EPTHow much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal?
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal? Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off. And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time. Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness. | ||
|
Rhino85
United States90 Posts
The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:34 Rhino85 wrote: The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him. Definitely a prime candidate for getting shot to death. It would certainly have been justifiable homicide video or not. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:34 Rhino85 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfFd4mlf5RQ The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him. Being run over by a car would deter him. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:14 TALegion wrote: Can someone explain to me what's wrong with non-lethal self defense? Like tazers (I know that they can kill, but they aren't supposed to), pepper spray, those metal rods, etc. How much of a self defense is it really when the tool you're using is literally designed to be lethal? How is a taser going to be effective versus a crazy man wielding a handgun? I've yet to see anyone describe how they would get guns out of the hands of criminals. Every crack head, drug dealer, and thief are all armed with handguns. And they sure as hell ain't going to give them up because the law says so. As it is it's illegal for criminals to have guns and with very stiff penalties they still don't care. What's the next step for possessing a illegal fire arm? Death? Life in prison? | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: Well, short ranges, less effectiveness, and where a gunshot that doesn't kill someone is still likely to take the fight out of them, those options will all just piss someone off. And an untrained, 5'2, 100 pound individual with any of those is still going to be straight fucked if two people twice their size come after them. Reload the tazer between shots? Yeah sure. You'll have time. Pepper spray to the chest will have minimal effect, environmental conditions can limit it's effectiveness. I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size  . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing). Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them). | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote: I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing). Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them). It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote: It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence. During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:51 radscorpion9 wrote: I think you're taking the extreme situations as all of the possible situations though. Not every mugging is going to come in the form of two people twice their size . I think it would greatly aid people. Maybe not in all situations, where it would be obviously impractical. But its better than nothing!I'm not sure if you're arguing that they're ineffective; but he did say "what's wrong with it" implying that to have non-lethal means of defense is a bad thing (not an ineffective thing). Incidentally I really like the idea. I think taser guns should be developed even further [their ranges improved, maybe have a taser with multiple barrels, this all concurrent with advances in storage capacity so you don't lug around a heavy battery (capacitor?)], and maybe some fine tuning of how the voltage is applied (because some people can die from them). Well, I'm of the mindset that self defense is generally an extreme situation. Also, if it's demonstrably less effective, which all of those are, then they're worse options. I certainly wouldn't want a baton or pepper spray against someone with say, a knife or baseball bat, potentially bigger than me. And I'm well above average in training. I'd do what I had to, but the reality is, it's less effective and equally selective; that is, with a handgun, I can hit my target. I'm not talking about a hand grenade, where there's a guarantee of heavy collateral damage as an alternative to a can of pepper spray. If we assume that the most likely targets for random crimes and violence are likely to be the easier prey, we can also safely assume that they're going to be the small, the weak, the old, and handing them a baton would be a joke. On December 18 2012 07:53 heliusx wrote: It would be a much better situation then everyone having guns thats for sure. Unfortunately tasers weren't invented until well after guns were everywhere in america. So defending yourself against people with guns using a taser is a death sentence. Ridiculous. If you could get to a gun and fire it, you could get to a taser and fire it. At that point, it comes down to the factors I mentioned. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/ | ||
|
Agathon
France1505 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:34 Rhino85 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfFd4mlf5RQ The reason I carry? Because people like this really do exist and I'm not about to bet my life that I can disarm his crowbar or that pepper spray would deter him. Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community? | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:57 Reaps wrote: During reading this thread i try so hard to not stereotype, but damn dont people like you make it hard lol. During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:01 Agathon wrote: Leaving in fear is your choice. What about your community? Half the households in a country have at least 1 firearm, it's not because most live in fear. Stereotyping is not the way to go about this issue, nor any other issue. It would be unfair to say that most women who get an abortion are murderers and deserve to go to hell, or that pot smokers are low-life losers or hippies. It's just not the case. It is a liberty issue that everyone should be concerned about, liberal or conservative. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 07:31 JingleHell wrote: Ridiculous. If you could get to a gun and fire it, you could get to a taser and fire it. At that point, it comes down to the factors I mentioned. Ridiculous? If you honestly believe a taser puts you on equal footing with a guy with a handgun you obviously don't have as much "combat training" as you keep claiming. Theres a damn good reason you won't see any cops tasing someone in a firefight. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:04 heliusx wrote: During my time reading this thread all I've seen from you is no content one liners insulting anyone you disagree with. If you have nothing to add don't post? Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8281 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:06 heliusx wrote: Ridiculous? If you honestly believe a taser puts you on equal footing with a guy with a handgun you obviously don't have as much "combat training" as you keep claiming. Theres a damn good reason you won't see any cops tasing someone in a firefight. What happened to the last 248 pages of this thread? Haven't you guys read anything? With proper gun control, the criminal is much less likely to have a gun in the first place, in which case a tazer or pepperspray is going to do wonders (And if anyone is in doubt, pepper spray to the eyes or a tazer shot WILL stop a criminal. Theres no "maybe" about it, despite what Hollywood depicts). If the criminal you're facing already has a gun on you, you owning a gun for self defense isn't going to help in any case. Most of the time it will only help to increase the chance of you yourself getting shot. Its been proven so many times (and we already went through this the last 20 pages), owning a gun for self defense only increases the chances of you getting shot. Its an illusion! | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:06 heliusx wrote: Ridiculous? If you honestly believe a taser puts you on equal footing with a guy with a handgun you obviously don't have as much "combat training" as you keep claiming. Theres a damn good reason you won't see any cops tasing someone in a firefight. No, that's where the capacity for multiple shots comes into question. However, are we talking about a firefight, or a self defense situation? In a self defense situation, where collateral damage should be avoided, selective firing is critical, rather than just unloading. At that point, if you can get the taser and shoot the target, you could also have gotten a gun and shot them. So, you're just down to that inefficiency of reloading that I mentioned recently, which utterly negates your entire theoretical point and ad hom. Now, in a firefight, yeah, a taser is shit. But the reason cops don't fuck around with non-lethal against lethal is because non-lethal alternatives are less efficient, which was what I had already said. I never even remotely said "equal footing", or even what you're using it interchangeably with, which is "equal capacity for causing death". If, as was suggested as a hypothetical, a taser could be upgraded to be similar in weight, size, firing speed, and reliability as a handgun, you would be on equal footing for self defense, unless you actually expect those situations to turn into some hollywood style protracted gun battle. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 18 2012 08:10 Reaps wrote: Then you have read none of my posts. However i did stop posting all together, main reason being people like you who have openly admitted owning several guns, of course you dont want the laws to change, you want to keep your guns lol. Bias at its finest, hence why there is no point argueing with you. You bring nothing but incorrect information to try and justify yourself. Own several guns? Nope, never said anything about how many guns I own. Against tightening gun laws? Again false, I discussed with a few people yesterday on my opinions on gun regulations that are too lax. Biased? Not exactly, I'm just much more aware of the actual situation here, it's based on living in this country for over 2 decades. Whats your views of the situation based on? What other people tell you in the media? I bring incorrect information? Please quote ONE THING I posted that is incorrect. You're either mistaking me for someone else or making up my opinions and stances in your head. | ||
| ||
