• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control

There are large cities, like Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Houston, and so on, located in states with very little gun control and strong protections for self-defense.

To my knowlege these large cities have not experienced any notable number of accidental deaths or injuries sustained because of the lawful defensive use of firearms. This despite the fact that guns are readily available there to all law abiding citizens, and GA FLA and TX all have easy to get "shall-issue" concealed carry permits.

I think this issue about dense urban populations is not actually a major issue at all. If it were, it would be news. Such information as I have seen does not indicate that accidental shootings are a problem in those cities.

Well, let me be clearer. I support castle laws for all types of areas. However, I think areas with denser population areas should promote less-than-lethal weapons of self defense because of the risks of accidental shootings from firearms.
 
Well, let me be clearer. I support castle laws for all types of areas. However, I think areas with denser population areas should promote less-than-lethal weapons of self defense because of the risks of accidental shootings from firearms.


Sam, I don't wish to be rude or anything, but I think that if you're going to make that case (dense urban populations = need to promote sub-lethal weapons due to the risk of accidental firearms shootings), then it ought to be easy to provide support for that argument.

If Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas have a substantially greater per-capita incidence of non-police-related accidental shootings, than Chicago, NYC and DC, then that would support your point. I have no information that such is actually the case.... and I feel very sure that if it were, certain gun-control-lobbies would be trumpeting those stats from the highest tower, as it were.
 
Sam, I don't wish to be rude or anything, but I think that if you're going to make that case (dense urban populations = need to promote sub-lethal weapons due to the risk of accidental firearms shootings), then it ought to be easy to provide support for that argument.

If Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Dallas have a substantially greater per-capita incidence of non-police-related accidental shootings, than Chicago, NYC and DC, then that would support your point. I have no information that such is actually the case.... and I feel very sure that if it were, certain gun-control-lobbies would be trumpeting those stats from the highest tower, as it were.

You're right. I have no evidence, and I don't know where to get such evidence. And I think it's a study that should be done.

Also, I generally favor the promotion of less-than-lethal weapons for personal defense anyways. I think that while a person does have a right to defend themselves and their own home, that doesn't necessarily mean that the use of deadly force automatically applies.

And I understand that not all less-than-lethal weapons are effective in stopping someone from being hostile and threatening. However, I think that all that means is that the industry should try to be more innovative in their developments, and those should be supported.
 
You're right. I have no evidence, and I don't know where to get such evidence. And I think it's a study that should be done.

Also, I generally favor the promotion of less-than-lethal weapons for personal defense anyways. I think that while a person does have a right to defend themselves and their own home, that doesn't necessarily mean that the use of deadly force automatically applies.

And I understand that not all less-than-lethal weapons are effective in stopping someone from being hostile and threatening. However, I think that all that means is that the industry should try to be more innovative in their developments, and those should be supported.


Point taken.

I would note that in addition to packin' a pistol, I carry pepperspray. I carry the OC, in the hope that it will be sufficient and that the pistol won't be necessary. I have no desire to shoot anyone.

But there's a reason that I, as a private citizen, carry both lethal and non-lethal instruments, and it is the same reason that the police also carry both types of weapons. Sometimes the less-lethal weapon is adequate; sometimes it isn't.

Did you know that, the last I heard at least, you can't buy an air-taser like the police use? I checked on it and the company said they only sell to Law Enforcement. Also, I understand that most states with strict firearm laws also ban citizens from carrying air-tasers (and often, OC or anything else, as well). Bit of a problem for those who would prefer LTL.
 
Last edited:
You're right. I have no evidence, and I don't know where to get such evidence. And I think it's a study that should be done.

Also, I generally favor the promotion of less-than-lethal weapons for personal defense anyways. I think that while a person does have a right to defend themselves and their own home, that doesn't necessarily mean that the use of deadly force automatically applies.

And I understand that not all less-than-lethal weapons are effective in stopping someone from being hostile and threatening. However, I think that all that means is that the industry should try to be more innovative in their developments, and those should be supported.





How do you gauge the aggressors intent? Lets say he crosses into your home? Are you still in favor of "less than lethal" (I hate that term, it's newspeak for "less effective")?


If one breaks into your home, how do you choose less than lethal here? You don't know his intent. How do you decide what is appropriate?
 
Point taken.

I would note that in addition to packin' a pistol, I carry pepperspray. I carry the OC, in the hope that it will be sufficient and that the pistol won't be necessary. I have no desire to shoot anyone.

But there's a reason that I, as a private citizen, carry both lethal and non-lethal instruments, and it is the same reason that the police also carry both types of weapons. Sometimes the less-lethal weapon is adequate; sometimes it isn't.

Right. And police actually are invested into the livelihood of their suspects. Yeah, there are movies where the cops spray gunfire at the bad guys, but that's not the real world. The real world has, for instance, mentally ill people or people who are delusional because of drugs. So the police doesn't want to resort to lethal in order to subdue suspects such as those.

Did you know that, the last I heard at least, you can't buy an air-taser like the police use? I checked on it and the company said they only sell to Law Enforcement. Also, I understand that most states with strict firearm laws also ban citizens from carrying air-tasers (and often, OC or anything else, as well). Bit of a problem for those who would prefer LTL.

Yeah it is. That's just flat-out wrong in my opinion. But LTL weapon politics aren't as sexy as gun politics, which is why very little is talked about them outside of law enforcement.

I think you misunderstood my advocacy of LTL weapons to be a replacement of gun rights. That's not the case at all. What I meant was that LTL weapons are a good alternative for those who want weapons for self-defense, especially in dense population centers because of accidental shootings. That doesn't mean I want to replace guns in cities with LTL weapons - just that they should be promoted in big cities to offset the complications that firearms in big cities cause to have a great amount of gun control implemented. I think that if more people used LTL weapons for self-defense, we would have the best of both worlds for self-defense between the gun rights lobby and the gun control lobby.
 
How do you gauge the aggressors intent? Lets say he crosses into your home? Are you still in favor of "less than lethal" (I hate that term, it's newspeak for "less effective")?


If one breaks into your home, how do you choose less than lethal here? You don't know his intent. How do you decide what is appropriate?

Why must lethal force be the first level of defense against an aggressor?

Also, please note that I do not want to force people to use only LTL weaponry for self-defense. Rather, I want people to have the choice. While most people are aware of firearms, very little is talked about LTL weapons.

"Guns & Ammo" is quite a popular magazine, but there isn't a title called "Tasers & Batteries." I think that's a shame.
 
Why must lethal force be the first level of defense against an aggressor?

Because in the absence of information about the level of lethality presented by an attacker, you must assume they are capable of the worst case, lethal force, and respond in kind.
 
Why must lethal force be the first level of defense against an aggressor?


For those educated in self-defense methodology, it usually isn't. The first level of defense consists of security precautions (locking cars and doors, etc) and avoidance (I see suspicious people there, so I go elsewhere).

One of the things that makes chosing a point on the force-continuum so problematic for defense against criminal assault (as opposed to bar-brawls and such) is the criminal's tendency to ambush or surprise you at close quarters. Detecting these setups early and avoiding them is vital to a good self-protection training course.

Someone breaking into your home is usually treated much more seriously by the law than someone accosting you on the street, and with good reason: you home is your "castle", and anyone who breaks into an occupied house does so with the knowlege that they may well be met by lethal force from the inhabitants. (Actually that may not be true in NYC, Massachusetts, Chicago, DC et al, but it is so in states like my own, where "hot burglaries" are relatively rare). When you consider that most burglars are armed with a weapon, or that they arm themselves with a kitchen knife as their first action once inside your house, the situation looks more serious. When you further consider that you may have a wife and/or children present who could be at risk, you tend to take it even more seriously.

Now consider that it may be night, some or all of your lights may be off, it may be hard to see well enough to be sure whether the intruder is armed or not.

There's a reason why self-defense rights are usually given much more leeway in a home-intrusion scenario. In my state, they can't even arrest the homeowner unless they have specific reasons to believe the shooting was other-than-self-defense. That's why we don't have too many hot burglaries.
 
There's a reason why self-defense rights are usually given much more leeway in a home-intrusion scenario. In my state, they can't even arrest the homeowner unless they have specific reasons to believe the shooting was other-than-self-defense. That's why we don't have too many hot burglaries.

This part of your post reminds me of a discussion I heard on a local radio show. They were briefly talking about "castle" laws, and the host said, "Yeah, you have the right to shoot an intruder in your home, but they have to make sure you didn't call them and invite them first." :mrgreen:
 
Why must lethal force be the first level of defense against an aggressor?

Also, please note that I do not want to force people to use only LTL weaponry for self-defense. Rather, I want people to have the choice. While most people are aware of firearms, very little is talked about LTL weapons.

"Guns & Ammo" is quite a popular magazine, but there isn't a title called "Tasers & Batteries." I think that's a shame.

Tasers are not a good choice for home defense.

Tasers are one shot. If you have more than one intruder or you mis, it's over.

Pepper spray is even a better choice than a taser. Although indoors, you will be running away as well as your attackers.

I don't like stun guns because allot of them don't work to well on the civilian market. You also have to be in very close range to use it.
 
Last edited:
For those educated in self-defense methodology, it usually isn't. The first level of defense consists of security precautions (locking cars and doors, etc) and avoidance (I see suspicious people there, so I go elsewhere).

The best self defense comment I've seen someone make on the internet before.

Self Defense does not begin when the attacker comes at you in the street, or when the burgler pulls the gun on you in your house. Self Defense happens at all times...in your awareness, in your preperation, in your attitude.
 
Why must lethal force be the first level of defense against an aggressor?


Because, if you GUESS his intent wrong you and your family will be dead. Do you really want to guess the intent of the person who broke into your homes intent?


Also, please note that I do not want to force people to use only LTL weaponry for self-defense. Rather, I want people to have the choice. While most people are aware of firearms, very little is talked about LTL weapons.

"Guns & Ammo" is quite a popular magazine, but there isn't a title called "Tasers & Batteries." I think that's a shame.



Because a. they are not as effective. One of the training practices we did as a contractor was to rush a target while pepper sprayed, teaching us that simply because you are hit with something doesn't mean "stop". We became very good at fighting through pepper spray (for example).


Taser is a one shot deal, if you miss, you are dead.


These things should be called LTE (less than effective), as opposed to LTL.
 
For those educated in self-defense methodology, it usually isn't. The first level of defense consists of security precautions (locking cars and doors, etc) and avoidance (I see suspicious people there, so I go elsewhere).
.



Great point, 1st line of defense is awareness, then preparedness, then training, then the tool.
 
Back
Top Bottom