LongRider

Apparently I was not clear as most of the responses so far have little do do with what I was asking. Sorry for not being clear My question IS NOT about my or your mind set or how we look at self defense. Nor is it about your experience or mine or what you think you might do if the day comes. Which BTW is irrelevant what you think you know you will do is nothing more than hope. Only after the screaming stops and the blood congeals will you know what you will do. Even than all you know is what you did that day, it is not proof of how you will act the next time out. But now I am getting off topic.
I almost want to start another thread and ask in another way but let me try again

What I am asking is what Lima says is irresponsible and dangerous. Maybe she is right and I am therefore completely off base. Because that is what I am asking about trying to figure out an effective tact to convince people to carry a concealed weapon who have no wish to ever kill anyone. Maybe my tact is all wrong and sets some one up to become emotionally devastated because they kill someone in self defense. My opinion is I can live with that because my experience says they will get over it. They will not get over being dead. So if I trick them into carrying a gun and getting the training that one day saves their lives so be it. They can go ahead and hate me for the rest of their long healthy lives. Though I hope the opposite is will happen, if they end up saving their own lives or from being seriously hurt they will be grateful that they were tricked.

By way of back story, this all this came up because i just spent some time with my niece today who is an avid shooter and CCW for women advocate. She is someone I wish I had tricked and I am sure not a day goes by that she wished I had convinced her to carry sooner. She used to be one of those women who swore that she would rather be raped than to kill anyone. Than about twelve years ago some gangbangers snatched her up. She fought as best she could but there were four of them. They took her to a motel and for four days and nights they smoked crack and rapped her orally vaginally and anally. They shoved guns down her throat, they stuck guns and every item they could think of into her vagina and rectum . They beat, cut, and burned her with cigars inside and out for four days and nights non stop. After four days they dropped her in a dumpster covered with blood urine and feces. I had tried to talk her into carrying.

She was working on the Hill Top a bad area in Tacoma volunteering to help under privileged kids by getting them involved in doing films documentaries etc. A local TV station would broadcast their work. They did all aspects of a project from the writing, doing on camera interviews, to filming, editing, graphics all of it. They found a spot for any kid interested. She would be there on the hill after dark I would pick her up and I wanted for her to carry but she said she did not want to ever kill anyone. She actually said she would rather be raped than to kill anyone. Well she was and now that she knows what she was talking about. She knows she would have wasted all four of them. She was trying to kill then when they dragged her into the van. There is no doubt in my mind that had I done my job and convinced her to carry she would have done what she needed to do but I did not do my job. She remained unconvinced and so she paid the price. Is still paying the price.

That is why she was by today she just lost another baby and the doctors told her they do not think she will ever carry to term because of the damage done to her. She loves children so much. That is all she has done in her life is work with kids and all she has ever wanted in life is to be a mom. Now one of the things she does as I said is work with other women and she is a strong advocate of women carrying conceals weapons. Today we got to talking and the issue of women especially finding it really difficult to even conceive of preparing to kill someone. Any of the tact's mentioned so far are exactly the kinds of arguments that would build a wall around these women and have them decide to let themselves get raped rather than killing some one. I know its those arguments that got my niece raped.

So I was wondering about a different approach. That is the purpose of my asking the question. About trying to focus on the the defending not the killing and using the fact that 80% of shootings do not result in death. As most of those who have been there knows handguns are notoriously bad killing tools. That is why on every street corner there are thugs bragging about the five six seven times they have been shot. So what if rather than talking about killing the BG we focus on talking to these people about stopping the threat. Explaining that if the day comes that they do have to shoot they will not likely kill the perp but will stop him. If that gets a gun into their hand and on the range and into training courses. It will give them a chance to see we are not a pack of blood thirsty red necks focused on killing bad guys. I am tired and it is late so I hope I got my question asked right this time.

Which again is do you think it is a good tactic to convince people to carry by letting them know most self defense shootings do not end in death, that they most likely do not need to kill to stop the bad guy. That while a handgun is not the best killing tool it is the best tool they are likely to have to stop the BG. That if we use that tactic and get people trained and carrying a hand gun for self protection is that a good thing? BTW I have gotten two people thinking about carrying by using the 80% stat. Their response has been really is that true? Well maybe I could carry a gun than if it does not mean I have to kill anyone. For now they are going to take a gun safety course to learn more

__________________
Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

Walking upright does not make you human.

buckeyeLCPL

If someone is going to carry a firearm, then they need to be willing to use it. The best way to stop a threat quickly is aim for one of the zones of the human body which will cause an almost immediate stop to the threat. (Then again, I am a Marine infantryman, and therefor might have a different mindset).

I don't really think that it is a good tactic to try to convince them of the 80%. What if they get so caught up in shooting a BG in the arm or leg going for a "disabling shot" that they aren't quick enough and end up facedown without firing a shot? Or if they do have to pull and kill someone, that could cause mental damage.

Just some thoughts.

__________________
Fortes Fortuna Juvat

We're mules lad. Mules that kill.

FN1910

I read too many posts on this and other forums where people seem too ready to use their gun in cases where it may not be needed or justified. For instance there is one thread where a fellow wants to know how to handle taunting and develops it into it is probably gangbangers doing the taunting and when should he pull his gun. There is the story about the fellow shooting the kids walking across his yard. Does the 80% stat come into play. I would hope not that every shot is a potential lethal shot and should be considered that.

One should always consider their gun as a last resort rather than a first or second one. This leads to the fear that so many have of police and the law that they are not sure of their actions and if they are justified. If they aren't justified in your heart then rethink them. If you are betting on the 80% or even just wounding someone then sell your gun and run from any situation, you don't have the proper mindset to carry a gun. If you are walking around with your hand on your gun ready to use it then you don't have the proper mindset to carry.

I don't know if this is what you are asking but there are too many people worrying about the legalities of being able to use their gun. When it comes time to use it then legalities is last thing I worry about. If it comes down to me or the BG I will have to worry about that later but damn this mess about is it legal to shoot him if he is doing so and so. If he isn't about to kill or seriously harm you then no it isn't legal or at least isn't in most states. If the death penanly isn't valid for raping an 8 year old child then it shouldn't be for stealing the radio out of someone's car.

limatunes

First, you'll never know how closely your nieces story mirrors my own. I can intimately understand her pain even up to the point of loosing a child and having to deal with medical problems due to what was done to me. And, like your niece, I'm pretty sure I could have killed the man who did it to me and sleep like a baby the rest of my life.

The main difference between my story and your nieces was that I was only seventeen and therefore unable to get a license to carry (not to mention the fact that I lived in WI which doesn't allow carry). It wouldn't have mattered who was trying to "talk me into" carrying because it just wasn't an option.

You niece chose not to carry because she made a very erroneous judgment call. She said she'd rather be rapped than kill anyone, but she didn't understand that rape isn't just about sex and once the sex is over it's never over. Often, it is violent. Often, it leaves one with emotional and physical scars that will never heal. Often it leads to disease, infection, child bearing problems and a lifetime of anguish.

She assumed that there was not a fate worse than death and she learned the hardest of ways that that is not true, as did I.

Her decision, no matter how flawed, is not your fault. And your trying to talk her into carrying (or anyone else, today) by lessening the "lethality" of shooting someone doesn't add or subtract from that.

What if she was carrying and she only managed to defend herself from one or two of the bad guys and they still got to her and did everything you said? Does that make it better? Does it make it worse? I say neither. It's still a tragedy and there's no way of knowing how it would have turned out.

But now she is using that experience to tell people what they choose not to think of for themselves: that there IS a fate worse than death and the least you can do is go down fight for all it's worth.

That, at least, is good!

In this statement I see you ALSO assuming that death is worst of fates. What if, by shooting, even if it WASN'T a lethal shot, the individual is put in jail, goes through a lengthy court battle, has financial troubles due to it, looses their job, their spouse leaves them because they can't handle the fact that they sleep next to someone who shot someone, they take the kids with them. What if, in the course of defending themselves they are marred, disfigured or receive a life altering wound that cripples them for life? And add on to that the fact that they still shot/killed someone and all the trauma that unfolds... etc, etc, etc. See where I'm going?

Do you think they are just going to one day get over that?

What if they come back to you and say, "I've lost everything. My entire life that was worth living for is gone. I would have rather died that day than loose everything. Why didn't you tell me that could happen? Why did you tell me it was all going to be okay?"

And let's not forget that there ARE some people out there who really and truly simply could not handle killing someone. We don't know who they are. Changes are they don't even know who they are, but they could be being raped, tortured, or they could watch their family in the same condition and they could take a life and forever live in anguish because of it. Or, worse yet, they end up committing suicide because of it.

This is not one of those areas that is so easy to pin as black and white. Yes, on one hand, they may be alive, but on the other hand they have lost everything that gives their life any meaning. What's the difference between that and being dead?

This is one of the reasons I can't understand people who say they don't tell even their wives that they carry. So, one day, however unlikely, they have to use that gun and they shoot or kill an attacker. Their wife, terrified of what just happened, can't deal with living with someone who would lie to her all those years and leaves. What now? You have a gun to defend your family but your family is now gone anyway. What have you gained?

I've stood beside JD after he came back from war and watched the kind of mental anguish he had to go through because of some of the stuff he'd seen and done. I listened to him for hours talk about how he didn't want to tell me things because he thought I'd think he was a monster. I remember the LONG HARD road of Post-Traumatic Stress and it was NOT easy, as a spouse, to deal with it. There are many who don't, won't or can't. But we got through it and my comfort is that if I ever have to use a firearm in self defense and take a life I will have someone with whom I can relate. My husband can look me in the eye and say, "I understand," and I'll know he does.

He'd never leave me because of what life forced me to do.

There are some who couldn't say that about their spouses. They don't have the luxury of knowing how their spouses or family would respond because, like the potential lethality of a shooting, it's not talked about.

This is all worst case scenario, of course, but the choice is not a clear one. Do you trick someone into carrying a gun by convincing them their shots are less lethal than they think? Again, I think it's dangerous and irresponsible.

Could it save their life? Possibly.

Could it destroy the quality of their life to the point they wish they had never been tricked into carrying? Possibly.

Could either falling prey to the bad guys OR defending yourself still lead to the destruction of the quality of life that either way it would be almost better if one had died? VERY possibly.

I think of your niece or myself. Let's say she was carrying. Let's say she was able to shoot and disable two attackers but she was still taken and still raped and still brutalized. She still has the same scars, she still has the same pain, the same anguish and nothing for her has changed.

No one says that life is fair and no one says it's easy. But that doesn't give anyone the right to lie and make it more "rosy" colored than it is. Why ignore the possibility and therefore leave them unprepared for the worst case scenario?

Again, I think it's irresponsible.

One of the things that angers me about my youth is that no one taught me just how evil and unfair this world can really be. I was told that public places were safe. I was told that if you scream, "HELP" someone will come to rescue you. I had a rosy colored view of this world where neighbors helped each other and life was happy.

I was snatched from a public place and no one so much as lifted a finger to call the police and I got a real huge taste of just how bad it can be.

To this day, I'm more angry that I was lied to than anything else. I wish someone had told me the truth. I wish someone had at least prepared me for what could have happened. I may have walked into the same trap, but it may have made a difference.

It's not up to us to decide what people can handle and what they can't and therefore to construct our arguments in a way that will entice them one way or another. That is between the individual, their conscience and God. All we can do is inform them to the best of our ability and allow them to make their own decisions about themselves (whether we think they are good or not).

I, personally, wouldn't want the burden of knowing that I had misinformed someone and then watch them take my advice and regret it. I don't think I could handle that.

As the saying goes, honesty is the best policy, even if the truth SUCKS.

__________________
Garrett is OVER DUE!!!

Limatunes' Range Diaries

On a shooting hiatus until our son is born...

Rob72

I'll be very blunt- mindset is IT. There is nothing else. No gun, no kinife, no bat, no A-Bomb will resolve a problem without the will and determination that I/ME am worth defending by any and all means possible.

Something is better than nothing, but the concept of , "I'll just wound/scare/etc.." the BG is talismanic. The BG gets the weapon, or dominates the situation before the weapon can be accessed and the odds are better than average that the intended-now-victim won't be able to make that next step and go face-raking biting savage. Not saying it can't happen, but...

We are a largely non-physical society. The best eye-opener is to have a guy wearing a cup and shin guards do a FOF, not even something "heavy." Many women have the idea of, "I'll kick him in the crotch/shins/whatever..." and have no idea how much advantage weight and reach really are for a man in a physical confrontation. many men don't realize this either, of course...

Edit to add: of course, violence is not the only answer, I've worked with violent individuals all of my career in unarmed capacity. Words and verbal judo can carry you a long way. It really sucks if that's your whole repertoire, though...

dunndw

In my opinion there are people out there who will have to be a victim before they realize that their own life is worth protecting. I never...NEVER want to have to use my guns against another person...but I would if the need arose without a 2nd thought. In the last class I attended the instructor had a good point. Don't get scared...get PO'ed. The bad guy has put you into this situation, not you. Not your wife...this piece or dirt. He's the reason that you're in the situation. It's his fault. Use controlled rage to take the fight to him, whatever happens to the bad guy as a result of him putting you into the situation is of his own doing. One of the terms tossed around was "lead mine" as in turn the bad guy into one.
I used to date a girl who's mother hated guns. She refused to even talk about them. I asked her "what would you do if you walked into the kitchen and there was a man trying to take your 5 year old son?
Without a thought she said, I'd kill him. As I walked away I just asked her ...how?

she started looking at shotguns the next day. Don't know if she ever went through with it.

Regardless... there will always be people who can not bring themselves to even think about harmed another person. The do not need to own a gun. It will only introduce a weapon into a situation to be used against them. If they can't come to terms with the fact that they might have to harm someone, they will hesitate, the bad guy will not. He will gain control of the gun and use it. If you don't think you can kill someone, you won't take any additional training...practice, etc. the things that are truly needed to be proficient. the gun will become a liability in that case.
I don't understand people like that. MY life, my wife's life is important to me, my family is important enough to me to do whatever it takes to come home to them, and to make sure they come home as well. Someone asked me if I'd die for my wife..I said no, but I'd do everything I could to defend her from whatever wanted to harm her. If it dies....every job has risks...being a crook is no different.
What's the tagline in one of the ads in the gun rag, I will slip into hell to defend my loved ones from evil...something like that.

__________________
"If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."

My Gun Truths Blog
The Tennessee Firearms Association

CR2008

Why don't you just mention that in most self defence cases, the gun was not fired a large majority of times? That sounds significantly more convincing that the "80% none fatal" claims... On at lest 2 occasions my dad and another relative have used their handguns in self defence, they would have been fully justified in firing but they did not because when the weapon was drawn, the criminals attitude changed instantly, they went from "I am going to kill you" to "please don't kill me!" and I personally witnessed one case, it's amazing how wide someones eyes can get and how low their jaws can drop when they find out their target turned the tables on them with a handgun.

On the "none fatal 80% GSW" claims...
My father when he was 19 was shot at lest 6 times around the abdomen when he jumped out of his car and escaped when a car jacking was driving him to a gully to kill him away from his community... and ever since he got shot, he has been having intestinal issues that required several surgeries over the years because some of his intestines were removed during surgery... GSW lead to many complications (some of which lead to death several months or years later as well from this complications!) and there are many brain dead, mentally retarded from serious trauma and blood lose, and handicapped people around to prove that... If you ever saw a guy wheeled into the ER with GSW which was "none fatal" you would view that person as MORE THAN A NUMBER, or a mer statistic, their lives may never be the same physically and emotionally and a scare does not give you insight to how deeply their wounds have impacted their lives over a long period of time.

If someone legally carries a deadly weapon and is SERIOUS about defending themselves, a loved one, or a 3rd party... they better accept the fact that their weapon is of LETHAL force when fired, and as I asked you before, how much GSWs that were "none fatal" ended it the person being paralyzed, mentally retarded, or seriously handicapped and disabled? Only execution squads shoot in order to kill as their final results, where as in self defence such as LEO and CCW, people shoot to STOP (and death is only a possibility and NOT the final intended goal) and the most effective place is to shoot the CNS... this are the facts that most be faced internally by those who carry any deadly weapon... you can't wish it away thinking "Oh will just shoot warning shot, or shoot him in the knee caps." Such a mentality reduces the likely hood of surviving a deadly force encounter... carrying a gun won't make you bullet prof or stab prof... or 'anything' prof.

This is real life and not the movies, in the movies getting shot in the limb wont kill and torso shots kill instantly... in real life, a pumped up attacker can sustain several hits even with large caliber handguns only to return fire, stab and kill... and just breaking a leg or getting shot in the limb can cause death rather quickly, with bones being shattered and tearing vital arteries etc... they may not be stopped instantly but death is a very real possibility, that is REAL life and not Hollywood.

If a gun owner with a CCW permit did not accept the possibilities of their criminal attacker being KILLED when attempting to STOP them, how can they even accept this same attacker ending up possibly retarded, mentally and physically, probably becoming a vegetable in some nursing home? What is the difference if these possibilities are left to "fate" when you don't even know what the final results will be?

IMHO, if you can't accept the attackers possible death in a life threatening situation, then how can you accept them being in a worst position than dead if they ended up a tomato who can't even feed himself?

__________________
http://www.bloombergfightbackfund.com/
Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/

Rob P.

In my OPINION the question is one of responsibility and has little to do with mental state or willingness to kill/use a weapon.

Those who say that they could not/would not use a gun to kill someone have abdicated their responsibility to defend themselves or their children/families. They do not know to whom they've given this responsibility, but they've chosen to not be the one to respond at the moment of a deadly threat.

Yet, as a parent, these people have a responsibility to protect their children/families. This creates a conundrum which can only be resolved by attempting to force others to not make them decide or choose.

There's a line in a song about refusing to make a choice is still a choice. The choice that these people have made is to gamble with their lives. Knowing that being placed into grave danger doesn't have high odds for most people, it is a fairly low risk gamble. For most that is, but not all.

In the end, it has nothing to do with being willing to kill. It's about responsibility and being willing to accept the consequences. Thus, one should be willing to kill if one chooses to bear arms because THAT is the consequence should the odds fall against your peace filled life.

kazzaerexys

Ditto on Lima's reaction to this statement, but I think it is close. How about:

The purpose of carrying a weapon is not to kill an attacker, rather it is to survive the attack.

Therefore, what you focus on is the survival and protection of the innocent, not the maiming and death of the scumbag. Anybody shot at can die---worse yet is the "warning shot" which could hit a completely unintended innocent. Anybody who carries a gun has to be willing to use it, and anybody who gets into a gunfight has to accept that not all of the receiving team may make it back to the sidelines.

But you should not focus on death as the reason to carry. Carrying a weapon to defend ones's self is an utterly positive decision and needs to be framed in that positive light: I am protecting the innocent, most likely my own self or somebody I care very much about.

I have no desire to kill anyone, and I carry.

Some people will never be able to accept the consequences of protecting themselves with a gun, and can't be pushed into it. For the rest, they may need help understanding that their own life is worth more than a scumbag's; that, I think, is the start of the discussion. "Oh, my purse/wallet isn't worth a life." That's a common refrain. Unfortunately, it is the mugger who already made that decision, and it's your life that he believes is worth less than a purse or a wallet.

Edited to add: If the person who carries has not, in fact, come to grips with the possibility of killing, then the moment-of-truth could well become the moment-of-doubt that results ina drawn gun that he/she will not fire. The person carrying is then a likely candidate for the next update of Brady statistics on folks killed with their own guns. I have to agree with Lima's choice of words: putting somebody into that situation is irresponsible. Quite the contrary, much as I want to see people I care about take the responsibility for self-protection that comes with a gun, I would be the one most likely to try to dissuade them if they do not seem to comprehend fully the ramifications of so doing.

__________________
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?”

—Justice Antonin Scalia

FN1910

I offered one of my daughters one of my pistols and she said that right now she did not want it because she was afraid that she wouldn't be able to use it and it would be taken and used on her. I respect her for that. I am working on her confidence concerning being attacked and being able to defend herself. But as some have posted if you aren't positive that you can defend yourself then don't carry a gun. Sometime it takes something bad happening as with Lima and I really hope and pray that it doesn't with my daughters.

I really don't know which is worse, carrying a gun without being sure you can use it, or carrying a gun a looking for a place to use it. There are a lot of both out there.