(Gun Control) Is Self Defense the Same for Everyone?

[Leg End]

Not in any significant numbers they don't.

Significant by your opinion or not in relation to your overall population, it doesn't negate my point.

Similar things how?

Let me rephrase. We both have particular criticisms of government on opposite sides of the pond. For the sake of maintaining sanity in the thread, let us not derail and go down that path.

 

[Agema]

Props though for there being a rather entertaining discussion of Ballistics occurring in this very thread. Noting for anyone in the less-lethal munitions half of it trying Rock Salt that you should be particularly anal about cleaning your gun afterward testing, unless you enjoy bad times in the future.

Spoiler

Or possibly don't use it at all because of rather questionable effectiveness, but Kill Bill really helped popularize people testing it out, so...

It's my understanding that at much further than point blank range, there's a fair chance a couple of layers of decent clothing will be sufficient protection against rock salt.

We have our opinions of the UK and see quite similar things in the inverse.

You can look at the UK from your perspective as an American and feel the UK is unsafe, but the point is that it's more your perception born of yourself and society more than it is a reflection of the UK or USA. Of course, that difference operates at all levels, be it our perceptions of our local area to the next town over. It's well noted that about 5-15 years ago even as crime was declining in the UK, the British ere becoming more worried about crime - because certain newspapers were pushing crime stories so hard.

I would say anecdotally, however, Americans seem to me to have significantly more fear of violence - or at least severe violence - than Britons do.

 

[Silvanus]

Significant by your opinion or not in relation to your overall population, it doesn't negate my point.

It severely undermines it if your point relies on what is, at most, a near-statistically-insignificant phenomenon, which creates almost no gun violence whatsoever.

I said I was glad to not have to think about this stuff when I'm looking for a place to live. That's true, precisely because guns are so incredibly rare.

You can look at the UK from your perspective as an American and feel the UK is unsafe, but the point is that it's more your perception born of yourself and society more than it is a reflection of the UK or USA.

Indeed-- whereas on the other hand, abysmal safety statistics and grotesque homicide rates support concerns in the other direction.

 

[Leg End]

It's my understanding that at much further than point blank range, there's a fair chance a couple of layers of decent clothing will be sufficient protection against rock salt.

Or hell, the wind itself. Might just be just as well off loading confetti shells. Which are amusingly a thing.

You can look at the UK from your perspective as an American and feel the UK is unsafe, but the point is that it's more your perception born of yourself and society more than it is a reflection of the UK or USA. Of course, that difference operates at all levels, be it our perceptions of our local area to the next town over.

Basically is all relative perception. My perception of personal safety there just doesn't have much to do with firearms overall, and my personal thoughts on whether I'd live there or not, or exchange what I have here for what I'd have there, is far more complex than just this matter.

It's well noted that about 5-15 years ago even as crime was declining in the UK, the British ere becoming more worried about crime - because certain newspapers were pushing crime stories so hard.

That's been happening here as well. Violent crime has been on a nosedive for years in the US, but our perception of any increase is tied to higher awareness that these things happen across the country. We're no longer in our little bubble. Helluva thing.

I would say anecdotally, however, Americans seem to me to have significantly more fear of violence - or at least severe violence - than Britons do.

...I honestly don't see it. Doesn't seem like either side of the pond beats the other out in that regard, but that's just me. Seems everybody is about level on it. How do you figure we're particularly wary on it?

It severely undermines it if your point relies on what is, at most, a near-statistically-insignificant phenomenon, which creates almost no gun violence whatsoever.

Insignificant unless it happens to you, which is my actual point in relation to the person owning the firearm.

I said I was glad to not have to think about this stuff when I'm looking for a place to live. That's true, precisely because guns are so incredibly rare.

But that's not what the discussion actually was. It was from the perspective of someone owning a firearm and discharging it within their household. You don't fit that now, nor would you be fitting that if you lived in the US. If you would be concerned about this, I'd say you should be more concerned about the chances of someone under the influence simply crashing through your front door, which is a far more likely phenomenon on both sides of the pond.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, a conventional bullet, if it doesn't tumble or bounce in the body, needs penetration because it'll just make a relatively small and discrete hole. A shotgun firing a load of pellets with a several inch diameter spread can get the benefit of area over depth so require much less penetration.

Several shallow holes equals one deep one? Dunno about that. To wildly oversimplify, one round in the heart isn't the same as 4 rounds in the ribs.

As far as I'm aware the penetration of shotgun pellets depends heavily on their mass. I guess they're normally lead (~11 g/ml) or steel (~8 g/ml). A lighter material therefore might get a decent trade-off of being able to effectively penetrate clothing and mess up plenty of flesh whilst being much less likely to go through a wall.

The problem then is that I can't think of any economically feasible or sufficiently stable metals between aluminimum (3 g/ml) and those around 8 g/ml like iron or nickel. Maybe aluminium would be in the sweet spot, but otherwise maybe some form of rock or ceramic?

Well, you could also reduce the power of the shell, get less velocity (and less recoil as a bonus).

 

[Silvanus]

Insignificant unless it happens to you, which is my actual point in relation to the person owning the firearm.

Are you genuinely saying that the chance of something actually happening doesn't play any part in how concerned/ worried you are about it, and how much time, effort and expense you put into avoiding it?

I dont need to actively worry about getting struck by lightning because the chance is so low. Its "insignificant unless it happens to me", sure, but it's not going to concern me because it won't. It's not a significant concern.

But that's not what the discussion actually was. It was from the perspective of someone owning a firearm and discharging it within their household. You don't fit that now, nor would you be fitting that if you lived in the US.

I'd have different concerns if I were in a place with wildly different dangers, no?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You're not wrong. Beyond the law, you should never ever, under any circumstance, point a gun at someone you are not prepared to shoot to kill.

Indeed. I've had someone point a loaded crossbow at me, and it's a profoundly uncomfortable feeling.

I've had a loaded gun pointed at me. I can confirm this as well.

Was it a black guy?

It was not. I have no idea why you would ask.

 

[Agema]

Several shallow holes equals one deep one? Dunno about that. To wildly oversimplify, one round in the heart isn't the same as 4 rounds in the ribs.

Sure. But the basic idea is to debilitate or incapacitate[footnote]Or even just create enough distress / fear to cause someone to flee[/footnote]. Punch a bullet through an arm or shred a chunk of it with pellets, either way that's a crocked limb. Maybe a shotgun blast with relatively superficial damage won't kill where a bullet might, but then a bullet needs to go into the right place and thus perhaps require a degree of accuracy where a shotgun has much higher tolerance of poor aim and will make a right old mess wherever it hits.

So there are all sorts of potential trade-offs.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

As always, I'm so glad not to have to even consider this kind of thing when I'm looking for a place to live. Because, y'know, people don't have goddamn lethal projectile weaponry here.

People don't have axes or knives where you live?

The sacrifices of personal safety and psychological comfort that the US citizenry has made in exchange for fuck-all benefit astounds me.

I keep my weapon as simply a matter of making the best of a bad situation. I'm too poor to afford professional security, live in a country where the police can ignore 911 calls and are under no obligation to protect me, and een if they were, the response time here is measured in hours. When it comes to self defense, I'm on my own.

 

[Agema]

People don't have axes or knives where you live?

Not that anyone knows how to effectively use as a projectile, no.

I keep my weapon as simply a matter of making the best of a bad situation. I'm too poor to afford professional security, live in a country where the police can ignore 911 calls and are under no obligation to protect me, and een if they were, the response time here is measured in hours. When it comes to self defense, I'm on my own.

Yeah, and that's what it's like in my country too. If you're attacked, substantially you're on your own unless a bystander feels like giving you a hand. But I don't fear lethal or near-lethal injury.

You want guns in large part because lots of people have guns, so you have to even up the force - an arms race. But that's a lot of fear and anxiety to live your life under, that something goes wrong and it's not just a busted nose, it's a bullet hole. If those heightened fears prevented confrontation, it might be a useful trade-off: unfortunately, there's not strong evidence it does reduce confrontation, and that armed societies are less violent. They're just places where if violence starts, far more likely someone ends up dead or severely injured.

 

[Silvanus]

People don't have axes or knives where you live?

Oh, knife crime is a major issue in the UK. But it pales in comparison with the US homicide rate.

I keep my weapon as simply a matter of making the best of a bad situation. I'm too poor to afford professional security, live in a country where the police can ignore 911 calls and are under no obligation to protect me, and een if they were, the response time here is measured in hours. When it comes to self defense, I'm on my own.

I can understand an individual's choice to own a gun when living in a society in which they are already commonplace. What I can't understand is the citizenry as a group being willing to allow that situation to continue, at their own safety's expense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What I can't understand is the citizenry as a group being willing to allow that situation to continue, at their own safety's expense.

Are they, though? I was led to believe that the gun owners of the US are in the minority, and the hardcore gun owners a minority of that. They just happen to have money and organisations behind them.

 

[Agema]

Are they, though? I was led to believe that the gun owners of the US are in the minority, and the hardcore gun owners a minority of that. They just happen to have money and organisations behind them.

They might be, but if you start including people who don't wander around with guns but believe they should be able to do so if they wanted, it's a majority.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I can understand an individual's choice to own a gun when living in a society in which they are already commonplace. What I can't understand is the citizenry as a group being willing to allow that situation to continue, at their own safety's expense.

it would take a better mind than mine, but we let it stand. And I'm going to do this until it no longer stands.

 

[Silvanus]

Are they, though? I was led to believe that the gun owners of the US are in the minority, and the hardcore gun owners a minority of that. They just happen to have money and organisations behind them.

Sure. Factor in non-gun-owners who support the right to carry, and those who accept it-- tacitly or explicitly-- and you'll have a majority.

I'd be willing to bet it's a majority precisely because of the media access and control of the story that that money and those organisations can buy.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Ok, this new flu strain sucked. Take your Vitamin C and bring face masks into work.

Usually gun rights advocates use the more pragmatic "the time it takes for a home invader to do harm to me and my loved ones is significantly shorter than the time it takes the police to respond to a 911 call" argument rather than a "I don't trust the cops because of racial history" argument, but the former has been falling on deaf ears for years. Apparently there can only be two all encompassing sets of beliefs now and the anti-gun stuff is usually lumped in with the police prejudice stuff so maybe your way will gain more traction. At least the topic isn't women's self defense where you get those bizarre "Women shouldn't have to defend themselves, criminals just shouldn't do crime" arguments.

Though I will say if you do ever find yourself in a situation where you need to use a gun to defend yourself,even if you don't need to fire a shot, you absolutely should get the police involved, even if only after the fact.

I'll take it under advisement, but I have to weigh it against police actions [https://newsone.com/playlist/black-men-boy-who-were-killed-by-police/item/2]

I more meant in the sense that you probably won't be a home invaders first or last, and notifying the police can help lead to their arrest and prevent more innocent people being harmed. And if you are their last, it's probably a lot safer to let the coroner handle disposal than to try to do it yourself.

Dark jokes aside, I'd like to try to encourage you to take a step back and try not to let examples and statistics from the internet color your opinions of entire groups of people. Confirmation bias plus internet can be a terrible combination. I know this is impossible, and I don't mean to suggest your views are wrong or unwarranted. Let me share with you a personal experience/realization I had. I used to live/work in a city with a substantial black population. I experienced several cases of anti-white racism from black people during that time, and there was no shortage of further examples to be found online. I began to have anxiety when encountering strangers who were black because I was worried what they thought of me as a white stranger, if they hated me for being white or thought I secretly hated them for being black. This was cured pretty quick when I realized how much easier it would be for a black person to fall into this same trap. I was negatively affected by a few real world experiences and a handful of fringe bigots on the internet. I realized that they not only have to deal with those things but an entire history and culture of those bigoted attitudes, and all in far greater magnitudes than what i had experienced. I knew that realization didn't make the things that happened to me any less bigoted and wrong, or that it was any less likely that some of the people around me harbored unspoken prejudices against me because of my race. But I learned that by dwelling on it and worrying about it that it was poisoning me and probably becoming a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the horrible thing about bigotry is that it feeds into itself and experiencing it tends to create more of it.

On a lighter(?) note, what kind of ammo do you use for your shotgun? Do you keep any non-lethal types on hand? I don't own a gun myself but the people I've spoken to that have a shotgun for home defense usually tell me they keep it loaded with one or two non-lethal shells such as salt or beanbags to fire first, followed up by more conventional(and deadly) shells if that doesn't scare them off. What is your philosophy on this?

So, it's probably best that I spell out what I'd actually do in a situation if it occurred.

If there was rustling in my house at night that woke me up, I would know something is wrong because there wouldn't be anyone downstairs to rustle. That means a clear cut intruder.

I would unlock my shotgun, I would load it, I would open the door and call out as loudly as I can that I have a shotgun and I have called the police.

I will not seek out. I do not want to engage. I just want the person out of the house. If they come upstairs and to me at that time, it would be impossible and foolhardy to assume the intruder has the best of intentions. They know I'm armed, they believe the police are on the way, and they were given warning of each of these situations. I haven't seen them, so any further attempts to come towards me at this point, thinking anything other than ominous is playing with one's life.

Either/or, I am not going to dispose of anything. If the burglar leaves, wonderful. That's all I want. If other matters have to occur, the outcome is still going to be the same. I will go to the police station in person. I will explain the entire situation. I'm not foolhardy to think that the situation will be all wiped under the carpet because of something like the Castle Doctrine. I do know that the police will have to be involved, as they should be.

But I am going to take every opportunity to make sure that I'm not going to be harmed by the intruder and the police. And yes, I have more concern of cops than I do criminals. I have concern with anyone where there's a power imbalance in their favor. A cop is a human. Not a sainted Evolution of Man. If a job's responsibilities were enough to transcend everything that makes a human unpredictable, then our adminstration would have been handled a lot different than it has been for the last three years.

You never, EVER keep a weapon loaded. You do not. For several levels of safety. On the mild end, you hear stories about shells warping in the tube.

Guns in their own safe. Shells in another.

But for the loading, I'll make a judgment call. I'll particularly want to do less than lethal for the very reason that I don't want anyone to die by my actions. But combat loading can make it so that if I have to make that final choice, I can do it.

I keep my weapon as simply a matter of making the best of a bad situation. I'm too poor to afford professional security, live in a country where the police can ignore 911 calls and are under no obligation to protect me, and een if they were, the response time here is measured in hours. When it comes to self defense, I'm on my own.

I can understand an individual's choice to own a gun when living in a society in which they are already commonplace. What I can't understand is the citizenry as a group being willing to allow that situation to continue, at their own safety's expense.

If I can answer this? It's because it's not the tool, it's the person behind it and their intent. Almost every person who had an actual crime in my life committed against them, it was the majority just bigger numbers.

My cousin was jumped in Brooklyn just because some roughnecks wanted to prove how big they were. My childhood best friend was jumped repeatedly for the the one time he worn a chain and his Tommy Hilfinger clothes. An online friend now has permanent brain damage because some kids in Virginia Beach decided they wanted to fuck with him while he was relieving himself in an alley. I remember going to a girl's house whom I was dating at the time, and having her telling me they were waiting on the Stoop with a guy who was jumped by some guys for reasons we never found out.

Safer is a relative term. Of course I will be safer from the risk of being shot if guns vanish tomorrow. That doesn't mean I'm safer from being jumped that next day. Or stabbed. Or anything. As a person without criminal intent, I can just summon people to hang out with me at all times because we're safer with bigger numbers. People with criminal intent and see their job being relieving me and others of the money we work for? Yeah, they can find similar minded people to do that all day. Or all night.

The facts are, we all live with dangerous different than other people even in our own neighborhoods. We all have to find ways to mitigate and try to live with these dangers. None of you know what it is like to be me. I have no idea what it is like to be any of you and how you find ways to survive the days. Some of you don't even think about it because danger is that muted for you. And those people are so lucky.

But we all don't have that. And that's the truth.

 

[Asita]

I can understand an individual's choice to own a gun when living in a society in which they are already commonplace. What I can't understand is the citizenry as a group being willing to allow that situation to continue, at their own safety's expense.

In the interest of clarity, I am not championing the viewpoints I am about to echo, I'm just relaying them, as I've heard them enough times to be somewhat confident in my ability to explain the thrust of the argument

The general logic espoused is that the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak. The bad guys either have guns, or easy enough access that we have to assume that they can get them if they want them. Furthermore, the logic is that even if we put a total stop on the sale of guns and put in mandatory buy-backs, the aforementioned assumption would not change. The good guys would cooperate, the bad guys would keep their guns or still be able to get them easily from illicit sources.

As an analogy, imagine that a field has wolves, sheep, and working ranch dogs out there. The wolves are killing sheep and dogs, but the dogs don't go down without a fight and kill the wolves as often as not. The analogous argument is that gun control is like believing that by calling the dogs out of the field the wolves will leave as well rather than slaughtering the rest of the now defenseless flock. The corollary to this is that the proper response is getting more dogs out into the field - rather than less - so as to make the wolves less bold. Of course, the argument hits a snag in that the scenario is really less dogs and wolves than it is normal dogs and rabid dogs. And that, ultimately, the 'more dogs' approach is so focused on increasing the number of dogs in the field that it doesn't bother to check them for rabies.

...Is that still coherent? It feels like this analogy is getting away from me.

Point being that the argument generally assumes that the bad guys with guns are out there and will still be out there no matter what we do. It therefore posits that any attempt to deal with that by decreasing gun availability will only exacerbate rather ameliorate the problem.

 

[Agema]

...Is that still coherent? It feels like this analogy is getting away from me.

You missed out that the dogs also occasionally fight amongst each other or bite the sheep.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

People don't have axes or knives where you live?

Not that anyone knows how to effectively use as a projectile, no.

I keep my weapon as simply a matter of making the best of a bad situation. I'm too poor to afford professional security, live in a country where the police can ignore 911 calls and are under no obligation to protect me, and een if they were, the response time here is measured in hours. When it comes to self defense, I'm on my own.

Yeah, and that's what it's like in my country too. If you're attacked, substantially you're on your own unless a bystander feels like giving you a hand. But I don't fear lethal or near-lethal injury.

You want guns in large part because lots of people have guns, so you have to even up the force - an arms race. But that's a lot of fear and anxiety to live your life under, that something goes wrong and it's not just a busted nose, it's a bullet hole. If those heightened fears prevented confrontation, it might be a useful trade-off: unfortunately, there's not strong evidence it does reduce confrontation, and that armed societies are less violent. They're just places where if violence starts, far more likely someone ends up dead or severely injured.

I don't think characterizing it as a "I need a gun because criminals have guns" arms race is particularly accurate. The thing is, if a 250lb in shape guy with a baseball bat broke into your home with the intent to beat you to death, the vast majority of humanity would not be able to put up anything more than token resistance if unarmed or even if armed with a comparable blunt or bladed weapon. The vast majority would however be able to put down this hypothetical violent individual that intended to do them harm given a firearm and even the most basic of training in how to use it(depending on the specifics of the situation anyway). Guns are a huge equalizer. It doesn't matter big and strong your attacker is, or how small and weak you might be, or even how good either of you are at fighting. When you have a gun, you pose a very real threat to an attacker. A gun obviously doesn't make you invincible or immune to predation or whatever else, but it gives you a fighting in chance in situations where you wouldn't without one. For some people those situations are far more common than for those of us who are more fortunate.

You could probably put it in terms of one of those 4 square game theory charts: Neither I or my attacker have a gun, attacker and I both have a gun, attacker has a gun and I don't, I have a gun and attacker doesn't. For the weaker among us, whose chance of survival or avoiding severe harm isn't all that different between the "Both unarmed" and "Attacker has a gun and I don't" scenario, the alternative set of possibilities is likely far more attractive.

 

[Silvanus]

If I can answer this? It's because it's not the tool, it's the person behind it and their intent. Almost every person who had an actual crime in my life committed against them, it was the majority just bigger numbers.

My cousin was jumped in Brooklyn just because some roughnecks wanted to prove how big they were. My childhood best friend was jumped repeatedly for the the one time he worn a chain and his Tommy Hilfinger clothes. An online friend now has permanent brain damage because some kids in Virginia Beach decided they wanted to fuck with him while he was relieving himself in an alley. I remember going to a girl's house whom I was dating at the time, and having her telling me they were waiting on the Stoop with a guy who was jumped by some guys for reasons we never found out.

This affects the likelihood of facing aggression. The availability of more lethal weaponry affects the likelihood that the aggression will be lethal. That's the impact of the "tool" on the equation.

Safer is a relative term. Of course I will be safer from the risk of being shot if guns vanish tomorrow. That doesn't mean I'm safer from being jumped that next day. Or stabbed. Or anything.

Of course. But you'll be safer from death, because those methods are less commonly lethal, and because perpetrators using those methods are less likely to be able to pull off a spree.

The facts are, we all live with dangerous different than other people even in our own neighborhoods. We all have to find ways to mitigate and try to live with these dangers. None of you know what it is like to be me. I have no idea what it is like to be any of you and how you find ways to survive the days. Some of you don't even think about it because danger is that muted for you. And those people are so lucky.

But we all don't have that. And that's the truth.

Obviously we all live with dangers, and dangers exist in every society. But clearly there are degrees. The dangers I am likely to face are so many orders of magnitude less common and less lethal when they do happen.

And that isn't a result of luck. That's to some extent a direct result of policy.