The odds of that man being hit by a helicopter are (after the event) 100%, but the odds of anyone being hit by a helicopter are decidedly less. It's the latter odds I describe here, the former I describe in the other thread.

Had that other thread said: "a man was killed by a fiery helicopter crash yesterday, are you in danger?", the answer would have been, "nope".

Applying that to Cynth and Jinn's incorrect arguments, just because something happens to you does not mean it's any more likely to happen to someone else. Jinn randomly posting articles about Joe Shmo being a statistic doesn't phase me because it's still a very, very low probability of me being a victim of that crime. That's the bottom line.

I'll defend my person and family with the most violent and deadliest force i'm capable of. I'll defend my property with the appropriate amount of force as the loss of that property would affect my life. Whether that's with my glock23, broadsword, pocket knife, hammer, bottle of bleach, or my fathers day lightsabre, is irrelevant.

In whatever way they see fit. I don't have the right to tell others how to defend their lives and family just like no other person or entity has the right to tell me how to defend mine.

something i've always had a difficult time understanding is the mentality of 'since there is so little chance of X or Y happening to me, i'll just not worry about it'. But I have to ask, would that change your thinking if it DID happen to you?

Willravel, the point is that the odds only matter when it hasn't happened.

Let's randomly assume the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted by a stranger are 1 in 1,500,000. By your logic, a woman shouldn't be concerned about it, because it's not a "reasonable response to probability of danger."

If that same woman, who thought the odds were so low that she needn't prepare for it, is kidnapped and sexually assaulted by three men, do you think that her perception of the "likelihood" would change? It's still 1 in 1,500,000, but I doubt you could convince her that it was 'unlikely'. Do you think she might prepare herself differently in the future, despite the "unlikely" chance that it will happen again?

If her perception changes from before the attack and after the attack, then this your equation of "what're the odds? should I prepare for something so unlikely to happen" isn't the only thing that we should consider. Not only should we consider the likelihood, but we should consider the consequences, in the event that that probability is realized. What are the CONSEQUENCES to my physical and mental being if I'm that "1" in the probability? People prepare for unlikely things just because they recognize that in the unlikely chance it does happen, the time spend preparing would be pay dividends compared to the consequence.

While I recognize that the odds of me (a upper middle class white male) being involved in a physical confrontation with deadly force is quite unlikely, the potential consequences of being unprepared (death or sexual assault) far outweigh the relatively minuscule amount of time I can spend now to "prepare" for my defense. In things where the odds are 1 in a million and the only consequence would be minor pain, I'm OK not preparing for it. But when I think about something that's 1 in less than a million with potential consequences including permanent death, I prepare differently.

Look at it this way: I've been shot with a gun before, but I still don't take what I believe to be unnecessary steps to avoid being shot again. I don't feel the need to be armed. I don't avoid walking through areas that have "gang activity" (something relative in San Jose, despite what the media might have you believe) and I even leave my house unlocked often, though I'm usually home.

I do have double pane windows with that wonderfully strong seal, which makes them quite difficult to break, and I have security doors (thought they came with the house). I also would avoid someone with a gun if I saw them. I'd not get into a physical confrontation with them.

I just don't see any reason to live in fear of what probably won't happen to me. If it happens, then shit. It probably won't though. And that's fine.
This means that either:
1) You weren't aware of the danger before it happened or
2) You're unreasonably afraid after the incident.

I don't think I fit into either of these. I'm basically aware of what's going on around me. I know that I could get in a car accident or even be shot again, but the odds still remain the odds.

The bottom line:
There is a point when preparedness crosses the line into paranoia. It would be unreasonable and paranoid for me to be afraid of a shark attack, for example. Yes, it could happen, but the odds are so slim that constant fear about it is unreasonable. When I was a victim of gun crime, I could have become paranoid, but I didn't. I'm not afraid of being shot again, as it's not likely to happen.

well, I personally think that you're playing the odds with your life. For most people, getting shot would be a wakeup call to let you know it can happen anywhere, anytime.

I think the back and forth is easily solved.

Some people, like Will and I (i'm assuming), believe there is more risk in arming ourselves to the teeth, or over preparing, then there is in having nothing at all to "defend" ourselves with.

Others believe that because it is possible, it can be prevented. In this case, preventing is owning a firearm, or safe guarding your homes.

Where I come from I have never been assaulted, looked at badly, mugged, sexually offended, or spit on. The worse thing that happened to me is someone cut me off, I flipped them the finger, and they followed me home to tell me I was rude. Last year there were a few isolated cases where there were a gang of three or four boys who were beating the shit out of assumed gay men and straight women. This happened four times. I saw this as what it was, an isolated incident, one that has never happened in Fredericton, and probably never will again. Others saw it as a reason to never leave their homes after dark, to have five people with you when walking down Queen, and to take pepper spray with you.

I was never attacked. Someone I knew was arrested for attacking a harmless homeless man thinking he was one of the "downtown attackers".

Understand?

It can happen anywhere at any time, if you're one in a hundred thousand, yes.

You, dksuddeth, are playing the odds with your life every day. Every time you eat spinach, you seriously risk getting e. coli. Every time you get in your car or onto any kind of transportation, you're seriously risking getting in a fatal accident (even with seat belts and airbags). Every time you go to a fair, you run a 1 in 300,000,000 chance of being in an accident. Every time you walk under a coconut tree, you run a 1 in 250,000,000 chance of being struck by a coconut (they kill 150 each year, which means that 5 times the people murdered in San Jose every year are killed by coconuts). A gun won't protect you from, delicious death from above. Yes, you're playing roulette with your life. We all are.

and all that taken in to account, I can arm myself with tools that can HELP, notice I say help and not guarantee, my odds of surviving some encounters than if I didn't have said tools.

Are you sure you aren't Ben Stiller's character from Along Came Polly?

So you always, without fail, wear a helmut when under a coconut tree? Do you wear latex gloves when shaking someone's hand? Or when you go to the bathroom, for that matter? And you wear a micro-filter gas mask when around other people, to avoid sickness?

You gamble with your life every day, and take no steps to avoid it. Why? The risks are highly improbable.
Depends. Can I shag Jennifer Aniston? :oogle:

actually in some places, people would think that you do live in fear, places like Iceland where people can leave their doors unlocked and their windows wide open. they'd wonder why you're so "paranoid" about having all that security especially in such a safe place as San Jose.

Now here's the kicker to all of this, actually will, you have prepared to some degree, not to paranoia, and I'm not accussing you of doing so, nor am I accussing you of having prepared.

You are stating that there isn't a need to prepare, yet there you go, you've stated in this post, and in another that you're actually actively preparing even though your statements are contrary to that.

Jinn nor I are stating to live in fear. We're both advocating preparedness. That's not fear, nor paranoia, in fact the thread you posted about preparedness for the end of the world, maybe we can agree that's paranoia.


actually tho, you do take some reasonable steps, you wash your hands when you go to the bathroom, you may wash your hands prior to eating.

and yes, if you know that they are contagious with some sort of airborne virus, you do wear such protection, but that's again when it makes sense to do so.

some people like that gentleman that decided for himself that his TB strain wasn't going to put people at risk flew overseas. luckily it didn't harm anyone, but it could have caused some major problems for many.

My house is unlocked right now, as I type this from work. I'm not sure where you see a discrepancy between my attitude and theirs. If someone wants to steal my crappy $300 eMac or my LCD, they're welcome to them. My info is backed up, and theft is covered with my umbrella insurance (which is nice and cheap because of San Jose's low crime rate).
I've prepared for things that actually might do me harm, shit yes. I eat healthy, with a diet rich in vitamins and minerals, anti-oxidents, and such, along with vigorous exercise to avoid heart disease and diabetes. I wear sunblock and don't smoke in order to avoid cancer. I wash my hands after using the restroom and before eating to avoid getting sick. I wear a seat belt because car accidents are quite common.

All of these things are done to avoid dangers that are a statistical risk.
That's supposed to be paranoia. The supervolcano in the first post may not blow for tens of thousands of years. There is also mention of zombies. I hope you took that with a grain of salt.

Being prepared for something is only as useful as that which you prepare for is likely.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I never walk under coconut trees, so no need for a helmet, but I do wear one on my motorcycle. I do wash my hands, quite frequently even so I don't get sick. There are always risks in everything, yes, but I see no reason why I shouldn't do some things to improve survival odds when I can.

No coconut trees. That's fine. Do you wear a gas mask outside? Do you have EM reflecting drapes? Do you have a reverse osmosis filter for your water? Do you have a well balanced diet that consists of mostly fruit, veggies, and lean meats? Do you exercise regularly?

The bottom line is that you do, in fact, take no steps to avoid miniscule risks. Which is fine. There's no shame in not preparing for a 1 in 1,000,000,000 danger. It's common sense.

I have a very concealable, 9mm pistol. I plan to purchase hollow-points, which have about 350 lbs. of pressure and go 1450 feet per second.

That is how I defend myself.

In a world where a criminal can murder an innocent person, and the jury says no one has the "right" to put them to death, thereby ignoring the fact that the murderer put someone to death who had done nothing wrong at all, I'm going with the strongest self-defense I can legally carry.

I would rather live with the thought that I killed someone trying to steal money from me for their meth, rather than die at their hands and have a jury decide that my death was less of a crime than executing the murderer. That is the biggest injustice in this country.

If you shoot and kill an unarmed person who is trying to steal money from you, you'd better have a good lawyer. You are only allowed to use lethal force if your LIFE is in danger ... not your money or any other thing.

It's interesting that Will and I have both been victims of violent assault; although, I haven't been shot.

I was only attacked by a group of young guys trying to prove their worth to the gang they were in (or trying to join). I had no expectation of the attack. I was walking in Columbia, MO (population at the time about 50,000) on a brightly lit street (Broadway) at around 8PM. There were numerous people around waiting in line to go to a movie(I can't remember the name of the movie or the theater. 8th street maybe?).

As I was walking toward the theater I didn't even notice the group of guys walking toward me through the crowd. Suddenly a guy wearing a green and white striped shirt punched me in the face. When I didn't go down he started to punch me again but a girl screamed and they took off. I had a broken tooth and a lacerated cheek. No one died.

I have no idea what the odds were at the time of anyone being attacked (this was 1988 or 89). It was a completely unprovoked attack. Just a case of wrong place, wrong time. However, it was not a bad neighborhood ... it was a busy, downtown area. There were many people around (none of whom offered to help). I was not armed.

So, let's play this scenario out a little differently:

Assume all of the surroundings were the same ... but let's assume I have a concealed weapon and I'm certified and legal (I don't know what the laws are in Missouri, but let's just assume).

I STILL get punched in the face. Only this time I pull a gun and shoot the mother-fucker dead right there. His buddies start to freak out and there is pandemonium on the streets as the crowd of people waiting to get in to the theater start to panic.

Some of the gang take off and run but one of THEM is armed too, only he hasn't been trained (he is a "criminal" after all) and begins firing wildly at me. He misses, I return fire and hit him in the leg or some such bullshit.

You see where this is going, right?

Eventually, James Cameron makes a movie about it and the little girl that gets shot and dies in her mother's arms is played by unknown child actress Dakota Fanning. Bruce Willis turns down the role and instead a young, up-and-coming actor is nominated for an academy award for his portrayal of me. He doesn't win. The award goes to Kevin Spacey for "American Beauty."

I think I'm going to go stay with kpax.

You think too highly of yourself. The film was optioned by Willard Huyck (of "Howard the Duck" fame) and starred Pauly Shoreas you in his first "serious" role. The little girl was morphed into Tea Leoni, and the entire mess was released straight to video.

Pauly Shore? That's even better ... I could see him playing me. Imagine a James Cameron/Pauly Shore collaboration. I think we'd have a hit. Willard Huyck couldn't option anything by 1999 ...

But hey, since the whole thing is fantasy I figured why not go for the gold?

Originally, I wanted David Duchovny, but he was busy with X-Files at the time and couldn't fit it in his schedule. This was before James Cameron jumped on board and demanded that Bruce Willis be given first dibs. I don't know why exactly ... Bruce had started his descent into "comedy" just after "The Sixth Sense."

But this gave James a great idea to have my story be told as a "dark comedy" and he figured that Bruce would be perfect. Unfortunately, as I said, Bruce couldn't commit either. After a long and drawn-out audition process which included Kevin Spacey, Emo Phillips, Vin Diesel, Wil Wheaton, Carrot Top, and for some reason Micky Rooney, we settled on Pauly Shore. There was something in him that reminded me of me and I demanded that he get the part. James Cameron balked at this idea naturally, so I threatened him with my gun until he saw it my way. Just like Phil Spector.

Anyway, the whole project was shelved after Pauly Shore demanded that I be barred from the set because of creative differences. In reality, I kept referring to him as "the mongoose" and it pissed him off because everyone knows he's "the weasel." I retained the publishing rights to the story and since TriStar couldn't usurp control and the only agreement we could come to was to call Pauly "Mr. ferret" we decided to scrap it.

This lead to TriStar only releasing three films that year.

Keep in mind that this varies drastically state-to-state. In Colorado, for example, you can use deadly force to protect property in your own home:

And your "scenario" demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of a responsible gun owner. In your scenario, I wouldn't even draw a gun, provided I was even carrying it.

You need to look up the word "facetious." I've only met a few "responsible" gun-owners (interestingly, they don't have concealed weapons permits because they don't carry a gun around all the time). I've met more gun owners who do stupid things with guns: like leave them out and loaded when children are present; wave them around in traffic threatening anyone who cuts them off (I'll never ride with him again); etc.

However, I thought it was OK to defend yourself by killing someone if "you feel" your life is in danger? I certainly felt that my life was in danger as I looked at the guys fist coming at me for the second time.

How would you have handled it (in reality, not my fictitious Hollywood hyped-up version)? The same way I did: just let it go and not instigate further violence? I could have done pretty much anything at that point. I was shocked, confused and angry all at the same time. However, I kept a cool head and did not chase after them; I did not yell at them. I just watched calmly as they ran off.

How would YOU have handled it?

What would you have done differently?

Instead of quoting statistics and further sensationalizing the whole "crime ridden United States" thing ... why don't you tell us how it could have been prevented. Or how YOU would have prevented it.

Do you think a gun and a few self-defense classes would have helped here?

I wonder what would have happened had DK or Jinn been in my shoes when I was shot. They would have been shot (I didn't really know I was in danger until there was a rather alarming hole in my calf), then they would have killed the guy? He'd likely be dead now. For absolutely no reason whatsoever.

The guy who shot me was repentant, btw. He was behaving irresponsibly with the gun and I ended up the victim.

Sorry, I never saw any of the Bourne movies.

They're not bad, but read the novels.

Since you've brought this up repeatedly in gun and defense discussions, I'd kind of like to hear the whole story if you're comfortable sharing it.

I'll try to tell what I can without letting people know who I really am.

Back in high school I was one of those guys who raced his rice rocket. Most of the time it really wasn't particularly dangerous. We picked streets that were in commercial areas, so they were completely abandoned at night. The only real worry was crashing (which was rare driving in a straight line) or cops. So I was even more cocky and comfortable in the situation, leading to my complacency. We were all over the SF Bay Area and even went down to Santa Barbara and LA from time to time.

A particular night, I was out with friends. A confrontation presented itself and a young man pulled out a 9mm pistol. He was making threatening gestures and the gun went off twice, once into the ground and once through my calf. Everyone scattered like cockroaches and I got in my car and drove to a hospital.

I'm omitting the police and legal stuff intentionally.

Later, I had a chance to talk with the guy (we were acquaintances before the incident). He apologized up and down, saying it honestly was an accident. I believe him now, looking back. The gun was his father's. I believe it was purchased legally (though I don't know with 100% certainty).

The scar is still there, though it's faded quite a bit.

It was just dumb kids doing stupid things. I could have died had he waved it at the wrong place, but he didn't and I'm just fine.

wasn't behaving irresponsibly? seems like he was not behaving responsibly.

From what i know and understand about gun responsibility is that I'm not supposed to be waving it around and about just because I feel like it. No, if I take out the gun, there is a greater chance than zero that it may discharge, and that discharge brings up the possibility greater than zero that someone may die.

Just because Jinn and dk advocate carrying and using guns doesn't mean that because you hear gun fire you immediately draw and start firing in the direction of the gunshot. It is important for the person drawing the weapon assess the situation and determine the threat and if return fire is required.



Dr Suzanna Hupp on Virginia Tech

Oops, typo.

Friday. I'm sorry, but this isn't one in a million. Statistics be damned; statistical averages don't mean a fucking thing when this happens twice a week in a "safe" city. I'd like to see any of you tell this woman that it's a "rare" thing and that being prepared for it is an "unreasonable" reaction, since she's so "unlikely" to have it happen to her. Going into an alley late at night alone in downtown only happens for one reason; you're either willfully or blissfully ignorant of the actual threat. "Defending herself" here didn't even need to involve a firearm.

Both of those things are criminal acts. I had (perhaps erroneously) assumed we were talking about law-abiding gun owners, and I'm sorry that you don't know more responsible gun owners. It's certainly an issue, but it has more to do with the lax requirements for owning one and poor training. Both can be addressed without blaming the guns for their owner's inability to act like responsible adults.

A gun? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know how responsible this woman is, nor can I decide whether she's physically and emotionally capable of responsibly carrying one based only on her name and the crime committed against her. Self defense classes? Absolutely; I'm have yet to make this thread about how great guns are, only that they are ONE of the tools that I use to defend my person and property. Glancing at the OP again might be helpful. I absolutely don't think firearms are a good solution for everyone, and I'm actually more comfortable if people were convinced to NOT own a firearm by this thread. Only those who understand the responsibility (and legality) of them should even consider it. Cyn's got it right:

And finally:
I'm not really sure. We're talking hypothetical situations, so we can't exactly force the situation identically. A good part of carrying a firearm (and self defense in general) is avoidance. Only about 1% of my plan involves drawing my weapon. It's just like any martial art that emphasizes that you should NEVER want to use your training, and you should try everything in your power, from avoidance to talking them down to running away before using it.

If "I were in your shoes", I would've avoided racing in commercial districts late at night. I'd be lying if I said I haven't done it, but I would a rule of not getting out of my car, and if a "confrontation" happened, I would've apologized and told him how he was so much better than me so I could get in my car and drive away. I have no reservations telling a guy he's so great, and I'm his bitch and wow his penis must be huge because he totally owned me, if it means I get to walk away without a confrontation. Whether it's words, fists or guns, it's not worth it.

However, if we really force the situation and say that I'm standing in your shoes when you were shot and I were armed; if he drew a firearm and waved it in any direction, yes, I would've done everything in my power to end the threat. You might call it "needless" in hindsight, but you yourself admit that he could've taken your life. When someone draws a firearm, you have NO way of knowing whether you will live or die. Whether you continue to live for another 5, 10, 25, 50 years is absolutely no longer in your control. THEY decide whether you continue to exist or whether you rot with the maggots. I'm simply not comfortable letting someone else whether I live or die. I don't care whether they're "repentant" or not after the fact, I won't be there to see them repent for killing me. Nothing is more important to me in this life than continuing to live.

I've had a switchblade activated and tapped against my chest, and I didn't draw my firearm and shoot the (young) man. I talked him down, let him shove me into my car, and drove away. I'm still upset that I let him come so physically close, not that I didn't shoot him. I should've fled on foot.

He pulled it out, waved it around for a fraction of a second, and because he had his finger on the trigger and the safety wasn't on, it went off. I had zero time to react. Clearly he had no idea of how to use the weapon, but more importantly he had no intention of firing. It was intended to be either a threat or to show off.

Yes, it could have gone either way. He could have put two in my head or he could have missed completely. He happened to hit my leg. I'm actually more grateful to circumstance that none of my friends were hit.

The point I was making was that, according to the logic/rationale of one who carries a gun with them, you would have probably returned fire. You're shot in the leg and I would assume that you duck for cover and pull your weapon simultaneously, opening fire to neutralize the threat. I think we've had enough gun/"defense" threads to establish a normal response in a given situation by a gun owner.

The problem was that this was just a kid being dumb. Actually it was several, yours truly included. Did we deserve to die?

If it happened as you described and everyone scurried to the cover of their cars and sped off, then no, I wouldn't have "returned fire." The use of lethal force is only justified when the threat still exists. If he shot off two rounds and dropped his gun, there's not really a lethal force situation anymore, either. I'd make efforts to ensure that no one reached for it and raised it again to a lethal force situation, however. If someone shoots at you and drives away, you're not justified in chasing them down and shooting at them. If someone makes ANY effort to flee after using or attempting to use lethal force, you aren't legally (nor ethically, in my book) justified in pursuing them.

Truth be told, the situation would've probably unfolded exactly as it did for you, if we simply replaced you with me. If I believe that you really didn't have time to see the firearm or flee, then there really isn't much you can do, firearm or not. I don't have a superhero complex, and I don't believe I would've been able to react any faster than you, if the threat came and went with a flash and a bang.

The primary effect of carrying a gun is not to end lives, but to deter criminals from doing you harm and to physically prevent them BEFORE they're able to. After the fact, after you've been harmed, fatally or otherwise, whether you have a gun or not is moot.

This, however, bothers me:
First of all, no one "deserves" to die. Criminals do things that are terrible and reprehensible, but I'm unlike most gun owners in that I don't support the death penalty. I don't want ANYONE to die, if it can be prevented.
With my perspective in mind, you can (hopefully) understand that I can't say "yes, he deserved to die."

It would be a tragedy for this 20-something "kid" to die in a volley of gunfire for doing something so 'stupid' as brandishing and discharging a firearm that he wasn't trained to use responsibily. He's got family and friends too, and I know that they would miss him and cry for him. He could've been the scientist who cures cancer, for all I know. I will do everything in my power to protect the lives of anyone that I can.

BUT ALL OF THAT FALLS APART WHEN SOMEONE THREATENS *MY* LIFE. I enhabit this shell, this is MY life, and so I can justify ending someone else's life when they threaten mine. It's not about wishing death on someone or feeling someone "deserves" to die. It's about valuing my own life and body above those who would do it harm.

I also reject your claim that this is "just a kid being dumb." A "kid being dumb" is a teenager who lies to their parents about the grade they got in Geography. A "kid being dumb" is a teenager who cheats on his high school girlfriend.

Someone who brandishes a firearm and threatens someone with it is not a "dumb kid". They're a "dangerous criminal." And someone who DISCHARGES that firearm in the direction of other human beings is a "dangerous criminal recklessly endagering the lives of others."

One can be both a dumb kid and a dangerous criminal simultaneously. As soon as the young man opened fire, he became a dangerous criminal, whether it was intentional or not. He was still a dumb kid, though.

Then a dangerous criminal, endangering the lives of others, was the one who was "killed", not a dumb kid. I don't care how old you were, what religion you were, what your goals in life are, what you support and who you believed in politically, when you point a life-ending device at me, you're a dangerous criminal. You're not a "little old man" or a "dumb kid."

EDIT: Will/vanblah does this describe your feelings?

I asked a very intelligent liberal lady what she thought of what I'd written, and that was her response. I wasn't sure how what I wrote was being perceived. I tend to think that maybe you agree with me in principle if that's what the world were really like, but would rather see the above happening instead.

I answered the question posed by the OP long before addressing this issue.

Still, it concerns me that so many people are so deeply afraid.

With regard to the first part: "I don't like the discussion." That doesn't really describe how I feel about it. I am fascinated by the responses here. I don't have to agree with everyone I meet ... how boring would that be? Plus, there would be no progress.

Although, I would also like to read how people are non-violently changing what happens in the world.

I do agree that anyone who is not aware of the world around them is certainly inviting trouble; but to dwell on the world's dangers is unhealthy (in my opinion).

With as much force as needed to do so. If a loud "Hey you" sends them running, so be it. If it takes shotting them in the face, so be it. Once someone shows they are a threat to my life and limb, it becomes me or them. I like me better.

Same way.

This morning (Thursday) at midnight:

This morning:

I was eagerly awaiting Wills interjection that nobody needs to be so paranoid that they must think of defending themselves with lethal force because the odds of being abducted at gunpoint when going out on a quiet dinner date, then being bound, gagged, and beaten and then finally raped vaginally, orally, and anally most of the night, having your brutally raped orifices washed out with bleach to remove any DNA, then wrapped in numerous layers of blankets, sheets, and shower curtains to finally be stuffed in a garbage can with the lid sealed to suffer a slow and agonizing death by suffocation are much less likely to happen than your odds of winning the lottery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_...stopher_Newsom

When I was a boy, I witnessed lightning strike a man. Clearly it would be irresponsible to ever put yourself in a position where lightning could strike you, therefore (instead of making normal, reasonable, common sense decisions about how to reasonably avoid lightning strikes like not golfing during a thunder storm) we should allow the free market to build a system of lighting rods wherever there are pedestrians.

Come on, will. Don't set up irrelevant comparisons. Do you not see how someone must prepare based not only on odds but on potential consequences? They don't have "lightning-defense classes" or "Lightining Prevention and Awareness" classes. They do have these things for rape, murder and assault. You know that your comparison isn't apt, because lightning is a chance event that is nothing like rape, sodomy, murder and assault. Think about the family of a lightning-strike victim, and then think of the family of those above.

You don't even understand your own argument.

Potential odds don't change with more dire consequences. If I have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of being hit by lightning and a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of winning a free iPod, it's still the same odds and they should reasonably receive the same preparation. That's what you two seem to be missing. It's very unlikely that I will ever be involved in a gun crime again, therefore making preparations for such an event would be a waste of time.

I didn't say they did. I said "Do you not see how someone must prepare based not only on odds but on potential consequences?"

You don't seem to understand it because you don't believe in preparing for unlikely things, but there is a difference in the amount of rational preparation for something with a 1/1,000,000 chance of causing a few scratches and a 1/1,000,000 chance of "being bound, gagged, and beaten and then finally raped vaginally, orally, and anally most of the night, having your brutally raped orifices washed out with bleach to remove any DNA, then wrapped in numerous layers of blankets, sheets, and shower curtains to finally be stuffed in a garbage can with the lid sealed to suffer a slow and agonizing death".

I get the feeling that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, because I don't think anyone could say that the time spent "preparing" yourself, not walking unaccompanied at night, walking quickly and with purpose and knowing the basic rules of self-defense and distance is irrational preparation.

Firearms don't have to be part of it, despite you using this discussion to say that guns aren't necessary. Should women not do the things above? Wouldn't they be irrationally preparing for something that's unlikely to happen, to use your very own words?

I don't have a position one way or the other on the issue, but potential consequences are bound to have an effect on decision-making. I think that most people understand the odds.

It seems that the argument from the gun side is: Yes, the odds are unlikely that I will need to use my gun, but I consider
1) the costs of carrying a gun to be sufficiently low and
2)the costs of not having the gun when I might need it to be sufficiently high.

Does anybody disagree about the odds? It seems like the argument is mostly about whether the costs/benefits of carrying are sufficient to justify carrying given the low odds.

EDIT: It doesn't have to be "guns". The same calculations are likely being done whichever method you may choose to employ to defend yourself.

Succint, and yes, very true for me. Thanks.

The cost of carrying a gun aren't necessarily low.

There are risks to children who use the gun without having the maturity to appreciate the dangers and repercussions:
There is supporting an industry that actually creates the danger:

This isn't specifically about guns. This is about using whatever means necessary, lethal or not, in preparation for the possibility of being violently attacked

And to that end it's also about how likely said attacks are in relation to the effort expended on defensive or offensive measures. If there's a very low likelihood of occurrence, but you spend an inordinate amount of time/effort/risk to stave off such dangers, your methods are unreasonable.

I'm pretty sure i'm not the only one here that thinks it's totally and unequivocally reasonable to do everything in ones power to avoid the scenario I posted above.

Yeah, I regretted framing my post about guns, it sidetracks the larger issue raised in the OP.

Back to the OP:

I find the "if needed" qualifier to be odd. Don't people do things every day to protect themselves and family?

I do many of the things outlined in the OP. I live in a neighborhood with a very low crime rate. I have a dog. I know my neighbors. I live very close to a number of police officers. I have deadbolts on my doors, etc

I do not own a gun.

I have no business telling others how to defend themselves.

Do you do everything in your power to avoid the scenario above? Everything? Presumably, you have other things in your life other than protecting yourself. Engaging in these other activities likely increase your chances of that scenario occurring.

"Everything in one's power"? See that's the issue. It's not reasonable to do "everything in one's power" to avoid a risk that's statistically improbable. And guess what? You don't actually do that. You don't do everything in your power to avoid horrible risks. What have you done to avoid getting hit by an meteor? What have you done to offset diabetes and heart disease (things that are very likely a danger to you, as opposed to being raped in the ass by a criminal)?

Yes, that's tragic. I really, really hate hearing about it. But there was no need for you to sensationalize it.

Tell me again: this happened to how many people that you know personally?

why was my post deleted?

why would that matter? or is this your way of looking at it as 'this only happens to other people, not me'.

My reaction was that sensationalizing it doesn't address the fact that the event is unbelievably rare.

I think that's sort of the point, yes. More specifically that this exact scenario has only happened to one other person. Very sad for her, but the rest of us will probably be okay.

The thing that I don't see addressed is exactly how much arming oneself helps to prevent these sorts of things. I mean, everything else aside and let's not kid ourselves here - this is a gun thread and that's the purpose of the discussion. I get to wondering how much a gun would've helped in a situation like that one. Were they taken by surprise? Would it have been any use at all?

Further to that, I also sort of think that pulling a gun on someone who's after my wallet or my car or anything else material just seems like a good way to cause him to panic and do something unpredictable (and probably very, very bad for me).

I'd be more amenable to the idea of carrying a weapon for self-defence if I had any reason at all to believe that it would be beneficial.

would a gun have helped them? i can't say for sure.

I do know that i'd rather have pulled the gun and ended up having both my wife and I shot dead on the spot than to have her go through the torturous death they put this girl through.

...

Not talking guns specifically... but unreasonable when the consequences of not being prepared may be horrible injuries or death?

That'd be like passing out a free dayglo orange rape statistics shirt to rape victims at police stations after they give their statement. To them? They are 100%. Fuck the stats... it happened to them.

Ignorance isn't bliss all the time.

...

Sapiens mentions a good posture (that far too my citizens lack these days) but perhaps not the best. Knowing your neighbors well helps if they'll call 911 for ya but they might chickenshit out on you in a time of need, having a dog is great if said dog will actually do anything to an intruder (instead of cuddle or enjoy the steak the guy brings).

Crappy analogy: Flashy stuff like martial arts training and firearms are the top of the self-defense pyramid, with the base being situational awareness and not-being-a-dumbass. Everybody likes the top of the food pyramid (junk food) but without the balance the base provides, we'd all be blubber-farmin' couch anchors. Everybody likes to talk super-karate and Glock 17s... but it comes down to having nice deadbolts and leaving the lights and TeeVee on at night when you're out walking the cat. Without the balance the base of the self-defense pyramid survives, we're just paranoid dolts packing heat.

Didn't we learn anything from that Boy Scout motto?

Why do I wear my seatbelt? It'll probably save my life in the minuscule chance that I get into a car wreck today. Why do I have a concealed pistol permit? It'll probably save my life in the minuscule chance I that get into an altercation with an armed crackhead while my girlfriend and I are walking the groceries to the Cromp-wagon.

Be prepared, goddamnit.

Point of this thread smells like: Discretion is the better part of valor but your life isn't like Nintendo: There is no reset button.

Perhaps I came across a little too snarky yesterday. So no, I'm not dispassionate concerning the events surrounding your statistic. As I said earlier, I've been the victim of violent crime (and not so violent) ... certainly not to THAT extent, thankfully.

It is a tragic event and I can certainly sympathize with the families of the victims (to a certain extent--I've never been in their shoes, so I can only understand their emotions with regard to my own experience); but I'm not sure what either one of the victims could have done to prevent it. A gun? A few self-defense classes? Mace/pepper spray? A stun gun?

When you are ambushed there's very little you can do; and these people were ambushed. Not to mention the fact that they were outnumbered.

What I really fail to understand with regard to the direction that this thread has gone is what all these statistics are supposed to point out.

I presume that MOST of us are very aware that crime is ever-present--not just violent crime--but quoting statistics without any kind of follow-up is just sensationalism and only serves to further the feeling of paranoia and fear that is becoming pervasive in this country. My biggest concern with that is: vigilantism/street justice. I mean, sure I've had thoughts of taking the law into my own hands but there is nothing scarier to me than a drunken and paranoid person with a gun*.

The fact is the sort of violent crimes that have been quoted in this thread are RARE. That does NOT mean that we as a people shouldn't be ready to defend ourselves if needed ... just that there is NO POINT in dwelling on the crimes themselves beyond some kind academic fascination.

I ask again: when someone quotes a statistic about a violent crime ... please extrapolate how YOU would have handled it differently -- if possible. Seriously.

* This is from experience. When "Hurricane Elvis" happened in Memphis the power was out for two-to-three weeks in Midtown. Midtown Memphis has its fair share of crime (but I continue to live there). During the power outage people in my family patrolled their neighborhoods with shotguns and other firearms. I didn't have a problem with this until it became apparent that they were drinking ... heavily (bad beer, too). It was like a freakin' game to them. It started out as a "noble cause," but could have ended very tragically. But again, even this situation is rare and I don't really dwell on it. If it becomes an everyday thing then I might get a little more concerned.

Pabst Blue Ribbon strikes again.

Complete off-topic, I'm very amused by the new name for the HHR.

I agree with Crompsin. Concealed carry permit aside, reasonable precautions are.. well, reasonable. As usual, I'm mostly just baffled by the paranoia.

Personal observation: Paranoia involving the use of guns is almost always male, Caucasian and American.

Go figure.

You're asking this question like there would be an inconvenience on their part to prepare themselves with self-defense classes, mace, pepper spray, a stun gun, or even a firearm. What could they have done? Who knows, but I can tell you that these things wouldn't have HURT the situation.

I guess I can understand the logic of "why bother?," but I think it can only come from a belief that these things are either so uncommon (willravel) or so non-life threatening that they don't justify even the littlest amount of preparation.

You're right, there's very little to do when you're ambushed. However, a little bit of preparation can go a long way in preventing the ambush from ever happening. Things like not walking alone at night, for one. That's my goal for the thread, at least, despite the continual regression to firearms. What will you do? Most people I know aren't responsible enough to own or safely use a firearm, so I'll be the last person you hear recommending it for Joe Blow. But there are a lot of effective strategies being flat-out IGNORED because people convince themselves that it's a random and unlikely occurrence and the results will not be life-threatening. My point in posting the Blotter excerpts is to show that more often than not, it is not random or unlikely, and it is often very life-threatening.

I 'presume' the opposite, and I think it's clearly demonstrated by the amount of people who think it won't happen to them or that violent crime doesn't exist in their city. Even as 'aware' as I am, I'm shocked by the amount of crime that happens in my "safe" city, every day. Hell, in the time since I last posted and now there's been another sexual assault:

On this, I agree. You must be mindful, of course, that being in simple POSSESSION of a firearm while under the influence of any intoxicating substance, whether alcohol or marijuana, is illegal. Its a terrible thing to lump the legal, responsible owners of firearms with criminals, just because they own the same tools.

I'd love to take you shooting sometime, so you could see (for perhaps the first time in your life) what a responsible adult does with a legally-owned firearm to ensure the safety of themselves and everyone around them. Let me know if you're ever near Colorado. :)

No, I'm not asking the question as if it would be an inconvenience. I was only referring to THIS case; and in this case there really was no answer. You are correct that any of the things I listed (gun, pepper spray, etc.) wouldn't have HURT the situation ... the end result would have been pretty much the same. They'd be dead.

I am fairly positive that the number of responsible gun owners is probably greater than the number of irresponsible gun owners (if we exclude the criminal element). I am also good-friends with several cops in this town (and others). I just happen to know MORE people who are irresponsible.

I also don't think Will is advocating a "why bother" kind of attitude. Neither am I. Just that there's no reason to dwell on statistics ... be prepared, but don't be paranoid.

I have yet to post a statistic.

All of your anecdotes from the "Blotter" are statistics. Perhaps I should always refer to them as anecdotes from now on. Although, they aren't really anecdotes either.

According to the Department of Justice, during no yearsince 1976 did the annual number of gun deaths among ages 0-17 exceed 3791. You have to start stretching the definition of "child" by a few years to get the statistic you're quoting.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicid...weapagetab.htm

Most of those youth deaths are drug or gang related anyway. I'm really, really unlikely to come across a situation where having a gun can save me, but if carrying around something I bought for fun instead of locking it up when I'm not at the range might save my ass someday, why not?
Mods can see deleted posts, but I don't see any :confused:

That's a strawman. It's not about saving a wallet or a car, it's when it comes down to making a choice between defending ourselves or being shot/stabbed/whatever.

I would expect there is a line of reason, but people draw the line in different places. When you come home, you could patrol you house with weapon drawn, carefully looking outside of each window, monitoring for possible threats to you, your family, or your property. You could install cameras around your entire home inside and out and monitor them every waking hour. It might reduce the chances of a home invasion. Some might consider that reasonable, others won't.
I don't think that it is a crappy analogy. Personally, I'm more interested those "base of the pyramid" strategies that will reduce my chances of ever having to interact personally with a threat (the full-range of strategies one can use to be safe). As you seem to suggest, those base of the pyramid strategies may account for more of the variance in crime avoidance than kung-fu and guns.

Regarding the dog point, I have no illusions about my dog. If an intruder enters the house, he will likely greet that intruder happily. However, my dog seems good at warning me whenever there is something strange going on outside of the house.

It's really not. How do you determine what the intent is? My impression from what I've read previously is that anybody who poses a potential threat is somebody who should be neutralized. This goes contrary to what I believe to be human nature -- most folks in your typical mugging/burglary situation are probably not looking to kill someone, although it's a high stress situation and they may resort to that if pressured. So how do you decide whether this guy is a threat? Is it just because he's holding a knife or a gun? Do you ask first? How exactly does that work?

The instant you show a weapon you escalate the situation. I'd prefer not to put myself in that situation and trust that the risk of an unprovoked attack is much lower. Granted part of that may be small town living; I don't have to worry so much about such crimes because they don't generally happen in my part of the world. Even still, it seems like me that carrying a gun, even responsibly, puts you at greater risk than you would be otherwise.

Of course, that's just my impression. I've done no research on the subject, and I really don't think any truly meaningful research can be done.

I think you're right about the small-town living thing. On the latter, not so much.

The problem with the attitude of 'he only wants money and if I submit, he'll leave after he gets what he wants' is that you only get to make the mistake of 'trusting' the person who has just threatened your life with not actually killing you one time and one time only.

It's intuition and analysis of the situation. Displaying a weapon is not escalating because you don't draw a gun during a mugging or robbery if you don't intend to use it. Drawing the gun is intent to use lethal force and you just don't do it unless there's no other option. There's a difference between "give me your wallet" and "I'm gonna kill you." Even with your small town lifestyle, I think you could look at someone and make an educated guess about whether or not tossing your wallet to a mugger would end the incident.

How many times do you get mugged in a week?

Odds on are that I'll only have to make that decision once anyway, if at all. And should that situation occur, the odds are that the guy I'm looking at is probably not a cold-blooded killer; they're really not that common. It strikes me that the probability is also high that he's very tense and quite probably more than a little desperate. Most of what's in my wallet is a bunch of plastic that I can cancel with half a dozen phone calls. If he wants forty bucks and a couple receipts, he can have 'em. My life is worth more.

These seems like pretty basic psychology to me. If you threaten a guy who's already tense, he's likely to react react violently.

Granted that's true. On the other hand, it strikes me that if the guy is really intent on doing me in I'm probably not going to have much chance of defending myself anyway. Think about it; if someone decides that they're going to go out and kill a person, that someone is unlikely to declare a formal duel and give you ten paces. I'm all too aware that I'm not Superman, and that if someone with a gun decided that they wanted to kill me they could in all probability do it before I had a chance to react anyway.

So we have mugger who doesn't intend to kill me but is a bit high strung and guy who decides that I need to die and finishes me off before I even know he's there. We have me, who knows to take basic precautions like locking my door and avoiding high risk situations. Where in any of this does having a gun decrease my chances of being hurt?

In a few isolated cases, having a gun may help. It just seems to me that the potential for harm is greater than is merited by the benefit provided. Carrying a gun may make you feel safer, but I've never been convinced that it actually makes you any safer than the rest of us. The handful of anecdotes in this thread seem to reinforce that idea rather than dispel it; none of them seem to make any sort of a strong case that these people would have been any safer with a firearm in their pocket, purse or vehicle.

Bad stuff happens to good people. Bad people make it happen sometimes. The world isn't a nice place, which is something I've long since accepted. I take what precautions I consider reasonable and console myself with the idea that the odds of me actually being involved in something like this are quite low. I just don't see the sense in living my life in fear.