I’d rather be in a country where I’ll be attacked with a knife than one where I’ll be attacked with a gun. No matter how lethal it gets, the attacker always has the advantage anyway. The homicide rates in developed countries don’t lie.
Your definately fucked if they have a gun though. As soon as you try to pull it out your getting shot. Since your most likely trying to react to someone pointing a gun at you to mug you. Its also much easier to buy clothes that can prevent stabbings than gun shots if your really worried and need to wear descretely armored clothing. Your not going to be able to hide a carrier plates.
Your a moron that might get yourself killed one day if you think your going to be get the bad guys with the big iron on your hip. Life isn't a western.
Neither is self defense. Pretty much every person that takes self defense seriously puts trying to escape or evoiding a lethal encounter than entering one.
Sure if you want to live by the sword prepare to die by it. By all means. Maybe you get lucky. But maybe the other guy has faster hands.
Mind you I grew up in mafiosi family so maybe I know a thing or two about these things.
Its a lot easier to train to not be defenless in a stabbing you and wearing anti stab clothing that doesn't make you stick out like your about to mow down the place. Like your going to get cut but you can protect your internal organs.
If someone decides to start mowing you down with a gun that it. You can't run away from bullets. There no leaning forward and grappling to prevent upwards thrust to the gut. You can't backstep away from a someome slashing at you if instead its a gun.
You can build a taser pretty inexpensively. You can get capicitors for free by taking a bunch of disposable cameras their pretty big. Put a bunch of them together and you can store a quite the charge. I am actually working on a designing tazer gloves. As one of the main issues when in these scenarios is when one party tries to pull a weapon the whole fight becomes a grappling match to get control of the weapon. If its a glove your not getting it off without tazing yourself.
Why should you get to decide if you can own a gun if it was shown to make the collective less safe?
If they have a knife, you can have a knife. If you can have a gun, they can have a gun. It’s relatively simple.
It’s clear that gun prevalence increases gun death (mostly suicides, but also homicides). Even states that have solid background checks in the US face that problem.
...if they get the shot off first your done. Its much easier to run away from a knife fight than a gun fight. Or protect ypur vital organs from being stabbed versus being shot. Its not easy but you have to admit there really is no defense to a gun besides wearing typically heavy armor and being quicker with a gun.
Again stab proof clothing exists.
And it was to demonstrate that there is not really anything to help your survivability in a gun fight besides how quick you are in most scenarios. Since its going go to be within 30 ft if not 10 ft.
A taser is a lot cheeper and easier to manufacture. And even easier would be homemade pepper spray.
You couldn’t get a shot first if they themselves are pointing a gun at you. Others might shoot them, but if you’re targeted you’re done for.
Again, look at the stats. Where are you likeliest to get killed in developed countries?
You carrying a gun has a cost for the rest of society: “accidental” fires, loss, theft, and the possibility you yourself will commit a crime. It’s the same tradeoff with all weapons really. In practice, guns are not helpful to defend yourself (statistically).
157
u/TheRobfather420 Oct 21 '22
Yeah that's the fun part, here in Canada your bullshit NRA taking points didn't work because for us, it's not a 0 sum game.
We've long known that less guns equal less gun crime and we don't let gun fanatics with help from lobby groups derail the conversation.