I thought the one with the columbine pic was the best.

a-human.-right.com is funny. I started doing their 'survey' thing at the start and gave up, it’s got no logical options. The site is counter productive, its arguments have obvious flaws and are so..feverant that its scary rather than convincing. On the other hand those pics are fantastic! I needed some high quality fodder for the spoof posters I'm building for graphics, how much better can I get than a grandma with a pump action and a kid with an M16?! I showed them to various people here the consensus was simple 'disturbing'. It's saved me hours of photography and photoshopping, least for folio filler stuff.

hehehe I thought that flamebiat would work. My point was simple, UTs silly claim about France (which ill listen to when I see on page 1 of Le Monde) is no more real than mine about US, I purposely made a series of generalizations to make that point. In reality I've probably learnt more about the diversity of the US from national geographic zipcode sections (always interesting) than CNN could teach me. I should point out that The Guardian includes pages from the Washington Post, which is useful for perspective stuff too.

I'd love to some time but it’s an expensive flight from Asia to the US. If I end up staying in Japan for a while it's something I’d love to do at some point.

You're avoiding the point.

Not at all. I don't want a pink gun, and I don't want a fluffy one. The idea that they would be required to be that way by law is silly.

(Almost as silly as "all computers should be required by law to be inhenertly disabled in hardware from doing anything Hollywood hasn't approved."...I wish that one was as unlikely as it is silly.)

But given your hypothetical (yuk), I don't think there would be significantly fewer armed citizens. There might very well be fewer firearms collectors, just because "pink and fluffy" is a pretty grotesque set of attributes for anything but ladies' formal wear.

And even there it could be overdone; if *all* ladies' formal wear was by law pink and fluffy, even ladies' formal wear wouldn't be as popular. Despite having spent a lot of money and endured a lot of pain to get my body to conform to a female mind, I really don't want to live in Barbie World, if it's OK with you.

I can understand completely that many of Oleg's photos are disturbing to hoplophobes. They deliberately create cognitive dissonance in an attempt to get people to think about why their emotional reactions are what they are.

But sadly, it doesn't always work, and the result is people who just feel "disturbed". So for someone who's looking to enflame hoplophobia, those pictures used in the "right" way probably are a big timesaver.

Why shouldn't Grandma have a shotgun? Are we afraid she's going to hold up a liquor store? Maybe she might use it to defend herself and her home, now *that* would be horrible, wouldn't it?

You're still avoiding the point as much as you possibly can. It’s quite funny really.

Maybe the thought that its a pretty fucked up society that requires kids to have M16s to be safe?

Bullshit. Read the text on the pages, it’s equally extremist.

One other point got me about that sight. All the rounds he recommends for self defense are dumdum rounds which are explicitly banned by the Geneva Convention.

Don't even try such bullshit. You'd think any sane person would find the image of a kid with a high power assault rifle wearing camo gear scary. Its the kind of the I’d expect to see in an UN ad against use of child soldiers. Hoplophobes? Ten points for dressing up terms to make them alien. Zero for logic. I've fired guns, I've carried guns. Yet oddly enough I don't feel the need to carry one to feel safe here. In fact carrying one would make me feel *less* safe, situation escalation is dangerous. If I was somewhere where weapons carrying was common, I'd like to carry one, like some parts of the United States. Because I do not trust anyone else with a firearm.

I don't know which guy is half drunk and is going to mistake me for an attacker, which guy is paranoid, which guy is in a really bad mood. I'd don't know which one of them is carrying an .44 Magnum.

I don't like the concept for a 'armed polite' wild west style society, in fact it sounds pretty horrible.

In an attempt to get this more discussion and less arguement, what about non-lethal weapons? For self defense purposes surely CS Spray, tasters of others are extremely effective, designed for the purpose and *NOONE DIES* which is what i don't like about guns for self defense. Its all good to carry self defense but can we do it without killing people?

Well, my point was that I don't think you have one. Yes, fluffy pink guns mandated by law would be less popular than less regulated guns. So would fluffy pink clothing mandated by law. That the guns would be less popular doesn't really say much uniquely about guns, if the same is true of clothing.

So, although it's nice that you're amused, I'm sorry to seem to avoid your point...what *is* your point?
Which image are you talking about that carries this message? URL, please?
Well, that's pretty clear. Stricttly speaking that's not hoplophobia, sine you're clear that it's people you're afraid of rather than guns.

So we'll just all surrender our legal weapons so you can feel safe, jag. You won't actually, *be* safe, of course, but I'm sure the feeling will be a relief for you.
No thanks, we've been down that road here before, repeatedly; I don't care to rehash it. And you're back into your shrill "why can't you feel safe without a gun" rant, which we've been over repeatedly too.

The one in my frigging post, and there’s another one on there somewhere too.

No. We haven’t. You've never explained why for example CS gas can't do the job. Its the finality of death that worries me. It turns you into a kind of judge. I find that dangerous because it can undermine the legal system. By using a non-lethal weapon you can be safe, with less training and danger to yourself (its easier to use gas than a firearm effectively) and the police and legal system can deal with the offender in a manner that is appropriate under law. There is a thin line between self defense and vigilante justice.

So are you, otherwise you won't carry a weapon designed and loaded specifically to inflict the maximum damage against your fellow citizen. I'm curious, what ammo do you use for self defense?

My point on the pink and fluffy was that guns are cool and people feel cool carrying a gun, its a cool thing to do. If people have had proper firearms training and more importantly, take it seriously, that’s fine, but i don't think they all do.

non-lethal agents
 

Choose your weapon.

I'll let you use it on me...free of charge.

Then I'll get up and tear out your heart with my bare hands.

Fair enough?


I made that offer many times. I have yet to get a taker. The closest one was a military instructor who used pepper spray on me for the qualification. As he was looking away and explaining how I was now totally incapacitated to the others in the group, I stood up (eyes closed), and relieved him of his sidearm. Then took the pepper spray from the box next to him and hit him with a blast. All while "totally incapacitated".

Non-lethals do not always work well, and many do not work at all. If I am facing a crack-addled robber or a PCP-crazed killer, I'm not going to spray him...it'll just make him madder. I'm going to use lethal force because that's my last refuge. The drugs will render him impervious to pain of any type...I could break his arms and he wouldn't feel it. I have seen instances where a drug-infused killer took a whole clip of bullets to bring down (police shooting). They do not feel pain. Also, these people do not need to be drug-infused to be dangerous.

I can relate anecdotes of times when an angry opponent simply went off the deep end and felt no pain until later.

it is unfortunate that sometimes lethal force must be used to protect you and yours. I feel sorry for you that you do not have this option. It's your own fault, of course. But I feel sorry for you nonetheless. But, please do not inflict your version of Utopia on Americans. We do not agree. Most of us anyway.

Brian

Then there's the deterrence factor. Figure that a baddie who is looking to harm you is already not deterred by the possibility of spending a few years in prison. He won't be deterred at all, then, by the prospect of spending an hour with burning eyes, if you manage to hit them at all. What seems like a minor inconvenience could turn into a rite of passage for a gangsta.

Frankly if someone is looking to do me harm I lack genuine compassion and consideration for them. Maybe getting my lights punched out in the middle of the street a few years back does that. I don't want to revoke the guy's life, I would prefer if the altercation never happened at all. Deterrence.

The image in "your frigging post" doesn't say "a kid isn't safe without an M-16". It says "We teach kids the basics of life...let self-defence be one of them". So, make up your mind: are you in favor of firearms training or not? You've *had* yours, of course...you did say that, right?

Obviously you've *not* had training with non-lethal weapons. Using them effectively is decidedly *not* easier than firearms, as you assert so casually. Of course "spray and pray" looks simple. But it's unlikely to be effective. If I'm defending myself, it will be with the most effective tools available. Probably *not* one that keeps some meddling pipsqueek in their comfort zone.

Look, if the finality of death worries you, don't attack me, and you'll be fine. You'll be safe from *me* anyhow. If somebody *else* attacks you, well, I hope your CS works, or maybe you'd better just call the cops. Hope they show up in time. You mentioned carrying a knife, do be careful you don't do anything lethal with it.
Or various random foreign terrorists.

So, having established we act from similar motivations, I just think my methods work better than yours. <i>Passing laws against guns won't disarm criminals.</i> And I don't care to disarm <b>myself</b> just so you can have a false sense of security. Maybe you *should* stay in the Australian victim disarmament zone.
Why, so you can tell me how inhumane I am for not following the "Geneva Convention" again? I see you've picked up on another canonical prohibitionist rant.

The <i>Hague Convention IV of 1907</i> is probably what you're thinking of. And it doesn't apply; I'm not a combatant. Neither are the cops, which is why they don't restrict themselves to fully metal-jacketed rounds either. They also carry CS, but they certainly don't rely on it. But then, that's a weapon forbidden by the laws of war that you're in *favor* of.

In a self-defense situation, full-metal jacket rounds are more likely to overpenetrate, pass through the target, and strike someone/something else. Of course, you were taught that when you had your firearms training. Right?

I'm well aware they are. Its also why the British dropped their old standard issue rifle, the muzzle velocity was so high it could get a standard issue round halfway though an engine block. Problem being it didn't do enough damage as one that went though a person as a lower velocity.

I brought up JHP ammo because they are specifically designed to inflict the maximum possible damage to the unfortunate target, and at the kind of distances you're going to be using it in a self-defence situation its most likely going to generate a rather pretty exit wound anyway.

You've clearly never seen some unfortunate bastard hit with CS spray in the face. If you have your definition of comfort zone is clearly limited to 'alive'. You have to know how to load a pistol, a clip, zero sights, use a safety, correct stance. Spray canister its point and click, its also harder to miss a cloud than a 9mm wide projectile.

Look i don't give a fuck if you carry a flamethrower, 15 frag grenades and dual 50cal desert eagles when you go to the sops but don't try and tell me i'm some kind of goddamn victim for not. All the arguements I hear thrown about about disarmament apply both ways and the stats are such bullshit on both sides nothing can be proven. I will be staying here, least for now and I'm safe enough here I don't have the inclination to carry any type of weapon (its worth noting police here now carry metal detectors to search people for weapons). When i'm moving though Asia I won't be carrying because it would cause far more problems than it would solve, if i was living somewhere in the US where it was legal to concealed carry i probably would, purely for safety.

The term "victim disarmament zone" refers to anyplace where the prohibitionists have won, because the only people who get disarmed by zone are the victims, not the criminals.
The "meddling pipsqueek" whose comfort zone I was referring to was not some hypothetical perp (about whose comfort I care not one tiny bit), it was someone who would try to legally restrict me to only weapons they were comfortable with me having, like CS.

Unfortunately, they're <b>not</b> hypothetical.
Yeah, I'd noted it already, as a measure of how far things have gone, down there.
Well, I'll tell you once again you're not in any danger from legally concealed weapons here; the crime rate among CCW holders is vanishingly small. It's the criminals you need to worry about.

Come to think of it, I don't think we grant CCWs to visitors anymore.

That's not what I was refreing to.
Secondly I can safely say there are less firearmed criminals here than there, ratio wise.

The stats in the recent k5 article on this were interesting, firstly the fact the US has the worlds highest murder rate(at least in the western world) and secondly the information about Switzerland which debunks further the steaming piles of effluent urbane dumped here.

mmm yes. Less people carrying knives...terrible....

Yes, most likely firearmed criminals, I don't have to worry about that here.

So, the latest neologism is "firearmed" eh? (Nothing artificial like "hoplophobe", of course.)

Just imagine how much better off you'll be empty-hand against an armed assailant, just as long as he's not "firearmed". As if a law is going to stop him if he thinks he needs a gun. But of course he doesn't, because he knows *you* won't be "firearmed". Maybe he'll be nice and just use CS...or a ceramic knife...or a baseball bat.

So, if you've nothing further beyond handwaving at the kids on K5, we'll bid adeiu to this thread.

I got sick of writing armed with a firearm. It seemed to repetitive. Its also far more understandable (it does contain both words, I’m sure if I showed both around I know which people would have an easier time guessing the meaning of) than a word that is not even in the oxford dictionary.

This is where ill draw the line at supporting my countries laws. The fact we cannot get legal access to non-lethal weapons like CS gas I think *is* a bad thing. The fact we cannot carry firearms for self defense is a good thing.

As for baseball bats...they're rather hard to conceal.

Not a sawed-off baseba--Wait a minute...

Yes, but a perp doesn't *need* to conceal them. Or many other things usable as a bludgeon.

A blackjack or sap won't show on a magnetic scan any more than a polymer/ceramic blade will. As time goes on you folks are going to get a detailed education in non-ferrous weapons. Not that the bad guys won't have firearms too. They just won't need them as much. Mostly to use on each other, I would imagine.

You had to shorten "armed with a firearm" to "firearmed" because you belabor the distinction way beyond its significance....if an assailant is vastly better-armed than you are, where you both fall on the escalation continuum won't matter much in terms of outcomes.

You can't even have CS, eh? How nice.