MattyDienhoff said:
So, to sum up, you trust criminals to just rob you and then leave you alone, and you refuse to use the threat of force to defend yourself
Incorrect. I simply believe in a proportionate response. As you know, the law does as well.
Going straight for the maximum response, lethal force, is not the proper way to go in most cases.
Incidentally, that happens a lot more than you'd think, but statistics are irrelevant to the individual -- the question is, are you willing to take the chance that the person trying to steal your money isn't also a raging psychopath?
Just as, are you willing to take the chance that the person was about to let you go when they got what they wanted, but when you threatened them with lethal force they instead decide to give you a new nostril/beat you half-dead?
Raging psychopats rarely merely threaten. If you are at knife/gunpoint
and still breathing the chances are they are not a raging psychopath. Because only the rare, truly sick and twisted individuals 'play with the pray' and give hope of resolving the conflict. Your average petty thug/thief/burglar is there initially for the money and nothing else. Those who wish to hurt you, do so at the first opportunity.
There have been several robbery cases in this country in which a burglar confronts a victim (often an elderly person) and demands valuables, the victim complies and offers no resistance, and the assailant beats them to death anyway.
Just as there are cases where the criminal, once caught, says that the sight of a firearm made them scared and aggressive, and acted as the trigger for beating/stabbing/killing the victim whereas otherwise they would have just escaped.
I am not saying there aren't situations where a firearm isn't useful. I'm just saying that there are far more situations where it isn't useful, where it isn't the proper response and also situations where it is outright detrimental.
, it's only a safe way out of a confrontation if your assailants choose not to chase you
In which case the question becomes: why were you within distance anyway? If you get surprised, a gun isn't going to do any good: you're never going to get to it. If you are at range, why would you go closer? Why antagonize the criminal further?
Sure, there are cases when running away won't work. The elderly are a good example group. However, what business do they have with a gun in the first place? If they are elderly, can they shoot straight? Do they still have all their mental faculties so that they can be trusted to adhere to firearm safety protocols? Can they be trusted not to go gun-ho out of fear caused by the slightest provocation, because of the boldness instilled into them by the firearm? Yes, there are those whom have benefitted from it. Just as there are those for whom it has done nothing and those for whom it has brought harm either directly or indirectly.
Your example was a great one. Imagine the burglar situation.
Now imagine that you do not have a gun at home. Would you still go place yourself at risk by confronting the burglar, or would you try something else? Something more proportionate to the threat? Something non-lethal?
A prime example where simply owning a gun has lead you to making a bad decision and a situation where lives are far more likely to be lost. Because you are no longer defending. You are attacking.
but what guarantee do you have that they won't violently attack you or other occupants of the house?
By limiting the damage they can do. Make noise. But do not go to them. Because if they know you are there and they still come, then it is likely they mean harm. In that case you act. But if they do not mean you harm and are instead after only the money,
they will avoid you.
If you instead frighten them by ambushing them and instantly putting them on gunpoint, you have no way of knowing and thus no way of predicting their reaction. You stay at the guessing game. Aggressiviness has limited the options available both to you and the burglars.
You objective is not to drive the burglars out or apprehend them. Your objective is to make sure you and your family stay unharmed. These are two different things. In almost all cases, protecting is passive: you wait, you guard. You do not attack unless they come too close. Make clear to them by words or actions that this is the red line and that if they do not cross it they can leave.
That depends entirely on the circumstances. If I lived alone, I would do exactly that, because possessions would be all I have to lose and they're not worth the risk, but what if there are other people in the house who are all sleeping in various rooms? By simply going and hiding rather than confronting the intruder, you're leaving them defenseless.
Of course in that case you try to huddle everyone together. Wake up your spouse and tell them to go the the bedroom of your children. Those are usually side by side, often the same room. This way, you have one or two rooms that are extremely close to eachother to protect.
If the bedrooms are all over the house, then and only then it might be prudent top go for a confrontation. But even then you do not go in gun-ho or ambush them at gunpoint. You tell them you have a gun and the cops are on the way. If they leave now, they can.
You leave them a way out, metaphorically speaking. You do not drive them into a corner. You do not make them desperate and any more aggressive.
Of course, because every occupant of a house sleeps in the same room, right? Do you seriously think that
For people who live alone or only with their spouse: YES!
For people with children, their rooms are usually close by. You hunker down in one bedroom with your family there and protect that room.
(even potentially throwing away a good opportunity to catch them off-guard)
And when did this become you job? When did it become a necessity?
When did it become the objective?
The point is for your and your family to stay unharmed, not apprehend the criminals. Apprehending them is the job for the cops. Going vigilante should be the last solution.
The fact remains that a handgun can be used effectively (if the situation requires it) by people for whom martial arts and many melee weapons would be next to useless.
And I totally agree. I simply hold that these situations are a minority compared to cases where a handgun either had no positive effect or had a negative effect.
Proportional response. To those for whom this is truly the only level of force they can use, should avoid confrontations. To those with the potential for lesser amounts of force, I believe they have the responsibility to learn how to use that lesser force effectively.
Why should majority of the people be trusted to handle lethal force safely and responsibly and morally, when they have shown no indication of those when it comes down to non-lethal force?
Lethal force should never be the first or the preferred option. It should be the last option, when everything else has failed or the level of threat is clearly and unequivocally such that lethal force is the proportional response.
However, the availability of lethal force even to those who could use lesser force tends to make them skip these intermediate responses. All levels of threat are treated equally: It is so much easier to just go for the gun, so much easier to go to the firing range for an hour a month and think you are a good shot. It is so much easier to not deal with ones fears or to sweat and excercise to properly use non-lethal force.
Proportionate response. Degrees of force, applied accordingly to the level of threat. That is what I believe in.
It is so much easier to give in to that boldness and false sense of courage that having a firearm gives you. That makes you see nothing but the gun and aggression with it as a solution.
[sarcasm]After all, everyone respects the gun. Everyone fears the gun when it is pointed at them. And having the criminal fear, just for once, just feels so damn good. Because with a gun, you are in control. You have the power. And they better recognize.
Right?[/sarcasm]
