Author Topic: More "self-defense" nonsense  (Read 7016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19276
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #105 on: June 11, 2014, 01:18:57 PM »
If you use bear spray on someone, even if they're in huge pain, they can still shoot the hell out of you in anger, unless you got it into their eyes and they're blind.
I'm pretty sure a good shot of high-grade CS is going to put you into survival mode. It's not so much a function of pain but trying to breathe and that will usually negate the inclination for malice. When Johnny and Private Pyle get sprayed for demonstratory purposes, it's a stream to the face for a couple of seconds, which while no doubt painful, isn't the same as standing in a cloud of it. I suspect bear spray will be incapacitating, particularly when used indoors.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Dr. DTVT

  • DTF's resident Mad Scientist
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9038
  • Gender: Male
  • What's your favorite planet? Mine's the Sun!
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #106 on: June 11, 2014, 11:45:10 PM »
Clearly, he is the most accurate shooter since Robocop.  Two shots in the thigh with a hostage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUp6BFycWc#t=2m45s
     

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #107 on: June 12, 2014, 07:18:15 PM »
Fair enough. Still don't see why strong pepper spray or bear spray wouldn't have been just as effective, though. Like I mentioned before, bear spray is a better option for you to have in the case of a mother fucking bear attack than a gun. You don't have to be very accurate, and it's strong enough that someone sprayed with it is probably going to need medical attention.
Bears are a different story since most guns will be largely ineffective against them. The drawback is that you're likely to be incapacitated yourself after usage. Being incap'ed rather than eaten is a fine tradeoff-don't get me wrong. In the case of a badguy threatening your daughter, the gun will be effective and you won't be incapacitated after spraying it, which is important given the two, possibly more badguys. I'm not saying it can't be a viable option. I'm just saying that in plenty of cases it will be the better of the two.

And there are cases where having a gun would be better than having pepper spray with a bear. That doesn't mean, as a general policy, you shouldn't prefer to use bear spray over a gun, and go prepared with pepper spray.

Quote
Quote
I feel like this just completely ignores the daughter, her agency, and right to life.
I don't think so, honestly. The fact is the thugs did that before dragging her inside. Her old man had a much greater concern for those things, and acted in what he believed to be the best manner. I guarantee you that he cared much more about the girl than they did. The fact is that given what we know about these assholes the situation would very likely have ended much worse had the parents acquiesced. He gauged correctly in this instance.

And as an aside, though I suppose it depends on the person, adrenaline might very well help tremendously in that situation. Anytime I've been in a "well fuck, we're gonna crash" situation while driving I became insanely focused and had all the time in the world to work things out in my head. In one such instance I calculated my current trajectory, referenced my last known recollection of the traffic conditions and knew that there was nobody near me on my current course, figured out that my landing point would be in a ditch that I might or might not be able to drive out of, and that I'd walk away unscathed. With this I decided that no further action was advised and commenced to appreciating the experience for the final 2 seconds (which seemed like 2 minutes). Adrenaline's a fucking trip.

I also know from experience that my shooting accuracy is far, far better when firing instinctively than deliberately. I've learned that sometimes the best results with regards to eye-hand coordination come from shutting down the conscious thought processes and just letting your brain take care of the hard part on it's own.

I meant you're response was surrounding the father's own emotions surrounding possibly killing his daughter. I only brought up what I would feel because I think it's a rather shitty option to consider when there are other possibilities that I consider more likely to end in a positive result. I think in the larger overall picture, the daughter has some claims to her right to life, and even if she's being used as a shield, it doesn't mean she doesn't have some rights.

As for the rest of your response, I feel like it's a little incongrous with some of your other responses over the years relating to shootings. You often point out, and I'd say rightly, that a cop in such a situation has no responsibility to not shoot for the legs and such, they may not even be a good shot, and even if they are, the mere fact of the situation they are in might unnerve them not to be so accurate. I feel like that should be the position you take here, and not one of, "well, it ended up all right, and sometimes and with some people, it'll be different."

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2776
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #108 on: June 12, 2014, 07:49:35 PM »
Scheavo, your position just makes no sense to me.  (and, yes, I realize that that likely comes as no surprise, but I just felt the need to vocalize it)
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #109 on: June 12, 2014, 10:06:16 PM »
How so? All of it?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19276
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #110 on: June 13, 2014, 09:01:31 AM »
And there are cases where having a gun would be better than having pepper spray with a bear. That doesn't mean, as a general policy, you shouldn't prefer to use bear spray over a gun, and go prepared with pepper spray.
As a general rule you want to go the way that best insures a positive outcome. When it comes to a bad guy in your house, I'm putting my money on Herr Sig Sauer. What you also want is to insure that you're overprepared rather than underequipped. If you think you can resolve the situation in a less than lethal manner, suit yourself. Hell, maybe the threat of gunplay and an authoritative voice is enough to resolve the situation. Don't just assume you'll be able to only to find out that you were mistaken, though.


Quote
I meant you're response was surrounding the father's own emotions surrounding possibly killing his daughter. I only brought up what I would feel because I think it's a rather shitty option to consider when there are other possibilities that I consider more likely to end in a positive result. I think in the larger overall picture, the daughter has some claims to her right to life, and even if she's being used as a shield, it doesn't mean she doesn't have some rights.
The girl absolutely has a right to her life in a general sense. At the same time, there are occasions when you have to leave some choices up to others and this case was one of them. Would she be better off letting the assholes control her future or her father? I think it's a safe bet who she'd choose. Her father then made a decision that he felt was in the best interest of his daughter. If the Greek guy installing my kidney had run into "cut the blue wire or the red wire" situation, his professional judgement would have decided the day. I couldn't have been consulted, and if my mom had been asked, she also would have said take your best shot, and we'd all have hoped for the best (including Dr. Nick). Simply put, I understand the concerns for her safety, although certainly not as well as her Old Man, and I won't second guess this guy at all for making the decision that he did. I'll also point out if he'd gone the bear spray route and it turned ugly for all parties, I'd recognize that he made the wrong decision but wouldn't fault him for erring in a really tough situation. He knew the consequences and factored them into his decision.

Quote
As for the rest of your response, I feel like it's a little incongruous with some of your other responses over the years relating to shootings. You often point out, and I'd say rightly, that a cop in such a situation has no responsibility to not shoot for the legs and such, they may not even be a good shot, and even if they are, the mere fact of the situation they are in might unnerve them not to be so accurate. I feel like that should be the position you take here, and not one of, "well, it ended up all right, and sometimes and with some people, it'll be different."
Accuracy is only a minor point in my position in my "don't shoot for the legs" position, although it is still valid. What I said was that his adrenaline buzz might not be a bad thing. Plenty of other people respond terribly under that situation. Also, Johnny is trained completely differently than the rest of us to operate while hopped up on adrenaline (and he still tends to perform poorly when shooting at people). Regardless, the bottom line is to do whatever gives you the best chances for a positive outcome. That usually means center of mass.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2014, 10:51:41 PM »
And there are cases where having a gun would be better than having pepper spray with a bear. That doesn't mean, as a general policy, you shouldn't prefer to use bear spray over a gun, and go prepared with pepper spray.
As a general rule you want to go the way that best insures a positive outcome. When it comes to a bad guy in your house, I'm putting my money on Herr Sig Sauer. What you also want is to insure that you're overprepared rather than underequipped. If you think you can resolve the situation in a less than lethal manner, suit yourself. Hell, maybe the threat of gunplay and an authoritative voice is enough to resolve the situation. Don't just assume you'll be able to only to find out that you were mistaken, though.

We're agreeing on the principle, just not on what achieves it.

Quote
Quote
I meant you're response was surrounding the father's own emotions surrounding possibly killing his daughter. I only brought up what I would feel because I think it's a rather shitty option to consider when there are other possibilities that I consider more likely to end in a positive result. I think in the larger overall picture, the daughter has some claims to her right to life, and even if she's being used as a shield, it doesn't mean she doesn't have some rights.
The girl absolutely has a right to her life in a general sense. At the same time, there are occasions when you have to leave some choices up to others and this case was one of them. Would she be better off letting the assholes control her future or her father? I think it's a safe bet who she'd choose. Her father then made a decision that he felt was in the best interest of his daughter. If the Greek guy installing my kidney had run into "cut the blue wire or the red wire" situation, his professional judgement would have decided the day. I couldn't have been consulted, and if my mom had been asked, she also would have said take your best shot, and we'd all have hoped for the best (including Dr. Nick). Simply put, I understand the concerns for her safety, although certainly not as well as her Old Man, and I won't second guess this guy at all for making the decision that he did. I'll also point out if he'd gone the bear spray route and it turned ugly for all parties, I'd recognize that he made the wrong decision but wouldn't fault him for erring in a really tough situation. He knew the consequences and factored them into his decision.

Who says anything about letting the asshole control her future? I imagine she would choose the option that doesn't involve her getting shot, or shot at. Least, that's the option I'd choose.

I once accidentally shot off a little bit of bear spray to make sure the safety wasn't stuck. My friend, who wasn't even in the line of fire, got a smidgen on him. His face turned red and we had to stop for 10 minutes for the pain to subside and for him to breath properly. Getting actually sprayed by the stuff means someone is most likely going to need some medical attention. It's not a lovely experience to go through. Someone in that condition will be in no position to fight.

Either way, as the discussion is in regards to generalities, it seems straight forward to me that something akin to bear spray is more often going to lead to the best result. Which isn't to say some results couldn't be shitty. We can get stuck in the actual cases forever, and I can always bring up a case where a pepper spray, used as a defensive weapon, leads to a better result than what occurred with the gun. There's two examples in this very thread.

I don't really see what else could be added to this other than an actual scientific study. But not sure how such a thing could ever actually happen, seems physically impossible really.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2014, 12:17:21 PM by Scheavo »

Offline Jaffa

  • Just Jaffa
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4592
  • Gender: Male
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2014, 11:31:23 PM »
My two cents: yes, there are times where bear spray will lead to a better outcome than a gun, and yes, there are times when a gun will lead to a better outcome than bear spray.  Because of this, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to make an overall judgment about which option is better.  It may seem futile to 'get stuck on the actual cases forever', but I still feel like the best way to judge these things is on a case-by-case basis. 

For instance, in this case, you mention the daughter's right to life, and assume she would choose the option that didn't involve her getting shot at.  Well, what if she knows that her father is a really good shot and would prefer to have him just put a bullet in the intruder rather than spraying them both with bear spray? 
Sincerely,
Jaffa

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: More "self-defense" nonsense
« Reply #113 on: June 14, 2014, 12:22:34 PM »
My two cents: yes, there are times where bear spray will lead to a better outcome than a gun, and yes, there are times when a gun will lead to a better outcome than bear spray.  Because of this, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to make an overall judgment about which option is better.  It may seem futile to 'get stuck on the actual cases forever', but I still feel like the best way to judge these things is on a case-by-case basis. 

I agree, which may be some of the confusion of my position for Bosk. I don't think you can set a true standard, which is why I think it should be generally legal (though not to the extent current law is going), but argue for people to, on their own free choice, not to the most of what the law allows.