View Single Post
Old 2012-08-30, 04:39   Link #275
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
You're both right and wrong in this case. There is no "shooting to wound" in most cases, nor are bullet wounds to the legs always non-fatal. On the other hand, often times gunshot wounds are just non-fatal wounds, it all depends on where you get hit. In this regard it's very much like knife wounds, it all depends on what's cut on the inside - a stab to the stomach that misses the vital organs wouldn't kill ya, but a stab to the leg that severs an artery is gonna do you in in very short order.
Indeed. People obviously come away from gun shot wounded and not killed, but it's impossible to predict.

Quote:
You cannot disarm a human to where they are unable to kill. Man have been killing each other since the stone age, well before the advent of firearms.
You can knock them out. Or, run away.

Quote:
Funny enough, the only reason he lived was because the officer was armed, as he managed to return fire with his own weapon and wounded the robber.

and no, a gunfight doesn't overwhelmingly favors the guy who shoots first, it only favors the guy who hits his target. And a gun is a tool, it can be used for offensive or defensive purposes.
If both participants are equally skilled, it favours the man who shoots first. Let's say we have two rounds of fire, where there's a 30% chance of either man hitting on a given shot, and once you're hit you can't return fire(a hit being a wound that incapacitates). The probability of the defender being hit is 30%. The probability of the offender being hit is only 21% (and he only gets hit if he misses), 49% chance of neither being wounded. Up the accuracy of the shots and it becomes more drastic. At a 70% accuracy rate the probability of the defender being hit is 70%, the probability of the offender being hit is still only 21%, there's a 9% chance of neither being wounded.

Now if the defender is more accurate then the offender, say 70% vs. 30%, we get a 30% chance of the defender being hit, and a 49% chance of the offender being hit. So while the defender is more likely to hit in this circumstance, the advantage is not as great as their skill levels would indicate, as the defender first has to "dodge" that first shot.

Flip those skill levels around and make the offender more skilled then there's a 70% chance of the defender being wounded, but now only a 9% chance of the offender being wounded.

Now obviously, this is a simplified model, for one thing I pulled those numbers right out of my ass, I don't know what the real life accuracy levels of marksmen are. But there's no reason to believe a hypothetical criminal will be more or less skilled with a gun then the defender. He has equal access to practising at his local gun range(or the cans on his porch) as the other guy after all. But the more skilled the offender is, and the more effective the weapons, the more the guy who shoots first is benefited.

The other imperfection of the above model is that it assumes that they return fire in turns. In reality, he may have time to get off two or three shots before you have a chance to draw your weapon. Real life situations are more complicated.

Quote:
And why would I get spooked and panic and shoot a guy? you'll have to be more specific.
Let's say a guy looks suspicious and you see him drawing something from his pocket that looks like a gun. Turns out, it's his wallet. These kind of things happen. Can't really say how often.
Quote:
However, the criminal is the aggressor, he/she initiated the encounter, to say that the victim does not have the right to fully defend themselves is ludicrous. If that meant that the criminal, the aggressor who initiated the attack, loses his/her life, then so be it, it is a result of their own making.
Quote:
Something else you're also still not getting. Life is not a video game, just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean they can't kill you with their bare hands or whatever weapons of opportunity they can fight, like a lamp or your kitchen knife. I find it amazing that you've continued treat the life of a criminal as if it's the second coming of Jesus, but gives it absolutely no thought as you continue to pile on unreasonable and impossible expectations on the victims.
It's a lot easier to kill with a gun then without a gun. If neither the assailant or the defender is armed with a gun is armed, the likelihood of death is far lower.
Quote:
Lock yourself into a closet? what good will that do? delay them by all of 2 seconds as they kick it down?
It's more about hiding. A "home invader" is there for your valuables, and likely isn't even aware you're awake.
Quote:
attack them with a baseball bat? there's probably nothing more dangerous and foolhardy than trying to engage in a physical melee with a weapon when you're untrained.
A hit to the side of the head will knock most everyone out.
Quote:
Not everyone is a MLB slugger either, you think an old man or old (or young) woman for that matter will be able to do all that much with a bat? especially if there were multiple assailants?
If there are multiple assailants your situation is fairly hopeless anyway. If everyone has guns it's hopeless, if no one has guns it's hopeless. If you have a gun and they don't you might be able to scare them off, but that can only be ensured if the gun laws are tight. With the lax gun registration regulation in the US, you're basically guaranteeing every potential criminal will be armed.
Quote:
You continue to have the problem of setting up one specific scenario under which your ideas might work, but fail to consider the broad implication such ideas would have outside of your specific scenario.
Perhaps my scenarios are poorly thought out, I can't think of anything. But think of the dozens of countries with low rates of gun ownership and high gun control. Look at the countries that are similar in wealth to the United States, look up their homicide rates. Are people more likely to die, be assaulted or be raped in those countries, where they "can't defend themselves" or in the United States where they "can"?

At best you can argue that your likelihood of being raped, assaulted or killed is unrelated to gun ownership, and only related to social factors. But that means that guns don't help americans on the whole defend themselves at all! Just as many (if not more) Americans are the victims of violent crime as in any other country with or without guns. The amount that your guns make you safer is more then outweighed by the amount you're endangered by almost every tom dick and harry being able to get a gun due to their abundance.
Quote:
Since when did I advocate that everyone should have guns? stop with the strawman please.
Then you agree that guns should be restricted correct? That all guns should be registered, and that all gun owners should be submitted to a psychiatric check to ensure they are of "sound mind". If you do, there isn't much debate. But if you want there to be no such mandatory registration, no resale bans, you just give carte blanche for every crazy and criminal to just go down to a gun fair and buy a gun second hand. James Holmes did it, Seung Hi Cho did it, and more in the future will do it. Both of these men bought their guns legally, even though both were mentally disturbed.
DonQuigleone is offline   Reply With Quote