Luke's response to you was relatively extreme, but I think failing to mention the importance of deadly force being a last resort is the main reason he took issue with you. You may agree with that concept, but the fact that you didn't mention it suggests that it's not very important to you, and hence suggests that the actual worth you're putting on the other person's life is quite low.
If someone wants to harm you for the sake of harming you, or simply doesn't care at all whether they harm you or not, they are a psychopath. That, however, is an unusual situation. Most criminals are not psychopaths, and most psychopaths are not criminals. Most of the time you should be able to find ways of averting the danger to yourself (or to others) that don't involve the use of deadly force.
I think that failing to mention the importance of that consideration does a lot of harm to the culture around gun violence - what Lou called the "shoot first and ask questions later" school of thought. Self-defense laws that are soft on this aspect, like the "stand your ground" laws, contribute to this mentality.
I believe deadly force is a last resort. That said, I also believe I have the right to stop someone from hurting others or taking my property. If while attempting to stop them they resorted to physical force against me I would defend myself with what I had on me, including my gun. The gun is a tool that lets me defend myself with the minimum amount of danger to myself. (as opposed to a bat, or knife or taser).
I do not believe in the "duty to retreat" doctrine as it applies to my home, my car, my place of business. If I walk into a bank being robbed and can walk out, I'll do so. If a person is robbing me I will attempt to stop them using all the tools at my disposal.
I don't think my leaving out last resort is why Luke took offense, but if Luke wants to respond he can explain it himself.
@Luke - I agree that given the choice between being shot and being tased I would much rather be tased but that is not the choice that I am worried about. My concern is that because the taser is non-lethal it will be used quicker and more often and in situations where a gun would not even be considered an option.
We have enough problems with trained police abusing and misusing tasers. Now imagine an untrained populace carrying tasers.
Now imagine an untrained populace carrying guns.
That's just it, I don't want anyone who isn't trained publicly carrying any sort of weapon. It is why I do not begrudge gun safety courses as a requirement for purchasing a firearm. However I consider the home to be a demarcation line and feel that 99% of what goes on in the home should remain private unless you are hurting someone else. (I don't care who you fuck in your bed as long as they are a consenting adult.)
You mentioned changing the attitude towards guns and I agree that the attitude must change but I don't want the attitude to move in the direction of "guns are unsafe, ban them." I want the attitude to be," guns are dangerous but with the proper safety training and marksmanship course you can use them safely and effectively."
I also agree that vaccine=taser analogy works pretty good on the civilian side just not so much on the police side.
I believe deadly force is a last resort. That said, I also believe I have the right to stop someone from hurting others or taking my property. If while attempting to stop them they resorted to physical force against me I would defend myself with what I had on me, including my gun. The gun is a tool that lets me defend myself with the minimum amount of danger to myself. (as opposed to a bat, or knife or taser).
Less a question for myself than for everyone else, but basically a part of what you're saying is that you believe in the idea of proportional response, with the gun at the far end of the spectrum?
Luke's response to you was relatively extreme, but I think failing to mention the importance of deadly force being a last resort is the main reason he took issue with you. You may agree with that concept, but the fact that you didn't mention it suggests that it's not very important to you, and hence suggests that the actual worth you're putting on the other person's life is quite low.
My response to Aaron was more to the part where he said if someone wanted something from him, he would be willing to use violence to stop it being taken. And if he felt like he might be harmed, AFTER HE INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, he would use his gun to kill the person.
This is just awful. No possession of anyone's is worth killing over. If someone points a gun at you, and asks for your wallet, it's your civil duty to hand that person your wallet if harm could come to any third party if you resist.
For example, take a look at this video:
The man with the iPhone is not a hero. He is an idiot. It's purely due to luck that nobody was shot and harmed. He called the mugger's bluff, and it worked, but wrestling an armed assailant to the ground in a crowded public space like that was fucking nuts.
It WILL be inconvenient to you when someone with a weapon takes your phone or wallet, but what is worth more? If someone breaks into your home, your duty should be to get as much space between your attacker and yourself as possible, even if it means leaving by the back door or other exit. It WILL be inconvenient, but nobody will die.
Churba: yes and no. We have to make sure we understand each others use of the term. As a civilian, who is not a martial arts expert I don't want to be held to a standard where I have to use my fists if the robbers (in this example) only have fists. I can only use a knife, if they have knives, or some kind of spectrum where I can only use one step above their level of force.
I do believe in a proportional response in that I should not shoot someone in the back if they are stealing my hubcaps. I don't believe that is justified. The gun, in this example, gives me the ability to confront them and know that if they choose not to run away and stop stealing my hubcaps and they choose to attack, I can defend myself with a tool that is good at doing that.
I think we need a listing of all the points we agree and disagree on because I am seeing some arguments that keep circling back into the discussion even after we have already reached an agreement on said argument. I am guilty of bringing these arguments back in as are some others.
1) I think we all agree that background checks are a good thing. I think the only disagreement centers on privacy issues related to who has access to the data.
2) I think we all agree that proper training is essential to being a good gun owner.
3) Use of deadly force, while some posts appear to be of the 'shoot first' nature no one has explicitly stated this view and more often it is just an issue of post brevity. I feel most of us either believe in a sliding scale on the issue or hold a view that requires deadly force only be used if you are 100% certain you are about to die.
4) gun registration has very little if any agreement.
My response to Aaron was more to the part where he said if someone wanted something from him, he would be willing to use violence to stop it being taken. And if he felt like he might be harmed, AFTER HE INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, he would use his gun to kill the person.
This is just awful. No possession of anyone's is worth killing over. If someone points a gun at you, and asks for your wallet, it's your civil duty to hand that person your wallet if harm could come to any third party if you resist.
It WILL be inconvenient to you when someone with a weapon takes your phone or wallet, but what is worth more? If someone breaks into your home, your duty should be to get as much space between your attacker and yourself as possible, even if it means leaving by the back door or other exit. It WILL be inconvenient, but nobody will die.
And I disagree. A person breaking into my home (as an example we're both willing to use) has made a choice to violate my safe space. I believe that at that point I may use reasonable force to get them out of my home. I would not just shoot them in the back without warning, but if they resisted in a way that would cause me harm then yes, I would be willing to use deadly force. Would I be happy to do it, no, but I am willing to do so.
I am willing to use "violence", by which you mean force, to stop someone from taking my things. I put the blame (if there is any) on them.
If, while confronting them, they respond with force I have no problem responding with force. I don't accept that there is a "duty to retreat" within my own home, car, place of work. If because I responded with force they respond with enough force that I feel my life may be in jeopardy or I'm going to get badly hurt, then I have no problem responding with deadly force.
Tasers are expensive and difficult to get. I can't think of a single place that sells them to civilians. A quick search on ebay turns up 0 results for an actual Taser. Your most likely to get tasered by the police because they are the ones that have them. Stun guns are next to useless and are actually dangerous in that they give people a false sense of security (I grant that any weapon including a gun can do that, just because your armed doesn't mean you should just go willy nilly and do dumb things).
Pepper spray is notoriously ineffective, it's why cops like to use the Taser first.
Tasers occasionally kill people, it's why Taser quietly changed their literature from non-lethal to less than lethal. The analogy of Tasers to vaccines is fairly apt, both kill people in a very low numbers but do more good than harm.
People occasionally die from all sorts of things, such as being punched, so I think the terminology can be a bit of a red herring. If you're being pedantic about it there isn't really any such thing as "non-lethal force", but there is a clear distinction to be made between weapons that are designed to kill, and weapons that are designed not to kill. The term "non-lethal weapon" is already in common usage with this understanding; the critical point is that we're talking about a level of harm that is different by orders of magnitude.
The gun is a tool that lets me defend myself with the minimum amount of danger to myself. (as opposed to a bat, or knife or taser).
Why is a taser more dangerous? With a gun you have the risk of having your own gun used against you, which is very dangerous indeed.
Also, if current options for non-lethal options are not satisfactory in certain ways, shouldn't it be a major priority to work on developing better ones? If there are good options, then a lot of good could be done by making them more widely available and promoting them as alternatives to guns. It goes without saying that this should be done responsibly, and people should receive proper instruction on appropriate usage, but I'll take irresponsible use of less-than-lethal weapons over irresponsible use of guns any day of the week.
@LOC - couldn't any weapon that you carry potentially be used against you in an altercation? I am not sure why you mention a gun being used against you but none of the other weapons he listed.
@LOC - couldn't any weapon that you carry potentially be used against you in an altercation? I am not sure why you mention a gun being used against you but none of the other weapons he listed.
I think that's obvious, Steve. The consequences of having a gun used against you are much worse, and hence the danger is higher.
@LOC - couldn't any weapon that you carry potentially be used against you in an altercation? I am not sure why you mention a gun being used against you but none of the other weapons he listed.
I think that's obvious, Steve. The consequences of having a gun used against you are much worse, and hence the danger is higher.
True but I read his point as meaning that using a gun held the least amount of risk to himself.
A bat or knife requires up close and personal action. A taser allows for short range use. A gun can be used at a distance greater than a taser allows. In that sense the gun is the safest for him.
At point blank range any weapon you carry can be taken and used against you.
Any weapon you carry can be used against you in the right situation. Some such as a knife are more dangerous than a Taser.
Tasers are not a magic be all less than lethal weapon. They often fail to work, often miss (requiring both barbs to get a good connection), are one shot devices (in that they can be used as contact weapons after shooting their cartridge, but have to be reloaded). They are often defeated by heavy clothing. They require you remain near the target in order for it to remain effective. They don't work on everyone even if they get good contacts. Tasers are a highly effective less lethal means to stop one person at a time.
If I had a Taser to chose from in my list of items I could carry I would give it consideration.
Tasers are expensive and difficult to get. I can't think of a single place that sells them to civilians. A quick search on ebay turns up 0 results for an actual Taser.
Churba: yes and no. We have to make sure we understand each others use of the term. As a civilian, who is not a martial arts expert I don't want to be held to a standard where I have to use my fists if the robbers (in this example) only have fists. I can only use a knife, if they have knives, or some kind of spectrum where I can only use one step above their level of force.
I do believe in a proportional response in that I should not shoot someone in the back if they are stealing my hubcaps. I don't believe that is justified. The gun, in this example, gives me the ability to confront them and know that if they choose not to run away and stop stealing my hubcaps and they choose to attack, I can defend myself with a tool that is good at doing that.
Well, yeah, that's basically what proportional response is about - using the minimum amount of force available to you so that you can stop the threat. It's basically that you try to maintain the same level of force that is intended to be applied to you - if someone comes at you with a knife, that's reasonable grounds to assume intent to kill, so it's not disproportionate to answer in kind - I would draw on them in that situation too, if I had the option, and it is entirely possible that I'd shoot them.
If a drunk on the street takes a few pokes at you, it's not - you are not a martial artist, as you say, so you may feel your fists are not viable solution, but you're still not going to shoot that drunk, you're more likely to back off and try to escape the situation - because it's just a drunk dickhead having a go, he probably has no intent to kill, so there's no reason to shoot him. Or to borrow your own example, the dude trying to steal your hubcaps - he's just swiping your hubcaps, not trying to attack with any level of force, so as you say, you don't shoot him, unless he comes at you with force and intent enough to justify that level of response.
It's about responding with proportional force to the intent and most likely outcome of their attack, not just the weapon - And that appears to be the doctrine you're following, at least to my eye, so no worries dude.
My response to Aaron was more to the part where he said if someone wanted something from him, he would be willing to use violence to stop it being taken. And if he felt like he might be harmed, AFTER HE INITIATED THE VIOLENCE, he would use his gun to kill the person.
I'm sorry I misrepresented you here. That said, part of what I'm folding into the "last resort" term is avoiding the situation in the first place, but this specific circumstance is a bit more complicated.
Churba: yes and no. We have to make sure we understand each others use of the term. As a civilian, who is not a martial arts expert I don't want to be held to a standard where I have to use my fists if the robbers (in this example) only have fists. I can only use a knife, if they have knives, or some kind of spectrum where I can only use one step above their level of force.
I do believe in a proportional response in that I should not shoot someone in the back if they are stealing my hubcaps. I don't believe that is justified. The gun, in this example, gives me the ability to confront them and know that if they choose not to run away and stop stealing my hubcaps and they choose to attack, I can defend myself with a tool that is good at doing that.
What if they just choose to ignore you and keep stealing your hubcaps?
It's about responding with proportional force to the intent and most likely outcome of their attack, not just the weapon - And that appears to be the doctrine you're following, at least to my eye, so no worries dude.
I work in my off time as security for various venues in town. I don't carry a gun, I do carry a baton and pepper spray. Why don't I carry a gun when I have had people take swings at me and try to hurt me. I don't carry there because it's not justified and I've made a choice to accept a job where I know there will be drunk people who miss focus their anger on me and try to hurt me. We eject people with a minimum of force, sometimes they end up in handcuffs going to jail, that's a job for the cops.
I don't carry there because there isn't a need to do so. I could try to make an argument that I should carry just in case someone has a gun and I would need to use mine to stop them, but there isn't a need, where I live isn't that dangerous, Ieave that kind of thing to the police.
When I'm out and about on my own as a civilian things are different, when I'm at home things are different. I hope you can see where I'm going.
And I disagree. A person breaking into my home (as an example we're both willing to use) has made a choice to violate my safe space. I believe that at that point I may use reasonable force to get them out of my home. I would not just shoot them in the back without warning, but if they resisted in a way that would cause me harm then yes, I would be willing to use deadly force. Would I be happy to do it, no, but I am willing to do so.
I am willing to use "violence", by which you mean force, to stop someone from taking my things. I put the blame (if there is any) on them.
If, while confronting them, they respond with force I have no problem responding with force. I don't accept that there is a "duty to retreat" within my own home, car, place of work. If because I responded with force they respond with enough force that I feel my life may be in jeopardy or I'm going to get badly hurt, then I have no problem responding with deadly force.
I think putting things in terms of blame can often be quite misleading. The more important question is, are the potential consequences worth it just to protect your property?
Even if you ignore the danger to the other person, which of course you shouldn't, you also put yourself in additional danger by confronting them. Is that really worthwhile?
What if they just choose to ignore you and keep stealing your hubcaps?
In this hypothetical example, I call the cops. Then I tell them I've called the cops. Then I give them a kick in the fanny. It depends on a lot of things, but I doubt they would just sit there calmly stealing my hubcaps after telling them I've called the police.
I'm not going to shoot them in the back of the head for stealing my hubcaps. I may hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive and to answer the next question, if they run away I let them. If they still keep stealing the hubcaps while at gun point I'd have to think of something else.
In this hypothetical example, I call the cops. Then I tell them I've called the cops. Then I give them a kick in the fanny. It depends on a lot of things, but I doubt they would just sit there calmly stealing my hubcaps after telling them I've called the police.
I'm not going to shoot them in the back of the head for stealing my hubcaps. I may hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive and to answer the next question, if they run away I let them. If they still keep stealing the hubcaps while at gun point I'd have to think of something else.
If they kept stealing the hubcaps at gunpoint, those are truly some dudes who truly do not give a fuck, and/or really, REALLY need those hubcaps.
What if they just choose to ignore you and keep stealing your hubcaps?
In this hypothetical example, I call the cops. Then I tell them I've called the cops. Then I give them a kick in the fanny. It depends on a lot of things, but I doubt they would just sit there calmly stealing my hubcaps after telling them I've called the police.
I'm not going to shoot them in the back of the head for stealing my hubcaps. I may hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive and to answer the next question, if they run away I let them. If they still keep stealing the hubcaps while at gun point I'd have to think of something else.
So to be clear: you are totally willing, while in possession of a gun, to initiate violence to stop someone slightly inconveniencing you, and if they respond with any kind of violence where you might feel threatened, you're willing to shoot them.
Can't you see why this sounds totally insane to me?
I'm not going to shoot them in the back of the head for stealing my hubcaps. I may hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive and to answer the next question, if they run away I let them. If they still keep stealing the hubcaps while at gun point I'd have to think of something else.
So to be clear: you are totally willing, while in possession of a gun, to initiate violence to stop someone slightly inconveniencing you, and if they respond with any kind of violence where you might feel threatened, you're willing to shoot them.
Can't you see why this sounds totally insane to me?
At least it's a case of gradual escalation to violence and not just shooting them without question. The way I see the scenario is this:
He screams "Hey, knock it off, you're stealing my hubcaps!"
If they continue, he then draws his gun (but doesn't fire it) and says, "Hey, watch it, I've got a gun, now knock it off!"
If they still continue, he calls the police and tells them that he called the police.
If they still continue, he delivers a non-lethal kick in the fanny (the only point where some form of actual violence enters the picture)
If at any point they choose to run away, he lets them go without incident.
Only if they attempt to rush/attack him, does he actually escalate to true lethal violence.
Provided he doesn't actually open fire, this isn't too bad. I know you're pretty much an absolute pacifist, and I respect that, but I don't think it's completely insane to use whatever non-lethal methods, including threatening (but not actually using) lethal violence to subdue criminal activity. It's only when you transition to actually using lethal violence that things get morally questionable in my eyes.
So to be clear: you are totally willing, while in possession of a gun, to initiate violence to stop someone slightly inconveniencing you, and if they respond with any kind of violence where you might feel threatened, you're willing to shoot them.
Can't you see why this sounds totally insane to me?
No, you are purposely taking it to the extreme.
Would I confront someone who is threatening to hurt me (either by statement or deed)? Yes.
Would I confront someone trying to steal my stuff? Yes.
Would I arm myself with a gun while doing so? Yes, it depends on the totality, but I am willing to do so.
If they don't like being confronted and respond with violence against me capable to doing me serious injury or death would I use my gun to defend myself? Yes.
If someone I've confronted throws a rock at me, I wouldn't shot them, if they say nasty things that hurt my feelings, I wouldn't shoot them. I never said I would shoot them no matter how they responded to me.
In the end what I've tried to get across is that I don't accept your pacifistic restrictions on how to live my life. If someone makes the decision to harm me or take my things I will respond with force. If that response leads them to attacking me, then I will defend myself with force up to and including shooting them.
You keep saying I'm going to initiate violence and I responded saying I was willing to use force. It may be that we disagree on what that means, but do believe that the use of force is and can be an appropriate response to certain things. The person I'm responding to is the one who initiated behavior outside of societies norms, they have to accept consequences for their actions. A shooting will only occur if they cause it to occur.
You also use the word slightly in regards to someone inconveniencing me. Well, put that way of course what I've said sounds crazy. You've framed it in a way that at face value makes me sound like a psycho. I assure you that having your home violated is not an inconvenience nor does it do no physical and physic damage. Being raped is not an inconvenience. Being assaulted is not an inconvenience. Having your sole mode of transport stolen in the US if you don't live in a city like NYC is not an inconvenience.
You've said, please correct me if I'm wrong, that no one should ever get shot for any reason, that all crime is essentially an inconvenience. I thought you also gave a caveat that for absolute protection of your own life you could use deadly force. To me that sounds naive and innocent.
I can see, how with your world view, you think I'm insane. I hope you can see why I think you're naive and innocent.
Point 4 is a really big sticking point. He KNOWS that if violence escalates to a point where he feels threatened, he is willing to kill someone. And yet he INITIATES the violence. Knowing he may have to kill someone.
This is EXACTLY the kind of person I don't want to ever carry a gun. No matter what training or gun registry is used, I never want anyone who ever thinks killing someone over hubcaps is okay to carry a loaded weapon. Initiating violence and then using a gun "in self defense" is exactly what George Zimmerman did.
And what if Aaron thought someone was stealing his hub caps but wasn't? I've mistaken another car for my car before, of the same make and model. What if the person stealing the hub caps was deaf, and didn't hear the warning?
If Aaron didn't have a gun, I'd actually have no problem with him kicking the guy in the nuts. My girlfriend and I were attacked earlier this year, by someone wanting her iPad, and I punched the guy so hard and quickly it took him by surprise. Someone else then chased after him, but didn't catch him. The whole incident was a mild inconvenience, because at a campsite in a small town in the south of France, gun use as self defense would never come into it.
I'm not a pacifist. I have no problem with the use of violence. I DO have problems with people who are willing to kill, even laying out the steps they will be take to get to the point where they will kill, with all the faulty logic it involves, initiating violence while holding a deadly weapon.
So to be clear: you are totally willing, while in possession of a gun, to initiate violence to stop someone slightly inconveniencing you, and if they respond with any kind of violence where you might feel threatened, you're willing to shoot them.
Can't you see why this sounds totally insane to me?
No, you are purposely taking it to the extreme.
Would I confront someone who is threatening to hurt me (either by statement or deed)? Yes.
Would I confront someone trying to steal my stuff? Yes.
Would I arm myself with a gun while doing so? Yes, it depends on the totality, but I am willing to do so.
If they don't like being confronted and respond with violence against me capable to doing me serious injury or death would I use my gun to defend myself? Yes.
If someone I've confronted throws a rock at me, I wouldn't shot them, if they say nasty things that hurt my feelings, I wouldn't shoot them. I never said I would shoot them no matter how they responded to me.
In the end what I've tried to get across is that I don't accept your pacifistic restrictions on how to live my life. If someone makes the decision to harm me or take my things I will respond with force. If that response leads them to attacking me, then I will defend myself with force up to and including shooting them.
You keep saying I'm going to initiate violence and I responded saying I was willing to use force. It may be that we disagree on what that means, but do believe that the use of force is and can be an appropriate response to certain things. The person I'm responding to is the one who initiated behavior outside of societies norms, they have to accept consequences for their actions. A shooting will only occur if they cause it to occur.
You also use the word slightly in regards to someone inconveniencing me. Well, put that way of course what I've said sounds crazy. You've framed it in a way that at face value makes me sound like a psycho. I assure you that having your home violated is not an inconvenience nor does it do no physical and physic damage. Being raped is not an inconvenience. Being assaulted is not an inconvenience. Having your sole mode of transport stolen in the US if you don't live in a city like NYC is not an inconvenience.
You've said, please correct me if I'm wrong, that no one should ever get shot for any reason, that all crime is essentially an inconvenience. I thought you also gave a caveat that for absolute protection of your own life you could use deadly force. To me that sounds naive and innocent.
I can see, how with your world view, you think I'm insane. I hope you can see why I think you're naive and innocent.
You were specifically asked how you would proceed with someone stealing your hubcaps. This is not a threat to your life, nor to your health, nor a threat of rape, nor a home invasion, nor the loss of your only means of transport. In this case, hub cap replacement IS nothing more than an inconvenience.
And yet you outlined how YOU would initiate violence.
You say:
If someone makes the decision to harm me or take my things I will respond with force.
I agree with the idea of someone deciding to harm you, or even another person, and responding with force. I did exactly that this year, as outlined in my last post.
But "responding with force" if someone decides to "take your things"? That means you are initiating violence. I have NO problem with this... if you didn't also have a way to kill that person if they defend themselves.
However, you DO have a way to kill them, and trivially easily.
Again, this is why I don't want anyone in the USA to have guns for "self defense". Until people understand that life is worth more than stuff, it's simply too dangerous.
What if you had killed the guy with that punch? It happens. What if the guy didn't run off and attacked you instead? It doesn't matter really, hypothetical examples don't count for much.
I never said I would kill someone over hub caps. It was a hypothetical example and as such doesn't count for much. What I did say is that I am willing to confront someone and use force (ie, kicking them in the nuts). Well, what happens if start to use force and it goes badly for me? If any one of a number of things happens and I end up about to get really really hurt. Then I am willing to use deadly force. In a very contrived and unlikely chain of events where someone knows I've called the cops and knows I have a gun and still chooses to attack me? Yes! Yes I would be willing to shot them if their attack was credible and actually able to hurt me.
The hubcaps have nothing to do with it, they made a choice to respond to me with violence after I confront them, I am now defending myself.
I know we won't agree with each other, I can live with that.
Comments
I do not believe in the "duty to retreat" doctrine as it applies to my home, my car, my place of business. If I walk into a bank being robbed and can walk out, I'll do so. If a person is robbing me I will attempt to stop them using all the tools at my disposal.
I don't think my leaving out last resort is why Luke took offense, but if Luke wants to respond he can explain it himself.
You mentioned changing the attitude towards guns and I agree that the attitude must change but I don't want the attitude to move in the direction of "guns are unsafe, ban them." I want the attitude to be," guns are dangerous but with the proper safety training and marksmanship course you can use them safely and effectively."
I also agree that vaccine=taser analogy works pretty good on the civilian side just not so much on the police side.
This is just awful. No possession of anyone's is worth killing over. If someone points a gun at you, and asks for your wallet, it's your civil duty to hand that person your wallet if harm could come to any third party if you resist.
For example, take a look at this video:
The man with the iPhone is not a hero. He is an idiot. It's purely due to luck that nobody was shot and harmed. He called the mugger's bluff, and it worked, but wrestling an armed assailant to the ground in a crowded public space like that was fucking nuts.
It WILL be inconvenient to you when someone with a weapon takes your phone or wallet, but what is worth more? If someone breaks into your home, your duty should be to get as much space between your attacker and yourself as possible, even if it means leaving by the back door or other exit. It WILL be inconvenient, but nobody will die.
I do believe in a proportional response in that I should not shoot someone in the back if they are stealing my hubcaps. I don't believe that is justified. The gun, in this example, gives me the ability to confront them and know that if they choose not to run away and stop stealing my hubcaps and they choose to attack, I can defend myself with a tool that is good at doing that.
1) I think we all agree that background checks are a good thing. I think the only disagreement centers on privacy issues related to who has access to the data.
2) I think we all agree that proper training is essential to being a good gun owner.
3) Use of deadly force, while some posts appear to be of the 'shoot first' nature no one has explicitly stated this view and more often it is just an issue of post brevity. I feel most of us either believe in a sliding scale on the issue or hold a view that requires deadly force only be used if you are 100% certain you are about to die.
4) gun registration has very little if any agreement.
Feel free to add or point out where I am wrong.
I am willing to use "violence", by which you mean force, to stop someone from taking my things. I put the blame (if there is any) on them.
If, while confronting them, they respond with force I have no problem responding with force. I don't accept that there is a "duty to retreat" within my own home, car, place of work. If because I responded with force they respond with enough force that I feel my life may be in jeopardy or I'm going to get badly hurt, then I have no problem responding with deadly force.
Also, if current options for non-lethal options are not satisfactory in certain ways, shouldn't it be a major priority to work on developing better ones? If there are good options, then a lot of good could be done by making them more widely available and promoting them as alternatives to guns. It goes without saying that this should be done responsibly, and people should receive proper instruction on appropriate usage, but I'll take irresponsible use of less-than-lethal weapons over irresponsible use of guns any day of the week.
A bat or knife requires up close and personal action. A taser allows for short range use. A gun can be used at a distance greater than a taser allows. In that sense the gun is the safest for him.
At point blank range any weapon you carry can be taken and used against you.
Tasers are not a magic be all less than lethal weapon. They often fail to work, often miss (requiring both barbs to get a good connection), are one shot devices (in that they can be used as contact weapons after shooting their cartridge, but have to be reloaded). They are often defeated by heavy clothing. They require you remain near the target in order for it to remain effective. They don't work on everyone even if they get good contacts. Tasers are a highly effective less lethal means to stop one person at a time.
If I had a Taser to chose from in my list of items I could carry I would give it consideration.
If a drunk on the street takes a few pokes at you, it's not - you are not a martial artist, as you say, so you may feel your fists are not viable solution, but you're still not going to shoot that drunk, you're more likely to back off and try to escape the situation - because it's just a drunk dickhead having a go, he probably has no intent to kill, so there's no reason to shoot him. Or to borrow your own example, the dude trying to steal your hubcaps - he's just swiping your hubcaps, not trying to attack with any level of force, so as you say, you don't shoot him, unless he comes at you with force and intent enough to justify that level of response.
It's about responding with proportional force to the intent and most likely outcome of their attack, not just the weapon - And that appears to be the doctrine you're following, at least to my eye, so no worries dude.
http://www.amazon.com/Taser-X26c-X26C/dp/B004TP2L4K/ref=pd_sim_sbs_sg_5
A bit pricier.
But you're point is valid, thank you, I should have searched Amazon first instead of Ebay.
I don't carry there because there isn't a need to do so. I could try to make an argument that I should carry just in case someone has a gun and I would need to use mine to stop them, but there isn't a need, where I live isn't that dangerous, Ieave that kind of thing to the police.
When I'm out and about on my own as a civilian things are different, when I'm at home things are different. I hope you can see where I'm going.
Even if you ignore the danger to the other person, which of course you shouldn't, you also put yourself in additional danger by confronting them. Is that really worthwhile?
I'm not going to shoot them in the back of the head for stealing my hubcaps. I may hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive and to answer the next question, if they run away I let them. If they still keep stealing the hubcaps while at gun point I'd have to think of something else.
Can't you see why this sounds totally insane to me?
- He screams "Hey, knock it off, you're stealing my hubcaps!"
- If they continue, he then draws his gun (but doesn't fire it) and says, "Hey, watch it, I've got a gun, now knock it off!"
- If they still continue, he calls the police and tells them that he called the police.
- If they still continue, he delivers a non-lethal kick in the fanny (the only point where some form of actual violence enters the picture)
- If at any point they choose to run away, he lets them go without incident.
- Only if they attempt to rush/attack him, does he actually escalate to true lethal violence.
Provided he doesn't actually open fire, this isn't too bad. I know you're pretty much an absolute pacifist, and I respect that, but I don't think it's completely insane to use whatever non-lethal methods, including threatening (but not actually using) lethal violence to subdue criminal activity. It's only when you transition to actually using lethal violence that things get morally questionable in my eyes.Would I confront someone who is threatening to hurt me (either by statement or deed)? Yes.
Would I confront someone trying to steal my stuff? Yes.
Would I arm myself with a gun while doing so? Yes, it depends on the totality, but I am willing to do so.
If they don't like being confronted and respond with violence against me capable to doing me serious injury or death would I use my gun to defend myself? Yes.
If someone I've confronted throws a rock at me, I wouldn't shot them, if they say nasty things that hurt my feelings, I wouldn't shoot them. I never said I would shoot them no matter how they responded to me.
In the end what I've tried to get across is that I don't accept your pacifistic restrictions on how to live my life. If someone makes the decision to harm me or take my things I will respond with force. If that response leads them to attacking me, then I will defend myself with force up to and including shooting them.
You keep saying I'm going to initiate violence and I responded saying I was willing to use force. It may be that we disagree on what that means, but do believe that the use of force is and can be an appropriate response to certain things. The person I'm responding to is the one who initiated behavior outside of societies norms, they have to accept consequences for their actions. A shooting will only occur if they cause it to occur.
You also use the word slightly in regards to someone inconveniencing me. Well, put that way of course what I've said sounds crazy. You've framed it in a way that at face value makes me sound like a psycho. I assure you that having your home violated is not an inconvenience nor does it do no physical and physic damage. Being raped is not an inconvenience. Being assaulted is not an inconvenience. Having your sole mode of transport stolen in the US if you don't live in a city like NYC is not an inconvenience.
You've said, please correct me if I'm wrong, that no one should ever get shot for any reason, that all crime is essentially an inconvenience. I thought you also gave a caveat that for absolute protection of your own life you could use deadly force. To me that sounds naive and innocent.
I can see, how with your world view, you think I'm insane. I hope you can see why I think you're naive and innocent.
This is EXACTLY the kind of person I don't want to ever carry a gun. No matter what training or gun registry is used, I never want anyone who ever thinks killing someone over hubcaps is okay to carry a loaded weapon. Initiating violence and then using a gun "in self defense" is exactly what George Zimmerman did.
And what if Aaron thought someone was stealing his hub caps but wasn't? I've mistaken another car for my car before, of the same make and model. What if the person stealing the hub caps was deaf, and didn't hear the warning?
If Aaron didn't have a gun, I'd actually have no problem with him kicking the guy in the nuts. My girlfriend and I were attacked earlier this year, by someone wanting her iPad, and I punched the guy so hard and quickly it took him by surprise. Someone else then chased after him, but didn't catch him. The whole incident was a mild inconvenience, because at a campsite in a small town in the south of France, gun use as self defense would never come into it.
I'm not a pacifist. I have no problem with the use of violence. I DO have problems with people who are willing to kill, even laying out the steps they will be take to get to the point where they will kill, with all the faulty logic it involves, initiating violence while holding a deadly weapon.
And yet you outlined how YOU would initiate violence.
You say: I agree with the idea of someone deciding to harm you, or even another person, and responding with force. I did exactly that this year, as outlined in my last post.
But "responding with force" if someone decides to "take your things"? That means you are initiating violence. I have NO problem with this... if you didn't also have a way to kill that person if they defend themselves.
However, you DO have a way to kill them, and trivially easily.
Again, this is why I don't want anyone in the USA to have guns for "self defense". Until people understand that life is worth more than stuff, it's simply too dangerous.
I never said I would kill someone over hub caps. It was a hypothetical example and as such doesn't count for much. What I did say is that I am willing to confront someone and use force (ie, kicking them in the nuts). Well, what happens if start to use force and it goes badly for me? If any one of a number of things happens and I end up about to get really really hurt. Then I am willing to use deadly force. In a very contrived and unlikely chain of events where someone knows I've called the cops and knows I have a gun and still chooses to attack me? Yes! Yes I would be willing to shot them if their attack was credible and actually able to hurt me.
The hubcaps have nothing to do with it, they made a choice to respond to me with violence after I confront them, I am now defending myself.
I know we won't agree with each other, I can live with that.