Can you use a gun for self defense?
Yes
63.2% (357)
63.2% (357)
No
26.5% (150)
26.5% (150)
other
9.9% (56)
9.9% (56)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Let's settle something right now, can you defend yourself with a gun?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

Can a person use a gun for self defense? Of course, almost anything can be used for self defense.
Could I personally? Maybe, I have never actually used a real gun before so I do not know.

Generally? Yes, of course you can. We wouldn't have bothered developing the things any further than the musket stage otherwise.

More specifically? Depends on the situation. Can be yes, can be "sorta", can be "no, of course not". You're not going to be much good against someone wrestling you, or sniping, or using something more heavyweight (from watercannon thru mobile armour to bombs/mines/mortars to missiles and satellite weaponry, an assailant wearing actually worthwhile armour, or using more futuristic things like sonic or EM blasters)...

Personally? No. Haven't access to any, don't care to get access to one, would be useless at shooting it anyway despite some already overdeveloped wrist muscles O_O;

Absolutely, and anyone who says otherwise has absolutely no concept of reality. 90% of the time (this is a rough estimate, not a hard statistic) in cases in which guns are used for defense, a gun merely being produced by the would-be victim is enough to prevent the crime - most criminals would rather flee to find another victim than risk getting shot. Of the remaining ten percent in which the gun is actually fired, it's pretty rare for the criminal to actually be killed in the process. Either because the person with the gun fired into the air, or because the rounds simply didn't kill the perpetrator. There was a story of a woman a few weeks ago who shot an intruder in the head and chest multiple times, and the intruder survived - needless to say, though, any sort of attack was prevented.

EDIT: Could I personally? Probably. I've been shooting plenty of times, and I'm generally pretty cool-headed under pressure, so I think I'd do just fine in such a situation. I also live in Florida, which is pretty much the capital of you-break-into-my-house-I-can-legally-shoot-you-dead, so I doubt there would be much legal trouble.

Xan Krieger:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.

My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.

Live in Finland, gotta keep our guns locked up, it's the law over here. Those two things bring up multiple problems for defending ones home... First, to be able to reach the locker where the guns are and unlock it before whoever broke in gets to you, secondly, even if you could do that, shooting them would get you into more trouble than it's worth. Fines, jail, the criminals got more rights than the victim it would seem.

Although while I think Finland is great, laws about defending oneself are fucked up. One guy who was attacked by two guys, two guys who didn't count on bumping into a martial arts expert, the guy defended himself because he could. What happened was, he knocked one guy completely out, while giving the other guy a good beating, but because our fine government thought he used "excessive force", he got himself 2 years in jail.

Yup, that's the Finnish government for ya, hardcore murderers can get life, but that means about 15 years. That's the problem, too nice to the criminals and to harsh on innocent people.

Yes I can, and I will if necessary.

Never had to do it, don't anticipate that I ever will.. but should the need ever arise that (for instance) a burglar enters my property with uncertain intent, then I will hold him at gunpoint if possible. If he attempts violence against me, lunges forward, or goes towards any of my family present in my home with me, then I will most likely shoot to kill. I don't care if he is armed or not.

Many countries don't allow this, and I don't care if you think you're more civilized for doing so. I think it's quite sad. These people are more than willing to wait for an "officer of the law" to come and kill the intruder for them, as the case may be. Good luck waiting that 20 minutes, though.

I can defend myself with a carrot, should so be the case. That's not what the debate is about. The person who claimed one could not means that before you have time to draw it, it will be too late.
I disagree, but I just posted for the clarification.

Xan Krieger:

Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.

The castle doctrine isn't in every state, much less every country. It applies in Ohio, where I live, but not everywhere so be careful if you move.

As for if you can I'm not sure if you mean physically or legally. If physically, its incredibly dependent on distance. Within a certain range someone with a knife will be quicker on average, outside that range someone with a gun will. I cannot recall the range unfortunately. I've seen a study done on it in a stats class a while ago, though I don't know where to find it.

Legally is iffy. It might be considered unequal force which would make it illegal in some places.

Guns can be used for self defense, the thing that's going on here in the US at the moment is whether or not it's needed to defend your home with an assault weapon or military grade hardware. Personally I think you don't need a assault rifle or anything like that. In fact you don't need a weapon bigger than a pistol. Even a small revolver will still kill a man, it's not like if it's a small gun the bullets will bounce off. Assault weapons just aren't needed.

BleedingPride:
it's not like if it's a small gun the bullets will bounce off.

Actually, you'd be surprised.

.22 ammo fired from a pistol...not the most reliable pentration...

I suppose in theory, you could deflect a bullet if you held you gun in its path. So yes, you can totally use a gun in self defence! So long as you also have superhuman reflexes...

Yes, of course you can.

Though UK law is very grey on home defense.

Personally I have a small axe for self defence in my home, it's hanging on the wall above my bed....

Edit: You should illegalise guns and train everyone in the use of a cricket bat for self defence. Baseball bats are one thing, but a cricket bat means fucking business.

I would have said "yes, if the other person has a gun" but i realzie that would just lead into a spiral of paranoid people just buying guns, so i have to say "only under strenious circumstances". in other words, only when you are 100% certain the other person has a gun and intends on using it to kill you and other people. In any other circumstance just talk them down, or if you're ballsy enough try to disarm them.

Yes, but it would be illegal in my country unless the criminal was also armed AND if he fired first (also known as the Greedo law).

SanAndreasSmoke:
Second shell is rock salt (This'll slightly annoy the criminal, but likely won't kill him.)

Here, I fixed it. Try bird shot, it will annoy him even more.

Here's what I think - a gun's not going to protect you in a public space and therefore wouldn't protect you from muggers or prevent mass shootings unless you have it on your person. Now maybe it's because I don't live in an area with a lot of gun owners but I think it'd be weird and even suspicious to see an average person walking around with gun.

As for in your home, sure, why not. The exception of course is if you live with children, whether they be relatives, your own, or siblings. If you have a family I can understand wanting to protect them, but it's also important to keep guns out of their reach, so a shoebox on the top shelf in your closet or under your bed isn't going to cut it. I've heard that people will keep their guns in a safe somewhere, but in that case if someone breaks into your house, it seems unwieldy to have to open a safe.

Probably not for a few reasons
The first being it would be illegal for me to own one.
The second being I have never even seen one let alone fired one.
The third being even if I did I would probably get injured from the recoil what with being fairly weak even for my age.
And even if all of those weren't factors I'd probably be unable to fire it to defend myself because I'd be hiding in a bathroom.

I'm confused. Are you asking if it's legal, or if my life was threatened and I so happened to have a gun would I be able to use it to defend myself?

For the first, in the U.S. it is legal to use lethal force if you feel that you or yours life is in danger (such as a break in or a mugging), but it is possible to face jail time if it was within the realm of possibility to not kill your attacker while defending yourself(such as if you're a master of non-lethally subduing a person). If someone breaks into your home, it is well within your right to defend it and yourself.

As for the second, that's a bit iffy. While I have fired a few different types of guns before, I am hardly proficient at using one. My accuracy is shit, it's very hard for me to reduce recoil, and I probably can't reload a gun. I'm better off using a bat or a knife.

Yes, the problem is can you defend yourself with a gun if your defending yourself against someone else with a gun because every other frikkin person has a gun?

Lopende Paddo:
Yes, the problem is can you defend yourself with a gun if your defending yourself against someone else with a gun because every other frikkin person has a gun?

Gives you much better odds.

The correct question is - can you defend yourself without a gun, when your attacker is one of the only people who has one?

Xan Krieger:
There's been this discussion in the Religion and Politics section of the forum and it concerns this. Can you use a gun to defend yourself? At least one person claimed it's a myth and that it never happens.

My take on it? Yeah you can, to take it a bit further you can also defend your home with one. The person I argued with said it never ever happens, he also said that if someone breaks into your home that you can't shoot them. Where I live if someone breaks into your house that is your castle and they just breached the walls so you can defend your property.

It varies with where you are and how liberal your state is. In general the more left wing your area, and the longer it's been that way, the tighter the gun laws, and the less latitude that you have for self defense.

In a general sense though someone breaks into your house you have the right to stand your ground, and defend yourself.

In some states however there is actually legislation that says that both men in a confrontation are under an obligation to flee, and only defend themselves if chased down or cornered. So if someone breaks into your house you legally have to flee and call the police. This kind of legislation coming about mostly from domestic disputes, bar brawls, and other things, to render the entire question of "who threw the first punch" and things like that irrelevent, and enable the police to arrest both people. Like most well intentioned laws it simply changed due to precedence.

In most of the saner states and areas it all comes down to something called a "Continuum Of Force" or something with a similar name. While the specifics vary the basic tenet is to have violent behavior ranked in levels of severity. When attacked you can go one level higher than the person attacking you. "Equal Force" isn't usually the reality of the situation anymore, it's either usually "run" or "one step higher". The basic idea is that your able to do what is needed in order to protect yourself, meeting someone with equal force is rolling the dice and not effective defense. In most cases this "Continuum Of Force" includes things like facing multiple opponents, relative (visible) athletic abillity, combat abillity (or perceived combat abillity) and other factors. So basically if some guy attacks you bare handed you could go one step higher and for the sake of simplification let's say you could use a weapon like mace, a baton, or other low end self defense methods that are a bit better than "barehanded". If the situation increases like say multiple barehanded guys, you can use increasing levels of force like more generally lethal weapons like say baseball bats, tire irons, etc... When you get to cases with armed opponents or those you can perceive to be combat trained (ie claiming military or combat experience, or even wearing a martial-arts T-shirt or insignia) it can rapidly escalate. While it rarely happens (for obvious reasons) if say 10 muscular guys came walking out of a Kung-fu school wearing school T-shirts and attacked you, you'd probably be justified to let loose on them with a 12 gauge as they advanced.

This changes a bit for police officers and *sometimes* security, being expected to intervene and control situations as opposed to just defend themselves they can go 2 or sometimes more steps higher, but are also subjected to much higher standards of review, public backlash, etc. What's allowed by law (which might not matter in court depending on how a hearing goes) doesn't nessicarly match what is allowed by administrative policy. This can lead to cases where you might have a cop do something ultra-violent and get kicked off the force due to public backlash, but not go to jail because they technically didn't violate the law, but departmental policy. It can be highly situational. In some cases security operates on a similar level by acting as a "representitive of the property owner", which comes down to what rights a property owner has (through zoning, agreements, etc...) in a given area. There have been increasing efforts to regulate private security through "Guard Cards" in some areas for this reason. Back when Foxwoods first opened down here they required security to get a State Key (which later changed) by agreement with the state. But then again in theory (though not anywhere close to practice) Casino Security for the tribal casinos can pretty much do anything the tribe tells them they can.

More on the subject I will say that the media tends to be interested mostly in what's sensational and also has a definite political agenda. "Guy shoots attacker in self defense" generally isn't sensational enough to get national headlines, at best state and local. Not to mention people in situations like this generally don't want to broadcast it. Right now, the media seems to be in full left-wing furor in supporting Obama's gun control policy, they are generally only covering situations that would make people want to be anti-gun, as opposed to stories that might sway person in a pro-gun direction, which have always been few and far between. When something like that is covered it's rarely given much time or attention. If you go by the mainstream media I guess I can't blame people for thinking that self-defense with guns doesn't happen.

Truthfully if you want to hear some self-defense stories about guns, you'd need to go to the pro-gun sites and organizations which are under fire. The NRA is big on having members tell their true stories about how "if it wasn't for having a gun, I'd be dead right now" or how they protected their families or whatever. They also sell and distribute videos teaching tactics for practical home defense with a firearm (setting up ambush locations, how to shoot through a doorway, what works for cover and what doesn't) which have been compiled based on real incidents over a period of time. The guys talking about this stuff haven't been arrested for it, having been involved in "good shoots" so to speak. It all comes down to who you want to listen to. The NRA isn't such a powerful group because they are a bunch of redneck psychopaths on the fringes of society.

Never used a real gun in my life. But I recon I could use it decently if the the situation required it, just don't ask me to hit anything far away.

Sadly, here in Sweden, not only are guns outlawed unless you have a hunting license (only cover certain weapons though) but you would also get sued out of your ass if you act in defense of your own property.

"What's that poor burglar man? Did the bad man hit you with a baseball bat a couple of times? Of course you will be richly compensated!" At times, it's more retarded than the stuff people in the USA are getting sued for.

Alcamonic:
Never used a real gun in my life. But I recon I could use it decently if the the situation required it, just don't ask me to hit anything far away.

Sadly, here in Sweden, not only are guns outlawed unless you have a hunting license (only cover certain weapons though) but you would also get sued out of your ass if you act in defense of your own property.

"What's that poor burglar man? Did the bad man hit you with a baseball bat a couple of times? Of course you will be richly compensated!" At times, it's more retarded than the stuff people in the USA are getting sued for.

sadly, we have had a few incidents worse than this. None recent though as far as I remember. One time a person broke into someones home, tripped over somethingand broke a bone. Not only did he get away with breaking and entering, but he successfully sued the victims. Thankfully these are extremely rare and usually require using an -ism card to even get off the ground.

And of course from personal experience, i know that some retail stores wont even try to stop shoplifters because they are too afraid of lawsuits, and in fact have fired employees who caught shoplifters and even had video evidence.

If I had a gun for the purpose of self-defense I would get rubber bullets.
Less-than-lethal at least is a conscientious choice, and indicates a mind not set on murder.

In theory, yes
In practice, we'll see

I took my class for my concealed carry permit in November, and while out on the range I was able to hit a normal target. Not in the red zone mind you, but I never missed the yellow circle (I'm fairly certain most of my shots were on the closest ring to the bullseye.)

We also did one drill where we were put into a hostage situation (The instructor covered all but a small portion of the targets head) And I hit the target I needed to 5/6 shots. That 6th shot would have grazed the hostages head, but wouldn't have been lethal by any means.

However that's all target shooting. I would assume that in a real situation I would be shaking, and whatnot, but I'm certain I could hit my target.

Also, I would probably have a shotgun around the house because, I'll tell you something; someone breaks into your house and hears that "Cha-chick" they're either very ballsy or very stupid if they don't run.

BleedingPride:
Guns can be used for self defense, the thing that's going on here in the US at the moment is whether or not it's needed to defend your home with an assault weapon or military grade hardware. Personally I think you don't need a assault rifle or anything like that. In fact you don't need a weapon bigger than a pistol. Even a small revolver will still kill a man, it's not like if it's a small gun the bullets will bounce off. Assault weapons just aren't needed.

You are aware that 75% of gun caused deaths is from handguns. Semi-Automatic intermediate cartridge rifles (such as the AR-15) account for 3%.

Major_Tom:
Yes, but it would be illegal in my country unless the criminal was also armed AND if he fired first (also known as the Greedo law).

SanAndreasSmoke:
Second shell is rock salt (This'll slightly annoy the criminal, but likely won't kill him.)

Here, I fixed it. Try bird shot, it will annoy him even more.

No, the rock salt won't inflict major damage, but the chunks that break skin are going to burn like hell, something the cut-out targets can't personify. And if we're assuming the shots are going to be fired upon an intruder in your own home, 12 feet is a pretty reasonable distance to be firing. Anyway, even if he can take the pain, I don't really mind how pissed he gets - the next move he makes could very well be his last if he's not careful.

Perhaps I would skip the rock salt if I used a shotgun myself, but it seems like a fair concept either way.

Katatori-kun:
I suppose in a more philosophical sense, no, you can't. A gun can only ever be an offensive weapon, never a defensive.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. That's philosophical I guess. Now I'm not saying go murder random people on the off chance they were going to try to murder you instead or something but sometimes when your in a position were you're in danger the best chance you have is to find the most powerful weapon you can get to (lets say a gun) and go right on the offensive.

So yes, a gun can be used as a defense in both literal and philosophical terms.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked