Well i could, but i would get 3 times the time in jail as the guys i was defending myself agents.Xan Krieger said:
We don't all live in the United States of America, buddy.
Poll: Let's settle something right now, can you defend yourself with a gun?
- Thread starter Xan Krieger
- Start date
We don't all live in the United States of America, buddy.
The point wasn't that such circumstances don't have uncontrolled variables. Rather, it was that the entire simulation was set up specifically to put the student at the greatest disadvantage. If the NRA had set up a circumstance that was designed to give the defender greater intelligence and preparedness than the shooter, would you not have call foul? I would have.AlexanderPeregrine said:
Please point out where I wrote that the bad guy would have been the only casualty.
No, but would the simulation have gone the same way if the shooter had been given the instructions to burst into the room, shoot the teacher, and then shoot as many students as possible and hadn't been told both that there was an armed student and their exact seating?
Maybe it would have, but I have doubts.
You're trying to get a point across that I'm already well aware of. Haven't a defensive weapon isn't about certainty, it's about probabilities. If you have a weapon, there is a very low probability of you being in a situation where you will be required to use it. If you find yourself in an active shooter situation, the probability of successfully neutralizing an active shooter is much much higher. Trying to argue that not being able to stop anyone but the shooter from being harmed in an active shooter situation is reason for concealed weapons being useless is like saying that airbags are useless. They can't save people from every type of incident and have been known to kill people needlessly.
I suppose you could argue that my chances of dying from an airbag are much lower than from dying from a handgun accident, but the government doesn't force me to use a handgun.
Again, the point isn't to stop one hundred percent of fatalities in a shooting. Rather, the point is that it makes shooting far more abrupt than they otherwise would be. Of course, all of this is based on the idea that guns are only useful when they are actually fired when the knowledge of weapons being present in an area is a massive deterrent in and of itself. Is there another explanation for the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones?
Of course you can defend yourself with a gun.
It happens pretty regularly around here.
And yes, you can use deadly force if they break into your house and you consider yourself in imminent peril, without having broken any laws. (Castle Doctrine)
In most states you can likewise use deadly force, regardless of if you are on your own property or not, if you believe yourself to be in imminent peril. (Stand Your Ground Law)
It happens pretty regularly around here.
And yes, you can use deadly force if they break into your house and you consider yourself in imminent peril, without having broken any laws. (Castle Doctrine)
In most states you can likewise use deadly force, regardless of if you are on your own property or not, if you believe yourself to be in imminent peril. (Stand Your Ground Law)
I'm not sure if the question is asking "am I, personally, able to" (in which case, no, I've never handled a gun in my life) or "should you be allowed to". To the latter I have to go with a qualified "yes"--you should be allowed to use a gun as a last line of defense. I.E., stand your ground laws are bullshit, because if you can escape a situation or resolve it nonviolently (or non-lethally), you should. Shooting someone should be the absolute last resort when your life is in immediate danger and there are no other options. It should NOT be the resort you go to because of some "look, I shot the bad guy, I'm now the hero" or "I put that scum in his/her place", etc. mentality.
Kind of vague there OP. Are we talking home defense strictly? If so then yes, if someones broken into your home you have a right to defend yourself, and your property. At least that's my opinion on the matter. Regarding fire arms though, personally I own an 80lb draw compound bow which I would much rather have on me than a firearm. Also as to it never happening, I've actually heard of a couple instances of intruders shot and killed while entering a home. Also, this one is kind of relevant, but I remember a story in which a man saw someone looting his recently burned down home and confronted them. The looter made a break for it with his belongings, and the man shot him in the spine with an arrow. Karma if I ever heard of it, but I doubt the legal system held the same opinion.
Generally? Yes, of course you can. We wouldn't have bothered developing the things any further than the musket stage otherwise.
More specifically? Depends on the situation. Can be yes, can be "sorta", can be "no, of course not". You're not going to be much good against someone wrestling you, or sniping, or using something more heavyweight (from watercannon thru mobile armour to bombs/mines/mortars to missiles and satellite weaponry, an assailant wearing actually worthwhile armour, or using more futuristic things like sonic or EM blasters)...
Personally? No. Haven't access to any, don't care to get access to one, would be useless at shooting it anyway despite some already overdeveloped wrist muscles O_O;
More specifically? Depends on the situation. Can be yes, can be "sorta", can be "no, of course not". You're not going to be much good against someone wrestling you, or sniping, or using something more heavyweight (from watercannon thru mobile armour to bombs/mines/mortars to missiles and satellite weaponry, an assailant wearing actually worthwhile armour, or using more futuristic things like sonic or EM blasters)...
Personally? No. Haven't access to any, don't care to get access to one, would be useless at shooting it anyway despite some already overdeveloped wrist muscles O_O;
Absolutely, and anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no concept of reality. 90% of the time (this is a rough estimate, not a hard statistic) in cases in which guns are used for defense, a gun merely being produced by the would-be victim is enough to prevent the crime - most criminals would rather flee to find another victim than risk getting shot. Of the remaining ten percent in which the gun is actually fired, it's pretty rare for the criminal to actually be killed in the process. Either because the person with the gun fired into the air, or because the rounds simply didn't kill the perpetrator. There was a story of a woman a few weeks ago who shot an intruder in the head and chest multiple times, and the intruder survived - needless to say, though, any sort of attack was prevented.
EDIT: Could I personally? Probably. I've been shooting plenty of times, and I'm generally pretty cool-headed under pressure, so I think I'd do just fine in such a situation. I also live in Florida, which is pretty much the capital of you-break-into-my-house-I-can-legally-shoot-you-dead, so I doubt there would be much legal trouble.
EDIT: Could I personally? Probably. I've been shooting plenty of times, and I'm generally pretty cool-headed under pressure, so I think I'd do just fine in such a situation. I also live in Florida, which is pretty much the capital of you-break-into-my-house-I-can-legally-shoot-you-dead, so I doubt there would be much legal trouble.
Live in Finland, gotta keep our guns locked up, it's the law over here. Those two things bring up multiple problems for defending ones home... First, to be able to reach the locker where the guns are and unlock it before whoever broke in gets to you, secondly, even if you could do that, shooting them would get you into more trouble than it's worth. Fines, jail, the criminals got more rights than the victim it would seem.Xan Krieger said:
Although while I think Finland is great, laws about defending oneself are fucked up. One guy who was attacked by two guys, two guys who didn't count on bumping into a martial arts expert, the guy defended himself because he could. What happened was, he knocked one guy completely out, while giving the other guy a good beating, but because our fine government thought he used "excessive force", he got himself 2 years in jail.
Yup, that's the Finnish government for ya, hardcore murderers can get life, but that means about 15 years. That's the problem, too nice to the criminals and to harsh on innocent people.
Yes I can, and I will if necessary.
Never had to do it, don't anticipate that I ever will.. but should the need ever arise that (for instance) a burglar enters my property with uncertain intent, then I will hold him at gunpoint if possible. If he attempts violence against me, lunges forward, or goes towards any of my family present in my home with me, then I will most likely shoot to kill. I don't care if he is armed or not.
Many countries don't allow this, and I don't care if you think you're more civilized for doing so. I think it's quite sad. These people are more than willing to wait for an "officer of the law" to come and kill the intruder for them, as the case may be. Good luck waiting that 20 minutes, though.
Never had to do it, don't anticipate that I ever will.. but should the need ever arise that (for instance) a burglar enters my property with uncertain intent, then I will hold him at gunpoint if possible. If he attempts violence against me, lunges forward, or goes towards any of my family present in my home with me, then I will most likely shoot to kill. I don't care if he is armed or not.
Many countries don't allow this, and I don't care if you think you're more civilized for doing so. I think it's quite sad. These people are more than willing to wait for an "officer of the law" to come and kill the intruder for them, as the case may be. Good luck waiting that 20 minutes, though.
I can defend myself with a carrot, should so be the case. That's not what the debate is about. The person who claimed one could not means that before you have time to draw it, it will be too late.
I disagree, but I just posted for the clarification.
I disagree, but I just posted for the clarification.
The castle doctrine isn't in every state, much less every country. It applies in Ohio, where I live, but not everywhere so be careful if you move.Xan Krieger said:
As for if you can I'm not sure if you mean physically or legally. If physically, its incredibly dependent on distance. Within a certain range someone with a knife will be quicker on average, outside that range someone with a gun will. I cannot recall the range unfortunately. I've seen a study done on it in a stats class a while ago, though I don't know where to find it.
Legally is iffy. It might be considered unequal force which would make it illegal in some places.
Guns can be used for self defense, the thing that's going on here in the US at the moment is whether or not it's needed to defend your home with an assault weapon or military grade hardware. Personally I think you don't need a assault rifle or anything like that. In fact you don't need a weapon bigger than a pistol. Even a small revolver will still kill a man, it's not like if it's a small gun the bullets will bounce off. Assault weapons just aren't needed.