Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I'll address whether a gun makes a person specifically less safe later in this response, but for now, you cannot carry around a security door, locks, windows, or security system. This leaves your portable options at taser and pepper spray.
|
Not necessarily. The option of avoiding dangerous areas is probably the single best way of protecting one's self. Like it or not, there are some places that are more dangerous than others. By not being at these places, especially at night, one can substantially reduce the threat to one's person. For example, walking down Monterey here in San Jose past maybe 11 p.m. isn't particularly safe. I don't walk that way. Sure, San Jose is one of the safest big cities in the world, and gun crime is quite low here, but there are dangers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I agree that both of those are viable self defense options, as a part of a self defense strategy that includes the option of lethal force if needed, for the exact reason you state...they don't pose any kind of serious threat the way a gun does, so if going up against an armed attacker, you're at a serious disadvantage. Most tasers can only be used against a single attacker, only disable for a few seconds, and have varied effectiveness based on target placement, drugs, and individual tolerance. Pepper sprays can blow back in your face (a problem bullets do not have) and also may not have the desired take-down results, due to either personal tolerance or drug-induced rages on the part of the attacker.
|
If tasers and mace weren't effective, I have to believe the police wouldn't use them. They do. A lot. The police use them a lot more often than their guns.
This does raise a question, though: how often is a perpetrator just looking to inflict harm? Robbery I can understand. If someone pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet, they're not looking to shoot me but take my money. They're welcome to it. How often, though, would an armed, dangerous perpetrator have the main goal of hurting or killing you? It's not rational except in cases of personal offense, which are easy to avoid. So, if we're to assume it's an irrational actor, this is an exceedingly rare individual. It's highly uncommon for someone to attack a person at random with the singular purpose of hurting or killing them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
And my main argument is that there are situations that only possession of a handgun will get you out of alive, like the experience of John Lee, above. Explain how him not having a handgun would have been a better option or had a better outcome. You have not convincingly shown that handguns are not worth the trouble.
|
Where did the perpetrator get the gun?
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Also, do you have any facts or statistics to back up this collateral damage claim? Collateral damage typically refers to "Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation."* The self defense application of this would be a citizen shooting (and presumably killing) an unintended and innocent bystander in his attempt to stop his attacker. I could not find any reported instances of someone killing a bystander while engaging an attacker in a self defense situation, and definitely couldn't find any statistics.
|
I said collateral danger, referring to the unintended danger of a higher rate of suicide and shooting a friend or family member I mentioned and cited above. Do you own a gun? Did you know it was dangerous in those ways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
1) If he has chosen to arm himself, it is not rational to bet your life they are not a fatal risk.
2) John Lee's story, already related, is one of many counterexamples to this. Due to absence of evidence otherwise, I would counter that they are less likely to open fire if you ARE visibly armed, as the ability to return fire and fight on equal ground is something a rational actor would avoid when other victims do not pose such a threat.
3) I don't follow your logic: Assuming criminals are rational actors, why would they be more likely to engage someone with whom they are equally armed? One-shot-kills are for movies and video games, there will always be the chance of successful return fire.
|
They would be more inclined to return fire in order to protect their own life, using the same logic you're applying to the victim. Robber pulls a gun and demands money, victim pulls a gun and opens fire, and robber returns fire. After the first bullets are fired, both individuals are just trying to survive. If they both believe shooting at the other person, to kill them, is the best way of surviving, they're both shooting at each other. That's my logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
If someone doesn't appear to have intent and ability to kill, you don't shoot them. If there's grey area, I'd suggest erring on the side of them getting hurt vs you getting hurt, and presenting a firearm with intent to end the encounter is as good a filter as any. I'll gladly hand over my wallet to an armed assailant who I believe is just looking for a money grab--nothing in there is worth escalating to lethal force if you don't believe the assailant presents a credible threat.
|
How often do you suppose someone is just out there to kill you? It seems the entire case of being armed with a gun is to be ready for a situation where someone is very likely to kill you if you don't kill them first. Really, how likely is this situation? As you say, when being robbed it seems the most logical reaction to simply cooperate and give the robber what he or she wants. I only have like $70 in my wallet, along with a debit card and a credit card. If I'm robbed in public, the most I lose is a few hundred bucks. If it's a home invasion, I've got a nice TV, stereo, and an okay computer. Go for it, I say. Take them. If it's my car, go for it. It's not worth killing for.
So how often are these situations in which it's kill or be killed? And please, don't just link to a few isolated cases. That's how others have responded to this question in the past, but for every article featuring such a violent crime, there are hundreds of millions of people that are totally safe. I've been looking for statistical information on this for years, but I've never found any. Until we have it, I don't see how anyone can possibly say there's a real danger. As I've said in the past, risk is a combination of likelihood and severity. Sure, being murdered is quite severe, but if it's a rarity, as I believe, the risk isn't as high as people would have you believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Can you give me a citation to a gun school page that advocates either not drawing, or pulling your gun and shooting to kill? That advice is criminally negligent, and I highly doubt you will see it captured. It is also wrong for another reason, in that fatally wounding and stopping someones ability to be a threat are often unrelated, and you're only concerned with the latter.
|
I got the shoot to kill thing from Dunedan and dksuddeth. I'm working under the assumption that they're both highly trained enough to know what is or isn't appropriate. If I misunderstood them or they're wrong, mea culpa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
|
If there is a situation in which it's not necessary to kill, I can't imagine a reason to pull a gun. Doesn't that make sense to you?
[QUOTE=telekinetic;2799337]Is an increased risk of suicide a reason to not keep necessary medication in the house? Or own rope?[QUOTE]
A gun is clearly the preferred method of suicide. It's instantaneous and painless. Pills don't always work and hanging is torture. I will admit some people are willing to go through pain in order to carry out their suicidal impulses, but according to the statistics, they're clearly less likely to do it and less likely to succeed. That's no small thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
I would personally choose a plastic bag, a big rubber band, a hose and a helium tank if I ever decided to end my life...should those items be banned, avoided, or restricted? People need to evaluate their own state of mind, both for ownership and potential use of firearms. Also, statistics at your own cited websites state that the risk is decreased if guns are properly locked up, which any responsible owner (at risk of veering too close to a 'no true scottsman') should already be doing.
|
You'd really want to suffocate instead of having it end instantly?
The point of that statistic is owning a gun comes with additional risks, among them the risk of being able to more easily commit suicide. Are we in agreement that suicide is generally a bad thing? (not being facetious)
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
What is the risk of leaving your concealed weapon concealed if you judge an encounter does not justify the use of lethal force? Virtually nothing.
What is the risk of not having lethal force available to you if you are in a situation that needs it? Very high.
|
What are the odds of finding one's self in a situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
First, there are no accidental shootings. There are only negligent shootings. An accident implies that you were following all proper safety guidelines, and some factor beyond your control caused an accident.
|
I disagree. When you open fire on a legitimate target, there's always a chance, even if all proper safety procedures are followed, you hit someone or something you don't intend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by telekinetic
Well, to dispurse it wide enough to disable multiple attackers you run much higher chance of inadvertent exposure of yourself. Here is a video of police confront a suspect and pepper spraying him multiple times, starting at 1:07...I would deep link but that doesn't seem to work with an embed:
After being pepper sprayed directly in the face and eyes repeatedly, he continues to assume a defensive stance and remain a threat to the officers. This gentleman was fairly passive, but clearly still had his full facilities about him. I'd argue this as a counterexample to having pepper spray as your own line of defense, as if he had wished to harm the officers he certainly could have. If he had been an aggressive attacker, already engaged, I don't believe for a minute that the pepper spray would have stopped the attack.
|
He was not a mortal risk to the police officers overusing the pepper spray.