Should regular people carry weapons for self-defense/protection?
- Thread starter froggyboy604
- Start date
In the state in which I live, it is legal for gun owners to carry a handgun provided that they have a concealed handgun carry license. In order to get the concealed handgun carry license, one must pass a background check by both the state police and the FBI, plus, you have to get fingerprinted and have that sent in. That person also can't be someone that has any mental health problems or someone that has spent time in a mental heath facility. You also have to go through a certain amount of training as well before the license is issued to you. So, the ability to carry a handgun (at least, legally speaking) is not given out to just any random person. There are steps you have to go through..... Not to mention, you have rules to follow when you are carrying.
However, that doesn't stop the criminals or the people who have certain mental problems from carrying anyway, however, I think that's why a lot of the law abiding citizens are actually legally carrying a handgun these days. To protect themselves from someone who may target them for whatever reason. Anyway, it is a common practice for people to carry a handgun around for protection so I'm pretty well use to it by now.
However, that doesn't stop the criminals or the people who have certain mental problems from carrying anyway, however, I think that's why a lot of the law abiding citizens are actually legally carrying a handgun these days. To protect themselves from someone who may target them for whatever reason. Anyway, it is a common practice for people to carry a handgun around for protection so I'm pretty well use to it by now.
Full disclosure:
I own several firearms myself. I carry a gun as part of my job. I am reasonably well trained in the use of firearms. (Likely far moreso than the average person.) And I go to the range usually every couple of weeks. So I'm fairly comfortable with a variety of guns and their operation.
Also, before I get into this... because there is a lot here I'd ask people to please not quote the entire post to reply. Please just quote the aspect you disagree with or want to highlight/comment on.
In my country only a select few people get to legally carry guns... Chiefly police and other law enforcement.
The problem is that when seconds count the police are minutes away. Where I live specifically the police can easily be 15 minutes out. In a crisis where I need them they'll be showing up in time to draw a chalk line and take photos. I can't rely on them to defend me. The situation is FAR worse in other parts of the country. In rural Alberta for example the wait times for police to simply drive there can be measured in hours. (In one case where a person was attacked they killed the intruder, called the police and then put on a pot of coffee and, if I recall right, watched a full movie to wait for them to get there.)
Also, as much as people want to say non-lethal methods are preferred... No. Trust me. They aren't.
So now where do guns fit into this?
Handguns are actually not great weapons either. They are weapons of convenience. They trade stopping power and accuracy for portability. The 9mm round (which is the most commonly carried round by police) is a kinda slow moving projectile. Especially compared to the AR15's bullet which zooms along over two (almost three) times as fast. (Average 9mm is about 1100 feet per second. Average AR15 .223 round is around 3200 feet per second.)
Shooting a handgun is also not that easy. Hollywood and the movies make it look like it's simple. But the truth is anything but. Handguns have fairly short sights making any slight wobble or movement of the hands directly translate to pulling the gun off target and missing the shot. And under stress, like being attacked, this is how people miss so easily. Adrenaline is one heck of a drug. But it can definitely affect fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination.
In contrast shooting a rifle with iron sights is a LOT easier because the longer distance between front post and rear post reduces the effect of hand sway on the gun. (Having a stock for that third point of contact makes reduces fatigue in holding the gun up and mitigates recoil. Rifles also tend to be far better at dealing with recoil as well.)
It's hard to carry a fully loaded rifle around all day. An average AR-15 might only weigh 8lbs loaded but it's bulky and even that weight increases fatigue for the carrier pretty quickly. That handgun though with anywhere from 5-6 (for a revolver) to 15-17 (for a semi-automatic pistol) rounds might only weigh two pounds.
In other words, carrying a rifle around just isn't practical in most situations. But going completely defenseless isn't a great option either. I would far and above rather have a handgun than nothing. When out in the world I don't get to choose when I'm being attacked and what they're going to be using. I can't pause the world and say "Hold on, let me summon my AR." This isn't a game. I have only what I can reasonably carry on me. And a handgun is the best I can do to balance weight/usability/firepower.
I would love the option to be able to carry my own firearm at all times with me (in civilian clothes). And I would. I would open carry it too. I want people to know I have it. I want criminals to see it and reconsider taking action. I want them to feel fear that if they try and attack me, or someone near me, that they could get shot. (Essentially that I'm not an easy target and am likely to fight back.) Mass shooters act especially in gun free zones because they know it takes time for police to show up which gives them free reign to do whatever they want and hurt people. This is why we never see mass shooters attacking police stations or that kind of thing. (Because the occupants can, and will, fight back.)
They say an armed society is a polite one. And that's true... criminals don't act up as much when they know they could catch a bullet over it.
To quote another:
"One sword keeps another in it's sheath."
-- George Herbert (Also Raiden)
I also want others to be able to carry too. Why? Same reason as I want to carry. (Protect myself, protect others, make criminals afraid to act.) Plus I'd actually feel safer knowing people carried. That if something bad were to happen there's lots of people around who can look out for me and themselves. Plus, honestly, we're surrounded by people with guns already. (Perhaps less so in Canada...) People like the police and border services, sheriffs, and etc... So why not the people too? I know at this point someone would invariably mention people not being trained...
Though I do think that for civilians at least there should be a course to have to pass in order to carry. One that comprises several different techniques. (Drawing from a holster, both practice and live fire versions. Some use of force elements like when it's acceptable to draw and when not to. Some accuracy tests to make sure that people wanting to carry can actually hit the target and not random bystanders. Possibly even some simunition training so they can experience what it's actually like to engage in a gunfight but without the actual bleeding part.)
I think that if someone doesn't want to own, let alone carry, a gun, that's fine. You don't have to. But you don't get to decide for anyone else if they can. You don't get to say "I don't like this so you can't do/have it either".
Let me also be clear though that there absolutely needs to be checks and balances. Those who have a violent history or known mental issues absolutely shouldn't have a gun. But for the average citizen if they have no criminal history, have a no major/ongoing mental issues, are reasonably intelligent then they can have/carry a gun.
I own several firearms myself. I carry a gun as part of my job. I am reasonably well trained in the use of firearms. (Likely far moreso than the average person.) And I go to the range usually every couple of weeks. So I'm fairly comfortable with a variety of guns and their operation.
Also, before I get into this... because there is a lot here I'd ask people to please not quote the entire post to reply. Please just quote the aspect you disagree with or want to highlight/comment on.
In my country only a select few people get to legally carry guns... Chiefly police and other law enforcement.
The problem is that when seconds count the police are minutes away. Where I live specifically the police can easily be 15 minutes out. In a crisis where I need them they'll be showing up in time to draw a chalk line and take photos. I can't rely on them to defend me. The situation is FAR worse in other parts of the country. In rural Alberta for example the wait times for police to simply drive there can be measured in hours. (In one case where a person was attacked they killed the intruder, called the police and then put on a pot of coffee and, if I recall right, watched a full movie to wait for them to get there.)
Also, as much as people want to say non-lethal methods are preferred... No. Trust me. They aren't.
In Canada tasers and other directed energy weapons are prohibited. You cannot own them for any reason (unless you are RCMP in which case special exemptions for duty). So if you did have them, you'd be looking at a 10 year minimum sentence for possession alone. Offhand stunguns are not classed under that so possession is allowed but they're even worse to use.
But even ignoring the legal aspect tasers (and stun guns even moreso) are not good options. You have to get REALLY close to use them. And the electrodes have to touch the person's body. Thick clothing can stop the electrodes. Even if you do actually shock them, you have to hold it on them to keep them under control. Let go for even a few seconds and the effects wear off. Then suddenly you have a much angrier person to contend with.
To make things worse those under the effects of drugs may be immune to the pain of the stungun (or at least be able to push through it). Even tasers which deliver 50,000 volts or more directly to the muscles aren't 100% reliable in stopping attacks. (In some cases it's taken 2 or 3 people using tasers to actually stop the threat.) According to one source (at the 7:00 mark) they're actually closer to 50% effective at best.
Pepperspray/mace can be effective at disabling people but they come with the massive caveats that they're chemical in nature and wind affects them. So if you're outside and there's strong wind you can easily end up blasting yourself with them. (It's why I'm not fond of bear mace for the woods. Last thing I want to do is essentially disable and season myself for an angry bear.)
Even indoors, without air currents, spraying can still coat surfaces in the chemical and incapacitate yourself. Plus if they're armed and you spray them they can still swing wildly with a knife (and hurt you) or shoot if they have a gun. All it will do is create more danger for yourself and everyone around you. (They can't see you, are angry over the attack and are lashing out.) Even if they shoot but don't hit you that bullet still ends up somewhere.
Knives are actually no less lethal than guns. (In Canada up until 2016 there were deaths to knives than guns. Since 2016 though we've seen an uptick in gang violence using guns.) A knife wound to certain parts of the body (neck, namely carotid artery) can be even more lethal than a gunshot. (A nick/cut to the carotid is 100% lethal in about 35 seconds. You will bleed out that fast. And blood will spray everywhere in the process.)
In fact there's an aspect in use of force called Tueller's Law... which is a person can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. If the person is within that 21 feet you do not stand a good chance of getting your firearm out and firing a shot. Mythbusters tried it (see that here) Though there are a few issues with their testing of it. (Namely most people carrying guns would be doing so with a loaded chamber, no needing to chamber a round which slows things down and adds elements that can fail.)
But even ignoring the legal aspect tasers (and stun guns even moreso) are not good options. You have to get REALLY close to use them. And the electrodes have to touch the person's body. Thick clothing can stop the electrodes. Even if you do actually shock them, you have to hold it on them to keep them under control. Let go for even a few seconds and the effects wear off. Then suddenly you have a much angrier person to contend with.
To make things worse those under the effects of drugs may be immune to the pain of the stungun (or at least be able to push through it). Even tasers which deliver 50,000 volts or more directly to the muscles aren't 100% reliable in stopping attacks. (In some cases it's taken 2 or 3 people using tasers to actually stop the threat.) According to one source (at the 7:00 mark) they're actually closer to 50% effective at best.
Pepperspray/mace can be effective at disabling people but they come with the massive caveats that they're chemical in nature and wind affects them. So if you're outside and there's strong wind you can easily end up blasting yourself with them. (It's why I'm not fond of bear mace for the woods. Last thing I want to do is essentially disable and season myself for an angry bear.)
Even indoors, without air currents, spraying can still coat surfaces in the chemical and incapacitate yourself. Plus if they're armed and you spray them they can still swing wildly with a knife (and hurt you) or shoot if they have a gun. All it will do is create more danger for yourself and everyone around you. (They can't see you, are angry over the attack and are lashing out.) Even if they shoot but don't hit you that bullet still ends up somewhere.
Knives are actually no less lethal than guns. (In Canada up until 2016 there were deaths to knives than guns. Since 2016 though we've seen an uptick in gang violence using guns.) A knife wound to certain parts of the body (neck, namely carotid artery) can be even more lethal than a gunshot. (A nick/cut to the carotid is 100% lethal in about 35 seconds. You will bleed out that fast. And blood will spray everywhere in the process.)
In fact there's an aspect in use of force called Tueller's Law... which is a person can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. If the person is within that 21 feet you do not stand a good chance of getting your firearm out and firing a shot. Mythbusters tried it (see that here) Though there are a few issues with their testing of it. (Namely most people carrying guns would be doing so with a loaded chamber, no needing to chamber a round which slows things down and adds elements that can fail.)
So now where do guns fit into this?
Handguns are actually not great weapons either. They are weapons of convenience. They trade stopping power and accuracy for portability. The 9mm round (which is the most commonly carried round by police) is a kinda slow moving projectile. Especially compared to the AR15's bullet which zooms along over two (almost three) times as fast. (Average 9mm is about 1100 feet per second. Average AR15 .223 round is around 3200 feet per second.)
Shooting a handgun is also not that easy. Hollywood and the movies make it look like it's simple. But the truth is anything but. Handguns have fairly short sights making any slight wobble or movement of the hands directly translate to pulling the gun off target and missing the shot. And under stress, like being attacked, this is how people miss so easily. Adrenaline is one heck of a drug. But it can definitely affect fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination.
In contrast shooting a rifle with iron sights is a LOT easier because the longer distance between front post and rear post reduces the effect of hand sway on the gun. (Having a stock for that third point of contact makes reduces fatigue in holding the gun up and mitigates recoil. Rifles also tend to be far better at dealing with recoil as well.)
It's hard to carry a fully loaded rifle around all day. An average AR-15 might only weigh 8lbs loaded but it's bulky and even that weight increases fatigue for the carrier pretty quickly. That handgun though with anywhere from 5-6 (for a revolver) to 15-17 (for a semi-automatic pistol) rounds might only weigh two pounds.
In other words, carrying a rifle around just isn't practical in most situations. But going completely defenseless isn't a great option either. I would far and above rather have a handgun than nothing. When out in the world I don't get to choose when I'm being attacked and what they're going to be using. I can't pause the world and say "Hold on, let me summon my AR." This isn't a game. I have only what I can reasonably carry on me. And a handgun is the best I can do to balance weight/usability/firepower.
I would love the option to be able to carry my own firearm at all times with me (in civilian clothes). And I would. I would open carry it too. I want people to know I have it. I want criminals to see it and reconsider taking action. I want them to feel fear that if they try and attack me, or someone near me, that they could get shot. (Essentially that I'm not an easy target and am likely to fight back.) Mass shooters act especially in gun free zones because they know it takes time for police to show up which gives them free reign to do whatever they want and hurt people. This is why we never see mass shooters attacking police stations or that kind of thing. (Because the occupants can, and will, fight back.)
They say an armed society is a polite one. And that's true... criminals don't act up as much when they know they could catch a bullet over it.
To quote another:
"One sword keeps another in it's sheath."
-- George Herbert (Also Raiden)
I also want others to be able to carry too. Why? Same reason as I want to carry. (Protect myself, protect others, make criminals afraid to act.) Plus I'd actually feel safer knowing people carried. That if something bad were to happen there's lots of people around who can look out for me and themselves. Plus, honestly, we're surrounded by people with guns already. (Perhaps less so in Canada...) People like the police and border services, sheriffs, and etc... So why not the people too? I know at this point someone would invariably mention people not being trained...
Though I do think that for civilians at least there should be a course to have to pass in order to carry. One that comprises several different techniques. (Drawing from a holster, both practice and live fire versions. Some use of force elements like when it's acceptable to draw and when not to. Some accuracy tests to make sure that people wanting to carry can actually hit the target and not random bystanders. Possibly even some simunition training so they can experience what it's actually like to engage in a gunfight but without the actual bleeding part.)
I think that if someone doesn't want to own, let alone carry, a gun, that's fine. You don't have to. But you don't get to decide for anyone else if they can. You don't get to say "I don't like this so you can't do/have it either".
Let me also be clear though that there absolutely needs to be checks and balances. Those who have a violent history or known mental issues absolutely shouldn't have a gun. But for the average citizen if they have no criminal history, have a no major/ongoing mental issues, are reasonably intelligent then they can have/carry a gun.
Last edited:
I agree with what
VirusZero mentioned about when seconds count...the police are only minutes away. I'm not trying to talk bad about the police we've got here. But there is only so many police officers and there is not enough of them where they can sit at everyone's house to protect each person from what a criminal would do to them if a criminal showed up at their front door. I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to have a firearm for protection. I do think they should go through some kind of training to make sure they are comfortable with using the firearm and can use it properly and safely.
VirusZero mentioned about when seconds count...the police are only minutes away. I'm not trying to talk bad about the police we've got here. But there is only so many police officers and there is not enough of them where they can sit at everyone's house to protect each person from what a criminal would do to them if a criminal showed up at their front door. I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to have a firearm for protection. I do think they should go through some kind of training to make sure they are comfortable with using the firearm and can use it properly and safely.
Unfortunately, there are criminals with guns and other weapons. The best chance of surviving can be to use a gun to warn them not to attack them, or using a gun to defend themselves.
Sometimes the police are saved by citizens with a gun.
"Despite saving a DPS trooper’s life, shooting and killing an armed suspect attacking the officer, an Arizona man is rebuffing a hero’s title, claiming he’s just an ‘ordinary’ person whose purpose that fateful morning was decided by God"
Sometimes the police are saved by citizens with a gun.
"Despite saving a DPS trooper’s life, shooting and killing an armed suspect attacking the officer, an Arizona man is rebuffing a hero’s title, claiming he’s just an ‘ordinary’ person whose purpose that fateful morning was decided by God"
That is also true
froggyboy604
Criminals are going to have guns no matter what. So the best protection against a criminal with a gun is having a gun of your own and knowing how to use it properly.
froggyboy604 Criminals are going to have guns no matter what. So the best protection against a criminal with a gun is having a gun of your own and knowing how to use it properly.
No, I'm absolutely not intending or trying to disparage police or make them look bad at all. The problem is they can't be everywhere and even if they're really quick responding it can take time to get on site. Even in urban centres with lots of police response time can still be upwards of 90 seconds. A lot can happen in that very short span of time. They also have the unfortunate job of if multiple calls come in they have to pick which ones to respond to and in what order.
Also, it's been my experience that people who don't like guns often do so because they don't actually know anything about them. They fear the unknown. But once they get even slightly more knowledge (like a couple minutes of hands on training) the fear tends to vanish pretty rapidly. I've taken a bunch of people (around a dozen) shooting and with the exception of 1 person, who kinda psyched themselves out of it before even starting, all the others really enjoyed themselves. They got over any fears they had by the second shot. By the third shot they were more than happy to keep going... They suddenly understood why people enjoy guns and shooting. And it's something that realistically I can't put into words to explain to people. You really do have to try it to understand.
Also, it's been my experience that people who don't like guns often do so because they don't actually know anything about them. They fear the unknown. But once they get even slightly more knowledge (like a couple minutes of hands on training) the fear tends to vanish pretty rapidly. I've taken a bunch of people (around a dozen) shooting and with the exception of 1 person, who kinda psyched themselves out of it before even starting, all the others really enjoyed themselves. They got over any fears they had by the second shot. By the third shot they were more than happy to keep going... They suddenly understood why people enjoy guns and shooting. And it's something that realistically I can't put into words to explain to people. You really do have to try it to understand.
Encounters with wild dangerous animals like bear are also a possibility if you live close to a forest or a bear escaped from a local zoo, so having a gun or crossbow can save a person life since animals can attack very fast, and outrun most humans.
Case in point, if I am danger I will carry a gun (bazooka and flame thrower works as well) to protect myself.
So yer Demonic Powers are not enough? lol
Flamethrowers are indeed effective for killing giant spiders lol.