• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

What if they take it away from you?

Q: "what are you going to do if you pull your gun out and the bad guy just takes it away from you"?

A: "Let me demonstrate. I will draw and you will be the bad guy. Mmmkay?"
 
I would reply, "If he does take it away, I hope he shoots you first so that the last words you hear are me saying 'Wow, you were right.'"
 
drgrant said:
My answer is- If they can take it away from you then "you're doing it wrong".

The problem is the anti a**h***s think that a gun based altercation is like that gayness on television where someone always points a gun at someone else and there is 3 minutes of witty dialogue. That's not reality.

-Mike
Click to expand...

But I had a number of witty ripostes already prepared... damn.

On a serious note, anyone know where the 'statistic' for the common anti refrain that 'you are more likely to be shot/killed/whatever by your own gun' came from?
 
OCB said:
But I had a number of witty ripostes already prepared... damn.

On a serious note, anyone know where the 'statistic' for the common anti refrain that 'you are more likely to be shot/killed/whatever by your own gun' came from?
Click to expand...

Most likely suicide, but those stats weren't good enough so these idiots played the "what if" game until they came up with the BS of if the children find it or if a family member comes home in the middle of the night, etc....
 
If a bad guy takes your primary carry, shoot him with your backup.
 
Last edited:
fencer said:
Seriously???? What is the plan? Are you gonna tell the bad guy and your wife to "hold still" while you take the shot? Are there any distance restrictions imposed by your wife? Like if a bad guy has a gun to my head and you are less than 25' away......

What if the bullet doesn't penetrate your wife's shoulder? Even if it does, the chances that the BG won't be able to return fire are very very slim.

I hope that this is just a joke...
Click to expand...

Yes, I was joking. I would never want to be in that situation.

The real plan is that I would shoot wide intentionally, and then my wife would be so pissed i took the shot that she'd step on the guy's right instep, hard, elbow him in the gut, take the gun away from him, and start shooting back at me. She's a lousy shot, but feisty. We'd exchange shots until the bad guy started pissing himself and ran away, then we'd go get kicked out of an Applebee's before going home for some 'I can't believe you shot at me!' make up lovin', which everyone knows is really awesome, as long as you clear the room of weapons first.

If it turned out that the guy had a wooden right leg, well, I guess we're screwed.
 
Last edited:
Rider said:
Yes, I was joking. I would never want to be in that situation.

The real plan is that I would shoot wide intentionally, and then my wife would be so pissed i took the shot that she'd step on the guy's right instep, hard, elbow him in the gut, take the gun away from him, and start shooting back at me. She's a lousy shot, but feisty. We'd exchange shots until the bad guy started pissing himself and ran away, then we'd go get kicked out of an Applebee's before going home for some 'I can't believe you shot at me!' make up lovin', which everyone knows is really awesome, as long as you clear the room of weapons first.

If it turned out that the guy had a wooden right leg, well, I guess we're screwed.
Click to expand...

lol rep
 
I would shoot him in the hand so that I wouldn't have to kill him... Also, if he did take away from I would him that's not the way it works in the movies so can we can try it again?
 
Armed citizens have two advantages over cops in avoiding a "gun grabber" - the armed citizen's guns are concealed, now hanging out there to be grabbed, and the private citizen is not chartered with the responsibility of close contact/arrest/hands on work.

As to the New Scientist study - if a study was done in this manner, it would probably be rejected by any peer reviewed medical journal. It is, in many respects, like trying to draw a correlation between taking a particular drug and evaluating the outcome. It would be a violation of basic medical standards to simply look at the results of people taking the drug and not taking it. The accepted way is a double blind study with a placebo and real drug. One could do much of this with guns by generating a list of all subjects who qualify for a carry permit, identifying a test set a priori, and and arranging for half to get a CCW and carry and half not to. (kind of hard to double blind it, because a placebo gun won't work in this case).

There is a very real chance that the sample was biased and not properly normalized, with people in higher risk situations being more likely to carry.

The other issue is judgement/control. How many of those "get shot" cases are those in which the subject made a tactical error and thus is responsible for their own demise? This implication that my rights should be curtailed because someone else might not exercise good judgement is not all that different that the pre-60's mindset of treating certain minorities differently because some of them are criminals.
 
The New Scientist study was also done in Philly. Wouldn't that be akin to doing it in Detroit or Dorchester?
 
mikeyp said:
The New Scientist study was also done in Philly. Wouldn't that be akin to doing it in Detroit or Dorchester?
Click to expand...

Detroit, maybe, except Detroit has 50% more viloent crime than Philly. Boston has about 1/3 less viloent crime than Philly. Despite its local rep, Dorcester isn't nearly the urban s***hole that some of these other places are. Heck, there are parts of Dorcester that are actually nice.
 
Rider said:
Yes, I was joking. I would never want to be in that situation.

The real plan is that I would shoot wide intentionally, and then my wife would be so pissed i took the shot that she'd step on the guy's right instep, hard, elbow him in the gut, take the gun away from him, and start shooting back at me. She's a lousy shot, but feisty. We'd exchange shots until the bad guy started pissing himself and ran away, then we'd go get kicked out of an Applebee's before going home for some 'I can't believe you shot at me!' make up lovin', which everyone knows is really awesome, as long as you clear the room of weapons first.

If it turned out that the guy had a wooden right leg, well, I guess we're screwed.
Click to expand...


Bwahaha![laugh2][rofl]

Nothing better than post gunfire lovin!
 
I found this interesting site about gun usage in self defense.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."[12] [13]



* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.[14] This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:



1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."[15]



2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.[16] [17]



3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).[18])
Click to expand...
 
drgrant said:
My answer is- If they can take it away from you then "you're doing it wrong".

The problem is the anti a**h***s think that a gun based altercation is like that gayness on television where someone always points a gun at someone else and there is 3 minutes of witty dialogue. That's not reality.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Awww, c'mon. I've always used witty dialogue..... ;)
 

Similar threads

If Biden were to be elected, what actions could he take to support the Second Amendment (2A)?
Replies
13
Views
311
s&w3913
S
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
473
LittleCalm
L
If Trump were to be elected, what actions could he take to support the Second Amendment (2A)?
6 7 8
Replies
229
Views
3K
In God We Trust
In God We Trust
My eyes are not what they used to be.
Replies
15
Views
485
M1911
M1911
Missouri law being passed: If you home school, your home is now considered a school and you can't own guns
Replies
17
Views
618
Nhusa
N
Back
Top Bottom