Gun ownership and the "self defense" argument

Post Reply New Topic

I can understand why people want to protect themselves, their families and their homes. What I don't get is this - if we are threatened by someone with a gun, of course we want to stop them before they harm us. But why does this necessarily need to be done by employing deadly force of our own? Shouldn't it be enough to incapacitate the person, thus removing the threat, and then turning them over to the police? There are all sorts of non-lethal weapons that can be used to incapacitate most anyone, without killing them and even without doing them any permanent harm. Why does deadly force need to be met with deadly force instead of incapacitating force? It seems that a lot of people buy guns for "self defense" fully intending to kill or to inflict permanent harm on any intruder that ever comes into their home, or anyone who ever threatens them with deadly force, etc. To me that goes way beyond what "self defense" is supposed to be - which should be doing the minimum necessary to remove the immediate threat to yourself and anyone / anything you are trying to protect.

At this juncture the most reliable way of -stopping- someone from doing us physical harm is the use of a fire arm. Tasers are too unreliable. Spray won't work in a windy place and can blow back on the user. Most people are not fit or well trained enough to use judo, k,ung foo or some such unarmed modes. This pretty well leaves firearms. Perhaps someday we shall have phasors which we can set to stun. But that day is not here yet.

ruveyn

ruveyn is right, at least in public a firearm is often the only way of stopping someone who themselves has a firearm or knife, assuming you have the element of surprise. With a typical unarmed attacker, a blunt weapon may suffice. Often this is like a shark attack- the attacker will stop once they know you have the capacity to fight back. The exception is if they are seeking you personally.

From a legal perspective, the exercise of self-defence must be limited to the force that was reasonably required in the circumstances. The standard for the test is what a reasonably prudent person would determine as reasonable in those same circumstances.

Frankly, if a person has a well-founded fear for their own safety from a person who has the apparent means to kill them or cause serious bodily harm, I have great difficulty seeing circumstances in which self-defence would be justified by the use of deadly force would not be.

About the only thing else that comes to mind would be a round designed to expel a blinding flash. I seen rounds almost like that for shotguns but they're just as likely to start a fire.

I wonder about other non-lethal rounds like shotgun bean bags? Can civilians buy such things or just the police?

This isn't the matrix, you're not dodging bullets. Pepper spraying someone with a gun won't neutralize them from being a threat, it will probably just tick them off before they blow your brains out.

i would use a gun in self defense if i happened by a 500lb bear in the woods who was deciding if i taste better with a1 steak sauce or ketchup,a .338 magnum would be nice in that sitiuation

if you get robbed just give up the money and if someone points a gun at you the best thing to do is RUN! its very hard to hit a moving target and not directly away but in a zig zag pattern so your harder to hit.criminals are very bad shooters and have few places to practice with an illegel gun, plus black market ammo is more expensive than legal ammo.most good shooters practice a lot and make there own ammo with crappy bullets only good for target practice.if you do get hit it will likely not be a lethal area.if someone points a gun at you they already have there gun out and yours is still in a pocket or a purse,so who do you think is going to fire the first shot.unless your cornered and you will likely would die anyway i wouldnt pull a gun if someone pulls one on you.

pistols are still good protection but if possibly carry on a visible hoster not concealed so the criminal knows you have a gun and will likely choose a more vunerable victim remember criminals are cowards

there are 12 gauge taser rounds, literally a small taser that can be fired like aslug and is even more accurate owing to the larger spring loaded stabilizer fins.


now with modern technology (homing bullets have been made now as well, the taser is a decade old ot so) one could imagine an even smaller version capable of being fired reliably from a handgun.

A blinding flash would work in both directions. Flash-bang shotshells do exist (in limited production) but are not suitable for use in a house and are not legal everywhere. Bean bags and rubber pellets are legal at least in most states, but are not reliable against a threat armed with a gun. It is extremely rare for police to use them in that scenario. They tend to prefer good old lead in that situation.


The UK home office has not approved taser shotgun darts for police use, and at last check, taser pulled them from the market for redesign due to inconsistent performance, including the potential for emitting a potentially lethal current. Such a dart would not work well in a handgun or rifle, which have spiral grooves inside that spin the bullet to stabilize it, and would not be able to cycle a semiautomatic (and would probably jam it!).

Running away is not a practical solution and not everybody, even if they can walk and are not obese, can run. Even slow bullets typically travel around 750fps.

your right running away isnt always right.my post does say but if someone points a gun at you first and you can run and there is a avenue of escape,i mean thee gun is already out and your in a concealed holster.who will fire first but yes your have a valid point

In (civilian) firearms training as well as executive protection, we talk about three conditions that you need to be able to describe in a courtroom to justify the use of deadly force in self-defense:

1. Ability - the person must have the ability to do serious harm to you or the person/people you are acting to protect. This could include being armed (gun, knife, baseball bat, hammer, etc), a significant size or strength difference, etc.
2. Opportunity - the person must have the opportunity to do serious harm to you or the person/people you are acting to protect. Someone who is on the other side of a fence with a knife does not have the opportunity to harm you, so you don't respond with deadly force in that circumstance.
3. Jeopardy - you must feel your life (or the life of someone you are protecting) is in jeopardy from the assailant. This means that you feel they are trying to kill or seriously injure you.

You'll notice this is pretty consistent with visagrunt's legal definition.

Nothing here considers the welfare of the person who is attacking you. If these three conditions apply, I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out how to resolve the situation with less-than-lethal force. I'm going to terminate the threat. That person made the decision to attack and death is a potential consequence of that decision.

People talk about conflict escalating along the "force continuum", but when you're threatened, start at the top of the continuum (deadly force) and work your way down. People who start at the bottom are the ones who end up as victims.

I really don't understand compassion for someone who is trying to kill or seriously hurt you.

For sure it doesn't.

Even so, the weapons that are good at killing, are bad at incapacitating. If you fail to shoot at a vital part, the criminal may end up angry enough and in a "nothing to lose" state that allows him to shoot at you or your family as a last revenge.

If one is to have access to a fire arm he/she should be sufficiently trained to use it effectively. I am very much in favor of fire arm instruction for those who think they will need a fire arm to defend themselves or their property.

ruveyn

Surely in that case they'd just buy legal ammo? Or is ammo only available if you present your registered gun or something?

that goes more state by state.
in massachusetts you need a FID card to buy any ammo and such is the case in most urban states with a lot of city violent crime.
in vermont anyone can but rifle ammo but to buy handgun ammo you need to be 21 and a resident of vermont so that for instance gang member from mass or connecticut cant go to vermont or new hampshire to buy ammunition.

but here is where it gets tricky,a .22 caliber rimfire rifle fires the same shell casing as a .22 rimfire handgun.so someone from massachusetts could buy 22 caliber pistol ammo in vermont without a license.how ever they not get ammo for a 45,9mm or 357magnum anywhere legaly without a mass FID card which a felon cant have.however its likely they would not do that because the state police do a lot of trafic stops at the border and if they were caught with ammo like that they would be in big trouble.it would be safer to do that in a dark alley somewhere plus the gas money it takes would offset the cost inbalance and once there back into there home state the ammo would be just as illegal

also for instance in vermont and new hampshire the penalty for buying a gun for someone who is in eligable to own one is 10 years in prison but the penalty for getting caught with a black market gun in mass is only 5 years in prison.bordering states who have different laws work with each other so criminals cant hope to a different state to dodge the law.