General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLets state the glaringly obvious:Guns are not a viable form of self defense in the majority of cases
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Little Star (a host of the General Discussion forum).
As more time passes on I am convinced that more and more people are coming to the realization that guns are not a viable form of self defense in most scenarios.
Law enforcement are increasingly using more and more tasers. Lets ask why? Because while it is risky to use a taser, the lethality isn't on the same level as a gun. So, more and more law enforcement are using tasers, because using their gun just for self defense is overkill.
Most martial arts instructors I have talked to, especially one Krav Maga instructor, explicitly told me that civilian populations of the world are not correctly educated about unarmed self defense. More importantly, a gun is useless if the assailant closes the gap with a knife/small firearm at point blank range (which happens 99% of the time with robberies). Even assuming you have some distance, even highly trained law enforcement officers have difficulty being accurate with a moving target that closes the gap and avoid the slashing of a knife (unless they hit the target enough times center mass). In the close quarters of your own home, a gun, especially in the dark is utterly useless as visibility is a lot lower at night. We are human, and we all have lower vision during the night, so this is something we can't overcome unless you have night vision goggles under you bed haha.
Which leads to my next point and that is my two Republican family members, both gun enthusiasts, have interesting views. While both believe guns should not be banned (primary reason so to keep the government in check), they both believe that most of the people that carry a weapon for self defense don't know what the hell they are doing. My Step father says while he has a gun, he could use in case a burglar comes snooping, around he says the baseball bat he has under his bed allows for quick access to defense, and is a close-medium range weapon. My Grandfather who is an avid gun collector, says that it is too easy for guns to be obtained from shows, or garage sales. He doesn't believe the government should be too restrictive with gun control, but he concedes that if more and more guns are easily accessed he says it creates an endless cycle where citizens feel they have to arm themselves more and more. We are reaching the point now where simple civil disputes are settled with guns, and folks this is a lot like what the Wild West was like which I learned in grade school.
So, unless you use the gun to try chase off that sneaky fox from the hen house, or want to keep your guns to keep the government at bay well...maybe it is time to trade in that gun, for some training of your mind.
jody
(26,624 posts)safeinOhio
(37,593 posts)The FBI, in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), tells us that most shootings about 80% occur in low or reduced light. Most shootings involving police officers and civilian concealed carry permit holders happen at a distance of less than ten feet with average distance at three feet. In most police shooting the average number of rounds fired is ten. Keep in mind that most police agencies have a magazine capacity of 15 rounds. Of those ten rounds only two hit the subject that means an 80% miss rate. It is fair to say that most gun fights last about 10-15 seconds.
I agree with the poster. I have found, thru my on personal experience, that the time it takes to draw a weapon is time lost to stop the attack. This is not in 100% of cases, just most.
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Personally i can draw and fire three rounds in two seconds and hit centre mass at seven yards. The delay is usually in making the decision to use your weapon. A lot of times the very fact that you show your hand on a weapon causes the assailant to withdraw thus negating the assault.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Krav Maga
safeinOhio
(37,593 posts)former-republican
(2,163 posts)loli phabay
(5,580 posts)Or armed. A gun is the ultimate equalizer in self defense especially if your assailant is armed. If you are willing to go hands on with a meaner bigger attacker then you go for it personally i would rather have that attacker looking into the barrel of a twelve gauge.
daa
(2,621 posts)I know people that were at an ATM in he morning on the way to work. A guy came up to the car and was shown a gun. The would be robber left.
Look, Al Gore lost, even his home state but it was the gun issue. You lose too many supporters if you think that is the main issue we face.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There have been different studies examining gun violence going back for decades, and here is a summary of the findings of the scientific research.
http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf
Lurker Deluxe
(1,085 posts)Law enforcement personel are not using a taser or handgun for self defense. LE put themselves in harms way, daily, it is thier job. They are using tasers more and more becasue it is a quick way to subdue someone so they can be restrained ... better than 4 cops beating the snot out of someone with sticks in an attempt to apprehend.
As far as home defense is concerned, in the evening my place is deathly quiet and pretty dark. Someone "snooping" around inside my house is at a severe disadvantage to me, I know where I am, they do not. I can promise you the slide of that 9 comming home in a dark unfamilar place is all will take to avoid confrontation. That sound is very very distinct, same as the 12G pump chambering, or the 12G auto slide closing.
Guns deter crime. Period. So do locks and alarms. And dogs.
I have a carry permit but generally do not carry, I have never been in fear for my life. I have no desire to shoot anyone, and in the circumstance of someone in my home I would most likely fire a round into the bed or something to avoid confrontation, but after that if you continue into the bedroom you will not be the one with the advantage ... there will be no "closing" ... you will be full of holes.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Aside from firearms that are owned for target shooting or hunting, or owned as collectible items, there are many firearms that are owned for when there are no immediate governmental services.
Home break-ins are sufficiently common. Revolutions? Not so much. Except in the imaginations of some, including the imaginations of those who create straw-men to express their anti-gun views.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)But your larger point is the point. The only Constitutional argument from which so-called "gun rights" could ever have been fashioned died on the battlefields of the Civil War.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)To the Gungeon with thee!
brokechris
(192 posts)would be a damned fool to "close the distance" on someone with a gun. Before he got close enough to stab a person--he would definitely get shot. And yes---often visibility is bad when an attack occurs--but if the assailant helps you out by coming closer, you'll get a better shot. His best bet is to make the distance between himself and that gun larger--not smaller.
your scenario is just plain stupid.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The 8 million who have concealed carry licenses in 49 of 50 states? (Up from 5 million just a few years ago..)
We disagree.
Re tasers? Do you know any law enforcement officers who have stopped carrying a gun in favor of a taser? Me neither. Tasers are one more tool to subdue a suspect. They replace the baton, not the handgun.
eta:

former-republican
(2,163 posts)"unless you have night vision goggles under you bed haha"
The home defense weapon is something to have if the police can't get there in time.
You hear a break in call 9/11 and sit tight with the operator on the phone.
Don't be a hero thinking you can clear your house.
Tommy_Carcetti
(44,493 posts)Agreed 100%.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)This does not meet the SoP of this Forum.
Please feel free to repost in Gun Control & RKBA here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172