vanblah

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?

Willravel

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.

MSD

Sorry, I never saw any of the Bourne movies.

Willravel

They're not bad, but read the novels.

MSD

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.

Willravel

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.

Cynthetiq

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

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Oops, typo.

Jinn

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.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

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?

Jinn

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."

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

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.

Jinn

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'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

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.

vanblah

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).

Seer666

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.

__________________
Bad spellers of the world untie!!!

I am the one you warned me of

I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

Jinn

This morning (Thursday) at midnight:

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

This morning:

dksuddeth

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

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

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.

Jinn

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.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

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.

Jinn

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'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

sapiens

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.

Jinn

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

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Willravel

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:

dksuddeth

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

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

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.

dksuddeth

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

sapiens

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.

Willravel

"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)?

vanblah

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?

Derwood

why was my post deleted?

dksuddeth

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

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

sapiens

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

Martian

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.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

dksuddeth

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

...

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.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

vanblah

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.

Plan9

Pabst Blue Ribbon strikes again.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."