Wait, what? This is just crazy talk. Properly trained and practiced, I guarantee that a gun is insanely useful for self-defense.
In a typical mugging scenario? Probably not. Unless you're brandishing the thing, anyone wishing you ill on the street will probably be in close physical proximity and/or already physically engaged well before you could draw, let alone fire.
So we are going to enter a world of "What-if" scenarios? Additionally the whole "typical mugging scenario" is a subset of self-defense, which was not specified originally, and usually occurs more often if you are not diligent of your surroundings.
Violent crimes resulting in death are the minority of violent crimes though.
Yes, just like death is the minority result of pretty much every activity short of suicide. Being the minority occurrence is not the issue when dealing with public policy.
Foodborne illnesses that kill people are the minority outcome of food consumption, but you practice safe food handling techniques anyhow.
Your argument is ludicrous. Violent crime has a 1% mortality rate. So does the plague when treated. A 1% mortality rate in population statistics is very very large.
We're ignoring the fact that guns aren't particularly useful for self-defense: If you're not being threatened with a deadly weapon it's an unjustified escalation of force, and if you are being threatened it's usually too late to draw said gun.
What are you basing that statement on?
Why do I have to justify my decision to carry a pistol? The figures show that the chances of me misusing it are considerably less than the chances of me needing it, so it's a net gain to safety as far as I'm concerned.
Wait, what? This is just crazy talk. Properly trained and practiced, I guarantee that a gun is insanely useful for self-defense.
In a typical mugging scenario? Probably not. Unless you're brandishing the thing, anyone wishing you ill on the street will probably be in close physical proximity and/or already physically engaged well before you could draw, let alone fire.
And tasers are ineffective at that range for the same reason. Unless you're openly carrying it around, you'll have to pull it out and use it against the assailant. If they're close to you? It's too late.
Wait, what? This is just crazy talk. Properly trained and practiced, I guarantee that a gun is insanely useful for self-defense.
In a typical mugging scenario? Probably not. Unless you're brandishing the thing, anyone wishing you ill on the street will probably be in close physical proximity and/or already physically engaged well before you could draw, let alone fire.
And tasers are ineffective at that range for the same reason. Unless you're openly carrying it around, you'll have to pull it out and use it against the assailant. If they're close to you? It's too late.
This is also true. That's why you should always just give a mugger your wallet.
And tasers are ineffective at that range for the same reason. Unless you're openly carrying it around, you'll have to pull it out and use it against the assailant. If they're close to you? It's too late.
Stun guns are much more easily used against a close assailant than handguns.
Much more effective than any of these things is being canny coupled with simply running.
I'm still for carrying a decoy wallet if mugging is a serious concern.
Also, I hate how at least in Michigan you need to get a CCW and then an additional Taser permit. I'm not even convinced you should need a permit at all for a Taser.
Stun guns are much more easily used against a close assailant than handguns.
From where are you drawing this information?
Much more effective than any of these things is being canny coupled with simply running.
Damn strait. It's nearly always better to avoid a fight, but if I have a handgun I can still choose to run. The pistol just gives me more options, and it's never a bad thing to have a few more options.
And tasers are ineffective at that range for the same reason. Unless you're openly carrying it around, you'll have to pull it out and use it against the assailant. If they're close to you? It's too late.
Stun guns are much more easily used against a close assailant than handguns.
Alright, seriously? How? If it's a ranged stun gun, they still have a safety to disable, and you still have to be accurate. They lack the penetrating power to get through thick clothing, so you have to be a very good shot. And if it's a hand-held unit that you have to press against someone? I fail to see how that's any easier than a gun. In either scenario, you have to pull something out of concealment and use it.
I'll agree that running is always the best option. Or giving up your wallet. But sometimes you can't do those things, and that's what we're talking about here.
Where are your statistics about how often being "canny" prevents a crime? I'm just curious, because it sounds like you're making an unsupported blanket statement while simultaneously dismissing legitimate evidence countering your claim - all without anything backing it up.
The point here is that your options for defending against violent victimization are generally poor, and involve extensive training in any event. Maybe we make it too easy to get guns - I do tend to think that - but denying the utility of a defensive weapon combined with training is myopic at best. You need extensive training to use any weapon in self-defense - there is no "point and shoot" option that is actually useful.
So gun or taser or pepper spray, training is necessary.
Tasers are only better than guns for self-defense insofar as they're less lethal than guns (I'm firmly of the opinion that you shouldn't keep lethal weapons on hand for self-defense), and all of the arguments re: the need for training still apply.
The question is: in what situation are either tasers or guns going to be useful? I'd wager that there aren't that many, because in pretty much every situation you'll be unable to use them or it would be better to run away. But I'm listening for what situations you think they should be used.
Tasers are only better than guns for self-defense insofar as they're less lethal than guns (I'm firmly of the opinion that you shouldn't keep lethal weapons on hand for self-defense), and all of the arguments re: the need for training still apply.
The question is: in what situation are either tasers or guns going to be useful? I'd wager that there aren't that many, because in pretty much every situation you'll be unable to use them or it would be better to run away. But I'm listening for what situations you think they should be used.
Personally? I think they're best as insurance policy - they probably won't be useful, but there's a chance it could make the difference in a given situation.
Intimidation is pretty much the best defensive use of any weapon, and even that is situational.
Similarly, my airbags are probably unnecessary for me. It is unlikely that I'll be in a collision where they will deploy. But if it happens, I sure as hell want them there.
Just because a given tool is only needed rarely doesn't mean it's useless.
Stun guns are much more easily used against a close assailant than handguns.
Much more effective than any of these things is being canny coupled with simply running.
So, to use a stun gun against a close assailant(assuming they're RIGHT in your face, they'd have to be to use the probes, anyway), you have to draw it, touch them with the right part(where the darts are fired from), and then hit the trigger - using the probes even if you're fired the darts and missed.
To use a handgun against an equally close target, you have to draw, touch them with the right part(the muzzle), and then pull the trigger.
There's no need to be sarcastic about it, I believe we've already had arguments on this forum establishing that carrying anything specifically for the purpose of self-defense is a waste of the energy you use to find and carry it.
Yes, but legally-owned guns can also be used in order to kill people, whereas airbags cannot.
As someone who has actually installed airbags, and played around with old ones outside of any vehicle, I very seriously beg to differ. I've seen one put a shifting spanner handle-first into a sheet of corrugated iron.
To be fair, if we really wanted to get pedantic, anything out there can be used to kill people. Sure, some things easier than others, but nearly anything can be used as a lethal weapon.
My arsenal for home defense. We've got enchanted girl-boots, a hanger, sword, shield, armor, wizarding wand, cloak, and wizarding robes. I'm ready for the apocalypse.
Corrupt government willing to propagandize to the point of widespread and willful ignorance in order to divide and conquer while funneling all of the money out of the economy and into their pockets and the pockets of their wealthy benefactors.
Tasers are only better than guns for self-defense insofar as they're less lethal than guns (I'm firmly of the opinion that you shouldn't keep lethal weapons on hand for self-defense), and all of the arguments re: the need for training still apply.
The question is: in what situation are either tasers or guns going to be useful? I'd wager that there aren't that many, because in pretty much every situation you'll be unable to use them or it would be better to run away. But I'm listening for what situations you think they should be used.
I can relate at least one story of a firearm used to prevent a crime. Standard disclaimers about anecdotal evidence may apply;
One of my coworkers (lets call him Dan) angered another driver while on the road. It was a classic example of road rage. The other driver perceived that my Dan had somehow offended him and proceeded to block my co worker from heading further down the road and exited his vehicle. As the angry driver got out of the car, Dan noted that the fellow had brought his tire iron with him, apparently with violence in mind.
Dan Drew his .45 from his glove box, placed it in the dash in front of him and gave the aggrieved motorist a pointed look. The other driver took one look at that, thought better of his previous action, got back into his car and drove away.
Now I know his situation is just one incident and shouldn't be used to justify everyone carrying all the time , but it does show that having a firearm can be used to actually prevent violence.
Tasers are only better than guns for self-defense insofar as they're less lethal than guns (I'm firmly of the opinion that you shouldn't keep lethal weapons on hand for self-defense), and all of the arguments re: the need for training still apply.
The question is: in what situation are either tasers or guns going to be useful? I'd wager that there aren't that many, because in pretty much every situation you'll be unable to use them or it would be better to run away. But I'm listening for what situations you think they should be used.
I can relate at least one story of a firearm used to prevent a crime. Standard disclaimers about anecdotal evidence may apply;
One of my coworkers (lets call him Dan) angered another driver while on the road. It was a classic example of road rage. The other driver perceived that my Dan had somehow offended him and proceeded to block my co worker from heading further down the road and exited his vehicle. As the angry driver got out of the car, Dan noted that the fellow had brought his tire iron with him, apparently with violence in mind.
Dan Drew his .45 from his glove box, placed it in the dash in front of him and gave the aggrieved motorist a pointed look. The other driver took one look at that, thought better of his previous action, got back into his car and drove away.
Now I know his situation is just one incident and shouldn't be used to justify everyone carrying all the time , but it does show that having a firearm can be used to actually prevent violence.
Was he in a position where he couldn't have just pulled a k-turn and driven away?
Corrupt government willing to propagandize to the point of widespread and willful ignorance in order to divide and conquer while funneling all of the money out of the economy and into their pockets and the pockets of their wealthy benefactors.
Comments
Foodborne illnesses that kill people are the minority outcome of food consumption, but you practice safe food handling techniques anyhow.
Your argument is ludicrous. Violent crime has a 1% mortality rate. So does the plague when treated. A 1% mortality rate in population statistics is very very large.
Why do I have to justify my decision to carry a pistol? The figures show that the chances of me misusing it are considerably less than the chances of me needing it, so it's a net gain to safety as far as I'm concerned.
Much more effective than any of these things is being canny coupled with simply running.
Also, I hate how at least in Michigan you need to get a CCW and then an additional Taser permit. I'm not even convinced you should need a permit at all for a Taser.
I'll agree that running is always the best option. Or giving up your wallet. But sometimes you can't do those things, and that's what we're talking about here.
Where are your statistics about how often being "canny" prevents a crime? I'm just curious, because it sounds like you're making an unsupported blanket statement while simultaneously dismissing legitimate evidence countering your claim - all without anything backing it up.
The point here is that your options for defending against violent victimization are generally poor, and involve extensive training in any event. Maybe we make it too easy to get guns - I do tend to think that - but denying the utility of a defensive weapon combined with training is myopic at best. You need extensive training to use any weapon in self-defense - there is no "point and shoot" option that is actually useful.
So gun or taser or pepper spray, training is necessary.
The question is: in what situation are either tasers or guns going to be useful? I'd wager that there aren't that many, because in pretty much every situation you'll be unable to use them or it would be better to run away. But I'm listening for what situations you think they should be used.
Intimidation is pretty much the best defensive use of any weapon, and even that is situational.
Similarly, my airbags are probably unnecessary for me. It is unlikely that I'll be in a collision where they will deploy. But if it happens, I sure as hell want them there.
Just because a given tool is only needed rarely doesn't mean it's useless.
To use a handgun against an equally close target, you have to draw, touch them with the right part(the muzzle), and then pull the trigger.
So, I'm not quite seeing your point, here.
"Your money or your li-" *AIRBAG*
"You were saying?"
My arsenal for home defense. We've got enchanted girl-boots, a hanger, sword, shield, armor, wizarding wand, cloak, and wizarding robes. I'm ready for the apocalypse.
So the question is: why?
One of my coworkers (lets call him Dan) angered another driver while on the road. It was a classic example of road rage. The other driver perceived that my Dan had somehow offended him and proceeded to block my co worker from heading further down the road and exited his vehicle. As the angry driver got out of the car, Dan noted that the fellow had brought his tire iron with him, apparently with violence in mind.
Dan Drew his .45 from his glove box, placed it in the dash in front of him and gave the aggrieved motorist a pointed look. The other driver took one look at that, thought better of his previous action, got back into his car and drove away.
Now I know his situation is just one incident and shouldn't be used to justify everyone carrying all the time , but it does show that having a firearm can be used to actually prevent violence.
Seriously, airbags are no joke - I've seen one launch a fully-grown man, sitting on a chair placed over one, about three or four feet in the air.