Gun ownership and the "self defense" argument

Post Reply New Topic

I was going to suggest rounds loaded with my son's farts, but you did specify "non-lethal," so that's out.

Guns tend to work more reliably than non-lethal.
Best way to avoid confrontations like that is to stay away from bad areas if you can and stay alert, especially when alone and in public or at night.
A lot of times I'll carry pepper spray in addition to a pistol or sometimes the spray alone, depending.
I'd rather pepper someone, punch them in the face or throat, or kick them in the balls over shooting them but if the situation is past trying non-lethal I"ll not hesitate to grab for the gun and put holes in them until they are down. After all, they came to me for trouble so they are getting their just medicine, lethal or otherwise.
Running from a gun armed assailant is a good way to get shot in the back.

The Phaser on stun has yet to be invented, and as others have already pointed out, most non-lethal weapons currently on the market are not reliable, convenient, or legal for civilians to own and carry. A handgun is small, easy to operate, effective when properly employed, and practical to carry. A 12 gauge shotgun loaded with some exotic round is none of those things; nor is a single shot electrical weapon that's much larger than my handgun and illegal for me to purchase.

Incidentally, this is one of the things that drives people who are knowledgeable about firearms absolutely crazy, people who are not knowledgeable playing Monday morning quarterback with a subject they know nothing about; learn subject first, THEN offer opinion.

Dox47 wrote:

With this subject that's like asking a bear to s**t in a toilet....

Right now the only ones who can acquire flash bangy or electrically shocking non-lethals are the police and the military. A civilian schmuck can get some kind of spray, but that is only good for making one feel safe. In a windy place it is useless.

ruveyn

on a slightly less serious note.

my landlord dumps a lot of old stuff to big to be thrown away in the garbage in the many acres of land he owns.there is an old toilet down near the river.
there are also some crab apple trees and blackberry bushes and you see a lot of bear scat over there.it could be possible,maybe i should put some honey or something in the toilet and set a camera.ha ha ha

This. Guns are currently the most efficient and effective means of self defence. I am however eagerly awaiting the further development of tasers, because when they work they work well.

I would also point out that guns aren't always lethal.

In the mean time load and lock, or stay safely out of sight.

ruveyn

It would take a taser that is:
1. Very reliable.
2. Can fire multiple times and rapidly if needed.
3. Effective at distances greater than what they are capable of now.
4. All this and be compact and light as what most of us carry as a handgun.

It would have to posses those qualities and maybe some I'm not thinking about before I would even remotely consider carrying one instead of a handgun.

Gunshots are fairly commonly non-lethal, depending on factors. If it comes down to it you shoot to neutralize, not necessarily to kill. The object being to get them quickly rendered incapable of posing a further threat to you.
It basically boils down to shooting them until the are down.

In short, you want a Federation standard issue phasor.

ruveyn

guns most definatley can be non lethal.

if someone has a knife you can either shoot for the blade and shoot the knife out of someones hand or just shoot for the hand and impair there ability to use the knife.this happened in brattleboro vermont a few years back.a man who was denied bennifits started threatening people with a knife outside of the welfare office.luckely the police station is accross the street from the welfare office.a female patrol officer with the brattleboro police shot the knife staight out of the suspects hand,then male officers jumped all over him so he couldnt reach for the knife again.sitiuation resolved without injury to anyone.

cops are trained shooter:so if you were in the same position you might want to shoot for the kneecaps because this would imediatley cripple the perpatrater.then you hold him at gun untill police arrive,dont pick up the knife because thats evidence.if the knife is still close to the perp kick it away and dont touch it.

the suspect might be in a cast for a while but there is little risk of amputation or death if ambulance is called right away

In a hot encounter cops are trained to shoot at the torso because it is the broads target.

ruveyn

I would really like to read a bunch or real stories our gun experts experienced.
"I know much more than you!
No I do!
No I am the only one kissed by wisdom around here!"

Blah blah.
Please, give me some scenarios when your guns saved your ass. When you had no choice than using lethal force (war stories are accepted, although offtopic). Thanks

Bullets can just as easily take knee caps as take lives. Its not mandatory to shoot center mass, just like I don't think a 90 pound girl with a baseball bat against a 300 lb guy would have much luck.

true storie about a real sitiuation in vermont.i cant attest to other law enforcement agencies

I'd be happy with five shots over a thirty foot range. I could be wrong here, but I rarely see or hear about people needing to defend themselves over a range greater than that.