23

About to get me a gun license! Then a gun after that.

I legitimately feeling like a declawed cat whenever I go around the metro minding my own business risking being groped at least. Sometimes I go home at real niqqa hours and you know how that sometimes goes. Knives and mace don't cut it anymore. Sometimes I get irritated that my boyfriend would not stop nagging me for being out and about at night when I had no choice but to let the rush hour pass just so I can commute home. If I have a gun, he would be assured that I am safe.

It's about time! 😀

Comments
  • 8
    @mojo2012 that's pretty retarded comment but aight
  • 5
    @mojo2012 buy something that could save your life, vs moving to an entirely different country and still need to protect yourself because no where is 100% safe.... Which one is more money friendly lol
  • 4
    @mojo2012 "most likely" based on fuck all evidence there
  • 6
    @Codex404 It's retarded bc it's based on "fuck all evidence" (@odite) and is hypothetical (and unrealistic at that matter).

    Everyone I know that concealed carries also goes to a range and practices, so the "hurt an innocent" and "hurt yourself" is very unlikely. Like if you can hurt yourself with a pistol, that's natural selection or an unforgettable life lesson.

    Also, like @ScribeOfGoD said. It's self defense. He's implying buying something to defend yourself isn't a good thing.

    And as for us over here, guns tend to prevent shit like store robberies and what not just as frequently as negatives but it doesn't fit the "guns bad reeee" horse shit, so it gets brushed over.

    As for being prepared to kill someone, their life ain't more important than mine. I don't give two fucks about some random drug attic that is stupid enough to try and mug someone over $5 for their next rock.
  • 4
    @jennytengsonM thumbs up!

    @mojo2012 People with your mentality are just natural victims when the rubber hits the road.
  • 5
    @PsCustomObject Y'all act like every place in the us is some crime filled shithole. It's mainly the big cities with the strictest gun laws that have the worst cases of gun violence (wonderrrr whyyyy πŸ™„), like Chicago, Detroit, NY, etc.

    But I find it silly to whine about people that want to carry a gun as protection. Especially whenever it's concealed and is just a measure to to have for that once in a lifetime situation where you're faced with a life or death scenario.
  • 4
    @Stuxnet Why? That's obvious. The criminals don't care about laws anyway (d'oh), and super tight Dems-style gun control only makes sure that they have plenty of law-abiding and defenceless victims available.

    What's not to like about that for criminals?

    Not argueing against some sane measure of gun control because e.g. mentally ill or drug addicts should not be allowed guns.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop you're preaching to a choir at this point.

    And I agree. There's some things, like with assault rifles and all that should probably be a little tighter. I'm all for the right to have them and all, but let's not let so many of the tards who have no business owning them get their hands on them. (Ik some people that feel there should be no laws at all and I'm just like chill out fam, there definitely needs to be some.)
  • 0
    @Stuxnet I think assault files are illegal in the USA.
  • 0
    @shoogknight pretty sure it's not on a federal level, but is on a state level in some states.

    The bill Bush enacted that banned them back in 90's expired in like '04.
  • 7
    @M1sf3t Firearms usually have trigger AND safety lock, and you don't routinely run around with an unlocked weapon for the same reason why you don't run a full desktop session as root.
  • 4
    I carry a pistol and a collapsible baton, and I wholly stand behind your decision iff you are emotionally stable.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop true, newer ones especially but it's still something to keep in mind. That traffic stop JC Garcia was on trial for is a perfect example of what happens when you don't.
  • 1
    @MagicSowap have you ever used pepperspray?
  • 9
    @varikvalefor "iff you are emotionally stable"
    Exactly!! What happens if you lose this stability in the future? What happens when your adolescent nephew finds it and hurt himself, or someone else ?

    All studies show that allowing guns dramatically increase the lethal accidents in a country. The simple fact that they are circulating makes them easier for criminals to take hands on them.

    I'm really surprised to see someone being proud of getting a gun here. It's as short-sighted as refusing vaccination to me...
  • 7
    @react-guy Some hard facts. From 2006 to 2016, the US suffered 689 dead per year because of accidental shootings [1]. However, in 2016 alone, 37461 people died in road accidents [2].

    The latter is a widely accepted general risk of life that totally dwarfs accidental shooting in comparison. If you are not afraid to leave your house every morning, there is no reason to be concerned about gun accidents.

    Oh, and you better do leave your house because lethal household injuries make up for a whopping 120,000 dead per year in the US [3].

    It's simply totally irrational fear not backed up by any facts. Also, the gun violence is hardest in US cities under Dem government with strictest gun control, again at odds with your opinion.

    [1] https://aftermath.com/content/...
    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    [3] https://safewise.com/blog/...
  • 5
    At least in our country owning a gun means also owning a safe. If you lose a gun or it gets stolen - you're in deep shit. If you miscarry/misplace it and someone else gets a chance to use it (a kid, a friend, etc.) or the gun fires itself (it happens) and hurts someone - not only you are in deep shit but you also caused harm to an innocent and possibly ruined someone else's psyche for good.

    A fake gun - could cause you a life if you pulled it out and your attacked found out it's a prop.

    Carrying a cold weapon (knife, screwdriver, a sword, knuckleduster, etc..) suggests premeditated use of lethal force. I'd stay away from those as well.

    Peperspray - that's a viable option IMO. If you have strong hands - carefully chosen keyring items could be handy as well. Tazzer maybe? Expandable baton (if you know how to use it) [careful, cold weapon].
    Self-defense classes, martial arts?

    Basically I agree with @mojo2012. I'm against firearms.
  • 0
    @netikras Batons are _excellent_; when used properly, they cause excruciating pain and minimal damage.
  • 0
    @react-guy training courses can mitigate accidents. The only way to mitigate crime is with better economics or police officers ie trained shooters.
  • 4
    @Fast-Nop whenever you get in a car or walk on/by the road you are aware of the risks of road accidents.

    Whenever you walk with your gf/wife/kids to a caffee to grab a croissant and a cup of latte you do NOT expect to be shot to death / to see your kid being shot to death.

    That's why road accidents are more acceptable than accidental bullets.

    That's 689 more people killed by someone's stupidity. That's thousands of families losing a close person: a father, a caring mother, a promissing son/daughter, a helping brother/sister, a beloved wife/husband.
  • 2
    @varikvalefor cracking bones is not exactly "minimal damage". It's very easy to kill with them if used improperly
  • 2
    @netikras You argued nothing to the numbers. I'm surprised that devs are unable to evaluate risks as per hard numbers and instead resort to emo waving.
  • 0
    @netikras: See "when used properly".
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop I was not arguing to the numbers. I was arguing your choice to compare road kills and accidental shots as an argument in this discussion. It's a wrong argument IMO.
  • 3
    @netikras It isn't. Also, your argument is nonsense because NONE of the 120,000 dead in household injuries was expecting to be killed in the assumed safety of their homes.

    Anyway, it is certainly easiest to not defend and be just robbed, raped and beaten to death. May also be morally super nice. I just don't share such morals.
  • 3
    @react-guy You know if you lost your mind and decide to take some people out, driving along a busy sidewalk would do it. Should we ban motor transport too?

    I know it's ridiculous, but so is that argument.
  • 4
    @varikvalefor It's great that you know how to use it properly. Can you guarantee that when you find yourself in a situation where you need to defence, when your emotions are messing with your mind, when adrenaline is enabling the fight-and-flight mode, when your reptile-brain is the most active causing your instincts to be extra expressive -- can you guarantee you will not misuse that weapon and will not cause more damage than is applicable to self-defense? Can you guarantee that after you fail to evade 2 first hits in your head? Are you certain you will not take that swing back to his head with the "magic wand"?

    I can't.
  • 2
    Keep seeing people say pepper spray but op already mentioned mace.

    I don't own a gun but I generally keep a 'sticker' blade sheathed on me. light and easy to handle.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop IDK, I cannot answer for them - I neither knwe them not can I ask any more.

    I don't assume safety at my home. Noone should. There are more than enough ways in my apartment to injure and/or kill all the residents in the building I live in. Starting with kitchen tools / gas / electricity and ending with slippery bathroom tiles and hard surfaces (sink, toilet, washing machine, etc.).

    Yes, I am a bit paranoid person. Or overcautious? IDK.
  • 3
    @netikras the only accident in most of your "didn't intend to get shot over a latte" example is the person doing the shooting accidentally getting their hands on a gun. Gun control only works if you can enforce it in mass and protect them from entering the area.

    I can't speak for all countries but in the US we dont have the police force nor the border security to make that happen and no one wants to pay the ridiculous amount of taxes it would require to make it happen, especially when the alternative is just simply learning to handle a firearm yourself and keeping it with you at all times.

    And its not just the intimidation or the threat of violence with violence. Crimes in which the criminal discharged a firearm carry a far greater penalty and most criminals have sense enough not to put themselves in the position to use their firearm whether they carry one or not. They look for softer targets and run away when they accidentally pick the wrong one.
  • 4
    @M1sf3t IMO you can enforce all you want. Not much is going to change unless the mentality changes.

    Carrying a firearm can save your life. It can also take another life - innocent or not. If your life can be also saved by a non-lethal alterntive - why carry the lethal one then?

    When two opposing parties believe they have an advantage because they both own a lethal weapon - nothing good will come out of that conflict.

    Be it the streets
    Be it the subways
    Be it the roads
    Be it the international politics
  • 1
    @lkjhgf253 Same here. CRKT M16 is a very nice and lightweight model. Luckily, I have never had to use mine over many years. For peaceful applications, I prefer the Swiss army knife that I also have with me.
  • 3
    @netikras If the OP shot a would-be rapist, I really wouldn't care for his life and regard his demise as a net positive for society.
  • 7
    @Fast-Nop @Stuxnet Glad to see there are still some sensible people here. As for the rest... I can't imagine what it must like making decisions based purely on emotions and fear and imagined guilt. πŸ™„ I almost feel sorry for them. Then I remember it's most likely genetic, they can't help it, and there's no fixing it. So there's no sense in trying to reason with them. They also pass it on to their offspring, so. That's an issue.

    @jennytengsonM Good for you! It's always better to be able to defend yourself than not. Personally I'm considering buying an SR9. Good heft, pretty, holds 17 rounds, doesn't jam, and it's very accurate.
  • 1
    @netikras: I work very well in stressful situations.
  • 1
    @netikras if its two opposing parties on equal footing. The only time that's the case is when it's criminal on criminal. Generally that sorta thing is kept out of the public or in the ghettos where society is typically isn't if one mind with the law enforcement.

    Guns are loud. They draw attention, unwanted if your the criminal, needed if your the victim. Bullets are guaranteed on impact, there's no tolerance that can be built up short of body armor and even that only protects you from penetration. This isn't the case for mace or pepper spray.

    You could carry a blade or learn self defense of course but the smaller your frame the less of a guarantee that you wont eventually be overpowered. So in all cases a firearm is you best option. Provided of course, you know how to handle it properly and don't pull your shots wide.
  • 5
    Just going leave a πŸ‡¦πŸ‡Ί and jump back on my kangaroo before world war 5 starts in here.

    Let's just say, we went from shooting each other to stabbing each other since guns became regulated after <bold as fuck> a </bold as fuck> mass shooting with a semi automatic in the 90s.

    Humans suck, and will kill when handed the tools to do so.

    The whole "guns don't kill people" bullshit is true, but they empower the fucker behind them to do it. So the question then becomes, would this fucker had killed if he/she didn't have the gun?

    Since some people like charts, here's a chart.
    https://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/...
  • 2
    It'll make you feel safer but remember that you will have to safeguard it just as much as it safeguards you - don't let it get stolen (and used while comitting a crime) and also make sure no one takes it from you and turns it on you instead (like get jumped and taken by surprize).
  • 3
    @C0D4 in the US we have armed, known criminals walking around neighborhoods where firearms are completely banned, wearing colors to signify their affiliations no less, yet the police do nothing because they don't have the time or energy to process it. What's even more twisted is that a large percentage of those criminals vote for the side that opposes guns knowing full well that if that side wins they would be the first to resist because they have the least trust for the government. So why do you think they still favor the side for gun control then?
  • 2
    @theKarlisK If the "weapon taken from you" were really an issue, humanity wouldn't have invented weapons at all. In fact, this impression comes mainly from movies where the reason why weapons are taken easily is because the script says so. These scripts also make diesel trucks explode, you know.
  • 2
    This civilians carrying guns in public is just nuts. How much criminality and shit does your society actually produce?
    I guess you are talking US here. It has always amazed me how Americans are so fascinated by and experienced with guns yet most Hollywood movies give such a totally childish impression of their use. Cops hide behind car doors when fired on with assault rifles and soldiers mostly fight at like 10 meters distance from their opponents in US war films. How come? You don't shoot that badly in reality?
  • 2
    @Ubbe hollywood is a blue state 🀷🏻‍♂️
  • 1
    @Ubbe Just do the screen math. You put a distance of a 100 metres on the screen, but the people are only about 1.80m. Result: you can't see anything. Just in case this wasn't clear, Hollywood is not mainly into producing documentaries.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop Agreed, but I have seen plenty of good, realistic war movies from other countries. So this very childish view of combat seems uniquely American.
  • 6
    Very interesting difference in culture.

    My impression of the US (and possibly other countries) is as follows: "I have a gun for defense, that makes me feel safe. And all the other people around me have guns for defense, too, that makes me feel even safer."

    Where I'm from, the emphasis is much more on the power of guns. "With great power comes great responsibility". And since a gun pretty much gives the ultimate power to kill, this is one big responsibility to bear.
    You don't walk around with your gun, concealed or not, period. It makes the people around you feel *unsafe*. You usually don't even own one, because it's undesirable.

    Living in a country where everyone and their dog owns a gun and openly discusses which to get next, that would be a nightmare to me.
    In that light, I hope you can understand the "move to a different country"/"guns are unsafe" comments better.
  • 0
    @VaderNT Yeah that's the normal mentality in Europe, to totally rely on the state. It's not like states hadn't been killing millions of people, so total trust is fully justified.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop agree, I don't fully trust governments either. I can see your point. I hope you see mine, too, and that it's a trade-off.
  • 2
    @VaderNT they're isn't anyone in the US just openly walking around with their firearms. "open carry" is more of a metaphor.

    Just like most all american movies are made in one specific region of the country. Its funny how the mass media doesn't accurately portray the masses πŸ€”

    Any case the point of allowing concealed carry is not that everyone does it but that you don't know who's doing it. When you couple that with the idea that a crime committed not only carries a worse sentence but also takes away most bargaining privileges it becomes quite the effective deterrent. In a country where it takes law enforcement a half hour to show up to the scene, allowing for concealed carry is hands down your best option.

    Of course thats not to say permits within heavily populated areas shouldn't be enforced or that training courses for those permits shouldn't be required but there again the denser the population the more likely you are to afford security per sq foot.
  • 4
    Mfw I decided out loud to get a gun, then walk into my DevRant account into a firestorm of a debate 😬. Stuff that I avoided on Facebook and Twitter.
  • 3
    @jennytengsonM Btw, which kind of gun are you eyeing? Pistol or revolver?

    From rental shooting, I liked the .38 revolver best. Easy to handle, the barrel did not flip upwards when shooting, and few moving parts that might malfunction. All of which can't be said about a 9mm pistol. Then again, I also prefer C over C++, so that's there.
  • 4
    Anyway, if anyone's interested in my viewpoints, I am pro-firearms. My country has some of the strictest gun laws in Southeast Asia. Can't take them to malls, trains, schools, banks, and you can't take them out during election season. Did it stop the bloodbath here in Manila? No. If anything, it got worse under Dear Leader Duterte's administration.

    And I'd carry them with me personally every chance I get. Carnapping is also very high in my country. I'd really rather not leave my gun in the car while I am out shopping in the mall. Not would I leave it in my apartment where I could fear getting broken in by thieves whenever I ain't around. I'd bring it to work.
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop I guess I want a 9mm, because I wanna start basic. While I've shot a 9mm, a .38 and a .45, I haven't done that often in order to form an educated opinion which gun I should get.

    Guess it's time for me to go on a shooting range again. 😁
  • 2
    @jennytengsonM Plus that the shooting range is fun! ^^

    One aspect that I find remarkable is getting a gun for self-defence while being active Christian.
  • 1
    @jennytengsonM try a .40 cal. Roughly the same size as the 9, but it has a little more stop.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop that's every christian I know πŸ˜‚
  • 3
    @M1sf3t Especially the Texas way where "shooting Commies for Jesus" wouldn't raise eyebrows. ;-)
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop Christianity, at least Catholicism, does not go in conflict with desiring to own firearms as long as it is for the right reasons. The Twelve Apostles were armed with daggers or swords during the Last Supper (how else would St. Peter cut off the ear of one of Jesus's apprehenders?)

    Saint Thomas Aquinas has a lot to say about the right to bear arms but I will just condense it to Luke 22:36 and CCC 2265:

    "Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (Luke 22:36)."

    "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm" (CCC 2265).

    The Catechism does not explicitly mention firearms, but it does affirm the right to use lethal force in self defense.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop I think they've expanded that to just what ever happens across the border. I hear they're even building a wall so that they have better silhouettes to shoot at πŸ’πŸ»‍♂️
  • 0
  • 1
    So much comments, you guys drunk or something?πŸ˜­πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
  • 1
    @volttide this topic has been controversial for years. More surprised that it hasn't been taken down yet tbh, but I'm new to devrant so Idk what sort of moderation exists here. Meh
  • 2
    @lkjhgf253 there's no moderation. Curse and insult all you want 😎
  • 0
    I'll just drop a small fun fact about our country Lithuania.
    After going through hell, you are allowed to own a gun. Given the weapon is not automatic.
    Now for the fun part. It can be used in self-defence ONLY and I do mean ONLY, if the other party has also a gun. Otherwise Jail time. If the assailant dies, you are tried for murder. If he does not, attempted murder.
  • 1
    @HitWRight not true. I was taught that you can use it for warning shots even if the offender does not have any gun.

    And you can shoot and wound [not kill] the offender if he has an obvious advantage threatening [not potentially] your life: e.g. he is a 150kg drunk gorilla beating your ass

    you can always shoot to kill animals attacking you [dogs, volves, rabied animals, etc.]

    in ether situation damage you do must not exceed the damage the opposing party was threatening to do to you
  • 2
    @odite the difference between guns and cars (and kitchen knives, for that matter) is that cars and kitchen knives have an actual, legitimate, non-violent purpose as tools.
    Guns, on the other hand, are tools with specifically one designed purpose: harm and kill.

    *This* is why there are much more stringent regulations on guns than on cars and kitchen knives, in spite of the fact that the latter could just as easily be used for crime.
    (And for that matter, cars still require some basic training and a licence).

    @C0D4 very interesting chart - though it doesn't show a switch from guns to knives, it just shows that gun deaths have decreased while knife deaths have stayed about constant (so they're probably not correlated).
  • 1
    @endor it wasn't a correlation between guns and knives, it's just deaths cause by over time.
    I can see how you could interpret it that way though.

    The 95-96 spike was the mass shooting, prior to this our gun laws were as strict as the US - almost none πŸ˜…
  • 3
    A question for the pro-gun americans in here: have you ever considered the psychological effects of the idea that anyone might have a gun while walking around? Not just on yourselves, but on other people too, and children in particular.

    One of my hs classmates went in the US for one exchange year, and one of the things that she told us when she got back is that they had multiple emergency simulations, including ones that included a shooter attack scenario. She noted how all the doors in the school were bulletproof, and all the other anti-shooter related countermeasures adopted by the school.
    This all sounded very terrifying for us, since in our country we never even imagined for one second that someone with a gun might walk into our school, let alone start shooting.
    Our doors were basically plastic, anyone could break them with a few kicks.

    Do you think that the presence of guns might create a state of constant fear in the kid's minds, eventually becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy?
  • 1
    @C0D4 oh, I was referring to your "we went from shooting to stabbing after the gun laws" comment
  • 1
    @netikras that is exactly the idea. You either have to be in a PROVABLE immediate danger, or you just exceeded the possible damage, and I'm not exactly sure how to use a gun when you are being pounded by a gorilla of a man. That's why I conclude the other person has to have a gun/crossbow/other ranged lethal weapon.
    The warning shots are effective, nothing to add there.
  • 1
    @HitWRight p.S. It's not that difficult to get a permit here either :) I got mine while applying to a security firm. It was 300-400-something LTL back in a day: trainings, shooting range, security and a firearm handling exams.

    P.S. Shoot in the gorilla's legs and maintain distance. He can't catch you if he can't walk.

    Cal the police; if needed - help him to stay consious, maintain his blood loss. Legs also have major blood vessels - a shot in a leg could also ve lethal if not cared for afterwards

    And you perfectly emphasise the point I was trying to make. Even if you own a gun you might find yourself in situations where you have your gun on you and you don't have enough time to build up an action plan. So what do you do? Shoot in a chest. A deadly shot. Hopefully deadly to someone you were aiming to, not someone standing next to or behind him. He's now 6ft under and you're now behind bars.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop But these 689 dead people are 689 too many and their deaths could have been avoided with reasonable gun laws
  • 1
    @Sh4d0w They are irrelevant, given that we don't really care about 37000 people who have died in road accidents. Raving about 689 wile shrugging off 37000 doesn't make sense on a rational level. It's reeking of irrational fear.

    Also, a lot of OTHER deaths then would have happened because law-abiding citizens could not have defended against burglars, thugs and rapists.
  • 0
    To all saying that "a gun is for self-defense": It's not. It's offensive like any other weapon. It's built and used to kill and for no other purpose. Pulling a gun out doesn't to show anyone that you want to "protect yourself", it shows that you want to murder someone else.
  • 4
    @Sh4d0w You obviously don't have any clue of what "murder" even is. Killing someone who is about to rape you isn't "murder".
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop But the gun was built to kill people and whoever used it wanted to kill someone. A car is built for transportation and a car accident is an accident, it is not on purpose. And you arguments are not logical. You say that you should have a weapon to kill people so that those people can't kill you. Why should you have the right to kill and not others?
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop It is. Killing someone is murder no matter for what reason. Killing someone makes you a criminal and then you are no better than the criminal you killed.
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w Because self-defence is a legitimate interest, that's why. The reason being that the attacker has the free choice, but not the victim, AND that the attacker puts himself outside of the law.

    By extension of your logic, ANY self-defence would have to be illegal because it involves hurting the aggressor.

    What MAY be there, depending on the circumstances, is exaggerated self-defence, but that's a completely different offence from murder. Also, it's often not punished if it happens out of fear or confusion on the victim side. That's because the attacker can premeditate, but the victim is in surprise.

    If you think that killing is always murder, than you have simply no clue how law works, and you also have no idea what this would do to society.
  • 3
    @Sh4d0w killing is only murder when it was planned in advance.

    If you get attacked, the attacker walks away and you shoot him it is indeed murder.

    If you kill someone during a fight you did not start it is not murder.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop @Codex404 I'm not saying that you are not allow to defend yourself, I'm saying that you shouldn't kill people. There are other non-lethal ways of defending yourself. And I know that there are different degrees of murder and that killing someone in self-defense sometimes can't be punished, but only if killing someone was the only way of "protecting" your own life.
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w Also wrong. Killing someone is allowed if no less harmful means are available to fend off the attack even if the attack was not directed at the victim's life.

    Otherwise, a woman would have to endure getting raped because her getting raped is less of an impact than the life of a rapist. Which seems to be the kind of society you favour.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop That is exactly what I said before.

    And I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to defend yourself against an attack, I'm just saying that killing an attacker is never an option.

    And no I do not favour such a society. But it seems like you favour a society where everyone is allowed to kill everyone they want to kill.
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w You're still confusing self-defence with murder. Self-defence is not about "killing everyone".

    Also, I conclude that you think a woman should rather tolerate being raped than killing the rapist. Nice one. That shows which kind of people you actually value.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop As I stated many times before, I know the legal differences between lethal self-defence and murder and as I said before, I do not think that someone shouldn't fend off an attacker, but that you try to use non-lethal methods to your defense.
    Oh, and you should probably go and see a therapist, to talk about your psychopathic tendencies and your inability to consider non-lethal defense methods.
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w Still trying to get around telling the OP she should rather accept getting raped than trying to shoot the attacker? Because THAT'S what women buy guns for.

    Also, just like you are clueless about law, you are also clueless about self-defence if you think there are always non-lethal ways.

    And lastly, if you think that the life of a rapist is worth that much, it's you who should go in therapy over your obvious self-esteem problems and victim mentality.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop who needs guns when we have fire extinguishers and narwhal tusks
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop Tell my, why do you think that I would support rape, I never mentioned something like that, all I said is that I don't support killing someone. You're just trying to portray me as a supporter of rape, because you don't have any valid arguments. And trust me, there are many ways to defend yourself without needing a weapon or killing someone. I, for example, took martial arts lessons, which could also be way for OP to defend herself.
    And because of your statement, I conclude that you value the life of a killer more than the life of a rapist (I do not say, that I value anyone's life more than someone else's life, because the life of everyone is worth the same).
  • 0
    Martial arts for self defense😝.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop Oh, and just that I can understand which laws you are referring to, which nationality are you?
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w Still "killer"? Still you don't grasp "self-defence".

    Also, yeah martial arts. Looks like you got fooled deepy into the dojo shit. Just think why it is that MA competitions don't mix men and women. It's because women wouldn't have any chance even in the same weight class. On top of that, men are taller and heavier on average.

    Oh, and MA is trained one on one. As soon as you face multiple attackers, that works only in movies.

    And yes, in your opinion, being impregnated by a rapist and infected with various STDs, not to mention the trauma, does not outweigh a rapist's life. Your stance, not mine.

    It's just amusing how you are too coward to openly admit to that and try to weasel your way out of your own words.
  • 1
    @shoogknight It's worth a try and definitely more humane than just shooting someone.
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w How would you understand any national laws if you don't even get the difference between murder and lethal self-defence? That's pointless.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop For the last time, I'm not defending rapists and I'm not calling martial arts the only way of self-defense (I only used it as an example of self-defense). I'm just saying that killing isn't the solution. And I'm assuming that the fact, that you are just repeating false accusations, means that you don't have any arguments to support your opinion.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop I understand the difference between murder and self-defense, I told you and proved that before and knowing which nationality and knowing which laws you are referring to would solve this discussion (in the unlikely scenario that you are referring to actual laws).
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w I quote you: "Killing someone is murder no matter for what reason."

    Trying to backpaddle, huh? As if you had any clue about legals of any country.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop That is my personal opinion which I stated before I started to argue with laws. And yes, my opinion differs from laws, but I have and will obey righteous laws and will use them to argue (the laws I am referring to are righteous in the sense of being enacted by democratic leaders).
    And I read laws in my free time, so...
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w You are disgusting
  • 0
    @Root That is your personal opinion (and an insult). But why do you think that?
  • 1
    Guys please... can we all come back to ranting about dev things now...? ;-;
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w Seriously?
    After the entirety of the above you still have to ask? Are you an NPC?
  • 1
    @jennytengsonM I would like to but I have to defend myself against harassment from @Root and @Fast-Nop
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w why would you feel harassed? We're just... debating online. :/
  • 1
    @Sh4d0w πŸ˜… harassment!
  • 1
    @jennytengsonM @Root First @Fast-Nop insulted me and accused me of supporting rape (quote: "[...] in your opinion, being impregnated by a rapist and infected with various STDs, not to mention the trauma, does not outweigh a rapist life." and "[...] you think a woman should rather tolerate being raped than killing the rapist."). And then @Root insulted me by calling me disgusting.

    I'm sorry that this all escalated, but I just tried to defend myself against the accusations of @Fast-Nop.
  • 1
    @Sh4d0w Well, that is your stance, and it's pretty disgusting.
  • 1
    @Root Again, why do you think that? Just insulting me without any kind of reasoning isn't helpful.
  • 5
    yay made it to the end of comment section :D
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop well, I live in austria, not much crime here ...
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w I'm sure you're no supporter of rape, but in real life, everything can happen so fast that the brain has no time to process what is going on and so it's unrealistic to expect anyone who is in danger of being raped to pause and be like, "Wait, how am I going to incapacitate this mfker?" And if you have a gun, if you point the thing at your would-be assailant they'll just raise their hands, speak to you nicely, then leave you alone.

    But again, everything can happen so fast and a brain in panic can just pull the trigger.

    So is that murder? Well, the English language has changed a lot even now. Killing, back in around the 15th century, meant willfully, immorally, and illegally taking a human life. Slaying in that period meant that one of those three adverbs ain't present. Soldiers slay enemies. We slay cows for beef, etc.

    When the King James Bible was published, the Ten Commandments thus included the verse "Thou shalt not kill." The original Hebrew for such the 15th-century "kill" today translates into "murder." Murder only meant one type of taking a human life: illegally, immorally, and willfully.

    So I can understand your confusion between the difference of "kill" and "murder"
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w Your opinion is that if faced with the choice of either lethal self-defence or enduring a rape, a woman should endure the rape.

    That follows logically from your opinion that killing someone is never suitable.

    That's pure logic, not harassment. If you find the logic conclusion nasty, that's because your opinion has disgusting consequences.

    It's also why @root finds your stance disgusting - because she's able to think logical if-then chains while you are unable or unwilling to do so.

    You got all the reasoning presented SEVERAL TIMES. And now you ask for reasoning? Either you're totally stupid, or trolling.
  • 0
    @jennytengsonM
    If the situation is as you described and no shots are fired, using a gun to scared any kind of criminal can be tolerated. But if a shot is fired and someone is harmed or worse, using a gun wouldn't be ok. And I'm generally not a big fan of guns, because of the possibility of harming people to easily.

    I don't not speak English as a native language so I may have confused some words, but in my opinion you should never kill someone (I'm excluding soldiers, that's a little bit more complicated).

    Oh, and remember, that's all just my personal opinion.
  • 3
    That potentially lethal self-defence should be the last resort and not the default option, I think that's something everyone will agree to.
  • 1
    @Sh4d0w so just like soldiers specifically or just if your job title involves carrying a firearm do you get a pass?
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop My opinion is that you should never use lethal force (or in extreme situations only as a last resort). But the situation you are describing has only to possible endings and that's never the case in a real situation.

    I always try to act based on the categorical imperative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).
  • 4
    @Sh4d0w You're not supposed to use a gun to scare anyone. It's there for your protection only, and only used as a last resort. Don't pull it out unless you're going to shoot it, and don't shoot it unless you intend to kill your target.

    Self-defense classes e.g. martial arts do absolutely help. But if someone is bent on overpowering you, there isn't much you can do unless you're larger and stronger than them. And for me? There are no noodley, under 5' rapists or muggers running around.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop I understood what you said as using lethal force being ok in any scenario (not just as a last resort). If you didn't mean it that way I apologise.
  • 4
    @jennytengsonM it's been a while since someone's broken devRant.

    πŸŽ₯ πŸͺ‘ 🍿 πŸ“Ί
  • 0
    @Root I understand your reasoning, but a gun is an offensive weapon not meant to protect you but to attack someone else. And while offense may be the best defense, using something designed to protect yourself may be better. I know that there is no tool designed to defend yourself against a robbery or even rape, but pulling a gun out is always a sign of aggression.
  • 0
    @M1sf3t You do not get a pass for killing even as a soldier, but as the job description of soldiers is literally killing other people and they are kinda needed it's tolerable. I'm German so my opinions are mostly based on German law.
  • 2
    The most important foundation of any society is thrust. A society where people think they need to constantly carry a lethal weapon is utterly broken. I can understand that in the middle ages you would carry a staff, or sword if you where rich. But that is a while ago. We now have the resources in the modern democracies to feed, house and educate everyone.
    But some seem to choose not to and rather create an upper class exempt from taxes like their middle age precursors. And people react not by voting for a change but by carrying guns. I am no pacifist, I would carry a rifle any day to defend my country. But if I had to carry a pocket piece at all time to protect my family and property I would look for the problem also in other directions than through the sights.
  • 1
    @Ubbe Thrust or trust?
  • 0
    @Ubbe its not an "all the time to thing". There are areas that are "broken" and there are areas that are considerably safe. We're talking about taking away the option to choose for yourself which is which.
  • 3
    @Sh4d0w Ah that was a deep misunderstanding. In every self-defence situation, also non-lethal ones, use of violence in defence is only acceptable to the extent that's necessary to reliably fend off the attack. That's also the base frame under most legislations.

    I also scan my environment and sidestep situations that look suspicious to me. I'd rather take a detour of some blocks than knowingly engage in a situation where it is somewhat likely that I might need my blade.

    That's because I would not hesitate to use my weapon if I should be forced to do so, but that's nothing I would wish for.
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w the job description of a soldier is not to kill people. A bi-product sure, but the idea behind enlistment is to receive training to defend your country and home. Training with firearms... for defense...
  • 0
    @M1sf3t That's true, but you don't become a soldier if you don't consider killing other people.
  • 2
    @Sh4d0w right so what soldiers are just somehow morally abnormal that they can justify volunteering for that line of work?

    Your ideals don't make any sense. If someone attacks you and you defend yourself, whether your a soldier or a civilian, or whether a firearm is involved or not, you are on the defensive up until which point your attacker flees the scene or is incapacitated.

    The most reliable means of achieving that goal is a firearm. You don't always know what you'll be up against, how big of a disadvantage you'll be at or least of all which particular absurd direction your attacker's own moral compass will be pointed in.
  • 0
    @M1sf3t Soldiers are not morally abnormal, they just have another moral compass than me. And war is one of the situations where nobody cares for morality and neither mine nor the ideals of others would really fit.
  • 1
    @Sh4d0w good thing they're there to protect you from it then huh?
  • 0
    @M1sf3t The German military and being able to protect or attack someone are two things that just don't go together. But it seems like our ideals and morals are different and that's okay because we were (probably) raised in different cultures and have different idols. I respect and tolerate your opinions and I hope you respect and tolerate mine. It was nice to argue with you and everyone else in this comment thread (even if I and some others maybe overreacted a bit sometimes).
  • 2
    @M1sf3t Actually, the discrepancy between what's going on in war and how to behave in civil society is the main reason why veterans are often difficult to re-integrate into civilian life.

    Anyway, I only can guess, but even when killing someone in justified self-defence, it's still a border to cross. Depending on how your moral compass works, it may or may not a big deal.

    It wouldn't be a big moral deal for me provided that my physical integrity had been at stake and no lesser but still promising means had been available.

    What I would really struggle with is unintentionally killing someone e.g. in a road accident. I nearly had that one (and even worse, against a child), so I would know.
  • 0
    @Sh4d0w Germany and military is a special case anyway, given that the last time Germany fully hailed the military, Europe lay in ruins afterwards. So that's a part of history not meant to be repeated, and Germany isn't going to do that, luckily.
  • 1
  • 1
    hot take: the US isn't even the worst with gun violence, and the worst country has a gun ban. Also people in the EU drop like flies and even get shot as no one can defend themselves anymore.
    Being raped, but defend yourself with an aerosol can of... i forgot what was in it? Jail time, as that's assault with a deadly weapon. Have a fucking BUTTER KNIFE in public? "look at this murderer's arsenal!"

    anything's a weapon if thrown hard enough, but then it's assault with a deadly weapon, so just lay down belly-up and submit to the huge cock of the law being rammed up your ass while the criminal kills your family.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 5
    @Parzi have you ever been to Europe?
  • 4
    @electrineer you can probably attribute at least half of that statement to the same forces that have some of you guys thinking we're all a bunch of gun toting cowboys just itching to repel down a skyscraper, bust out a window and yell yippie-kae-yay.

    Although to be honest I would probably be the one to volunteer for the opportunity should it present itself. But even here they've labeled me that special sorta crazy πŸ™„
  • 3
    @Fast-Nop that was definitely an oversimplification for that topic. In general though, with any modern world army, your signing on to keep the peace. You use firearms to defend and keep that peace. Thereby making them as much a defensive weapon as much as they are an offensive weapon.
  • 4
    @Sh4d0w Raping or robbing someone is also a sign of aggression, and worse: an intent to harm regardless of consequences. If you cannot escape, which is likely in such a situation, the only remaning option is to do enough harm to your assailant to scare them off or render them incapable of harming you. And since the assailant is confident enough in their ability to overpower you, they are going to be larger and/or stronger and/or better prepared. Any "defensive" weapons like tasers or mace might help your chances, but not by much, especially a taser because touch. Barb tasers have range, but if you miss, or it doesn't make a connection, you are screwed. Mace is only effective at medium distances, lest you get caught in the cloud, and assailants won't make their intentions known until they can grab you. Pistols are effective at all ranges that matter here. Someone could disarm you, true, but they can with the rest, too. That's also the point of concealed carry: the assailant doesn't know if there's added danger until it's far too late. Both because others can defend you, and so you can defend yourself. The former isn't likely, though, because an assailant isn't going to risk a scene; they'll look for an easy target and wait until they're alone. To make sure that's not you, don't walk alone, don't look like easy prey, and carry some means of self defense. You must be able to defend yourself with as much guarantee as possible. For women, that's probably not a knife or taser. It's best to carry two types so in the event your attacker wrests the first from you, they won't expect the second. This also allows you to attempt a non-lethal defense first, and only escalate when absolutely necessary. But at that point, you know they are not going to listen to reason, flee, or stop for any other reason. They are going to rape you, or rob you, or kill you. And your life is always more valuable and more important than that of a criminal. Protect yourself in any way you can!
  • 1
    @electrineer never been out of the same 6 county area, much less the state.

    And there's literally some on-display "arsenal" that's just knives and spoons, hold on...

    yeah here we go
    https://nypost.com/2019/05/...

    "charity shop rightly didn't want these"
    i mean, they're literally illegal, god forbid steaks become a thing you can *eat*...
  • 2
    @M1sf3t Any modern army excluding the russian one then. Which is why my army has a rifle in storage with my adjustments for accuracy.
  • 0
    @Ubbe I wasn't trying to point any fingers.
  • 1
    @M1sf3t You can trust me to do that :-)
  • 2
    @Root A knife is an excellent weapon of defence for women, but it requires a bit more training than a gun, and much more of a ruthless mindset (which most women lack).

    Quite a few martial arts practitioners have been conned into thinking they can cope unarmed against a knife, but their best hope is to never encounter someone who has had even basic training. Projected odds of survival: below 5%.
  • 3
    This is stupid, what's the point of getting a gun if you can't tote it around your waist or in your jacket pocket (PH Laws require you to put your gun in a gun case at all times unless it's time for self defense)
  • 4
    @jennytengsonM There's zero point. :/

    For everyone else: If a firearm is more than three seconds away, it's useless. If it's locked up, it's useless, especially if the ammunition is locked away elsewhere. Laws like this make firearms entirely pointless for self-defense. They're great for the criminals, though: you're essentially unarmed (and distracted), and it adds a functioning firearm to your loot table. Once they tie you up or whatever else they have in mind, they have all the time in the world to break into your gun cases / safes and take what they please. And what makes this even better: in many countries, you are held responsible for what the criminal does afterward. Extending this: it gives criminals basically free access to firearms (given their career choice) that aren't tied to them in any way. That'll be great for gun violence statistics!

    Seriously, just let people defend themselves. Guns are like vaccines. The more people that have them, the less damage diseased individuals can and will do. Think: even if some awful, violent person has a gun (and one of these will because guns exist and aren't going to disappear), they aren't likely to use it if they think some people are going to shoot back. Self preservation and all. And even if they do anyway because they're crazy / super religious / have a death wish, others having guns might be able to stop them, thereby protecting those who do not. Otherwise it'd end up yet another mass shooting. Wolf in the henhouse, etc.

    But what about the moral implcations of wounding/killing the attacker? They're an asshole, and gave up their rights when trying to harm someone else. Also, think of the people you saved! Sometimes harm can be a good thing.

    But what about missing and hitting a bystander? Easy: practice so you won't miss. If you can't or won't learn how to aim, leave the responsibility with someone else. If you can aim and hit someone anyway but disable the attacker, you still ended their violence.
  • 2
    @jennytengsonM buy a slim case that's easy to lock discreetly. Leave it unlocked anytime you feel like you potentially may need it. Lock it when you feel like your in an area that you may potentially be searched. The two events shouldn't directly coincide very often.
  • 0
    What about wearing something weird and unappealing on your way back.
    Like, you come outta work then into a bar and change in the bathroom into a bland outfit, maybe even wear a moustach like pic related: https://m.facebook.com/Femaledisgui...

    Of course it's unfair that you have to do this each day to protect yourself from the bad people around you but maybe it works and you get to hurt no one!
  • 3
    @OneOfSimpleMind I've tried something similar. Went around in full military cadet uniform (took ROTC), and my normal uniform was pretty shabby. Wasn't exactly well groomed nor comely back in college. Nope, still groped.

    Also most of my dev jobs don't require me to go to work in corporate. No makeup, in cargo pants, loose tech shirt and slippers. Nope, still getting groped sometimes.
  • 1
    @jennytengsonM Cargo pants, boots, weapon, like Sarah Connor from Terminator 2 when entering Dyson's house. *all time fav* ^^
  • 1
    @jennytengsonM Daaaamn what the hell? So fucking annoying. Sounds like those people would grope you even if you wore a spacesuit holy shit.
  • 1
    @OneOfSimpleMind FWIW less perverts home in on me if I dress plainly...
  • 1
    Thanks devrant for cencoring valid arguments from at least one side of the debate.
  • 0
    @electrineer I don't think it was censored. It was just probably tactically downvoted
  • 1
    @jennytengsonM I consider completely hiding unpopular opinions cencorship. It btw still has a score of 6 upvotes.
Add Comment