Er... personally I am always amazed that conservatives heads don't explode from the massive cognitive dissonance.
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons. Calling the police when one of them is breaking into your home in the middle of the night won't do you much good after they shoot and kill you. But you would at least die knowing that you did your part to make the world a safer place by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so what if a few criminals kept their weapons.
I'm not saying you're a troll, but you have no idea how ignorant you're being. Can you not see that this method of thinking is a self-feeding cycle of fear? This is what I don't understand about this type of American. You are afraid that someone is going to attack you with guns, and your solution is more guns, which makes people afraid of you, which makes them want guns to protect themselves, which makes people afraid of them... It's like you all have a mini cold war going on where every house is USA and ev
I think you're the one in a misguided cycle of fear. The only reason people are afraid of law abiding, safe, gun owners is their own prejudice against guns. Which is more rational, the fear of a population that seeks to harm and deprive by force, operation outside the laws of society; or a population who values their lives and property, crosses the Ts and dots the Is on all the relevant paperwork isn't taking anything from anyone?
Here's a little note for you. Law abiding gun owners don't fear other law a
Actually, I'd bet the whole purpose to get the medical device certification is for marketing. Late night TV, mailers all designed to get people worked up and find a doctor who will prescribe the gun. It opens a market to people who can't afford a gun but can be convinced they need one.
Quite frankly, those who can afford a gun and want one will probably look at this for what it is - a gimmick. Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient
Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it.
Most defensive shootings occur at ranges where proficiency is not a major factor; typically less than five feet. Point and shoot is fine. Also, 95% of defensive handgun uses don't involve actually shooting at all. The threat of shooting is almost always sufficient to stop aggression. I think the biggest drawback of this device is that it doesn't look like a gun.
I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close.
But an unarmed attacker will have to get that close to you in order to attack you.
No rational person would expect a device like this would giv
Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it.
Most defensive shootings occur at ranges where proficiency is not a major factor; typically less than five feet. Point and shoot is fine. Also, 95% of defensive handgun uses don't involve actually shooting at all. The threat of shooting is almost always sufficient to stop aggression. I think the biggest drawback of this device is that it doesn't look like a gun.
I agree - the biggest deterrent is the threat of defense - and that needs something that looks serious.
As I recall, the number of actual defensive shootings, especially in a home environment where I see this weapon likely to be used are so small that they are statistically insignificant relative to overall crimes of force.
I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close.
But an unarmed attacker will have to get that close to you in order to attack you.
No rational person would expect a device like this would give anyone a fighting chance against an attacker armed with a more typical firearm. What this kind of gun does is give the elderly a chance against the young, strong unarmed attacker, who has a huge force advantage over the typical 80 year-old.
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I think this is more about hype and fear than substance.
I think a pump shotgun is a better self defense weapon - there's the psychological effect of someone hearing the unmistakable sound of a round being chambered, and its a stand off weapon. While you still need to aim it is not necessary to be as accurate and you can use a nightstand / bed to steady your aim as well. Much better stopping power as well.
Shotguns are also large and heavy, and the notion that you don't have to be accurate is a myth. At self-defense ranges, with a shotgun of legal barrel length, there is practically no pattern expansion. The greater stopping power argument certainly applies to a large shotty, but if you scale back to a weapon with weight and recoil that is manageable for an 80 year-old woman, that advantage erodes significantly.
Well, I did not say you don't have to aim; just that you do not have to be as accurate. For a defense weapon, you clearly want as short of a barrel as is legal and no choke to get the best expansion possible; it also gives you a better chance at a hitting stand off shot across say a room than a handgun. Plus, it has less of a chance of penetrating walls than a bullet if you miss; so you have less of a chance of injuring an innocent bystander or family member.
In addition, buckshot even with minor expansion has a good chance of penetrating vital organs and not simply leaving a flesh wound, which is the goal.
If you are looking for home defense I'd say a likely engagement distance is 7 - 10 feet - at that point the attackers intentions are clear and it's time to fire. Even a small expansion (what's it likely to be 4 - 6 inches if I recall correctly) increase the chances of a hit over a single bullet. Even if all you do is slow them down you have increased the odds in you favor for a second shot.
Of course, the above is based on my experience - which has shown me I'm much better with a shotgun at short range than a handgun. (and even better with an automatic rifle but that's another story)
Either way, I think we can agree that training is key - you don't just buy one and leave it under the bed. Plus, you have to be willing to pull the trigger no matter what the weapon.
Finally, I'd have to say that from a tactical perspective, racking your shotgun is foolish. Yes, there's a good chance it'll make the bad guy give up and go away, but if it doesn't -- if, say, he's armed, you've told him that you're armed and given him your location. If you could rack the slide without making the gun briefly unready to fire, and without taking the muzzle off the assailant, then fine. In general, the bad guy should never know you have a gun until it's pointed at him, and then it should never move off of him until the situation has been resolved.
My assumption is that this a burglary type situation, and most burglars don't want a confrontation. Since you've not yet confronted the attacker - they now have to decide whether to leave or find you. If they choose to leave ( a not unlikely scenario) your weapon has done its job; if they seek you out they likely are looking for trouble anyway and now you'll have to bring it to them.
"Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!"
Lt. Col Jeff Cooper
(Not an argument, just thought you might enjoy.)
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I don't think that question is as important as "will they be more able to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary with this device, or without it?".
Plus, it has less of a chance of penetrating walls than a bullet if you miss; so you have less of a chance of injuring an innocent bystander or family member.
True, but an overrated point, IMO. Buckshot will still go through several walls, with enough energy remaining to kill (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm). You can reduce penetration by using lighter buckshot, or even birdshot, but then you may not have enough penetration to stop the assailant.
If you are looking for home defense I'd say a likely engagement distance is 7 - 10 feet - at that point the attackers intentions are clear and it's time to fire. Even a small expansion (what's it likely to be 4 - 6 inches if I recall correctly) increase the chances of a hit over a single bullet.
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I don't think that question is as important as "will they be more able to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary with this device, or without it?".
But what about at a range of 2-5 feet, which is where this device would be most useful? At that range, accuracy doesn't matter nearly as much as just being able to get the gun up into firing position, something that would be even easier with this device than with a typical handgun.
If I were teaching people to use this device, I think I'd encourage them to use it point-blank, kind of like a bang-stick.
We're in agreement here - the best use is like a bang stick. My main issue is the overall effectiveness of this as a home defense tool - especially if marketed to elderly who can't use a normal weapon. I think it is more hype than substance; and unless it has a good safety is probably as much a danger as a useful tool; especially if young children visit granny and find the "toy" that doesn't look like a gun.
You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.
God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned t
Re: (Score:0, Insightful)
If guns were banned today, and all citizens were required to turn in their weapons, do you think that the criminals with guns would trot off to the police station to hand in those weapons? Sorry dude, they aren't going to turn in those weapons. Calling the police when one of them is breaking into your home in the middle of the night won't do you much good after they shoot and kill you. But you would at least die knowing that you did your part to make the world a safer place by taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, so what if a few criminals kept their weapons.
I'm not saying you're a troll, but you have no idea how ignorant you're being. Can you not see that this method of thinking is a self-feeding cycle of fear? This is what I don't understand about this type of American. You are afraid that someone is going to attack you with guns, and your solution is more guns, which makes people afraid of you, which makes them want guns to protect themselves, which makes people afraid of them... It's like you all have a mini cold war going on where every house is USA and ev
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a little note for you. Law abiding gun owners don't fear other law a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it.
Most defensive shootings occur at ranges where proficiency is not a major factor; typically less than five feet. Point and shoot is fine. Also, 95% of defensive handgun uses don't involve actually shooting at all. The threat of shooting is almost always sufficient to stop aggression. I think the biggest drawback of this device is that it doesn't look like a gun.
I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close.
But an unarmed attacker will have to get that close to you in order to attack you.
No rational person would expect a device like this would giv
Re:God, please let this be true. (Score:2)
Despite many people's beliefs, a handgun is not a very effective defense weapon unless you are proficient with it.
Most defensive shootings occur at ranges where proficiency is not a major factor; typically less than five feet. Point and shoot is fine. Also, 95% of defensive handgun uses don't involve actually shooting at all. The threat of shooting is almost always sufficient to stop aggression. I think the biggest drawback of this device is that it doesn't look like a gun.
I agree - the biggest deterrent is the threat of defense - and that needs something that looks serious. As I recall, the number of actual defensive shootings, especially in a home environment where I see this weapon likely to be used are so small that they are statistically insignificant relative to overall crimes of force.
I'd say it's more of a close in weapon where you are almost in contact with the attacker; and an armed attacker is unlikely to let you get that close.
But an unarmed attacker will have to get that close to you in order to attack you.
No rational person would expect a device like this would give anyone a fighting chance against an attacker armed with a more typical firearm. What this kind of gun does is give the elderly a chance against the young, strong unarmed attacker, who has a huge force advantage over the typical 80 year-old.
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary? I think this is more about hype and fear than substance.
I think a pump shotgun is a better self defense weapon - there's the psychological effect of someone hearing the unmistakable sound of a round being chambered, and its a stand off weapon. While you still need to aim it is not necessary to be as accurate and you can use a nightstand / bed to steady your aim as well. Much better stopping power as well.
Shotguns are also large and heavy, and the notion that you don't have to be accurate is a myth. At self-defense ranges, with a shotgun of legal barrel length, there is practically no pattern expansion. The greater stopping power argument certainly applies to a large shotty, but if you scale back to a weapon with weight and recoil that is manageable for an 80 year-old woman, that advantage erodes significantly.
Well, I did not say you don't have to aim; just that you do not have to be as accurate. For a defense weapon, you clearly want as short of a barrel as is legal and no choke to get the best expansion possible; it also gives you a better chance at a hitting stand off shot across say a room than a handgun. Plus, it has less of a chance of penetrating walls than a bullet if you miss; so you have less of a chance of injuring an innocent bystander or family member. In addition, buckshot even with minor expansion has a good chance of penetrating vital organs and not simply leaving a flesh wound, which is the goal. If you are looking for home defense I'd say a likely engagement distance is 7 - 10 feet - at that point the attackers intentions are clear and it's time to fire. Even a small expansion (what's it likely to be 4 - 6 inches if I recall correctly) increase the chances of a hit over a single bullet. Even if all you do is slow them down you have increased the odds in you favor for a second shot. Of course, the above is based on my experience - which has shown me I'm much better with a shotgun at short range than a handgun. (and even better with an automatic rifle but that's another story) Either way, I think we can agree that training is key - you don't just buy one and leave it under the bed. Plus, you have to be willing to pull the trigger no matter what the weapon.
Finally, I'd have to say that from a tactical perspective, racking your shotgun is foolish. Yes, there's a good chance it'll make the bad guy give up and go away, but if it doesn't -- if, say, he's armed, you've told him that you're armed and given him your location. If you could rack the slide without making the gun briefly unready to fire, and without taking the muzzle off the assailant, then fine. In general, the bad guy should never know you have a gun until it's pointed at him, and then it should never move off of him until the situation has been resolved.
My assumption is that this a burglary type situation, and most burglars don't want a confrontation. Since you've not yet confronted the attacker - they now have to decide whether to leave or find you. If they choose to leave ( a not unlikely scenario) your weapon has done its job; if they seek you out they likely are looking for trouble anyway and now you'll have to bring it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Lt. Col Jeff Cooper (Not an argument, just thought you might enjoy.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I don't think that question is as important as "will they be more able to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary with this device, or without it?".
Plus, it has less of a chance of penetrating walls than a bullet if you miss; so you have less of a chance of injuring an innocent bystander or family member.
True, but an overrated point, IMO. Buckshot will still go through several walls, with enough energy remaining to kill (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm). You can reduce penetration by using lighter buckshot, or even birdshot, but then you may not have enough penetration to stop the assailant.
If you are looking for home defense I'd say a likely engagement distance is 7 - 10 feet - at that point the attackers intentions are clear and it's time to fire. Even a small expansion (what's it likely to be 4 - 6 inches if I recall correctly) increase the chances of a hit over a single bullet.
The Box o' Truth link above showed 2.5" to 3.5"
Re: (Score:2)
That's the question - here you a have a weapon that is designed to be used by someone who has problems with a traditional weapon - will they be able to use it fast enough to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary?
I don't think that question is as important as "will they be more able to overcome a relatively quicker and stronger adversary with this device, or without it?".
But what about at a range of 2-5 feet, which is where this device would be most useful? At that range, accuracy doesn't matter nearly as much as just being able to get the gun up into firing position, something that would be even easier with this device than with a typical handgun.
If I were teaching people to use this device, I think I'd encourage them to use it point-blank, kind of like a bang-stick.
We're in agreement here - the best use is like a bang stick. My main issue is the overall effectiveness of this as a home defense tool - especially if marketed to elderly who can't use a normal weapon. I think it is more hype than substance; and unless it has a good safety is probably as much a danger as a useful tool; especially if young children visit granny and find the "toy" that doesn't look like a gun.