|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Ordnance-Corner for UFies | by Ordnance_Corner | 2007-02-16 10:09:25 |
|
Hey, new cover page. And new intent to kill. | by Peace_man | 2007-02-16 10:17:53 |
|
That is the designed purpose of guns, after all. ( (n/t) | by JimK | 2007-02-16 10:25:18 |
|
Good in theory... | by ayteebee | 2007-02-16 11:42:19 |
| Same assumptions, different post |
by plblark |
2007-02-16 12:11:09 |
- What's the probablilty of her carrying the gun in a quick-draw holster? If she can't get it out in time, then there's exactly the same problem as with the mobile phone; it's useless. Even worse, what if she only manages to get it half out, or if she drops it? Free gun for the assailant? Not a position I'd like to be in.
Please define a "quickdraw holster". I've seen a olt of holsters designed for many modes of carry and made a couple myself. One of the criteria in any design is ease of access vs retention vs concealment. It's a trade off but if you're going to carry a concealed weapon, you should adjust your modes of dress and get the right equipment to make it possible to use the gun for your own defense should the need arise.
You always hear about the bad guy taking the gun away from a weak woman but I've never been presented with links showing that it's a statistically likely outcome. something like 98% of all Defensive gun uses end beforer a shot is even fired, just based on the presence of the gun.
That said, if you're not willing and prepared to use it, don't carry it.
- What if her reflexes are faster than the assailant's? Or he doesn't see the gun? A black gun against a black jacket in a dark alley in the rain isn't exactly visible. "He isn't stopping. Pull the trigger. F4, f4, f4, he's screaming and there's blood pouring out of his chest."
I care very little for the rapists chances of survival if he attempts a rape. Didn't see the gun? well, that could all be solved if you hadn't attempted to rape her. It could also be avoided if you had stopped persuing her when she yelled "STOP! I HAVE A GUN!"
- In my opinion it is likely to contravene rules 2, 3, 4
Those rules are for the safety of yourself / items / persons you are not forced / DECIDE to shoot. A rapist by definition is NOT protected by the rules.
- Rule 2: Does your daughter really want to be responsible for killing a person?
Would you rather she be raped and possibly killed? HE made his choices, she's reacting in self defense.
- Rule 3: In the heat of the situation is she going to be cool enough to follow this to the letter?
Even Cops forget but we can all train. The average person with a Carry permit practices more than average police do.
- Rule 4: Assuming that she does actually have to pull the trigger, the likelihood is that she'll miss the target. Granted, being shot at will probably be enough to scare off the assailant, but who *are* the bullets going to hit?
You are responsible for EVERY bullet that leaves your gun. Why is she likely to miss? Most of the women I know who carry and shoot are much more serious about it and much more dedicated since they're more likely to be specifically targeted and at a disadvantage without it.
Precaution 1: So nobody's ever going to go through her handbag. Nobody's ever going to see what that lump in her coat pocket is. Can you really guarantee this precaution will be heeded?
- Precaution 2: She'd have to never go into a pub or nightclub unless she leaves the gun at home. But coming out of a club and walking home is exactly the time she's most likely to be attacked.!
Uh ... the idea is to have control of the firearm at ALL times when carrying. I'm not a fan of Off body carry because it's more of a risk / access issue but seriously... go ahead, check the lump in her pocket / on her waist ... her hand will be on it before yours is, and she has a permit.
One need not drink in a nightclub ...
In some states (MN for example) it's not illegal to be in a place that sells alcohol while carrying on a permit. Actually, in MN as long as your BAC is below .o4, it's still legal to drink. Not a good idea, but legal.
In short she'd have to have lots and lots of training to be able to pull this off (especially to do it "safely"). I think the training would be better used in other self-defence measures and the money spent on a gun would be better invested in one of those alarm thingys and some mace.
Lots and lots of training is what's known as being skilled and prepared to defend oneself. I'm glad you've thought and prioritized for you, your priorities don't apply to everyone. a 100# woman can not always defeat a 300# male even with martial arts skill. Not every woman is so trained or so capable.
Mace? it IS possible to fight through mace. Backspray and wind drift can affect you as much as the attacker. You also need to be at near contact distances
Alarms? Yeah, cause EVERYONE ALWAYS runs towards car alarms and helps all women when they scream for help. Oh wait ... that doesn't happen very often.
Thanks anyway but I'd much prefer anyone I know had an effective method of defending themself that did not rely on anyone else for support.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
