View Single Post
      08-28-2015, 06:28 PM   #67
Major General
tony20009's Avatar

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by lowbudgethero View Post
most of these assumptions are false , it was on mythbusters

people don't drop what they are doing when shot in a minor area, most likely they could continue their assault temporarily even if lethally shot center mass

if someone unarmed is stronger than you within 20ft you're going to be screwed unless you're armed

a more reasonable approach would be taser, and even then you have 1 shot and it has to pierce though clothing and its effect is temporary
Interesting video. I think it certainly points to the plausibility of 20 feet being too close. I'm certain it speaks to 20 feet being too close for an untrained/unprepared person. The lack of combat training is one of the points I raised with regard to citizen uses of guns.

What is or isn't too close or not, however, isn't the key point I've been making, even though I'll readily agree there there can come a point in which the the "fight" shifts from one in which either or both parties have options to neither having any but one.

That said, re: the "need to defend oneself" scenarios, all of them are nonetheless situations that happen for 3% of the population, assuming all of those people have these events occur at such close proximity. What happens to 3% of a population of 310M+ people can in no way logically militate for 100M people having guns "just in case." Gun advocates like to shift the discussion to "rates of criminal activity."

Well, criminal activity is deplorable, and I'd like to see less of it, but what I have been writing about is "rates of deaths from guns." I have not advocated for an outright ban on guns, largely because I have no interest in arguing over the language and Founders' intent re: the 2nd Amendment. All the same, while I am aware that non-homicide crime is lower when folks own guns, I also know that homicides are more when folks own guns. (

Those two realities present a dilemma and force me to ask myself, "Do I seek first to lower general crime or do I seek first to save lives?" Insofar as most non-homicidal crime is about property, I'm going to argue for preserving the lives of living, walking, talking, breathing human beings.

Interestingly, Mythbusters didn't show the effectiveness of simply fleeing. Of course, that wasn't the point of the test, so I understand why they didn't try that. Another tactic they didn't explore (again because it wasn't within the scope of the test) is the idea of using the gun itself to aid in parrying the knife attack.

You are the first person who has even mentioned a tazer. I appreciate and applaud that you've done so. Throughout the discussion, I thought, "Why has not one gun advocate even ventured the remotest possibility of using something like a tazer?" That you mentioned it at least suggests that you recognize there are effective alternatives to lethal force.

That's a very different stance from that most gun advocates take. Overwhelmingly, gun advocates seem focused not so much on self defense, but on whether they can use a gun, rather than anything else, to that end.

A tazer does need to penetrate clothing, but then when was the last time you wore two solid inches of clothing? ( Are tazers beatable? Yes they are, but then so are bullets. Body armor may render either ineffective, but maybe it won't either? (

Let me offer a parting thought about just how childishly ridiculous is this "just in case" argument for why people need to have a lethal force option, namely guns, for self defense.

Logical Perspective:

Knowing that there is a 3% chance of one's being the victim of violent crime, one must then deem that 3% is "bad enough" odds to take steps to ensure one comes out the survivor in a violent situation. So for the sake of argument, I'll here say "fair enough."

In light of 3% being the most risk one can assume, what other things have a 3% risk of one's suffering (not necessarily dying because the homicide risk given one's being a U.S. citizen/resident, not violent non-homicidal crime victimization risk, is 0.2% -- source cited in an earlier post, but here's another: a "loss" (most likely property since that's what at issue in most crimes)?
  • ~15% -- Odds that a 6.7 magnitude (think Northridge 1994 -- quake will hit San Francisco or Los Angles in the next 6.3 years. ( Do we see people en masse fleeing (or preparing to) the West Coast? No.
  • 0.2% -- Odds of dying of heart disease (

    What activities contribute to a greater risk for having a heart attack? And are there major declines in the extent to which Americans do most of them? No. Many individuals might, but as a nation of people, no.
    • Not getting enough sleep
    • Stressing out
    • Over consuming alcohol
    • Overeating
    • Eating salty snacks
    • Eating empty calories
    • Watching TV
  • ~16% -- The odds of being poor in America. ( I don't have the first idea if people worry about being poor, much less what effective steps they take to make sure they aren't. I know what I do and what a handful of people do.
  • 1.3% and 1.4% -- Odds of dying in a transportation or non-transportation accident within the next year. Those odds are seven times higher than the odds of being murdered. ( Just as makes sense, people get in cars, planes, trains, boats, buses, etc. with nary a concern.
  • 33% -- Odds that a person between 18 and 29 does not read a newspaper regularly. This may be most disconcerting thing I've discovered.
  • 1 in 12,500 -- Dying in an asteroid apocalypse. That's quite a bit lower than the odds of being murdered.
  • 2% -- The odds of an American's being bitten by a dog. Yet what do most folks do when they see a dog? They run up and pet it. so rather than keeping the risk low by leaving the bitch alone, they all but invite greater risk. And for what? To pet someone else's damn dog? Admittedly, it's less risk than that of being a violent crime victim, but not much less. (I realize the dog example isn't the best. I listed it because I thought it interesting more than anything else.)
  • 4.5% -- The odds of a New Yorker getting shat on by a bird. Do people generally carry an umbrella during the day when birds mostly fly around? No.
So based on the likelihood of one's experiencing a given event, that is based on something rational, you'd think that people would be more concerned and take decisive action to ward against the things that are more likely to happen, "just in case."

One must ask, why are we concerned irrationally about statistically unlikely events? (

On Principle Pespective:
I addressed this point earlier. There is nothing consistent about a decision/position adoption set of principles that makes the following set of arguments:
  • Allow guns to anyone who wants them.
    Disallow nuclear weapons to selected nations.
  • Life is important and must be protected at all costs before the life has even begun and the person can be said to have been born.
    F*ck with me and I'm gong to kill you.
Now when I think about each pair of principles, all I see is contradictions and "knee jerk" thinking/approaches. If someone were to present a rational basis for their gun-advocacy position, I'd pay attention. I might even agree with it. But so far, nobody has offered anything to address my one point, yes, one friggin' point -- that the "just in case" argument does not hold water ( -- and it never can or will.

"Just in case" is a logical fallacy no matter from what angle one approaches it. One can do things "just in case," in at the very least, anyone with any sense would at least admit the logical invalidity of their doing them "just in case," and they would admit that their actions are purely based on emotional driver, not based on anything that makes logical sense.

All the best.

'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed