Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
rieschen
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby rieschen » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:15 am UTC

Izaww:
I'm not saying anyone is consciously trying to communicate "I think blind people have bad judgement." I haven't said this, and I don't think this. I'm saying it's implicit in some of the things that are being argued. If I haven't managed to explain to you why these implications exist in some of the things you write, I'm probably not gonna succeed, so this is the last thing I'm writing on ableism. Feel free to have the last word.

First quote: "any lethal weapon" is implicit unless you actually qualify "ranged lethal weapon". People have pointed out that you're making an arbitrary cut-off with perception versus range of weapons.
Second quote: I can't go into this further without the ableism thing, sorry!

Zig
I'm suggesting developing a set of standards for which the ability to use guns used in self-defense must be met, and not allowing that ability to anyone who doesn't meet that standard. One of the stipulations should be a vision test. Another such stipulation should be a competency test, and perhaps another would be a basic safety training class. I can easily imagine a blind person having the same ability to pass or fail a competency test, and probably portions of a basic safety training class.

Zag
That's an interesting point; I don't personally hold that you should be able to pass a CCW permit test (if one existed!) without firing a gun, but you do raise an interesting point that one could theoretically demonstrate competency by not shooting at anything you can't see (which could be everything!).

[...] I assume if I simply handled the course by drawing the gun and standing there, I'd have missed the point of the exercise.

I've never suggested we bar blind people from even attempting to pass the test. I'm just suggesting being blind shouldn't make passing particularly easy.


Zig
If that includes a vision test, then so be it.


KrytenKoro:
I think #1 is actually under quite a bit of debate. I have an opinion on this (moar testing, where I fully agree with Izaww in principle), but it's irrelevant for this thread how I feel about reasonable restrictions for gun ownership. I'd phrase it more like this: Any abstraction that is used in an ability test that is to put a limit on citizens' behaviors may not start systemically producing false positives nor false negatives by specifically checking for a disability that does not match the actual use case. I think it's pretty freaking clearly established that substituting seeing for being aware produce at least false positives. False negatives are being argued about here.

I don't have beef about #2 or #3 as long as #3 is acknowledge to apply to people based on their remaining awareness when grappling at close range (it's impacted regardless of whether you're blind or not), not just on blindness.

User avatar
rieschen
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 9:35 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby rieschen » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:15 am UTC

rieschen wrote:Izaww:
I'm not saying anyone is consciously trying to communicate "I think blind people have bad judgement." I haven't said this, and I don't think this. I'm saying it's implicit in some of the things that are being argued. If I haven't managed to explain to you why these implications exist in some of the things you write, I'm probably not gonna succeed, so this is the last thing I'm writing on ableism. Feel free to have the last word.

First quote: "any lethal weapon" is implicit unless you actually qualify "ranged lethal weapon". People have pointed out that you're making an arbitrary cut-off with perception versus range of weapons.
Second quote: I can't go into this further without the ableism thing, sorry!

Spoiler:
Zig
I'm suggesting developing a set of standards for which the ability to use guns used in self-defense must be met, and not allowing that ability to anyone who doesn't meet that standard. One of the stipulations should be a vision test. Another such stipulation should be a competency test, and perhaps another would be a basic safety training class. I can easily imagine a blind person having the same ability to pass or fail a competency test, and probably portions of a basic safety training class.

Zag
That's an interesting point; I don't personally hold that you should be able to pass a CCW permit test (if one existed!) without firing a gun, but you do raise an interesting point that one could theoretically demonstrate competency by not shooting at anything you can't see (which could be everything!).

[...] I assume if I simply handled the course by drawing the gun and standing there, I'd have missed the point of the exercise.

I've never suggested we bar blind people from even attempting to pass the test. I'm just suggesting being blind shouldn't make passing particularly easy.


Zig
If that includes a vision test, then so be it.


KrytenKoro:
I think #1 is actually under quite a bit of debate. I have an opinion on this (moar testing, where I fully agree with Izaww in principle), but it's irrelevant for this thread how I feel about reasonable restrictions for gun ownership. I'd phrase it more like this: Any abstraction that is used in an ability test that is to put a limit on citizens' behaviors may not start systemically producing false positives nor false negatives by specifically checking for a disability that does not match the actual use case. I think it's pretty freaking clearly established that substituting seeing for being aware produce at least false positives. False negatives are being argued about here.

I don't have beef about #2 or #3 as long as #3 is acknowledge to apply to people based on their remaining awareness when grappling at close range (it's impacted regardless of whether you're blind or not), not just on blindness.


Edited: Sorry for the DP. I kinda fucked up editing to add a spoiler. =.=

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:59 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Cool cool cool.

Small clarification:
Brace wrote:#3 is under contention still. Preventing injury to the blind victim is important as well. If a gun does that past a certain threshold of effectiveness and the risk of injury to others is sufficiently low, then the benefit of the gun outweighs the risk to others. Risk hasn't been quantified so this is perfectly within the realm of possibility. Secondarily and perhaps less importantly is the rights issue again, but I'm not going to stand on that (for you low hanging fruit grabbers who got excited for a minute).

I should have phrased this better, but what I'm getting at is that I think we all agree that, independent of a discussion of rights, it would be preferable for a person (blind, sighted, etc.) in a self-defense situation to use a hypothetical weapon that is short range or non-lethal to prevent accidental death of innocent bystanders.

Whether such a weapon actually exists and is practical seems to be the bit that is still under contention, yes?


Certainly.

A knife is fairly short ranged, but it's not particularly non lethal, and isn't very well suited to use by the blind.

Ranged taser use has pretty much the exact shortcomings as a gun. Miss the shot, and it's useless. I'll grant that missed shots are less likely to harm another, but the lack of follow up shots is pretty limiting. In addition, it has some particular shortcomings specific to the model, etc.

Stun guns have much more significant limitations. It's a contact range weapon that can hit you if you're in physical contact with the target other than with the weapon. Given the inherent perceptual limitation of being blind, this seems likely. Plus there's the lack of actual stoppage.

Batons, etc have the same basic issue as a knife. The range may be short, but if you're in a crowded area, it's still problematic. If you're not in a crowded area...why not use a gun? The odds of accidentally shooting a third party are not that large to begin with...it's a problem that mostly only exists in crowded spaces. If you're a cop shooting a guy in a crowd, missed shots matter a ton. If you're a person in a brick building defending yourself from a home intruder, missed shots don't really matter at all. You may break stuff. Meh. Stuff is replaceable. The walls are gonna stop stray rounds.

Pepper spray is kind of terrible. It strictly relies on pain and restriction of vision, and isn't very precise. Wind, for instance, can easily result in you spraying yourself. It's also designed as a short ranged weapon, not as a contact weapon, so, much like spraying a hose against a wall at short range, you can easily get splatter coming back at you. On the plus side, vision restriction isn't a big deal for the blind(though it certainly is for the merely legally blind), but pain is still pain.

Fists are a bit weak. You've got the same basic problems as a knife, plus the fact that hands are fairly fragile. Can bust them up easily if you're not careful. Not terribly good at stopping someone rapidly.

Well, those are the major self defense options, really. A gun is the most effective by a very significant margin.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:04 pm UTC

As someone who is just following this discussion I'm having trouble understanding the "zig zag zig". I provided my interpretations since rieschen quoted sections without explaining the quotations.

I'm suggesting developing a set of standards for which the ability to use guns used in self-defense must be met, and not allowing that ability to anyone who doesn't meet that standard. One of the stipulations should be a vision test. Another such stipulation should be a competency test, and perhaps another would be a basic safety training class. I can easily imagine a blind person having the same ability to pass or fail a competency test, and probably portions of a basic safety training class.

There should be tests before we allow people to carry guns in self-defense. Possibly safety classes as well. A vision impaired person could have the ability to pass or fail the comptency test. One of the sections should be a vision test.

That's an interesting point; I don't personally hold that you should be able to pass a CCW permit test (if one existed!) without firing a gun, but you do raise an interesting point that one could theoretically demonstrate competency by not shooting at anything you can't see (which could be everything!).

[...] I assume if I simply handled the course by drawing the gun and standing there, I'd have missed the point of the exercise.

I've never suggested we bar blind people from even attempting to pass the test. I'm just suggesting being blind shouldn't make passing particularly easy.

You should fire a gun before being allowed to carry one for self-defense. If a person practices shooting at targets from a standstill, then it doesn't prepare the shooter for a situation where they are under attack and need to defend themselves.
Vision imparied people shouldn't be automatically barred from testing, but they also shouldn't be given a handicap for passing a competency test.


If that includes a vision test, then so be it.

Gun competency should probably include a vision test.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Stun guns have much more significant limitations. It's a contact range weapon that can hit you if you're in physical contact with the target other than with the weapon. Given the inherent perceptual limitation of being blind, this seems likely. Plus there's the lack of actual stoppage.
I'm fairly certain this isn't true; everything I've read suggests stun guns do not harm someone in physical contact with the subject, that you aren't doing much of anything if you're being stunned, and that you don't regain function in any sort of time scale that anyone would consider 'immediate'.

Tyndmyr wrote:A knife is fairly short ranged, but it's not particularly non lethal, and isn't very well suited to use by the blind.
Not sure why you feel this is the case; a blind person who is capable of physically threatening or killing an assailant with a gun will presumably (hopefully, although who knows with what's being suggested!) have some training in it's use at contact range, which I imagine includes 'how to defend yourself at contact range'.
Tyndmyr wrote:Ranged taser use has pretty much the exact shortcomings as a gun. Miss the shot, and it's useless. I'll grant that missed shots are less likely to harm another, but the lack of follow up shots is pretty limiting. In addition, it has some particular shortcomings specific to the model, etc.
Ranged tasers do not become inert after being fired; they become stun guns. But yes, I agree that a ranged taser is somewhat pointless for the blind.

Interesting point though; a gun, once depleted of ammo, actually does become inert. I don't imagine a blind person is going to get 6-15 rounds off and NOT have attracted some attention or hit something, but it is a point.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:45 pm UTC

Honestly, your three best 'self defense weapons' are, in order: 1. your brain, 2. your feet, and 3. a whistle.

1. Your brain: try to avoid situations that put you in life-threatening situations (duh). Use your perception to avoid places that A. don't have alternate exits or B. are such that someone can approach you unaware.

2. Your feet: Never underestimate the power of running away.

3. A whistle - because mostly the only people who use them (regularly) are police - a loud blast can be heard at several hundred feet in the city (and a lot further in the country), it attracts a lot of attention - something most muggers do not want.

Also, many blind or significantly sight-impaired people use a cane - don't underestimate the beating that can be delivered with that.

More people hurt themselves or innocents using guns than save themselves via self defense (DoJ has statistics, I can't find them right now, at work).
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:05 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Stun guns have much more significant limitations. It's a contact range weapon that can hit you if you're in physical contact with the target other than with the weapon. Given the inherent perceptual limitation of being blind, this seems likely. Plus there's the lack of actual stoppage.
I'm fairly certain this isn't true; everything I've read suggests stun guns do not harm someone in physical contact with the subject, that you aren't doing much of anything if you're being stunned, and that you don't regain function in any sort of time scale that anyone would consider 'immediate'.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdLv94Y5LsM

You'll note the guy doing support is wearing gloves for obvious reasons. Exact possibility of zapping yourself depends on a few factors...basically, where the current is running. *Usually*, it shouldn't be all over the place, but depending on proximity and hold, water, etc...well, go test for yourself. It's not like they are expensive.

Level of pain, risk of shorting, etc likely varies between models, of course.

Tyndmyr wrote:A knife is fairly short ranged, but it's not particularly non lethal, and isn't very well suited to use by the blind.
Not sure why you feel this is the case; a blind person who is capable of physically threatening or killing an assailant with a gun will presumably (hopefully, although who knows with what's being suggested!) have some training in it's use at contact range, which I imagine includes 'how to defend yourself at contact range'.


Sure. Training is great...but knives are inherently different from guns in their use. With a gun, it's mostly point and click. Knives require a little more finesse. Also, they tend not to stop people rapidly in most circumstances, since they almost invariably kill through blood loss(for instance, stabbing through someone's skull would be extremely difficult, zombie movies aside). A fast stop is gonna be better than a slow one.

Tyndmyr wrote:Ranged taser use has pretty much the exact shortcomings as a gun. Miss the shot, and it's useless. I'll grant that missed shots are less likely to harm another, but the lack of follow up shots is pretty limiting. In addition, it has some particular shortcomings specific to the model, etc.
Ranged tasers do not become inert after being fired; they become stun guns. But yes, I agree that a ranged taser is somewhat pointless for the blind.

Interesting point though; a gun, once depleted of ammo, actually does become inert. I don't imagine a blind person is going to get 6-15 rounds off and NOT have attracted some attention or hit something, but it is a point.


Sure, but the stun gun portion has already been addressed. Given that the ranged part is mostly not a huge factor, these mostly just end up in the stun gun category...albeit in the more effective, more expensive side of the range. A ranged shot can technically be made at contact range without actually being quite in contact with the weapon so it's slightly superior to most...but as you say, range is of fairly limited benefit here.

Guns do become inert when depleted of ammo, sure. As you say, if you've run dry firing a gun in contact range...the encounter should be over. Some people carry a spare mag on their carry gun, but outside of law enforcement, military, etc, I basically never see someone go higher than that. Two mags is a pretty goodly amount of ammo for bumping into a criminal. Certainly, I've never felt a need for more(15 round mags on my .40), and the secondary mag is more in case of the freak mag failure than it is an actual worry I'll run dry on rounds.

As for running, I would imagine that blind people would be at least somewhat disadvantaged while running away. The cane does exist, sure, but I don't usually see them being used at a sprint. Shouting or whistling for help is great, but may not suffice to stop an attacker, as it has no physical means of doing so. Besides, that's something you can certainly still do if you have another means of defense. Yelling for help or the like is great...but the bystander effect is a bitch.

The DoJ statistics are old, and very, very thoroughly debunked. A lengthy conversation exists on the topic in the gun control thread.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10256
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby addams » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:40 pm UTC

Does the tread need a new name?
The Weapons Thread.

We can all get in the act.
The myth busters guys do that.

We can join in the fun.
What can you make a Toy from?
Are all toys by definition, weapons?

Big Toys for Big Boys.
Little Toys for Little Boys.

Stun guns. jeeze. That would be funny if ....if I were not an American.
Stun guns and foul tempers. jeeze.

Real guns are merciful in comparison.
Fuck it GrandPa. Get a gun.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:06 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Honestly, your three best 'self defense weapons' are, in order: 1. your brain, 2. your feet, and 3. a whistle.
Yeah, but deaf people aren't as good at using whistles as the rest of us, so while it's ok for them to own a whistle, deaf people shouldn't be allowed to carry one in public. Those deafies would probably just blow that whistle all damn day and annoy the hell out of everyone around them, amirite? I don't want to be ableist here, I'm not saying that deaf people are bad at judging when it'd be appropriate to use a whistle, except... wait... that's totally what I'm saying.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:17 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Honestly, your three best 'self defense weapons' are, in order: 1. your brain, 2. your feet, and 3. a whistle.
Yeah, but deaf people aren't as good at using whistles as the rest of us, so while it's ok for them to own a whistle, deaf people shouldn't be allowed to carry one in public. Those deafies would probably just blow that whistle all damn day and annoy the hell out of everyone around them, amirite? I don't want to be ableist here, I'm not saying that deaf people are bad at judging when it'd be appropriate to use a whistle, except... wait... that's totally what I'm saying.


Because accidentally annoying people is clearly the same as accidentally shooting them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:25 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:Honestly, your three best 'self defense weapons' are, in order: 1. your brain, 2. your feet, and 3. a whistle.
Yeah, but deaf people aren't as good at using whistles as the rest of us, so while it's ok for them to own a whistle, deaf people shouldn't be allowed to carry one in public. Those deafies would probably just blow that whistle all damn day and annoy the hell out of everyone around them, amirite? I don't want to be ableist here, I'm not saying that deaf people are bad at judging when it'd be appropriate to use a whistle, except... wait... that's totally what I'm saying.

Good work. You have successfully parodied an argument no one is making.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:39 pm UTC

Back in reasonable conversation land:
Tyndmyr wrote:Level of pain, risk of shorting, etc likely varies between models, of course.
I'm really surprised at how ineffective stun guns are after poking around youtube and chuckling at a bunch of idiots stunning themselves. Surely it varies by make and model a bit, but yeah, I suppose they're not remotely as effective as I presumed.

Is the model used by law enforcement different? I was under the impression that those dropped people for significant periods of time. I watched videos of people who aside from gritting their teeth barely seemed phased.

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure. Training is great...but knives are inherently different from guns in their use. With a gun, it's mostly point and click. Knives require a little more finesse. Also, they tend not to stop people rapidly in most circumstances, since they almost invariably kill through blood loss(for instance, stabbing through someone's skull would be extremely difficult, zombie movies aside). A fast stop is gonna be better than a slow one.
Question: Isn't one of the factors to a guns use in self defense the psychological stopping power of being shot? Surely a similar phenomenon exists for knives?

And yeah; if we're talking about a lethal weapon capable of killing innocent bystanders thousands of feet away, I don't think requiring a bit of training is a bad thing. To that end, I don't think someone with a knife for self defense would/should be incapable of using it properly.

Tyndmyr wrote:albeit in the more effective, more expensive side of the range.
Just a point; surely the price point is A ) somewhat moot, and B ) fairly similar?
Tyndmyr wrote:A ranged shot can technically be made at contact range without actually being quite in contact with the weapon so it's slightly superior to most...but as you say, range is of fairly limited benefit here.
If you're willing to accept that in the hands of a blind person, a gun is only reasonable at contact range, then I feel you should be willing to replace 'gun' with 'ranged taser' in all scenarios. I (we?) have found a bunch of videos of stun guns doing nothing; I have also found a bunch of videos of tasers completely dropping someone.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:12 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Yeah, but deaf people aren't as good at using whistles as the rest of us, so while it's ok for them to own a whistle, deaf people shouldn't be allowed to carry one in public. Those deafies would probably just blow that whistle all damn day and annoy the hell out of everyone around them, amirite? I don't want to be ableist here, I'm not saying that deaf people are bad at judging when it'd be appropriate to use a whistle, except... wait... that's totally what I'm saying.

Good work. You have successfully parodied an argument no one is making.
Correct, I parodied 3 arguments Izzawlgood is making:
1) Blind people aren't good with guns, so we should take them away.
2) Blind people with guns would be unsafe, because they would not use good judgement when deciding when to fire and thus kill innocent people.
3) Blind people have good judgement, so I'm not prejudiced.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Stunningly inept at following the conversation...
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr, what makes a blind person unable to run as despite being able to shoot? They aren't paraplegics.

PS: Who would win in a gunfight, a paraplegic or a blind man? The answer coming up next on Deadliest warrior.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:51 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Back in reasonable conversation land:
Tyndmyr wrote:Level of pain, risk of shorting, etc likely varies between models, of course.
I'm really surprised at how ineffective stun guns are after poking around youtube and chuckling at a bunch of idiots stunning themselves. Surely it varies by make and model a bit, but yeah, I suppose they're not remotely as effective as I presumed.

Is the model used by law enforcement different? I was under the impression that those dropped people for significant periods of time. I watched videos of people who aside from gritting their teeth barely seemed phased.


Usually, yes. Even among tasers, there are a number of law enforcement specific models, usually with greater capabilities, and tasers are at the high end of the quality range in mass produced electroshock options. You can buy a stun gun over the internet for $15, if you want. High end taser models can run in excess of a thousand. As you'd expect, the difference in quality is immense. Probably a lot greater, IMO, than the variation between firearms, though that does exist.

The taser shot, for instance, is designed to induce a pulsed current with low overall amps, etc(IIRC, there's a higher initial charge to initiate the current, then it's rapidly dropped for safety reasons). This allows them to maximize the disabling effect with fairly low probability of injury or death. Most commercial stun guns are just straight current. There are practical limitations to what you can do with that without making it significantly life threatening. Typically, they advertise a ridiculous voltage, while keeping the amps quite low. It's brute forced, while the taser is designed to essentially jam neural communications.

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure. Training is great...but knives are inherently different from guns in their use. With a gun, it's mostly point and click. Knives require a little more finesse. Also, they tend not to stop people rapidly in most circumstances, since they almost invariably kill through blood loss(for instance, stabbing through someone's skull would be extremely difficult, zombie movies aside). A fast stop is gonna be better than a slow one.
Question: Isn't one of the factors to a guns use in self defense the psychological stopping power of being shot? Surely a similar phenomenon exists for knives?

And yeah; if we're talking about a lethal weapon capable of killing innocent bystanders thousands of feet away, I don't think requiring a bit of training is a bad thing. To that end, I don't think someone with a knife for self defense would/should be incapable of using it properly.


Honestly, most people instinctively use a knife poorly. Slashing is very common, but it tends to inflict surface wounds only against most target areas( the skull and rib cage tend to protect fairly well against those). Slashing is also a lot more likely to accidentally strike someone else. Now, slashing wounds can still be quite nasty...blood loss and tissue damage is a big deal...but it's crap for stopping people.

In the end, though, regardless of laws, if you're gonna carry something to protect yourself, you will be VASTLY better off if you learn how to use it before you need to do so, sighted or not. Security is something that is practiced, not merely bought.

Tyndmyr wrote:albeit in the more effective, more expensive side of the range.
Just a point; surely the price point is A ) somewhat moot, and B ) fairly similar?
Tyndmyr wrote:A ranged shot can technically be made at contact range without actually being quite in contact with the weapon so it's slightly superior to most...but as you say, range is of fairly limited benefit here.
If you're willing to accept that in the hands of a blind person, a gun is only reasonable at contact range, then I feel you should be willing to replace 'gun' with 'ranged taser' in all scenarios. I (we?) have found a bunch of videos of stun guns doing nothing; I have also found a bunch of videos of tasers completely dropping someone.
[/quote]

Mostly explained this above, but yeah, that's pretty normal. Tasers have a few benefits...the actual shot is limited, and while it can still fail, if it DOES work properly, it tends to be much more impressive than a stun gun because they tend to be designed a ton better.

I also differentiate between contact range and contact because with a taser, you could be in contact with your offhand, and thus, know exactly where they are while shooting with your other hand(this is not uncommon training for close range firearm use as well. Pushing them off you/stepping out of the line of attack can allow you to draw and fire when surprised). The range is quite close, but the weapon may not actually be in contact. For a stun gun, weapon to body contact is required.

So, while a taser still isn't a firearm, it's definitely a lot superior to a stun gun.

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, what makes a blind person unable to run as despite being able to shoot? They aren't paraplegics.

PS: Who would win in a gunfight, a paraplegic or a blind man? The answer coming up next on Deadliest warrior.


We're talking averages. On average, it would be more difficult for a blind individual to run away from an attacker than a sighted person.

It certainly isn't impossible, but we can expect people who are more perceptive(regardless of blindness) to be able to start running sooner, notice avenues of escape and obstacles faster, etc.

Also, I look forward to the first time someone duct tapes a handgun to some servos and a couple of EEG readers. Could probably strip out a mindflex for a prototype. I fully endorse giving paraplegics android parts.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:48 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Honestly, your three best 'self defense weapons' are, in order: 1. your brain, 2. your feet, and 3. a whistle.

1. Your brain: try to avoid situations that put you in life-threatening situations (duh). Use your perception to avoid places that A. don't have alternate exits or B. are such that someone can approach you unaware.


Obviously it is better to avoid life-threatening situations; I don't believe anyone is suggesting that you should actively seek out life-threatening situations, or simply ignore them, etc. The same is true for house fires, car accidents, and the like: Your best option is to not be involved. But given that these things might still happen even if you take precautions, it's not unreasonable to have some sort of plan or at least a vague idea of what to do. And for self-defense, that can include carrying a weapon and knowing how to use it.

2. Your feet: Never underestimate the power of running away.


The thing is, when you're talking about mugging, the folks who do that are often quite good at surprise. In the movies, we often see the Bad Guy approach menacingly, say something that is threatening, and either he gets the stuff or a fight starts. Real criminals rarely work that way. More often, you're either going to be ambushed - that is, you're already under attack by the time you know anything is amiss - or you're going to be surrounded. Obviously if you have an opening to run away, run away. But the point is that muggers are predators, and like any predator they tend to choose not only the targets but also the situations that best suit their needs.

The point is, while running away is a great option when you have it, if you're serious about self-defense you have to address what you're going to do when it isn't an option.

3. A whistle - because mostly the only people who use them (regularly) are police - a loud blast can be heard at several hundred feet in the city (and a lot further in the country), it attracts a lot of attention - something most muggers do not want.


Vastly overrated. When is the last time you heard a whistle and immediately dropped what you were doing to go see if someone needed help? If you have - ever - then you're in a minority. A whistle is right up there with the car alarm in terms of effectiveness. And, while it's true that your typical mugger doesn't want to attract attention, it's also pretty likely that he's chosen his location based in part on the fact that folks aren't going to be overly concerned about a whistle - or a scream, or any other loud noise. Certainly not in the brief moments it's going to take to get what he wants from you.

Also, many blind or significantly sight-impaired people use a cane - don't underestimate the beating that can be delivered with that.


The type of cane typically carried by a blind person does not have the weight needed to cause real damage; at best you might be able to surprise and distract a mugger well enough to make a run for it - but you cannot count on it was a weapon.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:14 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
2. Your feet: Never underestimate the power of running away.


The thing is, when you're talking about mugging, the folks who do that are often quite good at surprise. In the movies, we often see the Bad Guy approach menacingly, say something that is threatening, and either he gets the stuff or a fight starts. Real criminals rarely work that way. More often, you're either going to be ambushed - that is, you're already under attack by the time you know anything is amiss - or you're going to be surrounded. Obviously if you have an opening to run away, run away. But the point is that muggers are predators, and like any predator they tend to choose not only the targets but also the situations that best suit their needs.

The point is, while running away is a great option when you have it, if you're serious about self-defense you have to address what you're going to do when it isn't an option.


I'm not sure how effective a blind person would be at running away over unfamiliar terrain, honestly. I guess this depends on "how blind". If you have no vision at all, you probably are going to trip and fall before you get away. If you have enough vision that you can at least see that you need to step over a curb or whatever, well, then maybe.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6796
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:34 pm UTC

How is being bad at running any less 'ablist' than being bad at shooting? He's blind, not legless. If he can perceive well enough to shoot, I'm sure he can run. If he can't see well enough to run, then how is he gonna fire in self defense?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:41 pm UTC

sardia wrote:How is being bad at running any less 'ablist' than being bad at shooting? He's blind, not legless. If he can perceive well enough to shoot, I'm sure he can run. If he can't see well enough to run, then how is he gonna fire in self defense?

Theoretically, if a blind person does happen to trip over something, they don't usually need to use deadly force to defend themselves from whatever tripped them.

Basically, we've been trying to demonstrate why that second claim doesn't hold.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:How is being bad at running any less 'ablist' than being bad at shooting? He's blind, not legless. If he can perceive well enough to shoot, I'm sure he can run. If he can't see well enough to run, then how is he gonna fire in self defense?


Generally speaking, in a self-defense situation the target is the person who is actively attacking you; they're not particularly hard to locate once that is happening. Whether your weapon of choice is a gun, knife, stick or whatever - you're going after the person who's currently hitting you. It's not unreasonable to expect a blind person, even if they are completely blind, to be able to shoot someone at contact range. I've mentioned earlier in the thread, I have a friend who is well past legally blind who practices with a pistol. She typically shoots a man-sized silhouette target at about 10 feet, and can hit center mass reliable.

Sighted or not, self-defense with a firearm tends to be more point-and-shoot than actual aiming. In that respect it's not much different than shooting if you're sighted; you have to protect yourself long enough to draw the weapon, clear the weapon, and then point at the target.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:04 am UTC

I'm sure I'll regret reviving this thread, but in response to objections that knives aren't effective defensive weapons against someone really determined to hurt you, what about this?

Probably more effective at contact range than a typical handgun, while having zero probability of accidentally killing someone farther away.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby curtis95112 » Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:22 am UTC

Oh god, that's awesome.
It seems to be strictly superior to everything we've discussed here. The only possible disadvantage I see is that it's probably difficult to not kill someone with it.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10256
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby addams » Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:48 am UTC

What??
Knifes must be in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing.
More than a gun. Guns are point and shoot. Knives are a not a machine.

Knives take a lot of brute strength to use.
Yes. An expert can do a lot of damage, very quickly.

Are you advocating for the use of knives to kill humans with?
That is such a bad idea. During a tussle? With a blind guy?

Really?! This thread is simply boys talking like boys. right?

I am still glad blind guys can have guns.
During the last year my stance on guns has done a 180.

Before, My stance was, "Discourage people from having firearms in their lives."
A life without a firearm is a quieter life.

Now, Everyone gets a gun! Everyone!
Too little to hold your gun? Daddy can hold it until you are big enough.

Now, Everyone, except me, needs a gun and should have a gun and I am willing to entourage the use of these weapons.
Why? Why did my stance on guns change so dramatically? I am tired of listening to people brag.

If you can, DO!
Stop flapping those lips and DO something.

It is reasonable to ask people to do what they talk about doing.
So; You want to have and use guns? DO THAT!

Some will grow out of it. Some will kill. Some will die.
At least I will not be hearing about what you Might do.
I want to hear about what you Did do.

If the nation wants to begin discussing gardening I would be pleased to listen.
I may chime in. I know the difference between photosynthesis and the Kreb's cycle.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Oct 26, 2013 4:58 am UTC

curtis95112 wrote:Oh god, that's awesome.
It seems to be strictly superior to everything we've discussed here. The only possible disadvantage I see is that it's probably difficult to not kill someone with it.

Oh for sure, but then when you're being attacked and decide to use a gun to defend yourself, you're probably already past the point of caring whether the other person survives.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:52 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I'm sure I'll regret reviving this thread, but in response to objections that knives aren't effective defensive weapons against someone really determined to hurt you, what about this?

Probably more effective at contact range than a typical handgun, while having zero probability of accidentally killing someone farther away.


It does seem rather better for stopping rapidly than the average knife, for sure. It does appear to have the disadvantage of having only a single shot, though, so it's not strictly better than a handgun. More of a set of tradeoffs, really. I could see this being justified as an alternative for some people, though, depending on skillset.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby curtis95112 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:30 am UTC

Even if you miss, you still have a knife, so I don't see it as too much of a disadvantage.
The way to make it more effective might be to publicize it. If I'm trying to kill someone and they pull that thing out, I'm getting the hell away from there.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I'm sure I'll regret reviving this thread, but in response to objections that knives aren't effective defensive weapons against someone really determined to hurt you, what about this?

Probably more effective at contact range than a typical handgun, while having zero probability of accidentally killing someone farther away.



That thing is actually really dumb for self-defense above the water (its real usefulness for self-defense underwater is also debatable).
There's a lot that can be said about why this thing is a terrible choice for self defense, but I'm gonna fall back on a concept I learned from Magic: The Gathering, namely 'Win-More'.

The idea of something being 'win-more' is that it's only better than something else when you're already winning. In other words, it doesn't help you get ahead or gain advantage, it only increases an advantage you already have and is therefore likely to be wore is normal use than something that can actually help you pull ahead and generates advantage.

This knife is very 'win-more'. For it to be any better than a normal knife, you have to already have it lodged pretty deeply in your opponent's chest cavity, and then be able to depress the valve. While the largely accepted wisdom about a knife fight is that there are no winners, if you've managed to lodge a knife in your opponent's gut and still have positive retention and control of it, that's about as close to winning as it gets. You don't need a CO2 cartridge in the handle at that point. (Against a shark, may be a different matter.)
Otherwise, this thing isn't especially well designed for self-defense (As previously discussed, knives are fundamentally offensive weapons and not generally well suited to defense). Even if it was, self-defense with a knife is extremely skill and physical-ability dependent.

Also, for the price of this knife, you could buy two pistols.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby elasto » Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:31 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:That thing is actually really dumb for self-defense above the water (its real usefulness for self-defense underwater is also debatable).
There's a lot that can be said about why this thing is a terrible choice for self defense, but I'm gonna fall back on a concept I learned from Magic: The Gathering, namely 'Win-More'.

The idea of something being 'win-more' is that it's only better than something else when you're already winning. In other words, it doesn't help you get ahead or gain advantage, it only increases an advantage you already have and is therefore likely to be wore is normal use than something that can actually help you pull ahead and generates advantage.

This knife is very 'win-more'. For it to be any better than a normal knife, you have to already have it lodged pretty deeply in your opponent's chest cavity, and then be able to depress the valve. While the largely accepted wisdom about a knife fight is that there are no winners, if you've managed to lodge a knife in your opponent's gut and still have positive retention and control of it, that's about as close to winning as it gets. You don't need a CO2 cartridge in the handle at that point. (Against a shark, may be a different matter.)
Otherwise, this thing isn't especially well designed for self-defense (As previously discussed, knives are fundamentally offensive weapons and not generally well suited to defense). Even if it was, self-defense with a knife is extremely skill and physical-ability dependent.

Also, for the price of this knife, you could buy two pistols.

Well, yes, but I don't think you've said anything that contradicts what the website claims this knife is good for: Defensive use against large land/sea mammals and offensive use by soldiers.

If you're being attacked by a bear, a knife to its gut isn't going to save your life. It'll still maul you to death and may not even die from its injuries. This knife would probably drop it instantly though from pure shock.

Likewise, a soldier knifing someone with this vs a normal knife could be the difference between them getting a stab/shot off before they drop and not.

Coming back to gmalivuk's point, though: for a blind person, if a form of lethal defense is needed (and, for many Western countries it's not - whether the person is blind, sighted, citizen or police officer) then this would be a more reasonable choice than a gun which no blind person could ever safely fire.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:40 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Otherwise, this thing isn't especially well designed for self-defense (As previously discussed, knives are fundamentally offensive weapons and not generally well suited to defense). Even if it was, self-defense with a knife is extremely skill and physical-ability dependent.
The reason knives aren't suited for defense is that a stabbed or cut enemy (be it man or beast) can keep attacking you unless you've managed to slit its throat or sever its spinal cord or something.

Most things *can't*, on the other hand, keep attacking if they've got a basketball-sized bubble of super cold CO2 somewhere inside their body now.

Sure, by no means perfect, but then neither is anything else. I merely believe that it is more effective against an opponent and safer for the user than previously suggested contact-range alternatives to firearms, while being safer for bystanders than firearms themselves.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Cleverbeans » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:30 pm UTC

These injection knives seem to be a completely viable alternative to guns, for the sighted or the blind with particular emphasis on point-blank range defense which is exactly the situation you'd expect a blind person to safely use a gun. Now if we could just do something about that pesky second amendment...
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:30 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
EdgarJPublius wrote:Otherwise, this thing isn't especially well designed for self-defense (As previously discussed, knives are fundamentally offensive weapons and not generally well suited to defense). Even if it was, self-defense with a knife is extremely skill and physical-ability dependent.
The reason knives aren't suited for defense is that a stabbed or cut enemy (be it man or beast) can keep attacking you unless you've managed to slit its throat or sever its spinal cord or something.

Most things *can't*, on the other hand, keep attacking if they've got a basketball-sized bubble of super cold CO2 somewhere inside their body now.


Sure, if you manage to stick somebody in the gut with this knife well enough that you can push the button, that will most likely stop the attack right there. I'm not disputing that.

The problem, the whole issue in fact, is that sticking an attacker with a knife in the first place is the hard part of a knife fight.
In other words, this knife is only more effective as a self-defense tool than a normal knife when you already have the advantage.

When you are in a defensive situation, you start at a disadvantage. You don't want a tool that only works when you're already ahead, you want one that will help put you ahead.

So no, this thing isn't a viable alternative to a gun, because in a self defense situation, this knife compares to a gun exactly the same way any other knife does: poorly.

At best, it may be considered a viable alternative to a conventional knife (if you can afford it), but that actually depends on how easy it is to stick into an opponent who is fighting back compared to a conventional knife.
As a general rule, dive knives make very poor combat knives. They are simply designed for completely different roles. A dive knife wants to pry at things and cut up tangled lines and stuff. While there are several different schools of thought on what makes a good combat knife, they don't share a lot in common with design features that make a good dive knife.

In fact, Dive knives aren't even used for defense against underwater predators except in extremely rare circumstances. In almost all cases, fists or electrical/chemical repellants are greatly preferred.

EDIT: maybe something closer to a Fairbairn–Sykes style combat knife would work better, at least that would be a knife designed for sticking the point into an enemy's thoracic cavity, where the expanding CO2 would do the most damage.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Red Hal » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:00 am UTC

I am just saddened that we are discussing the most effective way to kill someone.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:35 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I'm sure I'll regret reviving this thread, but in response to objections that knives aren't effective defensive weapons against someone really determined to hurt you, what about this?

Probably more effective at contact range than a typical handgun, while having zero probability of accidentally killing someone farther away.


Didn't they use that on CSI once?

Or was it Bones....Nope, i think it was Bones, because they guy that was stabbed kinda exploded.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:59 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:I am just saddened that we are discussing the most effective way to kill someone.


That's not what we're discussing.
We are in fact discussing the most effective way to stop an attacker (or multiple attackers) from killing or grievously injuring us/our loved ones.

I hope no one else has gotten confused on this point, it is a very important distinction.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:09 pm UTC

In almost all cases, a mugger who is trying to attack a blind person will be very much dissuaded by having a knife stabbed three inches into their chest. I don't think that the number of muggers who would not be dissuaded by this is high enough to warrant adding a basketball-sized CO2 bomb to the mix.

With respect to giving a gun to a blind guy....typically, a mugger isn't going to be attacking someone in a crowded place where there are a lot of bystanders to get in the way.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby curtis95112 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:17 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:In almost all cases, a mugger who is trying to attack a blind person will be very much dissuaded by having a knife stabbed three inches into their chest. I don't think that the number of muggers who would not be dissuaded by this is high enough to warrant adding a basketball-sized CO2 bomb to the mix.

With respect to giving a gun to a blind guy....typically, a mugger isn't going to be attacking someone in a crowded place where there are a lot of bystanders to get in the way.


Stabbing the mugger in the chest will dissuade only if the mugger knows that'll happen beforehand. After actually getting stabbed, there's quite a good chance the mugger will kill the victim out of instinct and inertia. Hell, they might not even notice they've been stabbed for a few seconds.

Also, bullets can rip through walls to hurt people on the other side.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby cphite » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:43 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:In almost all cases, a mugger who is trying to attack a blind person will be very much dissuaded by having a knife stabbed three inches into their chest. I don't think that the number of muggers who would not be dissuaded by this is high enough to warrant adding a basketball-sized CO2 bomb to the mix.


Yeah... I'm not seeing the need for this. Stabbing someone in the chest deep enough to puncture a lung is pretty effective in and of itself, unless you're in an action movie.

With respect to giving a gun to a blind guy....typically, a mugger isn't going to be attacking someone in a crowded place where there are a lot of bystanders to get in the way.


Exactly.

Everyone keeps talking about all the innocent bystanders, but the reality is that during a mugging the only people who are likely to be there are you and the people robbing you. Muggers, as a rule, tend to avoid witnesses.

Your average mugging tends to be very fast and very close; usually by surprise. Blind or sighted, the use of a firearm involves 1.) keeping the opponent at bay until you can draw the weapon, 2.) pointing the weapon at the assailant, and 3.) pulling the trigger. There is very little in the way of "aiming" involved. You point at your opponent, who is in most cases going to be in physical contact with you. With just a little training, there is no reason to believe that your average blind person can't use a firearm effectively in that scenario, or even at a slightly longer distance. Basically if they can point at the opponent, they can be effective.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:53 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote: I don't think that the number of muggers who would not be dissuaded by this is high enough to warrant adding a basketball-sized CO2 bomb to the mix.
So, I presume you're against giving people guns then for protection?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Blind and want a gun? Go to Iowa

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:05 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:After actually getting stabbed, there's quite a good chance the mugger will kill the victim out of instinct and inertia. Hell, they might not even notice they've been stabbed for a few seconds.

This seems like a tendentious claim. Any idea how we might figure out for sure?

curtis95112 wrote:Also, bullets can rip through walls to hurt people on the other side.

Drywall, yes. Bullets from a handgun, especially popular self-defense rounds like hollow-points, aren't going to make it through anything much harder than drywall with lethal velocity. Brick or concrete block are nonstarters.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: elasto, KittenKaboodle and 16 guests