Poll: Let's settle something right now, can you defend yourself with a gun?

[Not G. Ivingname]

Can you please define your question a bit more clearly?

I can't tell exactly what you're asking. When you say "can you", do you mean...

a) Do I personally have the ability to use a gun in self defence? (Kinda. I have some training, but I haven't handled a gun for years. I'd need a refresher.)
b) Is a gun a viable self defence weapon? (Yes, obviously. Although not quite to the degree that a lot of people think.)
c) Are you legally in the right if you defend yourself with a gun? (No idea. It would vary between countries and states anyway.)

A) Currently at this time? No. Not allowed to bring my rifle to college.

B) Completely. Defense is not simply the art of deflecting blows, but also of counter attacks and rendering the enemy unable to commit offensive actions against you. Making them unable or unwilling by either killing them or making them back down. I have read studies that said that around 90% of defensive gun usages do not even involve the gun being fired, but I haven't been able to find it.

C) Here it is, although I live in California, so it isn't "as legal" as it is in other states. Some states are "Stand Your Ground" where you cannot be persecuted if you shoot somebody on your property without provoking them to come onto your property, while California is a "Duty to Retreat" state where you must try to get away from danger before your "allowed" to use lethal force. What constitutes "sufficient attempts to flee" is left extremely vague and can allow a person to be persecuted if the police feels like it. You cannot carry a gun on you unless you get a "Conceal Carry License". Unlike most states, which are "Shall Issue" (if you ask for one, the police are mandated to give you one unless you don't pass the background check), California is "Shall Issue," which leaves it up to the individual county sherifs if they feel like giving a person a CCW, and the most of the time, unless you live in the central valley, are personal friends with the sherif, or give many "donations" to the police department, 99 times out of 100 they are going to reject your request.

 

[The_Echo]

Personally? You could give me the best gun in the world [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5sny3RfMYMU#t=73s] and I wouldn't be able to use it at all. I have terrible aim and slow reflexes.

So, no. I cannot defend myself with a gun.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I believe i am capable of defending myself with the weapons I own
.

 

[Nexxis]

Nope. The thing would fall from my hands after the first shot as I don't like loud noises and guns, in general, make me nervous. I think I'd be more likely to accidentally shoot myself with it.

 

[LongAndShort]

As I understand it, statistically you're four or five times more likely to be shot during a mugging if you're carrying a weapon then without, and you're more likely to injure yourself or a friend/family member with a weapon kept around the house than an intruder. So while it may be a viable self-defence weapon, but not necessarily a practical one. I certainly wouldn't be able to, but I've only fired guns once when I was on holiday with the family in the USA and thought it a fun idea to visit a gun range.

Personally I live in a country with fairly strict gun-controls (Australia) and a surprising number of rules with regards to what can or can't be considered 'reasonable force' in self defence, and I like it that way. But that's just me.

 

[likalaruku]

I'm more of a sharp serrated blade person. I think of guns as cheating.

 

[Agayek]

I've never had to defend myself, but I know that I could if the need arose, without a doubt. And it's perfectly legal to shoot an armed intruder on your property. I have a friend that uses the following 'protection method' in his home with his shotgun.

First shell is a blank (most intruders will flee if they believe they're up against another weapon.)

Second shell is rock salt (This'll put a criminal down, but likely won't kill him.)

The rest are lethal. There is a extremely slim chance you would even need to get this far, but if a criminal won't run from a blank and if you miss the target with rock salt, the last resort will do the job.

The legality of it depends on the country/state.

Most states of the US practice what is known as the Castle Doctrine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine], wherein you are (legally) justified in using any degree of force against someone who has invaded your property/place of residence. As long as they illegally entered anyway. You can't invite someone in then shoot them.

There are a number of places that do not follow such a doctrine however, even within the US, and you could face murder charges for shooting someone that broke into your home.

OT: Is it physically possible to defend oneself with a gun? Yes, absolutely.
Am I in particular able to defend myself with a gun? Yes, absolutely.
Is it a good idea to pull a gun in a volatile situation? Not in the least.

Escalation doesn't really help. If someone already has a gun or knife on you, pulling a gun is just going to get you hurt, maybe even killed.

That said, if you have a gun at hand, it can be used to defuse some situations without undue harm.

 

[Risingblade]

Here in Cali you can't use lethal force unless you believe at that very moment your life or the lives of others are at risk. A gun can defend you in that it can intimidate or take down the assailant before they cause you harm. It's a the best defense is a good offense tool.

 

[mduncan50]

Yes.
Department of justice estimated in 1994 that it happens roughly 1.50 million times per year in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
You don't tend to hear about them, however, as the Media basically only reports conflicts involving fatalities, while the vast majority of defense is simply brandishing to scare away the attacker. Such flees have a tendency to not be reported even to the authorities since not much can be done about it.

C'mon now, if you're going to cite a source, don't fudge the info to make it sound the way you want it to. The article clearly states that estimates run from a highball of 1 to 2.5 million (as reported by the NRA and the like, I'm sure) to a low-ball of 55,000 to 80,000 (anti-gun folk, hippies?). And while to begin with there is a hugely disparate void between those numbers (somewhere in the middle is right I'm sure) please also keep in mind that you are using a site (improperly) on which I could post that everybody in the the world has been shot at least 3 times in their lives (by the same guy) as a factually sound reference. This is what we call in the sciency realm, a little sketchy.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Can it happen? Sure.

Does it happen? Not anywhere near as often as people wind up injuring themselves with their own guns. Seriously, statistically speaking, if you have a gun for self defense, you're actually in more danger than if you don't have a gun at all.

Could I do it: I'm actually a pretty good shot, so maybe. I can't imagine a situation where I'd have a gun at hand and ready to fire that didn't involve a shooting range, though, and I really doubt anyone on the planet is stupid enough to try anything at a gun range. They'd be turned into Swiss cheese pretty darned quickly, whether I fired a shot or not.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Yes.
Department of justice estimated in 1994 that it happens roughly 1.50 million times per year in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use
You don't tend to hear about them, however, as the Media basically only reports conflicts involving fatalities, while the vast majority of defense is simply brandishing to scare away the attacker. Such flees have a tendency to not be reported even to the authorities since not much can be done about it.

C'mon now, if you're going to cite a source, don't fudge the info to make it sound the way you want it to. The article clearly states that estimates run from a highball of 1 to 2.5 million (as reported by the NRA and the like, I'm sure) to a low-ball of 55,000 to 80,000 (anti-gun folk, hippies?). And while to begin with there is a hugely disparate void between those numbers (somewhere in the middle is right I'm sure) please also keep in mind that you are using a site (improperly) on which I could post that everybody in the the world has been shot at least 3 times in their lives (by the same guy) as a factually sound reference. This is what we call in the sciency realm, a little sketchy.

Was just about to say basically the same thing myself, damn ninjas in my brain.

Personally I see the gun as a deterrent and nothing more. You wave the gun and any robber with half a brain will leave you alone. That said, I live in Canada. In home robbery is basically non-existent in my city, since most thieves make more money more easily by simply pilfering high tech gear from University students in coffee shops. I have zero fear of home invasion as a threat to my life or property, so even though I do own a gun I don't see it as a defensive weapon at all.

Doesn't help that it's a bolt-action rifle from the turn of the 20th century but I digress.

 

[NightmareExpress]

Can you disable an attacker with a gun?
Yes, you certainly can. There's plenty of places on the human body that can incapacitate the attacker in a non-lethal manner when shot (if you have to shoot at all). A gun is as good for self-defense as any other method/tool.

If somebody says it's impossible to defend with a gun, I'd say that they're dead wrong.
Something designed with the intent to kill in mind (firearms) can only be considered offensively or defensively utilized depending on the situation at hand and the motives of the shooter.

On the legal side, not all states and countries have the castle doctrine (allowing you to shoot and defend yourself without much, if any, trouble with the law if somebody intrudes your house) or similar laws. Some places of the world may even be as asinine as to charge you (the victim, if you aren't the perpetrator) with assault for daring to defend yourself against criminal scum. Bollocks to those rules, I say. But, unfortunately, if you have those pro-criminal laws in place then you turn into the new bad guy and any method of self-defense that you may utilize turns into a method of assault that you can and will be charged with.

So all in all, it boils down to your philosophy and the laws in effect in your state/country.
From the sounds of it, you are able to defend yourself with a gun and say as such.

captcha: well read
Why thank you, captcha.

 

[Saulkar]

I could use a bow and arrow a few years ago to great effect and have used a bolt action rifle (a friend's) at a range before with little difficulty within 50 meters. I cannot see why I would not be able to defend myself with either however whether or not I have the mental preparations are far from clear. I have used my fists and blunt objects in defense more than once without hesitation but know not how I would handle either a bow or a rifle in a similar situation.

I am thinking about getting myself a bow for real and possibly bringing my skill back up to par. Nothing fancy, just being able to consistently hit the same target at 10-15 meters.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Well, I live in California where we're not allowed to shoot an intruder unless they pose a direct threat to me or anyone in my family. So, you know, make sure you leave a knife or something by their dead body.
That being said, I'd still defend my house with lethal force if necessary. It's all about escalation of force and the usage of proper force. If there's no direct threat to anyone, I'd merely threaten. If I see any sort of weapon on them, whether it be another firearm, and knife, or even a club-like object, I won't hesitate to shoot first.

 

[Zakarath]

I don't own any guns and I doubt I ever will have or will need one... Could I defend myself with a gun? probably. I know enough about them that I could probably use one. Would I, however, is a different question. If someone was just looking to rob me, I'd probably let them. some few possessions aren't worth someone's life. Only if someone was definitely seeking to do direct harm to myself or another is the only time I would consider bringing lethal force to bear against them.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Sure, if someone gives me a loaded gun and tells me how to operate it. I don't own and have never used a gun though. However the use of a gun is designed to be fairly simple with the proper instruction. The same way anyone can drive a car in a simple format with some basic instructions, anyone can use a gun.

If you ask if I ever foresee myself actually defending myself with a gun, then no. I'd rather put my time into something that can stop someone dead without killing them, like pepper spray, a taser, or a kick to the nuts.

 

[Pebkio]

We here in Colorado have a law coined "Make My Day". It actually has clear, well-defined, rules that allow you to shoot a trespasser in your house. You can actually use any kind of deadly force against a trespasser if you feel that the person in question intends to commit a crime... but only inside your house. You are then quite immune from civil and criminal backlash.

But yes, if one's aim is steady and the hand-to-eye coordination is skillful, then you can use gun-shooting to incapacitate someone without killing... and maybe without even causing permanent damage. And that's not even "defensive", but it satisfies the qualification as believed by most people.

I answered yes, but inherently a projectile weapon isn't designed for defense, as you can rarely block an attack with a fired bullet. But a weapon that can also protect is called a defensive weapon, and the question here is if guns can be USED defensively. So yes, they can.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Yes, in much the same way that you can defend yourself with a table. That doesn't mean that the table is a defensive item, and more than the gun is. There is no other purpose to a gun but to kill.

Pretty much all of this.

Just because you CAN defend yourself with a gun, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Can I personally defend myself with a gun? Given that I've never even touched one, probably not.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Of course, having a gun makes it miles easier to defend yourself and a responsible and sensible gun owner can make any of the safety issues having a gun around the home raises negligible.

There is no other purpose to a gun but to kill.

While I agree that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill, that doesn't mean that is all it can be used for, you could shoot someone badly enough to stop them but not badly enough to kill them or you might not even have to pull the trigger, simply pointing a gun at someone is going to deter the majority of people. You could also fire your gun into the air to send attackers on their way.

 

[maninahat]

I can't because I can't get a gun, and even if I could, I wouldn't get one for self defence. I'm not quite ready to kill someone, which is exactly the kind of possibility you have to accept when you carry a gun for the purposes of pointing at others. Of course, there is no real way of knowing these things. For all I know, I might end up beating a burglar to death with a home appliance anyway.

To make it political, I dislike the way in which Americans seem to think guns are either the only way to protect yourself, or the best. Guns make excellent self defence weapons in certain scenarios, but I think things like tazers and (especially) canned mace are far better for most situations. I'm factoring in things like less lethal, ease of use, and effectiveness versus a gun's comparatively complexity, more deadly potential, and far more intimidating appearance; factors which may be good or bad depending on the situation.