Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. At any point she can defend herself against either an unarmed or armed intruder if she herself is carrying and trained.

The ability to defend oneself is not tacit to safety. She has the ability to defend herself even when unarmed. That doesn't mean she will be successful. If everyone is armed, then everyone has the same basic capacity for defense. The notion of who is, and who is not, a target of opportunity simply changes, it doesn't go away. Power is a zero sum game in all its auspices.

Frazzled wrote:
"A Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall." Daniel Boone.

And when everyone else is 6 feet tall as well it no longer matters.

That is, I believe, a fair amount of the point -- the lack of an advantage to be exploited.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect. At any point she can defend herself against either an unarmed or armed intruder if she herself is carrying and trained.

The ability to defend oneself is not tacit to safety. She has the ability to defend herself even when unarmed. That doesn't mean she will be successful. If everyone is armed, then everyone has the same basic capacity for defense. The notion of who is, and who is not, a target of opportunity simply changes, it doesn't go away. Power is a zero sum game in all its auspices.

Frazzled wrote:
"A Kentucky Rifle makes every man six feet tall." Daniel Boone.

And when everyone else is 6 feet tall as well it no longer matters.

Bull it being armed gives her options to defend herself. Your average male has the capacity to subdue your average female physically. She is at a disdvantage to begin with. At any step it safer for her to be armed than not armed.

*barehanded-can stop the assault.
*knife/stick. As UT learned, never bring a knife to a gunfight.
*gun/gun-at worst she has an equal chance.

Nice to see how I managed to start such a civil discussion about the topic. I just wanted to sahre a good laugh.

My brother and I are now the 4th generation working in a tobacco store (pipes, cigars and stuff) which was founded by my great-grandfather before WW2, so I was raised to be tolerant about smoking. Never started it though. I just don't like the taste.

Frazzled wrote:
Bull it being armed gives her options to defend herself. Your average male has the capacity to subdue your average female physically.

Yes, and the average female has the ability to defend herself (defense does not imply success).

Frazzled wrote:
She is at a disdvantage to begin with. At any step it safer for her to be armed than not armed.

Not if the assailant is also armed, which has been my point the entire time. The inherent advantage provided by firearms depends directly on their relative rarity.

Frazzled wrote:
*gun/gun-at worst she has an equal chance.

Still a lesser chance. Is she going to remain gun in hand at all times? No, she's going to be threatened with a weapon, and then have to draw. The defender is always at a disadvantage. Not even factoring in that a physical advantage in tight proximity gun fight is still an advantage, the woman is still at risk.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Bull it being armed gives her options to defend herself. Your average male has the capacity to subdue your average female physically.

Yes, and the average female has the ability to defend herself (defense does not imply success).

***Er that means almost nothing.

Frazzled wrote:

She is at a disdvantage to begin with. At any step it safer for her to be armed than not armed.

Not if the assailant is also armed, which has been my point the entire time. The inherent advantage provided by firearms depends directly on their relative rarity.

***No that means she still has an equal chance. If she practices better than equal chance.

Frazzled wrote:
*gun/gun-at worst she has an equal chance.

Still a lesser chance. Is she going to remain gun in hand at all times? No, she's going to be threatened with a weapon, and then have to draw. The defender is always at a disadvantage. Not even factoring in that a physical advantage in tight proximity gun fight is still an advantage, the woman is still at risk.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Nice to see how I managed to start such a civil discussion about the topic. I just wanted to sahre a good laugh.

My brother and I are now the 4th generation working in a tobacco store (pipes, cigars and stuff) which was founded by my great-grandfather before WW2, so I was raised to be tolerant about smoking. Never started it though. I just don't like the taste.

I too don't like the taste,I don't have money for it and I would only smoke Cuban cigar.

Frazzled wrote:
***Erp erp thats right, but same with anything including youe.. what? barehanded technique?

That's been the point the entire time. The more guns there are, the less secure they make those who possess them.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
***Erp erp thats right, but same with anything including youe.. what? barehanded technique?

That's been the point the entire time. The more guns there are, the less secure they make those who possess them.

And has now been disproven.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
***Erp erp thats right, but same with anything including youe.. what? barehanded technique?

That's been the point the entire time. The more guns there are, the less secure they make those who possess them.

I don't know if that's entirely true Dogma, I'm widely known in my neighborhood as "That big tattooed guy with all the guns",over an 8th month period their were multiple break ins in my area,including two homes directly across from me..I can't help but think that the knowledge that my home is deffended acts as a bit of a deterent to would be intruders.

Are there any laws against sticking a sign up on your lawn that says:

IF YOU BREAK IN TO MY HOUSE I WILL PROBABLY KILL YOU.

YOURS SINCERELY, THE OCCUPANT.

?

IvanTih wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:Nice to see how I managed to start such a civil discussion about the topic. I just wanted to sahre a good laugh.

My brother and I are now the 4th generation working in a tobacco store (pipes, cigars and stuff) which was founded by my great-grandfather before WW2, so I was raised to be tolerant about smoking. Never started it though. I just don't like the taste.

I too don't like the taste,I don't have money for it and I would only smoke Cuban cigar.

Well, Cuban Cigars are rather strong my comparison. Maybe you should try something lighter, like a Cigar from the Domican Republic.

Look at me, I'm working over the Internet!

Time to divert the subject to gun control laws? 3 pages. Not good, I am pretty sure this has been done in 1 page before. Where's the spirit? Where's the pizzaz?

Albatross wrote:Are there any laws against sticking a sign up on your lawn that says:

IF YOU BREAK IN TO MY HOUSE I WILL PROBABLY KILL YOU.

YOURS SINCERELY, THE OCCUPANT.

?

Oddly enough their most likely are

Quick someone invoke Godwins law!

FITZZ wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
***Erp erp thats right, but same with anything including youe.. what? barehanded technique?

That's been the point the entire time. The more guns there are, the less secure they make those who possess them.

I don't know if that's entirely true Dogma, I'm widely known in my neighborhood as "That big tattooed guy with all the guns",over an 8th month period their were multiple break ins in my area,including two homes directly across from me..I can't help but think that the knowledge that my home is deffended acts as a bit of a deterent to would be intruders.

I think what dogma's saying is that a person who has a gun is more secure the less guns there are for everyone else to have.

Umm, also people who have tattoos are probably neo-nazis, so I think you're like Hitler.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

I think what dogma's saying is that a person who has a gun is more secure the less guns there are for everyone else to have.

Umm, also people who have tattoos are probably neo-nazis, so I think you're like Hitler.

I don't need a sign in front of my house.

I'd rather take a would be intruder by surprise.

I live in a neighbourhood where there never any burglaries, ever, and no-one has any guns.

Back on topic, it's illegal to smoke in the street in Japan now and people have to stand around these public smoking points outside convenience stores and railway stations.

I don't see how a ban on smoking in your own home could realistically be enforced.

Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, it's illegal to smoke in the street in Japan now and people have to stand around these public smoking points outside convenience stores and railway stations.

We have those smoking areas on statiuons here as well. My father once refused to stay in one, telling the people there "we already had that once, where a group of the population was forced to stay away from the rest."

Anung Un Rama wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, it's illegal to smoke in the street in Japan now and people have to stand around these public smoking points outside convenience stores and railway stations.

We have those smoking areas on statiuons here as well. My father once refused to stay in one, telling the people there "we already had that once, where a group of the population was forced to stay away from the rest."

I would appluad your Fathers statement ANung,as well as the spirit behind it.

Thanks. I'll tell him.

Re: gun laws.

You're making it sound like women are getting jumped at every crossroad. Dunno about that, here the vast majority of violence against women occurs in the home, a situation where firearms are going to increase the risk of the victim getting murdered. Most of the street crime here is street fights around the nightclub areas after closing hours, so alcohol fueled bashings. The police are having issues with stabbings, but not one shooting because nobody has guns. If they did, there would be many many more deaths than their have been.

*shrugs* Anyone out in the bush has a rifle, sort of required for work. I still fail to see how carrying a pistol makes you safer, because the ones that do the attacking are generally the ones most likely to be carrying in the first place, thus making a situation worse. I just think gun control works. After the Port Arthur massacre (think one of the school gun shootings occasionally on the news) automatic and semi-automatic guns were instantly banned for anyone that didn't have an extraordinary license, which is very difficult to get. That was in 1996. I don't think there has been a similar event since. There were certainly quite a few that occurred before Port Arthur. Restrict access to weapons that can kill a large number of people with little effort and the ability to separate yourself from the affect and people will be limited to less dangerous means. That is the primary reason I think giving broad access to firearms to people that don't need them for occupational reasons is asking for trouble.

I agree with Morgrim.