Reflection on Weapons Carry

[Dirty Dog]

If that knife fits the bill as a utility weapon than a jury just might buy it. But then again if you've got a gun it's not likely you'd use the knife for self defense. Your personal weapons carry choices are irrelevant and we're dealing with a lot of hypotheticals here. Again I'm not talking about a clear case of self defense, I'm referring to the gray areas. Look at the case of the atienza Kali guy (Umalii believe was his name) in the trial it was noted that he had a specialized knife and it worked against him. Did it seal his fate? Maybe not, but it was a contributing factor to his imprisonment. My point and I think the point of the op is that your choice of weapon could be damning in a court case, especially if you're choosing to carry said weapon as a less than lethal option.

Obviously laws vary widely from country to country, but in the US (which is where I live) the weapon is irrelevant. You're either justified in killing them, or you're not.
And although I am not a lawyer, I have spoken with a number of lawyers and police officers about this issue, and the consensus is clear.
If you use a weapon, don't BS about it. State clearly that you used a weapon because you were in fear for your life and that you intended to shoot/stab/bludgeon them.
In criminal court, you're either justified or not. But if you say something along the lines of 'I didn't mean to shoot him" then you're opening yourself up to civil charges for negligence.

As for using the knife as a weapon... it depends on the specifics. Am I on my back with my gun under me and an attacker on top? I might well go for the knife, depending on other factors.

 

[Mephisto]

Obviously laws vary widely from country to country, but in the US (which is where I live) the weapon is irrelevant. You're either justified in killing them, or you're not.
And although I am not a lawyer, I have spoken with a number of lawyers and police officers about this issue, and the consensus is clear.
If you use a weapon, don't BS about it. State clearly that you used a weapon because you were in fear for your life and that you intended to shoot/stab/bludgeon them.
In criminal court, you're either justified or not. But if you say something along the lines of 'I didn't mean to shoot him" then you're opening yourself up to civil charges for negligence.

As for using the knife as a weapon... it depends on the specifics. Am I on my back with my gun under me and an attacker on top? I might well go for the knife, depending on other factors.

I agree somewhat. A weapon should only be used if you're in fear of losing your life, follow that rule and you're less likely to end up in trouble. But reality, your perception, and the perception of the legal system are different and that's when problems arise. If it's evident to all of the aforementioned parties that you would have died if you hadn't used a weapon you're probably in the clear, but things aren't always so clear and that's where things like intent come into play. Good people can wind up in prison for killing bad people and it's a terrible situation, it needs to be considered.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think with the Atienza Kali guy what really killed him was stabbing someone and then fleeing the scene. That is never going to work out well for you.

 

[joejeweler]

I always enjoy Mr. Hicks Humor,....but I think his satirical comparison between the handgun related deaths in the USA compared to the United Kingdom contain a few SERIOUS flaws.

Firstly,....there HAS to be an assumption that a great deal of the "other" murders committed in the United Kingdom last year were accomplished using another weapon of convenience, since a handgun is so restricted. Evil will make use of what's easily obtainable,.....so I suspect many more UK murders were instead committed by knives, clubs, baseball bats, rope used in strangulation,...etc,...you get the picture.

Mr Hicks somehow seems to convey that since so few handgun deaths occurred in Great Britan, that those driven to take a life did NOT use another method, which of course would not have been the case!

Secondly, the POPULATION number differences would have to be accounted for to make any fair comparison.

According to a Google search, in 2014 the Population in the USA was 318.9 Million.

Google

In a similar Google search in 2014 the Population in the UK was 64,019,370 as listed here: U.K. Population (2015) - Worldometers

So the US population is about 5X that of the UK, which is not insignificant when an observer wishes to make a fair comparison.

......just saying it's not as straight forward as Mr. Hicks presents it.

cheers,
Joe T

 

[daifu]

Hicks was like too many these days, spin whatever bs however you want to for your benefit. The euros are in serious danger of being extinct and if they don't have a deterrent of some kind, they better get one soon.
It's largely an unreal world presenting no real challenges and with a simpleton child's explanations and ideas. But the more what is false and worthless gets foisted up, so all the real consequences get ratcheted up too.
One group of people becoming more dependent, mush brain commies and another group becoming more rabid and violent. When numbers reach certain points, more victimizations and violence become "routine". Unofficially accepted as a "norm".
In those circumstances the gov who taught the mush head effeminate commies historically does not back them up or "reward" their being good little barneys with "protection".

I have to lean towards the "items of opportunity" - unless it is a gun and one is open carrying. There will be more problems with t*rds trying to rob people to steal their pistol, than normal people causing problems with their pistol.
I think women should open carry pistols if they think they can be a big girl. If not, they are potentially meat and there's nothing for it.
What the UK did to itself being "french" is being imposed on Americans whether they like it or not, forced and enforced. When it's a huge mess, people will be on their own.

At this point for everything else, weapons of opportunity.
For pistols, strap one on and walk your females around the grocery store.

The only reason we aren't in the same shape as the euros is the reputation that we will fight back.

Ridiculous social laws for a society of queer mice won't be observed by stupid wild savages or stronger individuals who aren't so brotherly. Be careful.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think women should open carry pistols if they think they can be a big girl.

Open carry does one thing, really. It tells the bad guy who to shoot first.
If you're going to carry a defensive weapons (I do, and have for many years) it's better to do so concealed.
And it doesn't matter which plumbing you have, either.

For pistols, strap one on and walk your females around the grocery store.

Wow, that doesn't sound sexist at all. Nope. Not at all.

 

[daifu]

"Wow, that doesn't sound sexist at all. Nope. Not at all."

Rapists and thugs I think are more sexist than me.
Your statement was entirely politically correct tho, which I like most intelligent people find repugnant.....

 

[elder999]

I think with the Atienza Kali guy what really killed him was stabbing someone and then fleeing the scene. That is never going to work out well for you.

I dunno. Sometimes it works out okay-the problems with the case of Isias Umali (the "Atienza kali guy")
First off, though, you're right-he shouldn't have run
.
Geography was against him-he was in NYC, where weapons laws are restrictive, and his Spyderco Delica became a "tactical, military weapon" in the hands of the prosecution, not simply illegal to carry in NYC.

So he was also screwed by his choice of weapon.

His lawyer could have been better-someone versed with the nuance of self-defense in New York. Witnesses should have been cultivated (though this was screwed by his running away).

Subsequent attempts at covering-up: throwing his clothes away, etc.-turned what could have been a legitimate case of self-defense into conspiracy to commit murder, and his instructor Alain Atienza into being charged with obstruction of justice, and being a co-conspirator, and witness for the prosecution.

 

[Steve]

"Wow, that doesn't sound sexist at all. Nope. Not at all."

Rapists and thugs I think are more sexist than me.
Your statement was entirely politically correct tho, which I like most intelligent people find repugnant.....

So, for those keeping score at home, you are self described as intelligent, intentionally offensive, and sexist, but not as sexist as a rapist. Funny.

 

[Grenadier]

Admin's note:

Please keep this discussion civil, and on-topic.

 

[daifu]

So, for those keeping score at home, you are self described as intelligent, intentionally offensive, and sexist, but not as sexist as a rapist. Funny.

I have +2 on the unnecessary fight picking why-people-dont-post-here list?

Really, you can have your territory. It's a SMALL matter.

 

[lklawson]

I'm really late to this thread, so please excuse if others have already posted similar statements.

One thinks of a weapon as an advantage in a self-defense situation, and to be sure, it is. But I believe that there are also disadvantages involved in weapons carry.

Hmmm... Not particularly major disadvantages.

First, if one has a weapon, one must protect that weapon from being taken away and used against one. Whether it is a gun, a knife, a bludgeon, or whatever; nearly any weapon that one can carry can be used against one if it is seized by an aggressor.

For the most part, this is easier done than said. You read that right, "easier done than said." Generally speaking, the willingness to use a weapon dramatically increases the difficulty for a defender to take it away. This is particularly true when the weapon is employed at its ideal range. Waiting to employ an 8 foot staff or a firearm at 2 feet away is not the ideal range, shows an lack of willingness to use the weapon, and decreases the difficulty that a defender will have in defending against it.

Second, nearly all weapons one might carry could potentially be considered capable of inflicting deadly force, at least in legal terms and in the USA (I do not know the laws of every jurisdiction, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc). However, it is my belief and understanding that one may only legally resort to deadly force when one is authorized to do so; for example when legitimately in fear of one's life.

Well, yes, if it is a Deadly Force weapon or if it is being used in such a manner. Take, for instance, the expanding baton. When used against the head it is considered deadly force. LEO's are now taught to only use it (or use it first) against extremities and to try to strike nerve clusters in those extremities. When used in this manner, it is not considered Deadly Force, usually.

Third, a weapon, as many here know but some may not, is not a magic wand. One does not pull it out, wave it around, and things get better. In general, once a weapon is brandished, the chances that it will have to be used become much, much, higher. In other words, even if a given confrontation was not life-threatening, by introducing a weapon, now it is. And that may not be a good idea, depending on the circumstances.

Well, in general, yes. However, the more "intimidating" a weapon is, the more likely its very presence will cause the threat to decide to remove itself. Statistically speaking, in the U.S., this is particularly true for firearms. Most studies which track the use of firearms show that merely displaying one has a high chance of dissuading an attacker. This isn't because a firearm is magical, it's because the attacker is generally convinced that a firearm is particularly intimidating and dangerous. The less intimidated a person is by a given weapon, the less likely that he will be dissuaded by its display and the more likely the defender will be required to actually commit to using it.

Fourth, weapons in general require proficiency to be anything other than a dangerous detriment to the person carrying them. A knife, a gun, even a taser or pepper spray. One gains little advantage from depositing them in a purse or glove box or carrying them in a pocket if one has no particular experience using them. As a former Military Policeman, we took part in extensive training with our weapons, including spraying each other directly in the face with Mace (before pepper spray). We did our best to become and remain proficient with our weapons, and we used them constantly in self-defense situations (Marines in garrison, what can you expect?). I do not think most civilians practice to obtain that level of proficiency.

In general, yes, true. However, weapons are "Force Multipliers." They allow a person to have equal "force" to someone who is unarmed but with greater training. In other words, while it may take 10,000 hours of training for a person to be expertly deadly with their bare hands, it may take only a few hundred with a sword when employed against someone who is bare handed. Certain weapons are usually "easier" than others and require less training and demand less physicality than others. A knife requires less physicality than a Meteor Hammer, for instance. And a firearm tends to require the least physicality of all, allowing even a physically disabled person or an aged and weak person to employ a Force Multiplier to be "even off" against a young, strong, and trained unarmed person. This is the reason why armies have always employed weapons and have always gravitated to the most effective personal weapons available which require the least physicality and the lowest training threshold. In Late Medieval England, the freemen class was required, by law, to practice with the longbow every weekend.

Fifth, the willingness to use a weapon to take a life. I suspect that most people who carry weapons have not thought a lot about what happens when you take a human life, or they don't think (or want to think) that the weapon they choose to carry might end a life, or that they would employ it in that manner.

Well, that depends on the weapon, of course. You earlier mentioned Mace, which is generally considered a Non-Lethal/Less-Lethal alternative but still a "weapon," and often bearing a regulated status in some legal jurisdictions. Most people would not worry too much about taking a life when using a Taser or Pepper Spray because circumstances which end a life while employing either of those are, statistically, minuscule. On the other hand, if someone were to carry a knife for self defense, then the possibility of taking a life raises significantly over that of Pepper Spray.

I am not trying to say that one should not defend one's life with deadly force if the need arises. I am saying that I don't think many people have through through what it means to do so. To intentionally end a human life is more than pulling a trigger. There will be blood, brains, fecal matter, urine, vomit, and the general chaos that ensues after such an event. Even if justified in killing a human being, there will police, questions, lawyers, and expenses. There will almost always be emotion and financial costs. Still better than being dead oneself, true. But I would hope that no one seriously thinks they can blow away a mugger (for example) and tell the cops what happened and that's that, end of story. Your life will change, forever, starting at that moment, and in many ways not for the better, other than the major upside of still being alive.

There may be legal consequences, even if your actions are justified, which could ruin you financially and destitute your family. The families and sympathizers of attackers have shown an increased willingness in recent decades to sue. Even if the suit is eventually thrown out of court, it may end up costing your life savings and earthly possessions.

Now, if I am the person being punched, of course I will defend myself. But if I am carrying, say, a gun, now I have to worry that the person punching me will tackle me or knock me down and somehow gain possession of that gun.

Nah. Gun Retention techniques are easy, well known, and well disseminated as well as being augmented by a willingness to use the firearm in defense. Same goes for any weapon. They're harder to take away than most people imagine. Sadly, I find this to be particularly true of "trained martial artists." I believe this to be because they have always trained their disarming techniques in a compliant manner and learned them from those who have also done so.

It appears to me that there are many who seem to have a preoccupation with the notion of carrying weapons they can 'get away with' in terms of not having them considered to be weapons by law enforcement. In my opinion, this is dangerous thinking. I only worked in law enforcement for a short time and I only studied Criminal Justice in college for a few years, but I did manage to absorb some basic understanding that has served me well over the years. For example, it's not what the item is, it's how you use it. A screwdriver is a screwdriver, until it's used as a weapon and the person who was carrying it INTENDED to use it for that purpose. Then is it a deadly weapon. I'm sorry, there's no way around this. All the various items that companies make with the idea that they will be mistaken for innocuous items and not weapons, but which are intended to be employed as weapons, they won't pass muster if one actually purchases them with the intent to use them as weapons and then does so. There are no cheats that work. Sorry.

To a certain degree, you got that right. The best defense for why you used a "weapon" is "he was trying to do serious bodily harm or cause death to my and/or innocent third parties." The only justified use of Deadly Force is against Deadly Force (using "the Reasonable Man" test).

Most controversially, I will add that in my experience, there are some people who seem to have either what I would consider an unhealthy obsession with weapons or a tendency to engage in magical thinking about what weapons do for a person. I do not suspect that such people are going to gain any advantage at all if they carry weapons about for the purposes of self-defense.

Content yourself with the knowledge that the Mall Ninja will, statistically, never be in a position which requires him to deploy his weapon of choice.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

To try to bring this discussion back to where I had originally hoped it would go, though, let me try this...

Let's pretend that firearms are not part of the discussion. Edged weapons, bludgeons of various sorts, chemical and electrical weapons only. I hope my points are still the same, but without the added dynamic of the pro and anti gun arguments.

If I happen to carry a (let's say) collapsible baton on my person for self-defense purposes, I still have to defend not just my own life, but my possession of that weapon. I have to keep control of it lest it be used against me. It also changes the dynamic of a self-defense situation the moment it is brandished. It is also not a magic wand in the sense that it ends trouble by merely being waved about. Etc.

Could we all agree to just leave the firearm debate out of this particular thread? My reflections were really more of a meditation on the possible downsides as well as the advantages to carrying weapons for self-defense, not the right and wrong of guns.

Weapons are weapons. There's a lot of mystique surrounding firearms based on politics, misinformation, and general inexperience. When carried as a weapon, they're just a weapon not particularly different from a knife or a sword. It's not hard.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk