firearms

[johnny_canuck]

Only legal in Texas.<div><br></div><div><a href="" target="_blank"></a></div>

 

[Ryan24]

Haven't felt the need to carry one yet. Most of the stories about encounters with thieves I have read from vandwellers has the thief bolting once they realize somebody is in the van. In the slim event they are armed and mean me harm, its unlikely I would have enough time to put the gun to use.&nbsp;

 

[Seraphim]

I think I said here I don't own a personal firearm. I was wrong. I just remembered I have a Lee Enfield .303 with a 2x pistol scope&nbsp; down on the barrel. I need to open up that metal locker more often...<br><br>Obviously I don't carry it lol; haven't even opened that locker in 5 - 10 years.<br><br>Stuff from another time.<br>

 

[lampliter]

Johnny:<br><br>Having been into slingshots (making and shooting); I only have one statement.<br>Dang man!!! That's a slingshot!<br>Makes mine look like toys.<br><br>

 

[freenez2]

Ryan24, It happened to me once... Was in Las Vegas at a Casino parking lot sleeping when in the wee hours some guy tried to get through the drivers door. I jumped up into the drivers seat and asked "What's up!?" The guy was pretty freaked out when he saw me and said "My bad" and ran off.&nbsp; If he'd been crazy and continued trying to get in I'd have pepper sprayed him. Hopefully, that would have given me a chance to drive away.<br>

 

[jstarr06]

@HighPlains I don't think anyone is going to bother you with a list like that. Lol!<br><br>@Ryan24 Your post reminds me of where I live. In Illinois transporting a gun is like not having one it all. It must be disassembled, in a case, and under your seat to be legally transported. Not helpful if someone hostile breaks into your rig and you are trying to follow the gun laws.&nbsp; :/<br><br>Question about the pepper spray. Is there one you can spray at close range without getting doused yourself? <br><br>

 

[Seraphim]

Question about the pepper spray. Is there one you can spray at close range without getting doused yourself?

If you're so close the liquid bounces off them and back to you. It's going to depend more on the situation if you get sprayed. If your face is next to your attackers, you might be affected, but not as bad as your attacker, if you use it properly.

 

[Seraphim]

Drifter

How do you carry ammunition for all those? Lol. You must have a heavy duty truck....

 

[lampliter]

jstarr:<br><br>Cold Steel Special Projects carries one called inferno that you might like.<br>

 

[jstarr06]

Thanks Lampliter! (sorry it took so long its finals week) I do like it! That one is going on the list.

 

[twokniveskatie]

i have always had concerns about blow-back if using pepper spray in the van.<div><br></div><div>if someone is trying to get in my van, i can't imagine too many scenarios that would prevent me from driving away. those would include aggressive, armed invasion. i'm prepared for that.</div>

 

[Big]

I don't know how this will work in a van but it works great in a house, a friend of mine who lives in a rural area used a "touch style" stun gun I bought for her against a guy trying to get into her house, she saw him looking in her window, he tried the front door but could not get in, she called the county sheriff's dispatch, and grabbed her stun gun, the guy was trying the back door attempting to force turn the knob to break the lock, she held the stun gun to the door knob and let him have it, a sheriffs deputy got the guy at the end of her road.....I laugh each time I tell this story, I would have loved to see the look on the guys face...LOL

 

[Suanne]

<p>

Question about the pepper spray. Is there one you can spray at close range without getting doused yourself?

</p><p style="margin: 0px;">There's pepper foam.&nbsp; I've not tried it myself, but others have recommended as a way to deal with the blow-back problem.</p><p style="margin: 0px;">&nbsp;</p><p style="margin: 0px;">Here's an example: <a href="http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/mace-pepper-foam.aspx?a=233044" target="_blank" target=_blank>http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/mace-pepper-foam.aspx?a=233044</a>&nbsp; <font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="2" face="Arial"></font></font></p><p style="margin: 0px;">&nbsp;</p><p style="margin: 0px;">Suanne ... new owner of a Ruger LC9 (9mm)</p>

 

[Seraphim]

I've never been impressed by the ' make guns illegal and only criminals will have guns' argument. it's always seemed to me that the availability of a gun is more likely to induce a person into a criminal act, which wouldn't be feasible without the presence of a firearm. Recent analysis of statistics involving gun ownership supports my line of thought: an otherwise law abiding gun owner is 19 times more likely to use their firearm in an illegal act of violence than in using it for an act of self defense.


Analysis of crime
statistics and gun onwership

The recent murderer of the ranger is a prime case in point. The murderer legally owned firearms. Had he not, there would have been no murder. Most murders are committed by people who own firearms legally, not 'criminals'. Since the
firearm - in vast majority of cases - made the murder feasible, or at least MORE feasible, the presence of firearms greatly multiplies the chances of a murder being committed by an other wise law abiding citizen, while there is very little chance said firearm would ever be needed for 'self defense'.

 

[Seraphim]

The third component of murder is feasibility. A person might have both the desire and the weapon needed to kill, but if the circumstances don't offer a feasible opportunity to carry it out, then a person will probably decide against it. With weapons like knives or clubs, a would-be murderer faces enormous personal risk. Here's why: Getting physically close to the victim might be impossible under a wide variety of circumstances. Getting closer to the victim reduces the odds of surprise, secrecy or anonymity. The intended victim might be taller or stronger. The intended victim might be surrounded by friends, family, or bodyguards. The victim might shout out for help. A crowd might come to the victim's rescue. In the ensuing struggle, the murderer might be seriously wounded or even killed. The struggle will probably leave tell-tale signs of blood, skin or hair-follicles on the murderer. The intended victim might survive and testify against him. A gun, however, dramatically reduces all these risks. In order of the above, guns allow people to: Kill victims from afar. Maintain a much greater element of surprise, secrecy and anonymity. Kill larger and stronger people. Kill crowds. Frighten away people who might otherwise help. Assume almost no risk of injury from personal struggle. Leave no tell-tale blood or other physical evidence on the murderer. Leave the victim less likely to survive or see him to testify against him. What guns do, then, is make it more feasible for a would-be killer to act out his murderous impulses. Gun possession thus allows a crime to occur that wouldn't have otherwise. A good analogy is robbery. In medieval times, wealth was usually stolen only when it was in transit, by highway brigands who outnumbered the drivers. But in modern times, a lone individual with a gun can walk into a bank and rob the entire establishment. Bank robbery became a widespread phenomenon only after the invention of guns.

 

[Stillwater]

The "research" linked (a high school level essay with some glaring statistical errors) is a weak, agenda-driven effort to selectively analyze some numbers to a predetermined &amp; desired - if inaccurate - result. Repugnant, really. <br> <br> Murders are quantifiable based on the sheer absence of a living person. Self-defense numbers are not so concrete - the essay is referring to self-defense <i>killings, not the non-quantifiable number of people who may have stopped crimes of violence to themselves (or others) via possession of a firearm. <br> <br> <b>Since this post was spurred by the incident in Oregon of the veteran with PTSD who slayed the innocents, let's do a quick look at Oregon stats. Not 17 - 20 year old stats, like in the "research" but some quick looking myself.<br> <br> 2009. <br> 101 homicides. No distinction between self-defense or murder. We'll call them all murder. 49% were with a firearm. *** 50 ***<br> <br>&nbsp; The essay states 29% of households have a firearm - we'll stick with that.<br> <br> Oregon State Population 2009: 3,825,657 (29% or 1,471,406 with access to a firearm.) Incidentally, 2,589,764 licensed drivers in Oregon that year. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" align="absmiddle"><br> <br> With 50 firearm homicides in Oregon in 2009, then 1 out of every 22,188 people with access to a firearm used it to murder or in self-defense.<br> <br> That same year, there were 141 deaths due to DUI. One out of every 18,367 licensed drivers KILLED with their car while drunk. Another 115 were sober when they killed with their car. <br><br>So, one out of every 10,116 licensed drivers killed with their car.<br> <br> That same year there were 1,202 forcible rapes. One out of every 3,182 citizens or (50.5% female population) one our of every 1,606 women were *****. <br> <br> Let's take a different look. If 49.5% of the 3,825,657 population is male and, taking the obviously biased view that men are the rapists, then one out of every 1,575 men in Oregon ***** in 2009.<br> <br> A licensed motorist in Oregon was 2.2 times more likely to kill with their car than a person with access to a firearm was to murder or kill in self-defense. <br> <br> A man was 14 times more likely to **** in Oregon than a person with </b></i><i><b>access to a firearm was to murder or kill in self-defense.</b></i><br> <br> The essay states:<br> "But much of the controversy over how guns are used overlooks an even more basic issue. And that is that you cannot credit a disease for its own partial cure. <b>Even if Kleck could prove that guns were used in 100 million cases of self-defense each year, that still would not prove that guns have social utility, as long as they still drive up the murder rate."<br> <br> So, we end this "essay" with the emotional opinion that, no matter the number of people saved by having access to the firearm, this aim of the thesis was to support the authors <i>opinion </i>that no matter the number of lives SAVED, it isn't worth another person dying. Therein, I would wholeheartedly disagree. That is as insane as saying:<br> <br> </b><b>Even if xxx could prove that drugs were used in 100 million cases of life saving measures each year, that still would not prove that drugs have social utility, as long as they still drive up the accidental death rate of accidental overdose, death due to drug reaction or drug assisted suicide.</b><br> <br>If killing Hitler, or even a hundred innocents in the bombing of Berlin, saved a few million Jews during the Holocaust, then the end was worth it <b><i>in my opinion.</i></b><br><br><br> BTW: From that same essay, *funny math* does not compute: <br> <pre>Types of Firearm deaths, 1993 (19)<br><br>Suicide 18,940<br>Firearm homicide 18,571<br> Handgun homicide 13,980<br> Justifiable homicide 251<br>Accidental 1,521<br>Undetermined 563<br>--------------------------------<br><b>Total 39,595<br></b></pre> <br> <pre>Firearm homicide 18,571 [MINUS] Handgun homicide 13,980 [MINUS] Justifiable homicide 251 [EQUALS] 4340 MISSING FROM THE LITTLE RUNDOWN. THINGS HAVE BEEN TWISTED.<br><br><br>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/orcrime.htm<br><br>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41000.html<br><br>http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/InjuryFatalityData/Documents/Violent Deaths in Oregon 2009<br><br><br>I couldn't care less in attempting to convince you to change your personal views. I respond in this thread as a counterpoint to the "research" being slanted, suspect and intentionally twisted to a predetermined end. That isn't "research. That is attempting to manipulate and position facts to justify an opinion.<br><br>The difference in myself and the essayist? I limited myself to one State, one year and honestly attempted to compare apples to apples.<br><br>The "19 times more like to murder than use in self defense" statement is a blatant attempt to make that statement the essayist canNOT make due to lack of data.<br><br>Make automobiles illegal.<br>Make alcohol illegal.<br>Make penises illegal.<br><br>Where does it stop? <br><br>How about sentencing reform for criminals???<br><br>Let's reword this:<br><br><span id="post_message_1271640490">he<br> recent [dui] murder of [a family] is a prime case in point. The <br>murderer legally owned [a car and legally purchased alcohol.]&nbsp; Had he <br>not, there would have been no murder. Most [dui] murders are committed<br> by people who own [automobiles &amp; alcohol]&nbsp; legally, not <br>'criminals'. Since the <br> [automobile] - in vast majority of cases - <br>made the murder feasible, or at least MORE feasible, the presence of <br>[automobiles] greatly multiplies the chances of a murder being <br>committed by an other wise law abiding citizen. <br><br>[the last part <br>of the statement cannot be made. it refers to self-defense KILLING ONLY.<br> Erroneous.] while there is very little chance said firearm would ever <br>be needed for 'self defense'.</span><br><br>I'm done.<br></pre>

 

[4x4tour]

Happy New Year, P-Man... &nbsp;It's been a while... &nbsp;I stayed out of this topic for obvious reasons... lol

 

[Stillwater]

To you too, brother. Clearly I have a lower tolerance for such temptation. <img src="/images/boards/smilies/wink.gif" border="0" align="absmiddle"><br>

 

[Seraphim]

Good response *grin*

I think the comparison to DUI's is irrelevant though. You're implying guns aren't bad because more people are killed by drunk drivers. If your argument is we should eliminate drunk driver's, I'm with you whole heatedly. Introducing the topic here is mere redirection, however, which has no relation to the initial statement - as are the comments on ****. You are merely confirming more people are ***** yearly than are murdered. No argument there, but not germane to the discussion.

I also agree no one's going to change anyone's personal views. I enjoy a good debate.

As for the " funny math", those numbers were not supposed to add up in that
manner. I believe the author was distinguishing handgun from long
guns(firearms), though I could be mistaken.

The summary conclusion was there would be a substantial decrease of firearm deaths were firearms to be made illegal. The small number of 'justifiable homicides' - good shoots, if you wish - are far outweighed by the number of murders: by a factor of 19 times. A law abiding citizen who, in a moment of rage, has a greater ability to successfully act on that impulse if there's a firearm present.

Will outlawing firearms eliminate firearms from criminal hands? No. Not at this point in time. There are too many unregistered firearms out in public hands that will eventually find there way into criminal hands.

The basic argument of the essay remains sound, however ( and in my opinion) - that if firearms were outlawed the number of firearm related deaths would decrease substantially.

Is it feasible to outlaw firearms in the US? No, nor am I personally arguing that point. Nor am I arguing stricter gun controls.

I merely agree with the basic premise of the article.

If you have different statistics, I'd appreciate your posting them.

 

[Seraphim]

Some interesting links to statistics on homicide weapons and gun violence:

Department of Justice

One interesting stat showed, over a certain 30 year average, 75% of the victims of firearm homicides were at or near the age of 17. There were no stats on the median age of the shooters.

The stats are based on 2006 figures.