Whether to carry is up to the individual.Posted by quatin: Therefore, the situations in which I can precisely follow the law to shoot someone is so narrow and the consequences so vast, that I've realized it's futile to carry a gun outside of my home.
The probability of one's being a victim of violent crime in this country during one's lifetime is shockingly higher than one might think; study this for the data. Just to frame the picture, a forty year old stands, on average, a 36% chance of being a victim of at east one violent crime during his remaining lifetime.Yes, I know we are preparing for that 0.1% chance when we need a weapon, but of that 0.1% chance there's a 90% chance that we won't be completely justified in using(shooting) it.
If one does use a weapon only when he or she actually needs it to defend against an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, it really would not benefit him or her to not have it when that need arises.
In many instances, the mere presentation of a firearm does suffice to precent a violent crime, but not in all; when it does, that's great. When it does not, the firearm can stop the attack via the application of deadly force.If the most that a firearm can do for me in those situations is to intimidate the threat, there's much more useful tools that I can carry.
I now realize how under utilized mace, tazers and batons are. If anything, I'd be negligent to carry a firearm, but not a non-lethal weapon since there's a much greater chance that I'll need it.
As Sam implies, the justification for drawing and if necessary, shooting someone with, a firearm is the same as for striking someone with a hammer, bat, walking stick, golf club, or baton; the operative term is deadly force. Unless one is highly trained, however, such a weapon is much less likely to be as effective as a firearm. If it's all that one has, however, it will have to suffice.
Personally, I do not see a taser as an appropriate tool for civilian self defense. Rather, it is used as part of a continuum force by trained, sworn officers in effecting arrests. If one were to use on on an attacker, what would he or she do after the duration of the shock had ended? Would he or she remove the barbs? And as Sam asked, what would be the justification for using one that would not justify the use of something that would be far more effective in protection the actor?
I do carry a pepper device in addition to a firearm.
My advice?
- Make an informed decision about whether to carry a firearm.
- If you decide to do so, avail your self of quality training on how to avoid the need for using it, how to use it if you have to, and what to do afterward if you do have to use it; that includes becoming knowledgeable of the law in your jurisdiction and any juridiction into which you might travel.
- Maintain your proficiency.
- If you have decided to carry a firearm, do so--there is no way of knowing "when you might need it".
- Always stay observant and alert.
- Avoid risky areas, and if there is somewhere that you would not feel comfortable unarmed, do not go there carrying a gun unless you have to.
- Should a confrontation develop, make every effort to deescalate and get away; if you can safely escape, do so, even if you are in a "stand your ground" jurisdiction; always do everything that you can to avoid using deadly force, if you do have to use deadly force, do so only to defend yourself, your family, and people you know very well.