen. For these circumstances sometimes we prepare maybe with a first aid kit and a compass, a flashlight, weapon or other tool. If you're able to afford an item that mitigates risk, having the item makes sense. In the case of a concealed firearm my advice would be to evaluate your abilities and get one if you up to the training, safety and maintenance tasks involved.
Situations for which you haven't prepared will increase the personal demands on your abilities and resources and chance your being overwhelmed. On occasion evil will triumph unless good has an ace in the hole.