Newbie from America

[Herbalizer]

Its good to know the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Pinoy.

I'll file that handy fact away DG.

By the way, if one uses Firefox as their browser, it has a built in and automatic spell checker....
For those who need it.

[TheDude]

I feel that using firearms for self defense is really stupid.

1. If you are in a situation where you require a firearm for self defense then you already screwed up. You are likely in a situation which could have been avoided had you used your smarter tools first (brain.)

2. Firearms are obviously extremely dangerous to both you and everyone around you. Though there is a possibility that a firearm may prevent a crime from being committed against you, there is also an increased risk that someone innocent will get hurt by mishandling or perhaps a child at play who has found yours.

3. Firearms should be left to professionals for the protection of the public. The police carry firearms while on the job, they receive professional training on a regular basis, they are regularly confronted with situations where they have to make snap decisions on the level of force which should be used.

Certain military positions also go through similar training. In some cases, they may go through more weapons training, but probably less training for dealing with the public.

Civilians don't receive this training. Perhaps they go through a short certification process which really teaches them little. Perhaps they practice shooting their weapons at fixed targets. None of this comes close to the training that a professional receives.

4. You are putting the lives of others in your hands. Who are you to take this power upon yourself? Who are you to be judge, jury and possibly executioner? How can I trust that you will make smart decisions when confronted with a scenario where you might possibly feel you need to use your weapon? How can you be sure that you will be in the right state of mind to make the right decision? How do I know that you aren't a whack job who should be kept as far away from any weapon as possible?

5. I'm not a guru on this subject but I'm skeptical on how effective handguns would be for most people. Shooting a handgun from a standing (unsupported) position is the least effective situation (mostly in terms of accuracy) to shoot from (except for shooting multiple handguns while running which is the sort of stupidity that you only see in Hollywood.) Again, going back to point 3, you just don't get the same experience and training that a professional goes through to make the handguns truly effective. How much practice do you get in being confronted and responding to a situation where you might need your handgun in an urban environment? Probably nearly zero.

6. The Philippines is a foreign country. You are a guest to this nation. If you feel that you can't be safe here, then you should not be here. The Philippines doesn't need to attract gun toting cowboys from abroad.

7. How often do people really get confronted with the scenario that a handgun might really be required? Sure, it can happen and it's great to be prepared, but we simply can't be prepared for everything. Is this small chance worth the extra risk?

8. You can face possible legal problems. If you use the handgun and you kill someone there is a possibility that you were wrong and you could get thrown in prison. You could break a minor law just by being in possession of the gun.

9. By carrying a handgun you possibly bring more risk to yourself. One scenario might be a misunderstanding between you carrying a handgun and the police who have confronted you. This situation could be deadly for you. Another scenario might be an escalation of an already dangerous situation where you actually do use the handgun for your protection. Perhaps a crime which might have otherwise left you unharmed might be escalated to you being killed simply because you upped the stakes by pulling your weapon.

10. There are lots of great non lethal alternatives, such as pepper spray.

I'm all for the right to bear arms. People should be able to protect themselves and their families from government and their fellow citizens. However, in most cases, you should trust the government to provide public safety.

Caveat: I believe carrying a firearm in your home is reasonable despite the points I have brought up here. If you are in your home and someone brings the trouble to you then there is likely little more you could have done to avoid this sort of situation. In your home you are also likely much less of a threat to innocent bystanders. A handgun is also more effective in close quarters. Many of the risk points still apply though. If your risk of needing the firearm and not having one is exceeded by the risk of the mere presence of the firearm causing you trouble then you should think twice about owning one.

[Coyotes]

Firefox has its own in-built spell check, but this spell check is available only in Text area and text fields (text boxes) will not show spelling mistakes. Many times blogging titles have spelling mistakes because of this. But a simple trick can activate spell check in text fields as well. To do this, open the config file of Firefox. Type about:config in address bar and press enter.

Now in the filter field, type the following value- layout.spellcheckDefault

firefox config

The default value of this parameter is 1. Double click on this parameter and change the value to 2. Close config file and now open any page which has a textbox and check for wrong spelling (no restart required).

[jellyfish]

Giny, is tat Firefox a dangerous wapon ?
Only joking !
It was so wierd to read your text after the gun lecture of the Dude (I do agree with him for 80 %).

[Coyotes]

Originally Posted by jellyfish

Giny, is tat Firefox a dangerous wapon ?
Only joking !
It was so wierd to read your text after the gun lecture of the Dude (I do agree with him for 80 %).

haha i guess knowledge is power, i never knew firefox had a spellchecker so when it was ]stated i wanted to check it and also pass on the way to set it up,

guns have been argueed about for years some good reasons and some bad, read this artical, it arguees the other way and is just as valid, and also justifies why the dude dont need a gun, but others may!

my view is for freedom of choice, but be prepaired for the consequencies
the munchkin wrangler.: why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[TheDude]

As I said, I do support the right to bear arms. I have no problem with people carrying concealed firearms.

Coyotes, the article you quoted is an argument of principle whereas mine is an argument of technicalities and practicalities.

the gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

This is purely hypothetical and too black and white. A gun doesn't always put you on equal standing with your opponent. In the case of muggers, they have a huge advantage over their victims. They are able to choose when, where and how.

If a mugger decides to incapacitate you before committing a robbery, then there is a good chance that by the time you know that you are being mugged you won't have a chance to strike back. However, this is the best case (actually being attacked) of where you need to use all means at your disposal to not only fight back but to simply survive the encounter.

If the mugger only threatens physical force then pulling a firearm still may not be your best option. A better option might be to give the person whatever he/she wants. There is likely little that you carry from day to day that you can't stand to lose. Any medical attention required from stupid decisions would likely be a greater cost to you than getting robbed on the street.

Simply running away is a valid reaction though it may not be an option for everyone. Any weapon other than a firearm is only viable for close combat, if you are not in close quarters with your attacker then you negate his/her ability to harm you.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

That would be a great argument if this world actually existed. If you don't live in Somalia or Iraq then you can make a compromise. In most cities of stable countries the majority of citizens don't go about their daily lives (outside of the home) armed with concealed weapons and their societies are not ruled by the whims of the "young, strong and the many." However, these cities do have an armed police presence. Just as many nations of this world live under the protective umbrella of a nuclear armed U.S. (so they don't have to create their own nuclear force) so can you live under the umbrella of an armed police force. Keep your weapon locked away and unloaded at home.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.

But what if you decide one day that you are looking for a fight? Or rather, you don't decide this but you have such a bad day that you are more willing to pull your weapon than on another day. What if you are in a situation where you let your prejudice overcome your judgment? What if you are under the influence of alcohol, medications an ailment which can cloud your judgment? What if you are confronted with a situation which is a heated argument but not dangerous and your anger boils over?

Again, when dangerous weapons are present, you are better off if they are in the hands of professionals.

Also, this whole argument seems to revolve around one type of scenario. That you have a firearm and your attacker does not. What happens if your attacker also has a firearm? At that point, you are back to square one. You probably need to act as if you were not armed and your attacker is.

The authors argument is one of principle, but survival is never that simple. You need to make strategic decisions to give yourself the best chance of survival. You also need to calculate the other risks that are present. Personally, based on statistics and my ability to stack those statistics more in my favor based on my surroundings, I feel that carrying a firearm is unnecessary.

[TheDude]

Haha, not quite done yet.

guns have been argueed about for years some good reasons and some bad, read this artical, it arguees the other way and is just as valid, and also justifies why the dude dont need a gun, but others may!

Actually, I don't think that article argues the "other way." In principle I agree with the author and I believe he would agree with me. What the auther is arguing and what we agree on is that people should have the right to be armed. We both agree that people should have that right.

In the U.S. we do have the right to bear arms, so his argument simply reinforces the status quo. My argument takes off farther down the line. We do have the right to bear arms, but today when I walk out my door, should I bring a firearm and carry it on my person? I believe in most cases you should not.

[logicwings]

The day we lose our will to fight is the day we lose our freedom.

[KAYLEIGH]

As long as your not racist. I noticed some foreigners in dgte. thinks they own the city or the world!!

[Coyotes]

coming from the UK i personally never consider owning a gun, i've never considered changing my opinion since arriving here, in fact i feel safer here than i have done in recent years in the UK.
I've found that people who carry guns are the ones that "need" them. for whatever there reason, i'd guess it's cos there generally not nice people or are very afraid because of a past trauma.
if you have a gun, the bear minimum you should do, is become proficient in it's use, be aware of the consequencies as it's not a computer game, when there dead, that's it, no more goes when u reset the game.

be aware of your surrondings, if you find yourself in a place where u think it's unsafe- get out of the place as quick as possible, staying calm and walk confidently, look far ahead of your chosen route out, look for irregular shapes, shadows, siloettes, shining oblects, movement. be aware of what u have just passed, it may provide an escape route if u need to run back and maybe hide as the initial action, while u regain your composeuer, it's these few seconds when you should prepare the gun, there's no backing out now, shout a warning that your prepared to defend yourself and that you will defend yourself, although you have a gun do not state it, your best defence now is suprise, if there armed also, why fore warn them...
Stand up before they come to close to you, distance is your friend at this point, raise the gun, control your breathing, look for the mouthy brave one, shot him in the center mass of his body, (some believe you should shot a warning shot, i believe if you have ammo left at the end, fire one more off into the air) squeeze off a maximum of 2 shots, you may need the rest later, generally the rest of the group will run away at this point, if not move position, try to get cover, then 2 more shots to the next in line remembering your composure, breathe as slowly as you can squeeze aimed shots. after the fight walk confidently away, you now need to stay safe but need to get out, once out call police and medical aid

When questioned later, you must say you were aimng at the legs, but only after consulting with your lawyer, say nothing till you have legal advice, act as shocked as you can, you will be in shock this is normal, explain they confronted you, then chased you, you were in fear of your life, remember you shouted warnings prior to firing, a warning shot was fired!! all your shots were aimed, you were lucky you had the gun as you never normally take it out with you, after cleaning it, you had to leave the house quickly and it was easier to store it for a short while in your bag, rather than lock it away as you thought you'd only be a short time.

prior planing now will save you much time in the police station and any later legal action, will show no intent and all reasonable actions taken prior to having to fire to save your own life. what you say to the police will be used against you, a good performance here may prevent legal action, show remorse, ask about the attackers, are they known to the police? have others been accosted in the same area, have any witnesses come forward?