Gun Use, and targeting, training and self defence

[Goldeneye1989]

Hello there fellow boys, girls, men and women
This topic is not a new one and there will be many more like this. I dont own a gun, i dont want a gun and i dont think i will ever need a gun. however other people do/think they do, so i was wondering to those people who do use, own and need a gun.

The major argument for the use and requirement for a gun is self defense correct? I will agree with that much, however the Ammo that people use is a concern, Why do you need the projectiles that most people use for self defense. For example the use of non-lethal bullets that cause pain or disorientation to the target rather then a puncture wound. Why not want the use of a Tanq gun instead, non lethal (directly non lethal, however the target would still be vulnerable to their environmental surroundings.) If your not willing to do this do you decide to aim for non-lethal shots or are you trained to so? Aiming for the Arm, leg sholders seems to be more tactical then aiming for the center mass of another person.

Why do you guys think, feel free to rip into me for my lack of knowledge on the subject or my all around Hippyness, i will try to rebuttal to all that i can.

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

first off, there is no such thing as 'non-lethal' ammunition, the correct term is 'less-lethal' as they still have the capability to kill depending on where they hit (and in the case tranquilisers, the person may suffer a reaction to them due to an allergy/heart condition/what have you, in which they end up dying anyway) as to why they aren't standard ammunition, many reasons, some only come in certain calibres, some are only useable with shotguns, and some require purpose built launchers to use

also, there is no such thing as non lethal shots, and aiming for the arms/shoulders/legs only makes things worse, why you ask? firstly, in terms of mass they are smaller than the chest area so your chances of hitting are smaller, which in turn increases the risk of a bystanders being hit, secondly, the shoulders contain a large number of veins, muscle tissue, nerve bundles, and the shoulder joint (a ball and socket type) condensed into one small space, if you hit someone there with a bullet, chances are they will bleed to death in roughly the same ammount of time you will bleed to death if an artery is severed, and there is the off chance the bullet may strike the ball and socket joint and shatter it completely, and seeing as there is no surgeon on the planet who can repair a shattered shoulder joint you'd be essentially crippling that person for life as his entire arm will be rendered useless.
same risk of bleed out also applies to the legs due to the location of the femoral arteries

when it comes to self defence, its a risk by risk assessment, it comes down to you asking yourself 'are you prepared to take the risk that you may kill someone to defend yourself and can you live with the outcome?' if the answer to either is no, then you shouldn't try

 

[BonsaiK]

I don't own a gun and I also doubt I'll ever need one. However hypothetically:

* Aiming for the arm or leg is considered a "trick shot" and far beyond the capability of your average person in a self-defense scenario. I'd be aiming for the torso because it's a bigger target.

* Fuck this less-lethal business. If someone attacks me and there's really no other option and I'm absolutely forced to fight back I want to be as lethal as possible. "Less-lethal" to me just means "less likely they'll be scared when I pull the gun out", which isn't good.

 

[loc978]

I own more guns than shoes. Do I need 'em all? Nah, I'm a collector. Have I used any of them in self defense? Yes. Do I think gun sellers should require that their customers be trained and licensed on any weapon they purchase? YES.

I highly recommend using a .45ACP hollow point or 12 gauge buckshot for home defense. Much less likely to cause collateral damage with 'em.

Also, as to "less-lethal" methods... What mcjones said. There is no non-lethal, and the only truly effective form of less-lethal is hand-to-hand grappling... most notably the Judo wristlock.

 

[Wadders]

I only own 1 gun, and its sure as hell not for self defence. Theres no tradtion of owning guns for self defence here in Britain, and I'm glad of it. I just dont understand it really.

My shotgun is purely for Game shooting and Clay shooting. It wouldnt even be any use for home defence seeing as its locked up downstairs, miles away from where I'd be at night, i.e. upstairs in bed.

I dont think shooting people in the arms or legs is a good idea at all. Chances are you'll miss and mybe hit someone else, its probably very hard to hit extremeties especially on a moving target.

EDIT: Rubber bullets are a better idea. Those things can do serious damage without being lethal most of the time. I cant see anyone at all being able to continue attacking you or whatever after they've been shot with rubber bullets 4 or 5 times. They'll probably be writhing in pain on the floor.

I'd rather not carry a gun at all though. Given the choice of taking a human life or loosing my wallet, I'd loose my wallet every time.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The thing is non-lethal weapons can't be relied upon to be effective against all targets.

Take pepper spray or stun-guns for instance. Sure, most people become discouraged to fight and cause harm if maced with pepper spray, and getting a kiss from a stun-gun will hurt most people. BUT there are people who are barely affected by these non-lethal (technically it's called "less than lethal" because it's not a guarantee that it won't kill a person, as several tazer incidents will serve to illustrate) methods.

Im not kidding when I say that there are people who've applied a stun-gun to themselves and barely felt a thing, while the same use on another person could basically knock them to the ground.

The same thing goes with rubber bullets in guns. They are only LIKELY to stop an aggressor, but there's no GUARANTEE that they will.

Also the same thing goes for trying to shoot people in the arm or a leg. First of all, aiming for the center of mass is the easiest area to actually hit with a pistol. Trying to go for arms or legs in a stressful situation isn't likely to be successful . Second, even if you do place a hit in someones arm or leg it's no guarantee that it will stop them (and even if the shot does stop them then it's probably going to kill them within minutes anyway). Shots to the center of mass however will when used with a calibre that has sufficient stopping power.

In an emergency you want something that you know will be effective. Doing otherwise is pretty much the same thing as installing a fire-alarm in your house that works SOME of the time.

 

[DanielDeFig]

In the US, if you don't kill the person you shoot, then you end up in MORE legal troubles even if you aren't charged with criminal felonies. They can (and almost always do) sue you for shooting them with time-wasting civil lawsuits instead, where the margin of proof is much much lower.

Criminal: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil: Preponderance of evidence

Basically just have a crapload of semi-reliable evidence that's admitted to court (not that hard to do) and its your ass in the fire for DEFENDING YOUR LIFE or that of others.

Yeah, shoot to kill or don't shoot at all, that's my motto.

That, is disgusting.
You seem to not agree with this type of legality, but when a country includes laws when people have to choose between "my money" and "someone else's life", it creates a culture where life is not very highly valued.

But would that still hold true with non-lethal weaponry? (Tazers, maces, rubber bullets)

Whenever i see the whole "self-defense" reasoning for owning guns, i keep wondering why non-lethal weapons don't seem to be an option these people think of (Like the OP mentioned).

 

[DanielDeFig]

But would that still hold true with non-lethal weaponry? (Tazers, maces, rubber bullets)

Only one of those three is 'non-lethal'. Both rubber bullets and tazers can and do kill people.

Every time? For me, THAT is the issue with guns. Guns ALWAYS kill, and sometimes accidentally. Non-lethal weapons, sometimes accidentally kill. That is a HUGE difference, that will save a lot of lives (Criminals and innocents alike).

 

[Lilani]

A couple of years ago, a depressed and mentally disturbed fellow visited a church in I believe Colorado and tried to shoot up the place. Luckily, one of the members was a concealed carrier, and she shot him down before he could do much damage. I think all of the people in that church are very glad that she had the right to carry a gun. Because criminals don't care if they are allowed to or not--they WILL.

But would that still hold true with non-lethal weaponry? (Tazers, maces, rubber bullets)

Only one of those three is 'non-lethal'. Both rubber bullets and tazers can and do kill people.

Every time? For me, THAT is the issue with guns. Guns ALWAYS kill, and sometimes accidentally. Non-lethal weapons, sometimes accidentally kill. That is a HUGE difference, that will save a lot of lives (Criminals and innocents alike).

Guns ALWAYS kill? Are you serious? And what experience do you have with guns? Are you educated through Metal Gear or Team Fortress?

Need I remind you of the shooting that occurred just a few days ago involving Representative Giffords in Arizona? She was shot in the head at point-blank range and she is STILL alive. Perhaps you should learn a bit more about these things before you go and condemn them.

 

[DanielDeFig]

A couple of years ago, a depressed and mentally disturbed fellow visited a church in I believe Colorado and tried to shoot up the place. Luckily, one of the members was a concealed carrier, and she shot him down before he could do much damage. I think all of the people in that church are very glad that she had the right to carry a gun. Because criminals don't care if they are allowed to or not--they WILL.

But would that still hold true with non-lethal weaponry? (Tazers, maces, rubber bullets)

Only one of those three is 'non-lethal'. Both rubber bullets and tazers can and do kill people.

Every time? For me, THAT is the issue with guns. Guns ALWAYS kill, and sometimes accidentally. Non-lethal weapons, sometimes accidentally kill. That is a HUGE difference, that will save a lot of lives (Criminals and innocents alike).

Guns ALWAYS kill? Are you serious? And what experience do you have with guns? Are you educated through Metal Gear or Team Fortress?

Need I remind you of the shooting that occurred just a few days ago involving Representative Giffords in Arizona? She was shot in the head at point-blank range and she is STILL alive. Perhaps you should learn a bit more about these things before you go and condemn them.

The purpose of a gun (and that attack) remains: to kill another person (Accidents happen, and sometimes thats a good thing, obviously).
All i'm saying is that if you insist that you own a gun for "personal defense", owning a non-lethal weapon would decrease the chances that whomever you are defending yourself against dies. If all you want to do is to stop someone from doing something (stealing, vandalism, rape, murder), you do not need to kill them to do that.
There is technology available to achieve the same effect, except chances of survival for everyone involved are increased drastically. (There really should be a lot more money into research into widely available non-lethal weaponry)

(yeah i suppose capitalizing always was a pretty bad move. I was trying to point out that guns are built for killing, i just ended up wording it weirdly)

 

[The Night Shade]

1.Is hard to aim for the legs or arms so if youre defending yourself you probably aim to the torso

2.There isn't Non-Lethal ammo just Less-Lethal which can also be lethal depending where you aim

And remember "Guns don't kill people but they sure help"

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

But would that still hold true with non-lethal weaponry? (Tazers, maces, rubber bullets)

Only one of those three is 'non-lethal'. Both rubber bullets and tazers can and do kill people.

So do ballpoint pens but who considers those lethal?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So do ballpoint pens but who considers those lethal?

Ballpoint pens aren't designed to be used as weapons, hence they have no classification. Also, a ballpoint pen is considerably less likely to kill someone than rubber bullets or tazers...

 

[Lilani]

The purpose of a gun (and that attack) remains: to kill another person (Accidents happen, and sometimes thats a good thing, obviously).
All i'm saying is that if you insist that you own a gun for "personal defense", owning a non-lethal weapon would decrease the chances that whomever you are defending yourself against dies. If all you want to do is to stop someone from doing something (stealing, vandalism, rape, murder), you do not need to kill them to do that.
There is technology available to achieve the same effect, except chances of survival for everyone involved are increased drastically. (There really should be a lot more money into research into widely available non-lethal weaponry)

(yeah i suppose capitalizing always was a pretty bad move. I was trying to point out that guns are built for killing, i just ended up wording it weirdly)

It seems you aren't looking at these situations in a realistic manner. If someone is inside my house swiping my stuff, I'm not going to take my chances with a close-range or one-use thing like a taser or mace. I don't know if they are armed or not, and I'm not going to wait and find out. I doubt you would, either. Because at that point I'm not worried about whether or not they die. I'm worried about MY safety, because I know they sure as hell aren't worried about me.

The fact is criminals have guns, and they always will until something even more dangerous and effective hits the market. How is it "safe" "logical" or even "ethical" to say that everybody shouldn't have guns? Because criminals will always have access to guns--and that is a definite and irrefutable ALWAYS. Washington DC is proof of that, and that is why they repealed their gun ordinance. Taking away guns from regular citizens only puts the criminals at an advantage. They KNOW when they walk into a store or break into a house that nobody there will have a gun, and they can take their time thinking up all of the ways they can exploit that for its full effect.