When she is trapped in her apartment? Doubt it.Absolutely... she would ignore the knife and simply out-run the guy.
You have a 200+lbs guy carrying a pipe and/or a knife busting through your house... you have no training in hand to hand combat and you expect to outmatch him? Most people in that situation would cower and surrender because they don't want to die. The reason the guy can pound into someones house without a care is because he knows not many people can't fight at his strength so he is willing to break into homes. Put the fear of death of ever attempting it and people avoid it.Though being 90lbs means she's more dexterous, and can land a vital blow much easier with a knife than a heavier gun with a powerful kickback.
Last edited by Roelath; 2013-02-03 at 06:30 PM.
You just proved my point. How many bullets do you need to take out ONE mass shooter. You don't need as many as he has. One clip would be enough to take out one guy. Be it 10-15 rounds, if you know how to use a gun you can take him out. Unless he's using body armour, then you might as well run.
Is there a difference in rape too? UK has a higher rape % than the USA. Also even if they had the same laws as the USA in terms of assaults you'd still see UK being around or higher than the USA in terms of crimes per person. Even though they don't deal with Cartel/Gang activity like the USA has too.http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime
The reason the UK has more assault crimes than the US is that the UK classifies some crimes as assault that the US doesn't.
Yes... an untrained woman who is frightened by a guy who can man handle her is going to win the fight. Because we all know that 100% of the female population trains in hand to hand combat and every man out there doesn't.Don't underestimate a little woman. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it. That big 200 man makes for a bigger target than the woman does.
Probably because you see the skill in using knives over guns but, if you're untrained in hand to hand combat simply having a knife in fight that involves 2 or more against you and you're most likely going to die.I do to, and I agree with firearms being better protection. I just like the idea of everyone having knives instead of guns. I wouldn't force anyone to do that, it just sounds better to me.
Instant death at a distance from a gun is far scarier than a blade wielding woman when you could be carrying a baseball bat covered in nails.You are right about that. But like I said with guns, if your not trained to use a knife, don't be surprised if you lose even while using one.
Easy... do what our ancestors historically have done - outsmart your enemies! ^_^
First off - they even have to break in. I'm on the 5th floor of a Condo building with security cameras, double-locked doors, an elevator and 2 fire escapes + my dead bolted door. Not to mention I have a rope ladder for my balcony in case of emergencies.
Secondly, I have many large closets (six in total) where I could hide.
Third, it's a condo - no spacious rooms and lots of corners and hiding places. My Louisville Slugger and/or wakizashi blade will be far more effective than their gun in this setting...
There's an old saying I love: Trust in God, but lock your car.
You don't need a gun to lock your car. :P
EDIT: Here's another fun old saying from Gallagher: We're not descended from the men who were eaten by the Dinosaurs, we're descended from the itty-bitty quick F#&@kers who got back to the cave! :P
Last edited by mvaliz; 2013-02-03 at 06:31 PM.
What are you talking about, you can encounter people with bombs everywhere, it doesn't matter if its US or any other country. Idiots will always be idiots and with all honesty I think that pipe bombs are considered bombs which if I remember correctly those two guys from Columbine High School made and where thinking about using. People are people and stupidity goes along with people.
On the other note, I think they should evaluate every person that buys a guy and they should put more striker restrictions on getting a gun. I'm not saying, don't let people have guns, what I'm saying is let people who are smart and want to use for their protection not to show their kids how to use it show be allowed to have a gun. Plus like condoms nothing is 100% proof :P
I've lived in the city and I know exactly how it feels to be at odds with gangs that are merely trying to rob/hurt you. I had to defend myself constantly because I never joined one and I was constantly beat up. Even when I carried metal polls (Yes I carried two or more at a time) and I even rode a bike to outrun them. When it finally came down to it they're going to eventually catch you and when they do they will hurt you a lot. I'm just lucky that I learned very quick in how to defend myself that they preyed on weaker targets as I grew older.Soo...basically like now, but with less stray bullets and a chance to outrun whoever's after you? Sounds good.
....huh!? o_O
Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber, the mafia that plants car-bombs and countless others are laughing at this very minute at your ignorance.
It's actually easier to manufacture a bomb in your home than a gun. People don't often use them because they don't need to - they can use a gun instead. Greater chance of surviving. Give everybody a gun and they'll simply look into what can counter a gun... and a bomb is one of those very things.
Is that even an argument? An equalizer suggests that everyone can compete at the same level... A bullet that can pierce everyone's flesh is definitely an equalizer. A tool that can be used in nearly every hand is an equalizer. A tool which requires little knowledge and/or training to use is an equalizer.
But they're not packing guns. And you're outnumbered. If you hide they could still find you. I'll grant you your means of escape, that could work. As for you bat and your blade, I wouldn't bet on one melee going against three, even if they were using pistols. Knife to a gunfight.
But, the venue of attack is important, and I think it's important to take into consideration all cases. While you may have better odds in a building with security cameras, others may not be in the same position.
If you're going to resort to insults I'm not going to bother taking you seriously. If you can show that explosives are as prolific as you say they are I would be willing to listen.
I'm also not advocating giving everybody a weapon. I'm saying that shouldn't be withdrawn from the possible methods of defense. Given the rate of gun proliferation here in the states, don't you think there would be more explosives used?
Last edited by Grizzly Willy; 2013-02-03 at 06:33 PM.
Where did that come from? We were talking about knives and you bring out some Mad Max stuff. How could you get away with walking around with a baseball bat with nails coming out of it? Not sure if there's a law against it or not, but it would catch the attention of alot of people. But it is still possible to beat someone that is using a baseball bat with nails in it. I would probably die, but it's still possible. XD
I fear there is no good solution for gun control in the US. It seems to me that the US have a heavy gun culture, and thus owning a firearm is considered more normal.
But, I see no harm in doing detailed background checks and taking other measures to ensure what kind of person who is allowed to own a firearm.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
Because criminals don't give a damn... They're will to improvise with anything that's around them. Law abiding citizens who are only allowed to carry knives on themselves would be at a great disadvantage.
There is a possibility you, he or the both of you could die... Wouldn't it be better if you had a firearm, knew the layout of your area which allowed you to defensively hold a position and then proceed to not die? There are plenty of chances of dying in every scenario but, you have a greater advantage carrying a pistol because gangs do not send one man at a time. I know from personal experience... I felt like Jackie Chan at times hopping over barbed wire fences, jumping through bushes and running through traffic to avoid being beat up. Police will show up moments after they've given up or caught up to you.
I love the irony of a "Call of Duty" add above this thread.
People who support a ban are neglecting some things...reality included.
1. Both Obama and Biden have said that this ban would most likely NOT have stopped Sandy Hook.
2. We had an Assault Weapons ban that lasted ten years. The FBI has since acknowledge that it was largely ineffective.
3. There were two school shootings during the last ban. Pearl High School and Columbine High School. A total of 17 people were killed and 28 injured. The Pearl High School shooting ended when the Asst. Principal retrieved a .45 he had in his trunk.
4. More people die each year from tobacco (529k), medical errors (195k), and alcohol abuse (107k) then from firearm homicides (11k). In fact more people die from unintentional falls (24k). (Source: http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/20...ers-in-the-us/ Center for Disease Control)
5. Irony. Shotguns, which have been promoted by Biden for "home defense," were used in the Columbine school shooting.
So if the ban won't stop these mass-shootings (and Obama and Biden say they wont), and I'm more likely to die from a doctor visit paid for by Obama-care, why again are we banning any guns?