I've been reading a lot of articles lately, and especially comments, in which I see some really stupid assertations by the antis in regards to what is needed for self defense and what we gun owners consider self defense to be "barbaric". I think I've got it narrowed down to 5 myths...
Myth #1: Gun Owners are Vigilantes.
This myth comes in several parts: 1) the job of the police is to protect the people, not the job of the people to protect themselves, and 2) anyone who carries a weapon for the sake of self defense is looking for an excuse to kill (a common critique of SYG laws). The first part of this myth follows the "only cops and soldiers should have guns" line of thinking, and the second part of the myth serves to demonize gun owners.
As to the first part, the Supreme Court has rules that the police are not responsible for your safety, mainly to prevent lawsuits against police departments in case they are unsuccessful in their job. Considering response times, most dangerous situations will be over before the police arrive. Therefore, the only person wholly responsible for my safety is me. I am not taking the job away from the police or trying to do their job for them...I am simply trying to preserve my life and liberty. There is also the suggestion that your average gun owner is going to shoot himself in the foot, but a cop will be able to make that shot on a robber with a human shield with pinpoint accuracy. New York news stories would suggest otherwise...
The second half is even more chilling, the idea that gun owners will tote weapons into public hoping for an excuse to use them "in self defense". They believe that we use loopholes in the law to bring about dangerous situations so we can get away with killing. The idea is ludicrous if you understand our legal system: someone who picks a fight and then kills that person is usually found guilty. Everyone claims "self defense" after commiting homicide, even if it was premeditated...that doesn't mean we're abusing loopholes in the law. The courts will find if it really was self defense, or if it was unjustified.
Myth #2: You Don't Need ______ For Self Defense.
Generally this refers to rifles ("you don't need that much power") or "high-capacity clips" ("you don't need 30 rounds to stop an attacker"). This myth is basically used to justify gun control laws by saying that if you're concerned about self defense, you should be fine after this ban goes through.
The problem with this myth is that what is needed in one situation may not be enough in another. There are stories of people surviving 30mm shots from military weapons, taking 5 shots to the face from a revolver ("shot placement" didn't even help)...and that's when bullets hit one target. When faced with multiple attackers, and considering the average hit rate under stress...I don't want someone else telling me what I will or will not need in order to defend myself.
Myth #3: Killing is Always Wrong
There are some who believe violence against others is always wrong. If you are threatened, your goal should be to do whatever you need to in order to survive without sinking to the level of your attacker; which could mean complying or running away. It is a pacifist approach that is designed to make us look like we're barbarians full of machismo.
I will agree that murder is always wrong, and killing should never be the goal. However, I am willing to respond to an active threat on the lives of myself or my loved ones with lethal force if necessary. I would rather live with those actions than live with inaction and guilt of what I could have stopped...or not live at all. There is a common saying that gun control is the idea that a woman who is found dead in an alley is morally superior to a woman explaining to the cop why there are several bullet holes in her would-be attacker's body.
Myth #4: "Just Shoot the Leg"
This is mostly seen in comments in news articles, "you don't need to kill him, just shoot the leg." The idea is that there are less lethal options to killing, so you should go for those instead of taking lethal force. It suggests that killing in self defense is wrong, because you have other options available (and usually alludes to the use of a tazer or pepper spray).
There are several problems at play here. The idea of shooting someone in the leg to "wound" instead of "kill" ignores the goal of self defense shootings: you shoot to stop the threat. You do so by hitting an area likely to cause a physiological stop. The leg is a bad idea compared to the chest because A) it is a harder target to hit and B) it is less likely to stop the target quickly. You are also very likely to kill someone with a shot to the leg or arm; there are major arteries there that can kill you pretty quick (not quick enough for self defense) if severed. And yet people survive shots to the chest and head, sometimes with pretty big weapons (i.e. a 30mm military round).
The other part of this myth is that pepper spray or a tazer would be better, both morally and tactically. It supposes that these devices work 100% of the time, with no training. Well, when less lethal (not non-lethal) options are pursued by police, it is done with armed backup. I've seen people shrug off tazers (I've shrugged them off), and they require a precise hit at close range if they even are effective. Pepper spray is merely an irritant. I'd rather rely on a tool better suited for the job, especially without backup.
Myth #5: "Use a Man's Weapon!"
I see this every once in a while. "Anyone can use a gun, that's why I use a _____, it requires more skill." And these people blame us for machismo...
Essentially, the idea is that if you are a "real man" you'll use your fists, or a knife, or a bludgeoning weapon instead of a firearm, because it requires "real skill" to use. Well, pardon me, but if I am fighting for my life, I want it to be as easily as possible to survive. I don't want to worry about the challenge of that. Challenge is better suited to sports and video games.
If the bad guy has a gun, I don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight. If the bad guy does not have a gun, I'd rather have the better tool.
Myth #1: Gun Owners are Vigilantes.
This myth comes in several parts: 1) the job of the police is to protect the people, not the job of the people to protect themselves, and 2) anyone who carries a weapon for the sake of self defense is looking for an excuse to kill (a common critique of SYG laws). The first part of this myth follows the "only cops and soldiers should have guns" line of thinking, and the second part of the myth serves to demonize gun owners.
As to the first part, the Supreme Court has rules that the police are not responsible for your safety, mainly to prevent lawsuits against police departments in case they are unsuccessful in their job. Considering response times, most dangerous situations will be over before the police arrive. Therefore, the only person wholly responsible for my safety is me. I am not taking the job away from the police or trying to do their job for them...I am simply trying to preserve my life and liberty. There is also the suggestion that your average gun owner is going to shoot himself in the foot, but a cop will be able to make that shot on a robber with a human shield with pinpoint accuracy. New York news stories would suggest otherwise...
The second half is even more chilling, the idea that gun owners will tote weapons into public hoping for an excuse to use them "in self defense". They believe that we use loopholes in the law to bring about dangerous situations so we can get away with killing. The idea is ludicrous if you understand our legal system: someone who picks a fight and then kills that person is usually found guilty. Everyone claims "self defense" after commiting homicide, even if it was premeditated...that doesn't mean we're abusing loopholes in the law. The courts will find if it really was self defense, or if it was unjustified.
Myth #2: You Don't Need ______ For Self Defense.
Generally this refers to rifles ("you don't need that much power") or "high-capacity clips" ("you don't need 30 rounds to stop an attacker"). This myth is basically used to justify gun control laws by saying that if you're concerned about self defense, you should be fine after this ban goes through.
The problem with this myth is that what is needed in one situation may not be enough in another. There are stories of people surviving 30mm shots from military weapons, taking 5 shots to the face from a revolver ("shot placement" didn't even help)...and that's when bullets hit one target. When faced with multiple attackers, and considering the average hit rate under stress...I don't want someone else telling me what I will or will not need in order to defend myself.
Myth #3: Killing is Always Wrong
There are some who believe violence against others is always wrong. If you are threatened, your goal should be to do whatever you need to in order to survive without sinking to the level of your attacker; which could mean complying or running away. It is a pacifist approach that is designed to make us look like we're barbarians full of machismo.
I will agree that murder is always wrong, and killing should never be the goal. However, I am willing to respond to an active threat on the lives of myself or my loved ones with lethal force if necessary. I would rather live with those actions than live with inaction and guilt of what I could have stopped...or not live at all. There is a common saying that gun control is the idea that a woman who is found dead in an alley is morally superior to a woman explaining to the cop why there are several bullet holes in her would-be attacker's body.
Myth #4: "Just Shoot the Leg"
This is mostly seen in comments in news articles, "you don't need to kill him, just shoot the leg." The idea is that there are less lethal options to killing, so you should go for those instead of taking lethal force. It suggests that killing in self defense is wrong, because you have other options available (and usually alludes to the use of a tazer or pepper spray).
There are several problems at play here. The idea of shooting someone in the leg to "wound" instead of "kill" ignores the goal of self defense shootings: you shoot to stop the threat. You do so by hitting an area likely to cause a physiological stop. The leg is a bad idea compared to the chest because A) it is a harder target to hit and B) it is less likely to stop the target quickly. You are also very likely to kill someone with a shot to the leg or arm; there are major arteries there that can kill you pretty quick (not quick enough for self defense) if severed. And yet people survive shots to the chest and head, sometimes with pretty big weapons (i.e. a 30mm military round).
The other part of this myth is that pepper spray or a tazer would be better, both morally and tactically. It supposes that these devices work 100% of the time, with no training. Well, when less lethal (not non-lethal) options are pursued by police, it is done with armed backup. I've seen people shrug off tazers (I've shrugged them off), and they require a precise hit at close range if they even are effective. Pepper spray is merely an irritant. I'd rather rely on a tool better suited for the job, especially without backup.
Myth #5: "Use a Man's Weapon!"
I see this every once in a while. "Anyone can use a gun, that's why I use a _____, it requires more skill." And these people blame us for machismo...
Essentially, the idea is that if you are a "real man" you'll use your fists, or a knife, or a bludgeoning weapon instead of a firearm, because it requires "real skill" to use. Well, pardon me, but if I am fighting for my life, I want it to be as easily as possible to survive. I don't want to worry about the challenge of that. Challenge is better suited to sports and video games.
If the bad guy has a gun, I don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight. If the bad guy does not have a gun, I'd rather have the better tool.
gotta love the gamers...
