Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[Blind groper]

A hand gun will more likely wound a bear than kill it, which leaves you with an enraged bear. With a grizzly, if the bear spray does not do the trick, you are better off playing dead. According to the US Forest Service, that tactic has a higher survival rate than using a hand gun.

[JimC]

In the US it is legally valid to apply lethal force via firearm to a physical threat or domicile intrusion.

We know that...

We are arguing that it is a bad law (as do many home-grown Americans), or at least that countries without such absurd laws have considerably less avoidable deaths in comparison...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd much rather be a nut than an impotent lamb.
You know what? That is MY choice to make regardless.

Shame those are the only two options.

[rainbow]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.

Why don't you just let the bear go on doing bear things?
You are the one invading their territory.

[Kristie]

I'd much rather be a nut than an impotent lamb.
You know what? That is MY choice to make regardless.

Shame those are the only two options.

I know, right?! It's either yes or no, love it or hate it, black or white, all or none! There can be no middle ground!

[Seth]

Whoops! Paradigm shift!

Looks like fighting back is actually the best way to survive a mass shooting, and what better tool to fight back with than a firearm?

Crime
Can Average Citizens Really Save Lives in Active-Shooter Situations? Here’s What Experts Found
Apr. 8, 2013 8:39am Billy Hallowell


Can Average Citizens Really Save Lives in Active Shooter Situations?

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Should citizens defend themselves or remain passive during active shooter situations?

This is a controversial query that has been asked and revisited in light of recent mass shootings. And the question also spawned nation-wide discussion, once again, after a video being touted by law enforcement agencies across the country emerged earlier this year.

The clip, entitled, “Run. Hide. Fight,” features a reenactment of an emergency situation and tips for decisive action. Originally produced by the Houston Police Department, the video showed victims actively engaging and fighting against a fictional perpetrator.

And following the clip’s media coverage, it seems some research has emerged that does corroborate the notion that victims can help save lives by thwarting assailants. On Saturday, The New York Times published a report about this very issue, highlighting that some researchers and police, in the wake of recent mass shootings, are encouraging more active involvement from citizens.

Chuck Wexler, executive director of Police Executive Research Forum, told the outlet that there has been a paradigm shift. He said that the “don’t get involved, call 911″ advice is no longer pertinent, with “active shooter” situations requiring Americans to defend themselves — and the lives of others.

The transformation hasn’t only impacted citizen involvement. Police, too, are using more hard-hitting tactics. In an effort to save additional lives, rather than waiting for backup, first responders now go in and attempt to defuse dangerous situations. Considering the death tolls seen in recent mass shootings, there simply isn’t time to wait for SWAT teams and other backup forces to arrive at crime scenes.

Here’s how the Times frames recent research that backs both citizen involvement and swifter police action:

Research on mass shootings over the last decade has bolstered the idea that people at the scene of an attack have a better chance of survival if they take an active stance rather than waiting to be rescued by the police, who in many cases cannot get there fast enough to prevent the loss of life.

In an analysis of 84 such shooting cases in the United States from 2000 to 2010, for example, researchers at Texas State University found that the average time it took for the police to respond was three minutes.

“But you see that about half the attacks are over before the police get there, even when they arrive quickly,” said J. Pete Blair, director for research of the university’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center and an author of the research, which is set to be published in a book this year.

In the absence of a police presence, how victims responded often made the difference between life and death, Dr. Blair said.

In 16 of the attacks studied, researches came to some intriguing findings: civilians played a key role in stopping the attacker in those cases. In three of the cases they shot the attacker, while in the other 13 instances they subdued him in some other manner.

“In other attacks, civilians have obstructed or delayed the gunman until the police arrived,” the Times goes on to say.

In short, the suggestion is that taking an active role instead of a passive one during an attack has saved lives.

Perhaps the most striking part of the research findings came when Dr. Blair and his associates studied survival rates at Virginia Tech. While in two classrooms students and teachers tried to hide or play dead after the killer entered the room, most of these individuals were killed.

But in a third classroom where professor and Holocaust survivor Liviu Librescu told students to jump from the second story window as he held the door to keep the shooter out, those in the room fared much better. The professor perished, but many survived. And in yet another classroom where a desk was placed against the door, every person lived.

“The take-home message is that you’re not helpless and the actions you take matter,” Dr. Blair told the Times. “You can help yourself and certainly buy time for the police to get there.”

So, it seems conventional wisdom has changed, with experts telling average citizens to learn the skills needed to defend themselves in the event of an emergency situation. Read the entire Times report here.

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section. By the way, here’s the aforementioned video encouraging people to fight back, entitled, “Run. Hide. Fight”:

[Seth]

Killing humans IS a "practical" reason. Else why would security, LE and military have them?

Police and military OK.
Civilians no.

Reason? 8,000 murdered people each year with hand guns. Only in the USA does this happen. No other western advanced nation.

Horseshit. Up to 2.5 million people per year NOT victimized by criminals because they DO have firearms.

[FBM]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.

Why don't you just let the bear go on doing bear things?
You are the one invading their territory.

This small planet is everyone's territory. I wouldn't shoot a bear if it wandered by my house. If his instincts tell him to eat me, though, then I'm going to do whatever I can do to survive. In Tennessee, it's not unusual for a bear to walk through your yard. If you want to roll over and get eaten, go ahead.

[Coito ergo sum]

To Coito

No serious hunter uses a hand gun. By serious, I mean someone who is not out for 'sport' but to get meat. Even the very best hunting hand gun is inferior to a good rifle.

Bollocks -- handguns are used for hunting deer and wild hogs all the time.

As far as target shooting for sport is concerned, you do not need to own a weapon of murder. There are pistol clubs and shooting ranges that keep the hand guns on site, in a very serious safe, and rent them to their members, for a low fee. There are also air pistols that are not lethal to humans, but totally suitable for shooting targets.

I suppose one could do that if one wants to. Or, one can shoot on one's own property. A lot of people here in the US live on big pieces of property.

Self defense, as I have pointed out repeatedly, with a hand gun is an illusion. It is an illusion, because owning a hand gun does not make your family safer.

Sure it does. You can shoot an aggressor.

It actually increases the risk of a member of the family being killed, as very clear cut statistics show. For example, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, having a hand gun in the house, and readily available (not in a safe) increases the risk of a member of the family successfully committing suicide by ten fold.

Oh, you want to ban handguns as a means of suicide prevention?

Seth will, doubtless go callous on this and say that a suicide does not matter. But if it was his child who picked up his gun and shot him/herself, he would change his idiot tune very quickly.

Doesn't it depend on whether the rate of suicide would change by virtue of the absence of a gun? I.e. -- if suicides are just using other means, then what is the advantage of banning guns?

Telling a truth about gender difference is not sexist.

You assume it's the truth. You have no evidence for the differences that you've claimed. Saying women have mammary glands and vaginas is a demonstrable gender difference. Saying that women are not as interested in power as men is something you need to demonstrate, if you can.

If I say most males have stronger biceps than most females, that is simply true, not sexist. By saying that being a gun nutter is more characteristic of males than females, that is also simply true, not sexist. With a few exceptions, of course.

It's impossible to address this kind of statement from you, because of the shell game you play with the meaning of the term "gun nutter." I suspect you mean "gun owner" as equivalent to "gun nutter" here. Many, many women own guns for protection. That's why a gun is called the "great equalizer." It allows someone who has smaller biceps to defend herself from someone with bigger biceps. That might explain why in England they may have fewer gun crimes, but they have more assault and other violent crimes.

[Seth]

And you know this how, exactly? Another of your alimentary inspections gone bad?

Simple statistics. From the surveys on gun ownership, it turns out that there are roughly 3 gun owners who are male for every one who is female.

Show your work.

[Seth]

A hand gun will more likely wound a bear than kill it, which leaves you with an enraged bear. With a grizzly, if the bear spray does not do the trick, you are better off playing dead. According to the US Forest Service, that tactic has a higher survival rate than using a hand gun.

And yet forest rangers carry handguns. Go figure.

Guns are just one more tool in the toolbox for survival. Bear spray is good, but it's not infallible, particularly when the wind is blowing in your face. In that case the bear gets "Tex-Mex" flavored lunch.

[Coito ergo sum]

One of the problems with this bullshit is that you folks define anyone who owns a gun as a "gun owning and gun totin' nut case."

I define a gun nutter as anyone who owns a gun that has no value beyond shooting other humans. A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun who genuinely uses it to put food on the table does not fit under that definition. A person, though, who owns a hand gun for 'self defense' has a gun for killing other humans. That is : he/she is a gun nutter.

What sorts of guns are these? Almost all guns sold commercially can be used for hunting, even handguns. http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... -ever-made

Handguns can are used for hunting, and self defense doesn't make one a nutter. Some neighborhoods are dangerous, and police response times can be insufficient. Retired police officers often keep their handguns.

Some people also use guns for sport shooting, like skeet, trap and whatnot, target shooting.

Rather disingenuous...

Sure, there will be a small number of exceptions, but BG's point is about people who own hand-guns where the primary reason for owning them is self-defence - a very American phenomenon... (I would also include semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines...)

So, most anti-gun people here are not including guns owned for hunting, skeet shooting or competitive gun sports, all of which (given safe storage) are perfectly legitimate reasons.

And personally, I would restrict the use of the word "gun nut" to those who go on and on about their selfish "rights", and cheer from the sidelines when a householder guns down an unarmed intruder...

Disingenuous? Not at all. Accurate.

And, I guess the main difference is that I don't see "owning a gun for self defense" as "nutty" or an "illegitimate reason."

I'm shopping around for one now. I was looking for a long gun, but from everything I've learned so far, defense is better with a handgun. I'm the farthest thing from a gun-nut. I've never owned one before in my life. I've never been afraid of them. I don't act like some the pants-wetters we hear talking about this issue, and throw emotional tantrums over the issue.

[Seth]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.

Why don't you just let the bear go on doing bear things?
You are the one invading their territory.

If I'm in it, it's MY territory and every other living creature better not piss me off. I'm the apex predator of the planet, so I get to go where I want, when I want and do what I want...and eat anything I want. Bears can do bear things all they like...except challenge me for apex predator status, in which case I'm going to eat them. It's just that simple.

Adapt or die.

[aspire1670]

One of the problems with this bullshit is that you folks define anyone who owns a gun as a "gun owning and gun totin' nut case."

I define a gun nutter as anyone who owns a gun that has no value beyond shooting other humans. A person with a hunting rifle or shotgun who genuinely uses it to put food on the table does not fit under that definition. A person, though, who owns a hand gun for 'self defense' has a gun for killing other humans. That is : he/she is a gun nutter.

What sorts of guns are these? Almost all guns sold commercially can be used for hunting, even handguns. http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... -ever-made

Handguns can are used for hunting, and self defense doesn't make one a nutter. Some neighborhoods are dangerous, and police response times can be insufficient. Retired police officers often keep their handguns.

Some people also use guns for sport shooting, like skeet, trap and whatnot, target shooting.

Rather disingenuous...

Sure, there will be a small number of exceptions, but BG's point is about people who own hand-guns where the primary reason for owning them is self-defence - a very American phenomenon... (I would also include semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines...)

So, most anti-gun people here are not including guns owned for hunting, skeet shooting or competitive gun sports, all of which (given safe storage) are perfectly legitimate reasons.

And personally, I would restrict the use of the word "gun nut" to those who go on and on about their selfish "rights", and cheer from the sidelines when a householder guns down an unarmed intruder...

I don't act like some the pants-wetters we hear talking about this issue, and throw emotional tantrums over the issue.

LOL at the cognitive dissonance.

[rainbow]

If I encountered a bear again, I'd like to have spray to start with, and if that didn't work I'd rather have a .44 to try, rather than nothing.

Why don't you just let the bear go on doing bear things?
You are the one invading their territory.

If I'm in it, it's MY territory and every other living creature better not piss me off. I'm the apex predator of the planet, so I get to go where I want, when I want and do what I want...and eat anything I want. Bears can do bear things all they like...except challenge me for apex predator status, in which case I'm going to eat them. It's just that simple.

Adapt or die.

Fair enough. I hope the bear wins.