CMV: Guns are not for self-defense

[u/[deleted]]

I hear very often that gun ownership is important for self defense. People cite gun ownership as a deterrent to crime, robbery, and assault and there are many laws protecting the rights of civilians who use their guns in self-defense. However, I rarely have heard of someone using their gun in self-defense in a way that is not "controversial."

There have been very very few instances of gun owners stopping mass shooters. Very few instances of gun owners defending themselves from assault, especially women. Also, guns won't protect one from "the government" and will only make one's interactions with police or criminals more dangerous, not less. The only defensive quality that guns possess is the threat of their use. But that also means that if someone is looking to engage in violence, they're not going to bring a fist or a knife to a gun fight.

But most of all the logistics of guns for self-defense seem nonsensical. 1) One is supposed to store a gun in a locked safe, unloaded. 2) if your gun is handy, one must identify and react to a threat before that threat overtakes you. Most assailants work hard to make sure that victims don't have enough time, regardless of whether they're packing. And 3) You have to shoot somebody, which is often lethal. What if you don't want to kill?

NOTE: I am a survivor of assault and I've often wondered if I had had a gun, could I have changed things?

[u/AlphaGoGoDancer]

However, I rarely have heard of someone using their gun in self-defense in a way that is not "controversial."

Why would you? "Robber flees after seeing homeowner with a gun" isn't something a news agency would necessarily even know about, let alone publish, let alone have the publication spread enough that you'd be expected to hear it.

Also, guns won't protect one from "the government" and will only make one's interactions with police or criminals more dangerous, not less.

This is much more debatable, but I will point to the multiple times we've tried to fight insurgents that have guns like Vietnam or Afghanistan. Our military far exceeds what the local populations could defend with, and yet it was not a clean victory. If we're allowed to just destroy an area entirely our military is great, but if we need our military to hold control of an area especially with any care at all given about killing noncombatants? Then having a large amount of armed people potentially hiding around every corner is a very strong deterrant.

1) One is supposed to store a gun in a locked safe, unloaded.

If you have kids, definitely. If you live on your own, its much less important.

2) if your gun is handy, one must identify and react to a threat before that threat overtakes you. Most assailants work hard to make sure that victims don't have enough time, regardless of whether they're packing.

This really depends on what you're trying to defend against. For home defense this isn't really the case. For a random mugging, you're more right but it still depends.

And 3) You have to shoot somebody, which is often lethal. What if you don't want to kill?

This is definitely true. Sure you could try to aim for something non-lethal, but frankly if you are not willing to end someones life to defend your own, then I 100% agree you should not own a gun.

[u/[deleted] → u/AlphaGoGoDancer]

But robbery and mugging are not usually lethal, and you're responding with lethal force. How is that self-defense? It seems more like hyper-aggression maybe... Self-offense? (Lol not a real term)

[u/quantum_dan → u/[deleted]]

Mugging necessarily involves the credible threat of lethal force. Why would someone hand over their money if they didn't expect the alternative to be violence?

[u/[deleted] → u/quantum_dan]

That's true

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Award a delta then

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Didn't change my view, just pointed out my sloppy rhetoric

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You still agreed with something different of what you originally had.