I find it odd that on a gun board filled with advocates of carrying, both concealed and open, for the purpose of self defense; that the idea of using a plastic bat called the brooklyn smasher for the same purpose is regarded as a quick one-way trip to jail. "Sure buddy, get you a gun, learn to use it, carry it with pride, but don't get caught with a plastic bat, you might hurt someome with that."
Am I the only one that sees the irony in this?
Wheeler what I mentioned is simply the law in CA, and many laws especialy weapon laws around the country do not make sense. Knife laws and blunt object laws and other weapons arguably less capable than a firearm are far more severe and restrictive many places than even the laws on firearms.
In CA illegaly carrying a concealed and loaded firearm as a pedestrian and not commiting another crime
can be a misdemeanor on the first offense. Doing the same thing with a concealed kitchen knife, or even a heavy stick carred as a weapon
will be a felony.
Now irregardless of the law, you also have to consider public perception, prosecutor perception, and jury perception. If you get into a fight with a determined individual and you are armed with oh lets say a knife.
A smaller pocket knife as usualy carried by people, wielded by your average citizen for self defense is not going to result in immediate disabling wounds with a single stabbing especialy with the other person actively attacking.
Now more than a dozen stab wounds could be given in a matter of 10 seconds, and the other person can still be attacking. It takes a good 20-30 seconds for even those inflicted to often take effect, and non lethal ones much longer.
So in a court of law the average person will see you stabbed someone multiple times. It is gruesome. Even if it was necessary and you only stabbed for as long as you were being attacked and stopped right afterwards you may find the jury unable to relate. You may find yourself convicted of a crime, because they just simply cannot relate to that kind of force having only experienced it in movies, and in the movies someone keels over after the first stabbing, yet you did a lot more than that.
However had you used a firearm in the same situation, pressing a button, or pulling a trigger to stop the attack is something the average person can imagine themselves doing.
So even with the same end result, the attacker seriously wounded or killed, and the attack stopped, the outcome can be very different.
You are likely to be viewed as a monster with the knife, and if the evidence is even slightly questionable, like it ofteny is in public self defense with conflicting witness statements etc, then you will probably be convicted for something you would not be convicted for defending yourself with a firearm over.
The prosecutor and jury will look at it, wonder if you really needed to stab someone that many times, think it took far longer to do than it actualy did, and question whether you went beyond self defense. That even if you stopped stabbing as soon as the attacked ceased.
With a firearm it is different. The house wife on the jury, the locals that didn't have an excuse to get out of jury duty etc will be able to relate to pulling a trigger while in fear for thier life, because it is more refined, less savage, less primative, and more respectable somehow. People not familiar with a life threatening physical altercation will understand pulling it trigger to save themselves. They won't be as likely to relate to actively engaging in hand to hand deadly force, to the extent often necessary in real life to stop a determined attacker.
The same irony can exist with a bat. In an attack where both parties are actively dodging avoiding direct blows it may take multiple hits with a blunt object to stop an attack. You may do a brief dance until one makes a makes a couple mistakes that the other can take advantage of and put an end to the danger.
It may be even more questionable. For example, you hit them with a glancing blow, causing them to stumble. You now have the advantage, but they are clearly upset and getting back up. Do you strike them to prevent that? Or do you gamble with your own life and not finish the fight while you can?
If you wait for them to regain composure themselves you can end up losing, murdered yourself. This is not a sport and you are not in a ring, are you going to be sporting with your life? The well being and financial support of your family, your ability to parent your children?
With a firearm it is much easier in such a situation because you can put that decisive off until closer to the last moment, when they clearly demonstrate they are still a threat. You don't have that luxury with a blunt object, and that can mean the difference between the jury understanding, and you going to prison. Or them gaining the upper hand and then finishing you off.
A blunt or sharp object does not allow some of the same luxuries in the decision making process that a firearm does.
If you have ever been in a serious fight you know that once you start prevailing you can often control the outcome as long as you continue. As soon as you stop the outcome goes back up in the air and is less certain. Things are brief, they are rapid, and the outcome can be the difference in who survives. Do you owe your attacker a fair fight? Are you fighting a duel or defending your life against someone that threatened your life and/or attacked you?
The people judging your fate afterwards often expect you to give someone a fair fight with hand to hand fighting or contact weapons. They don't hold you to that standard with a firearm for some reason, simply being in immediate life threatening danger is enough with a firearm, but with a blunt object you are expected to make yourself vulnerable multiple times just in case they changed thier mind mid attack. It may sound good in theory, but you may not find it keeps you alive in practice.
So even when just as capable, non firearms are not as good of a weapon for self defense because you will have a harder time in a court of law explaining to people with no similar experience multiple successive blows and why you did them, as opposed to explaining firing a shot or two while your life was in danger.
The glove is to catch the baseball if your attacker throws your baseball back AT you!!! LOL. either way, you win!
