Your survey isn't very good

[MattC]

Running away

what about 'run away, hoping the attacker is slower than the slowest member of my family'

I like that change.

“Be a good witness”
That is the catch-phrase, and I suppose the sarcasm wouldn’t reach someone undecided about concealed carry. The original wording will satisfy me.

“Health”
I agree with you, after reading your arguments, that “health” is not the correct word to use. Did “well being” sound better to you?

“Self-Defense” & “Effective”
You prove your point well about the legal definition and uses of “self-defense,” however we are targeting a common reader without much familiarity with firearm laws, I assume. I think that the term “self-defense” implies only defending oneself to most readers. With that in mind, I continue to suggest “defend myself” as inline with the intent of the original question and appropriately focused on a single issue for the reader to decide upon. Regarding the continued discussion of whether “life-threatening” is necessary, I contend that it clarifies the question and gives the reader more focus when answering. For ease of continuing the discussion, I want to reiterate the question:

My suggestion:
When forced into a life-threatening conflict, I would prefer to defend myself with
---My bare hands.
---Pepper spray or other irritant.
---A firearm.

Original:
Given a choice, I would prefer to defend myself with...
---my bare hands
---an ineffective weapon, such as pepper spray
---an effective weapon, such as a firearm

I’ll concede the argument about using the word effective. We both realize it is a loaded question, but it gets the point across.

Technical Restrictions
You have a good point about my inappropriate looseness in this term, and it will likely impair the question. The “physical damage” wording is still my preference, but I will stop arguing against “effective” for the positive reasons that you have laid out.

I appreciate your discussion on this, and I hope that it will prove helpful to Oleg.

 

[iiibdsiil]

There isn't much wrong with that poll. It really makes you think, and go "DUH!"

I would also put something like this:

Who is responsible for my family and mines well-being?

- The Police, Whom Are With You At ALL Times to Protect YOU
- The Government Whom Feels The Way to Protect Yourself is to Limit Your Means of Protection
- No One Is Responsible for Me But Me

Also, how about something like:

The criminal mugging you has a 15 round capacity magazine, you want:
- Pepper Spray
- A prayer
- To give him your wallet, hoping he doesn't kill you, or the next 15 people he muggs
- A 10 round magazine, as that is what the law permits
- The most amount of rounds I can hold so that I can be sure to be effective

And of course, stealing from another idea:

The typical police issued Glock holds 17 rounds. The police officer also carries extra magazines. Police have radios to call for back up and extensive training, therefore:

- I don't need to be able to protect myself
- I probably need MORE accessible rounds to be as effective
- My basic training is better then the police officers, and I do not need back up, therefore a 10 round magazine is plenty.

At least something to the extent of those. It's 2 am, I'm not thinking 100% clear here.

 

[akodo]

“Health”
I agree with you, after reading your arguments, that “health” is not the correct word to use. Did “well being” sound better to you?

I still think safety is the best choice, but 'well being' is not so different, I think with 'well being' the meaning is still clear enough.

“Self-Defense” & “Effective”
You prove your point well about the legal definition and uses of “self-defense,” however we are targeting a common reader without much familiarity with firearm laws, I assume. I think that the term “self-defense” implies only defending oneself to most readers. With that in mind, I continue to suggest “defend myself” as inline with the intent of the original question and appropriately focused on a single issue for the reader to decide upon. Regarding the continued discussion of whether “life-threatening” is necessary, I contend that it clarifies the question and gives the reader more focus when answering. For ease of continuing the discussion, I want to reiterate the question:

I've got mixed feelings about 'the common reader'. On one hand, the newspaper is written on a 3rd or 4th grade level. On the other, I think people who are going to take the time to get informed on their own on issues, find this survey, and actually go all the way through it, is selecting out the bottommost grouping. I suspect that those who take this survey CAN name all the continents, all the great lakes, and at least 2 supreme court justices.

However, I don't think it would hurt anything to have a small blurb about personal defense and what it means on the very top of the survey. Something like.

Regarding the use of personal defense. We are discussion PERSONAL DEFENSE, not property defense, or image defense. When mentioned in this quiz, personal defense does not mean stoping someone from stealing your TV, it means that you, or a family member, are in danger of death or serious injury.

And, yes, there are probably questions where this can be re-iterated by expanding the example to include 'life threatening' or expanding the example to include family members, ala the 'run away and hope my kids can keep up'

Now, onto the 'bare fist/pepperspray/gun' question.

I am not sure I am reading your comments correctly, but are you saying the original wording is acceptable? I had previously objected to both the use of 'forced into' and 'life threatening' however, in light of your comments on what a reader woudl knwo, I can live with the re-iteration of 'life threatening'

In a life-threatening conflict, I would prefer to defend myself with
---my bare hands
---an ineffective weapon, such as pepper spray
---an effective weapon, such as a firearm

And while I do believe the inclusion of effective vs innefective is the best, also along with the above comment about expecting our readers to be a bit above teh lowest rung of newspaper readers, I do think even if we removed the effective/ineffective and just had pepper spray and firearm, it would be all right, although in such a case I would also suggest adding in 'family members' as well. Someone who is a bit unsure of how effective pepper spray really is may be willing to think about it's use (kind of, hey even if it doesn't stop him, it may slow him down enough for me to run away) may give a more serious consideration if his/her own children are thrown into the mix, or even theoretical future children. It may even highten the debate, as a person may bring into consideration safe storage and keeping a firearm from kids vs keeping pepper spray from kids, balanced all against the total effectiveness needed if a true major threat is looming

In a life-threatening conflict, I would prefer to defend myself and my children with
---my bare hands
---pepper spray
---a firearm


Technical Restrictions
You have a good point about my inappropriate looseness in this term, and it will likely impair the question. The “physical damage” wording is still my preference, but I will stop arguing against “effective” for the positive reasons that you have laid out.

I can see your viewing 'effective' as being loaded, except I do believe it to be the true heart of the matter. You suggested 'physical damage' I believe as that is how you thought effectiveness was probably measured, and wanted to take one step away from deciding for the reader. Thing is, in firearms there are no easy answers for such questions for 2 reasons. One, you can't really test the effective stopping power in a scientific way, as you just don't have many people volunteering to let themselves be shot to death for a study. Second, people are so vastly different, both with body size, as well as the drive to live, or even the drive for vengance too keep on trying to kill even after receiving a would that will ultimately kill them, that annalizing data of real world shootings is extremely iffy and difficult...let alone the thousands of variables related to exactly where a person was shot.

There are tables that have analized real world shootings, and give a 'one shot stop' rating, however, these include both people truely incapacitated, as well as those who simply stopped fighting and surrendered after being shot, even if physically they probably could have continued had they had enough drive, along with a few other measuring concerns (like how many seconds after the shot did the person actually stop? is 2 seconds after long enough to call it a 1 shot stop? wouldn't 2 seconds still give them a chance to pull the trigger if they had their own gun?)

again, this is part of the reason we believe the choice on what gun to use for self defense must be left up to the individual to decide for him/herself


please forgive any spelling mistakes

 

[MattC]

Akodo, this has been a good discussion. We have arrived at questions that we both are comfortable recommending. All of your latest revisions satisfy me, and I like your recommendation for simply defining personal defense. Thank you for all of your thought-out comments and help!

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

Even though I happen to agree with Pleg for the most part, I have always thought that his "survey" is pretty bad with heavily loaded questions.

It's the kind of thing that you would expect from a religious site:

"Do you believe that people shouldn't die?"