The case against guns

[Blind groper]

A major flaw in the thinking of the gun enthusiasts is that having a gun makes you safer. In fact, the reverse is true. The New England Journal of Medicine reports on research that shows that, statistically, just owning a hand gun increases your risk of being murdered two to four times.

On top of that, other data shows that your risk of being murdered by a stranger is small, while your risk of being murdered by someone close to you is considerably greater. Since the person close to you is not an expected threat, having a gun will not help you, since the person you know is not going to attack you when he knows you are holding a gun. Instead, he will kill you when he knows you are vulnerable. Owning a gun will not help you.

My own feeling, reinforced by the sentiments expressed by gun enthusiasts on this and other threads, is that the love of guns is related to a fantasy world, in which the gun lover sees himself as a gun totin' hero shooting the bad guys. Sadly for these fantasists, the reality is very different.

[Jason]

Hey, does anyone remember when Wumbologist tore up that whole line of argument about guns increasing personal risk back in October?

Yeah, it was epic.

[Seth]

Me, to a Zimerman fanatic elsewhere, who wants SYG to prevent most cases or send them all to a grand jury:

So you need to fix a faulty system with a SYG law that lets off most shooters whether the opponent was armed or not? That puts the non-gun owner at a disadvantage. And some end up needlessly dead. Due to the fact that the gun owner is the only judge of the seriousness of the threat.

Put it up as a campaign issue in Florida. You'll see how the average folk feel about SYG.

You still don't get it. SYG is NOT part of legitimate self-defense. It merely says that you do not have to retreat in the face of an attack before deciding if you are under sufficient threat to justify the use of deadly force.

The criteria for the use of deadly force remain exactly the same as they were before. All that changed is the requirement that you attempt to retreat before using AUTHORIZED deadly force. The reason SYG is the standard in most places is because in the face of an imminent deadly threat there is very often NO TIME to retreat, or even attempt to retreat, and to save your or another person's life you must use lawfully authorized deadly force immediately.

A "retreat to the wall" statute does nothing but facilitate the crime which justifies the use of deadly force because it introduces a mandatory delay on the part of the victim who must forgo immediate defensive action and thereby allow the unlawful, deadly-force justifying attack to proceed unopposed until the victim has "retreated to the wall."

This only benefits the attacker and seriously impacts the victim's ability to successfully defend himself. Besides, the vast majority of people who use lethal self defense aren't thinking "Oh, wait, I've got to retreat to the wall first" before they reach the required criteria justifying lethal force in self defense. They do what they have to do to survive.

SYG laws are mostly created to prevent miscarriages of justice by gun-hating, criminal-coddling DA's and prosecutors who look at a defensive shooting AFTER THE FACT and find that the use of lethal force was otherwise justified EXCEPT for the victim's not "retreating to the wall" first...regardless of whether or not doing so would have resulted in the victim's death or injury. Many justifiable killings have resulted in convictions based on "retreat to the wall" statutes applied as a tool of prosecutorial terrorism to set an "example" to others not to defend yourself. Believe it or not, there are a LOT of prosecutors and politicians who actually believe you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself, especially with a handgun, under ANY circumstances and that you should capitulate and surrender to criminals.

Like pretty much every politician and prosecutor in the UK.

Dumb motherfuckers....

[Seth]

Stand your ground. You are not required to retreat. You can respond to a threat such as "i'm gonna kill you" by shooting.

Wrong. There are two elements involved in a "retreat to the wall" self-defense legal scheme. First, you have to try to retreat or escape from a threat (retreat to the wall) and only if you CANNOT do so can you lawfully use deadly force in self defense if the attack meets the necessary lethal force criteria.

All SYG does is remove the dangerous and unnecessary (and unconstitutional) step of forcing a victim to retreat before he can defend himself. It does nothing whatever to the required criteria for the lawful use of deadly force.

[Seth]

So Castle law even away from home... cool... unless you're caught weaponless by a violent gun nut.

No. Castle Doctrine is entirely different. It ONLY applies IN YOUR HOME OR RESIDENCE. Not in your business and not on the street.

Castle Doctrine states that persons have a right to absolute safety and security in their homes, and that ANY unlawful invasion of an occupied home is a much more serious crime than anything else, and that because home invasion is so harmful to society the occupants of a home are authorized to use deadly force in circumstances where it would not be permitted on the street. In Colorado for example you may use deadly force against an intruder who has made an "uninvited entry" and has the intent to commit ANY other crime while in the house (assault, harassment, burglary, whatever) AND the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder is using or is about to use ANY degree of physical force, "no matter how slight" against ANY occupant.

That means that if a burglar breaks in, grabs your TV and you get between him and the exit either he surrenders instantly or, if he tries to so much as push past you (physical force) to escape you may lawfully use deadly force. And if you do, Castle Doctrine laws generally state that you are IMMUNE from both criminal AND civil liability.

This is to prevent overzealous DA's like Bill Ritter of Denver from maliciously prosecuting homeowners who defend themselves inside their homes in order to dissuade others from doing likewise...which is what Ritter did...which is one of the reasons the law was passed by the state legislature...to keep people like him from abusing the justice system by using it as a tool for personal and political grandstanding to the detriment of innocent citizens.

It's also meant to stop frivolous civil suits by relatives of the criminal that can bankrupt a homeowner who was perfectly justified in shooting the intruder. This is because without a Castle Doctrine immunity from civil suit, family members nearly always sued homeowners, who had to pay massive legal bills even if they won the case, which the legislature properly saw as a gross miscarriage of justice.

[Seth]

puts the non-gun owner at a disadvantage.

Being a "non-gun owner" always puts you at a disadvantage.

I meant as far as the law goes. Obviously if there is no law at all, the gun is best.

Um, the point is that whatever the "law" is, when a criminal decides to BREAK THE LAW by attacking you, there is almost NEVER a state agent around to protect you by enforcing the "law," and so it's up to YOU to enforce the law and protect your own life, health and property.

It should be obvious that "the law" doesn't inhibit lawbreakers from breaking the law. The only thing that can stop them is physical force, which can be applied after the fact by the police (arrest) and the courts (incarceration) but only after the victim has been harmed. To prevent the victim from being harmed in the first place, "the law" authorizes the victim to use force in his defense or the defense of others to keep an innocent from being harmed, which is perfectly sensible and logical.

[Tero]

As long as there is law (The Gubment at work!) it has some effect on the criminal as well as the armed do-gooder.

[Seth]

As long as there is law (The Gubment at work!) it has some effect on the criminal as well as the armed do-gooder.

"Some effect?" You're satisfied with "some effect" when its your 15 year old daughter being raped?

[Blind groper]

The self defense claims for the use of hand guns are very weak. SYG and other arguments are based on the fallaceous assumption that shooting someone else is the only, or best way of preventing serious harm to yourself. That is simply wrong, except in very rare situations. As I have pointed out before, owning a hand gun actually increases, not reduces, you risk of being murdered.

There are numerous alternatives to using a hand gun in self defense. As I pointed out before, I have been physically threatened three times as an adult. Twice I talked my way out, and the third time I called for help. I have two methods of protecting my home, against unwanted intruders.
1. I have a very loud burglar alarm installed. I have three remote controls for this alarm, strategically placed around the house. In the event of a threat, my wife or myself grabs the nearest and presses the alarm button, and all hell lets loose. Screaming and wailing alarms at 130 decibels, which are obvious up to a kilometre away, plus flashing lights. No home intruder is going to hang around!
2. Our house is secure when locked. We have a lot of glass, since we have a great view. But that glass is armorplate, and double glazed. It cannot be broken except using "extraordinary" measures. Our locks are all deadbolts, not latches. Our windows are all fitted with burglar proof latches to hold them open enough for ventilation, but not open enough for a person to get in.

Other self defense measures include
. Giving in. Like handing over a wallet.
. Running away.
. Talking or bluffing our way out.
. Screaming for help.
. Having and using a non lethal device like a taser, pepper spray, or a portable audio alarm. The latter is actually extremely effective, and screams so loudly that no one nearby can stay there without blocking both ears. They are also cheap and small and light - very portable.

The occasions when a hand gun and lethal action is required are so rare that not having a hand gun substantially increases your chances of surviving a threat.

[laklak]

All those might work, Blind Grouper, but a couple of .380 ACPs from Mrs. Lak's Sig will most definitely get their attention. Cheap, small, light and portable. Why settle for second best?

[Blind groper]

To Laklak
A system that kills its user is not the best. Hand gun owners die from murder at a rate 2 to 4 times as high as non hand gun users. So a system that does not involve hand guns is actually the best.

[Collector1337]

To Laklak
A system that kills its user is not the best. Hand gun owners die from murder at a rate 2 to 4 times as high as non hand gun users. So a system that does not involve hand guns is actually the best.

I think you're missing the point.

The key, is to know which end the bullet comes out of.

All you're doing is promoting incompetence and ineptitude.

[Blind groper]

Collector
I am simply quoting the statistics. Which is another way of saying that I am telling it as it is.

If you own a hand gun, your chances of being murdered are 2 to 4 times as high. Also, your chances of a member of your family committing suicide is 2 to 10 times as high.

Rather obviously, owning a hand gun is not a smart move.

[Seth]

The self defense claims for the use of hand guns are very weak. SYG and other arguments are based on the fallaceous assumption that shooting someone else is the only, or best way of preventing serious harm to yourself. That is simply wrong, except in very rare situations. As I have pointed out before, owning a hand gun actually increases, not reduces, you risk of being murdered.

There are numerous alternatives to using a hand gun in self defense. As I pointed out before, I have been physically threatened three times as an adult. Twice I talked my way out, and the third time I called for help. I have two methods of protecting my home, against unwanted intruders.
1. I have a very loud burglar alarm installed. I have three remote controls for this alarm, strategically placed around the house. In the event of a threat, my wife or myself grabs the nearest and presses the alarm button, and all hell lets loose. Screaming and wailing alarms at 130 decibels, which are obvious up to a kilometre away, plus flashing lights. No home intruder is going to hang around!
2. Our house is secure when locked. We have a lot of glass, since we have a great view. But that glass is armorplate, and double glazed. It cannot be broken except using "extraordinary" measures. Our locks are all deadbolts, not latches. Our windows are all fitted with burglar proof latches to hold them open enough for ventilation, but not open enough for a person to get in.

Other self defense measures include
. Giving in. Like handing over a wallet.
. Running away.
. Talking or bluffing our way out.
. Screaming for help.
. Having and using a non lethal device like a taser, pepper spray, or a portable audio alarm. The latter is actually extremely effective, and screams so loudly that no one nearby can stay there without blocking both ears. They are also cheap and small and light - very portable.

The occasions when a hand gun and lethal action is required are so rare that not having a hand gun substantially increases your chances of surviving a threat.

Bullshit. And while your self defense suggestions are all perfectly valid, they are no substitute for a handgun when you need one because if you need one nothing else will do.

It's up to the individual to decide which tactics and tools to use in protecting themselves and their families, not you, and not government. They are held responsible for those decisions by the law so they demonstrably are very careful about using deadly force, some eleven times LESS likely to actually use deadly force when it's legally permissible than police officers in fact, according to the FBI.

The mere possession of a handgun does not, as you constantly imply, mean that one is obliged, compelled or even likely to use deadly force in every situation.

[Seth]

To Laklak
A system that kills its user is not the best. Hand gun owners die from murder at a rate 2 to 4 times as high as non hand gun users. So a system that does not involve hand guns is actually the best.

That's your opinion, which you have no call to impose on anyone else. If what you say is true (which it's not) it's a personal risk that the individual gets to assess and accept, it may not be imposed upon him on the notion that's what's "good for him."