AssButt said:
A responsible individual knows to avoid trouble whenever possible but sometimes that isn't enough. And yes, it does make sense that you don't need training to own a gun. I'm not sure where people are getting the notion that accidental gun deaths are a big issue but the mortality rate from negligently handling guns falls somewhere between drowning and choking. If you're afraid of your kid gaining access to your gun, then keep it on your person. This is assuming that you didn't teach your kid safe gun handling.
What? You think people don't need training to own a gun? Sorry, that's idiotic. And no matter what you teach kids, there's still the possibility of them doing something stupid - they're KIDS.
Also, how is throwing a phone at an assailant going to incapacitate him? You're more likely to anger him by doing so resulting in him beating/stabbing/shooting you.
No, I would throw something because I know actual self defense techniques, and a fast moving object will cause an attacker to focus on that even for a second, giving me a chance to get to them and cause them serious hurt. If I hit them, fantastic! But that wasn't the point, it's just part of fairly basic self defense. I can also disarm someone who has a knife/gun/whatever.. these are things learned from years of training and I prefer it infinitely over just having a deadly weapon lying around.
I know how to use a gun, have done since I was young and am not anti-guns. But I still maintain the general population has no reason to own one for 'self defense'.
As for you mistakenly shooting your roommate, if this does happen, it means that you've violated all four rules of firearm safety which most gun owners have ingrained in them.
My point there is that in order to be safe you CANNOT ACT without significant delay while you assess the situation and decide if a weapon is called for. I do not have this problem because I'm not aiming to kill them, just incapacitate them. If a dumbarsed friend of mine gets hurt cause of it, I don't mind... but I'd rather not shoot them.
Plus a minute ago you were happy for gun owned to buy weapons without any training whatsoever, now they all know the rules? If every gun owner had to go through a strict screening process and undergo adequate training I wouldn't any issues. My problem is not that people can get guns, it's that people can get guns far too easily when they are NOT the ideal solution for 99% of the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre - this is a perfect example. That kid went and purchased two weapons while being mentally unstable and proceeded to kill
32 people. Nice to see the costs incurred protecting his constitutional rights to bear arms. Changes were made yes, but not in time to save those people.
It does happen on occasions but it isn't fair to punish everyone else because of this. Do you have a problem with police carrying guns? It's also worthy of mention that police officers are around five times more likely to misidentify someone as a suspect than a civilian because police are almost never around when the crime happens. It is also not uncommon for police to be less trained than the average civilian. Police officers not interested in guns often fire their weapon only once or twice a year during qualification.
Again, you're mistaking me for an anti-gun person. I stress that I'm not. However, if tighter gun control stopped 32 people being shot in virginia, would I take away your guns? You bet I would.
British police do not carry guns yet they manage their jobs very well.. this might not work everywhere, but it proves it can be done.
I also would not say police are less trained then an 'average' civilian. Maybe some, maybe most that you know even, but definitely not 'average'.
Also, you've probably heard the statistic that over 80% of self-defense doesn't involve a single shot being fired, hardly life and death. Criminals often run at the sign of (effective) resistance because their number one priority is to survive and there are a lot of other easier prey.
Indeed... but what happens when those 80% of situations, both parties have guns? A criminal is a lot more likely to shoot you if they think you're going to shoot them. I would rather have them take my money and leave then get shot trying to keep it, or beat them senseless for trying in the first place. Once you bring out deadly force you better hope someone backs down or else someone is probably going to die.
Aside from this, I agree with the rest of your post and that is very important to remember. Situational awareness trumps self-defense because self-defense is only damage control whereas situational awareness avoids the problem all together. However, if you are unlucky enough, self-defense may be your last resort.
In this we agree, I simply prefer that my body is my defense choice rather then a weapon designed solely to kill. You can kill with your body yes.. but your choices are much wider.
