What will you do when the rioters arrive in YOUR neighborhood?

[Amby 490]

so projectile vomit onto the rioters isn't an option?

I don't see why not, so long as it's patriotic vomit - make sure you eat a good selection of red, white and blue items et voila!

good to hear. i'll have some campbells chicken and stars soup and put some food coloring in it

[peejay 327]

so projectile vomit onto the rioters isn't an option?

That should be enough to get them scattering like quail, but a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot would most likely be more effective.

[Ban Hammer 13,429]

What really irks me about Americans today is they'd rather be unprepared and live under the illusion of "safety" than make preparations to defend themselves.

that and that 911 will help them more than a loaded firearm

[slim 1,530]

Why do you keep saying that? I'm not making that argument. What are you basing it on?

I'm basing that on society's acceptance of shooting people, even those engaged in criminal activity. Shooting people, even criminals, is often seen as "wrong" even if they're shot while engaged in a criminal act. How often do we see someone shot by the police even and still hear the outcry, "well, they could've just caught him" or my personal favorite "they could've just shot the gun out of his hands."

A lot of States do. As to the reduction factor - pure speculation.

There's not a single state in the Union that guarantees a property owner's right to kill criminals conducting crime on or against their property. Every single state has laws reading something to the effect of "if your safety is threatened by a criminal you have the right to defend yourself." That's a far cry from stabbing them in the back 30 times as they run off with your TV.

They did. You need to read up on Virginia's gun laws. They have CHP.

I believe you should read up on Virginia's gun laws. (And all gun laws, for that matter.) Even CHP doesn't afford the legal right to carry inside a classroom. So, NO, they were not afforded the legal right to protect themselves. Much to the contrary. They were actually PROHIBITED by the law from carrying inside the school as is everyone else with CHP.

And the only way to do this is to possess and carry a loaded gun? Whatever happened to basic common sense? You don't need a weapon to take precautions for your own safety.

You're absolutely right. You can minimize your threat down to almost zero by using common sense.

Almost. For that .01%, a loaded gun does a lot to counter the threat of being victimized.

As this whole thread is essentally a 'what if' scenario, I don't think anyone has actually made the 'it's wrong to shoot them' argument as regards what one should do faced with an angry mob. What has been argued, to a lesser or greater degree of seriousness, is whether standing and fighting for a specific set of material goods/property or executing a strategic exit is the most sensible course of action.

This is where maybe I've been seen as making a counter-point in favor of defending your stuff. That was not my intention. I'm agreeing with all of you on that point. Material possessions are not worth your life or anyone's life and I'm not arguing that point. However, what I'm trying to get at is you should have more of a right to "stand up and defend yourself and your home, your everyday way of life" than those who wish to take it away from you have to do so.

If people are engaging in criminal activity, any criminal activity, riots, burglars, etc., why does their right to commit a crime supercede my right to take action against them? Society has now deemed it "wrong" to take any action other than calling 9-1-1 and waiting for the police to arrive. I wonder, does society realize the average police response time is over 7 minutes?

The rules for this scenario are not very clear, for example the degree to which the 'angry mob' might be armed themselves which really makes the 'standing and fighting' strategy less than sound, in my opinion but I digress.

Typically, an angry mob is armed with, at most, clubs, chains, etc. Maybe a molotov cocktail here and there and a few folks with pistols or a shotgun. Usually a mob's strengths lie in it's numbers and the momentum of the crowd, not in their acual armament.

What I entirely fail to understand is why 'standing and fighting' is associated with being 'brave and American' which, it apparently does given how staunchly the advocates of this strategy seem to be in its defense. I would have thought such sentiments were completely irrelevant. Either you survive and your strategy is deemed successful, or you die and it's not. Fortunately, or sadly (whichever way you look at it) there is no accurate way of predicting who is right.

Once again, I wasn't trying to make the point of standing and fighting being brave and/or American. I was trying to make the point that, as an American, you should have more of a legal right to stand and fight than the mob who would victimize you. Currently, you do not.

I am however somewhat wary of people who declare themselves prepared 'not to be victimized' by criminals as if somehow there is a fool proof way of preventing this eventuality and those who do become victims have only themselves to blame and that such preparations fall within reasonable behaviour given that the statistical chances of one being in these situations is incredibly small, no matter what the media would have one believe.

Well, the media has us believe that we're safe inside a classroom. That we're safe inside a government building. And that we're safe anywhere there's a sign up that declares "NO GUNS." Sure, we have a very small statistical chance of being victimized inside of one of those places, but it does happen. Those who carry guns aren't any "safer" than those without, however, it's a lot harder to victimize 32 people when one of them is armed. If two or three of them are armed, it's extremely hard to victimize them all. IF ALL OF THEM ARE ARMED, it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE!

It's also rather presumptuous to declare oneself fearless as regards facing a situation one has absolutely no familiarity with. The average person simply does not know -although often we are surprised just how sensible and resilient these people are when terrifying ordeals present themselves.

True again. But, wouldn't someone who's taken the time to arm themselves already be a step up on someone who hasn't in terms of "preparing" for a situation they're not familiar with? By the very act of arming themselves, aren't they familiarizing themselves with the possibility of reacting to an incident that could "possibly" take place?

that and that 911 will help them more than a loaded firearm

7 minutes. As said above, that's the "average" response time for police. If you imagine what can happen in 7 minutes, you may be compelled to start carrying a gun, even on the "non-existent" chance that something could happen to you.

[bhajishah 4]

9-1-1 wont help a thing, as they are uniformed gangsters in themselves.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm basing that on society's acceptance of shooting people, even those engaged in criminal activity. Shooting people, even criminals, is often seen as "wrong" even if they're shot while engaged in a criminal act. How often do we see someone shot by the police even and still hear the outcry, "well, they could've just caught him" or my personal favorite "they could've just shot the gun out of his hands."

There's not a single state in the Union that guarantees a property owner's right to kill criminals conducting crime on or against their property. Every single state has laws reading something to the effect of "if your safety is threatened by a criminal you have the right to defend yourself." That's a far cry from stabbing them in the back 30 times as they run off with your TV.

Interpretations as to whether force used is "appropriate" and "reasonable" will inevitably be concerned with the specific context of individual cases. I don't see what's wrong with that...

I believe you should read up on Virginia's gun laws. (And all gun laws, for that matter.) Even CHP doesn't afford the legal right to carry inside a classroom. So, NO, they were not afforded the legal right to protect themselves. Much to the contrary. They were actually PROHIBITED by the law from carrying inside the school as is everyone else with CHP.

Well isn't it obvious? There are some places where it simply isn't appropriate (or realistic) to carry a gun - for better or worse school property is one of those (likely because of the higher incidence of depression among teens, in which regard suicide is a far more likely possibility than becoming the victim of a gunman on a rampage).

If we're going down the road of hypothetical nonsense - if someone decided to go on a kill crazy rampage at a public gym or swimming pool, presumably the person's not having a firearm to defend themselves with would be.... whose fault? Or would we just accept that sometimes things happen that nobody can predict, and that sometimes it just isn't practical to prepare for every eventuality.

If that weren't the case - people would likely be scared $hitless of public transport and never ride a bus, train or plane ever again because of the fear of terrorism.

We can go on all day with ridiculous analogies - not that this would prove anything. And I'm as far away as ever from whatever point it is that you think you're making.

As this whole thread is essentally a 'what if' scenario, I don't think anyone has actually made the 'it's wrong to shoot them' argument as regards what one should do faced with an angry mob. What has been argued, to a lesser or greater degree of seriousness, is whether standing and fighting for a specific set of material goods/property or executing a strategic exit is the most sensible course of action.

This is where maybe I've been seen as making a counter-point in favor of defending your stuff. That was not my intention. I'm agreeing with all of you on that point. Material possessions are not worth your life or anyone's life and I'm not arguing that point. However, what I'm trying to get at is you should have more of a right to "stand up and defend yourself and your home, your everyday way of life" than those who wish to take it away from you have to do so.

Again. What are you basing this on?

If people are engaging in criminal activity, any criminal activity, riots, burglars, etc., why does their right to commit a crime supercede my right to take action against them? Society has now deemed it "wrong" to take any action other than calling 9-1-1 and waiting for the police to arrive. I wonder, does society realize the average police response time is over 7 minutes?

This is your central (and unsubstantiated) assumption.

Quite simply - I don't think that this is the case.

Typically, an angry mob is armed with, at most, clubs, chains, etc. Maybe a molotov cocktail here and there and a few folks with pistols or a shotgun. Usually a mob's strengths lie in it's numbers and the momentum of the crowd, not in their acual armament.

In movies....

Unless you have "experience" with angry mobs that you've not previously disclosed...

Once again, I wasn't trying to make the point of standing and fighting being brave and/or American. I was trying to make the point that, as an American, you should have more of a legal right to stand and fight than the mob who would victimize you. Currently, you do not.

Prove it. Then we'll have something to talk about. So far you haven't.

Well, the media has us believe that we're safe inside a classroom. That we're safe inside a government building. And that we're safe anywhere there's a sign up that declares "NO GUNS." Sure, we have a very small statistical chance of being victimized inside of one of those places, but it does happen. Those who carry guns aren't any "safer" than those without, however, it's a lot harder to victimize 32 people when one of them is armed. If two or three of them are armed, it's extremely hard to victimize them all. IF ALL OF THEM ARE ARMED, it's nearly IMPOSSIBLE!

So the lesson being that if you are crazy and want to go on a kill-crazy rampage - you should do it in a sauna, the gym or a public pool.

Perhaps I should buy myself a spear gun - just in case....

It's also rather presumptuous to declare oneself fearless as regards facing a situation one has absolutely no familiarity with. The average person simply does not know -although often we are surprised just how sensible and resilient these people are when terrifying ordeals present themselves.

True again. But, wouldn't someone who's taken the time to arm themselves already be a step up on someone who hasn't in terms of "preparing" for a situation they're not familiar with? By the very act of arming themselves, aren't they familiarizing themselves with the possibility of reacting to an incident that could "possibly" take place?.

Carrying a gun doesn't prepare you to deal with the psychological implications of being faced with a situation that's beyond your comprehension.

You've not heard of shell shock or PTSD? Pretty well documented phenomenon in the armed forces...

[slim 1,530]

Interpretations as to whether force used is "appropriate" and "reasonable" will inevitably be concerned with the specific context of individual cases. I don't see what's wrong with that...

What's wrong with that is the legal system in the U.S. has deemed a "reasonable" level of force to be "what a reasonable person would see as acceptable, given the circumstances." The fact is, "reasonable" people have become so removed from violent action that anything other than the most heinous of crimes is often "reasonably" punished by a slap on the wrist. This, in effect, protects a criminal's right to conduct crime, even in a violent manner (assault, rape, etc.) without fear of being punished in a violent manner. It also places a legal obligation on a property owner or other law-abiding citizen to flee from crime before countering it by force.

If you read up on CHP, and even simple self defense laws, most states have a "duty to flee" from crime unless it's an imminent threat to your own life or those around you and if there's no possible exit. Only then can you take action to counter the threat against you. Why is that?

That said, many states are now omitting the "duty to flee" in incidents that occur inside one's home or vehicle. That is progress. Those states are recognizing that law-abiding people have more of a right to conduct their everyday lives than criminals do to disrupt them in an unlawful manner.

However, there is still a "gray area" concerning what is acceptable and what is not. It's amazing to me that we as a society are trained to take into account "the criminal's rights" whenever they're confronted while breaking the law. "That shopkeeper was wrong to shoot that kid that was shoplifting." Sure, that's probably a little over the top. But, I guarantee you there won't be any more kids shoplifting at that guy's store! But, we as a society would see that case on the news and instead of thinking, "well, now there won't be any more shoplifting, we say, at least we live in a society where you're free to break the law as long as it's not that bad."

Well isn't it obvious? There are some places where it simply isn't appropriate (or realistic) to carry a gun - for better or worse school property is one of those (likely because of the higher incidence of depression among teens, in which regard suicide is a far more likely possibility than becoming the victim of a gunman on a rampage).

This is where you are flat-out wrong. First of all, it is illegal for a teen to own a handgun. Secondly, it's also illegal for a teen to gain a CHP.

So, we've established that those who would be legally allowed to carry a handgun on school property, (or anywhere for that matter) would be law-abiding adults who've already proven (via CHP application process) that they're not criminals. Why is it that law-abiding adults should only be allowed to practice their Rights in certain places? Are we going to next say that you should only be allowed to read if you're sitting down in a public park? Or, should reading be banned in public places because maybe those around you would object to the content of your book. While we're at it, lets go ahead and start registering our books.

If we're going down the road of hypothetical nonsense - if someone decided to go on a kill crazy rampage at a public gym or swimming pool, presumably the person's not having a firearm to defend themselves with would be.... whose fault? Or would we just accept that sometimes things happen that nobody can predict, and that sometimes it just isn't practical to prepare for every eventuality.

There's a certain level of preparedness or non-preparedness everywhere. One's personal level of preparedness should be based on one's personal perceived threat. When folks are legally denied the Right to be prepared then there's a problem. When folks are legally denied Rights based on perceived "safety" of others than they're opened to even more of a threat from those who are willing to disobey the law.

The gym is a good scenario. First of all, there are many things in a gym that I could defend myself with. There's probably more than one exit as well. And if I really feel a perceived threat, I could keep my gun next to me or have a buddy that's "overwatching" me while I work out.

In a school, that's not an option becuase regardless of the perceived threat, NO ONE is allowed to be armed except for sworn peace officers. (7 minutes!)

If that weren't the case - people would likely be scared $hitless of public transport and never ride a bus, train or plane ever again because of the fear of terrorism.

We can go on all day with ridiculous analogies - not that this would prove anything. And I'm as far away as ever from whatever point it is that you think you're making.

Who is scared of terrorism? Anyone scared of terrorism is a fool. By it's very nature, terrorism is not something defeated by "being ready for the attack." It is simply impossible to "be ready" for a terrorist attack. Terrorism is effectively countered by "hardening" yourself (taking away the effectiveness of their attack) and by eliminating the threat before it can happen. That's it. That is extremely different from being prepared to "counter" a criminal action in real-time. Sure, you can make common sense decisions to limit your exposure to the possiblity of a criminal attack (as evidenced in your previous posts) but the possibility remains that you could be victimized anytime, anywhere. The likelihood of being victimized increases exponentially in an area where law-abiding citizens aren't legally afforded the opportunity to arm themselves.

The point I'm making is this - Americans have a Constitutionally-protected Right to pursue life, liberty and happiness among many other things. When someone attempts to take away your Right to do so, you're now (present day) obligated to wait for someone else to come stop them. Their right to illegally disrupt your Constitutionally-protected exercise now carries more weight than your Right to ensure you're not disrupted in the legal exercise thereof.

Unless you have "experience" with angry mobs that you've not previously disclosed...

I do have "experience" with angry mobs. I'm also trained to counter rioters in a peaceful manner. Believe it or not, often times the most "peaceful" way to counter a riot is with a lot of violence. But, once again, we have to protect the criminal's right to conduct crime so we can't shoot them... gotta bust some heads and then give 'em their due process.

When you see a large-scale riot (back to OP) on TV, the mob is typically not armed with advanced weaponry although they're usually able to burn down just about anything standing in their way. However, the property owner who is armed with advanced weaponry (remember the Korean shop owners perched on rooftops with 12 gauges?) is almost always able to protect their property. Why is that wrong?

Once again, I wasn't trying to make the point of standing and fighting being brave and/or American. I was trying to make the point that, as an American, you should have more of a legal right to stand and fight than the mob who would victimize you. Currently, you do not.

Prove it. Then we'll have something to talk about. So far you haven't.

You don't have to look any further than your local newspaper to see where the "law-abding citizen's" Rights are in comparison with those of a criminal.

So the lesson being that if you are crazy and want to go on a kill-crazy rampage - you should do it in a sauna, the gym or a public pool.

No! You should do it in a college classroom, church, or hospital that way you know everyone you'll be shooting at CAN'T shoot back unless they're a criminal too!

Carrying a gun doesn't prepare you to deal with the psychological implications of being faced with a situation that's beyond your comprehension.

You've not heard of shell shock or PTSD? Pretty well documented phenomenon in the armed forces...

It may not prepare you to deal with the psychological implications POST-incident. However, if you're not legally-afforded the right to defend yourself, (and subsequently killed) then you really don't need to worry about any psychological implications because YOU'RE DEAD!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

9-1-1 wont help a thing, as they are uniformed gangsters in themselves.

They'll show up in plenty of time to fill out the reports. Just tell the rioters to 'hold their horses'.

[Caladan 19]

You know, this really isn't a question I've pondered. Certainly not with any kind of Walther Mitty fantasy.

I think there are plenty of good reasons to own a firearm, but "what if the scary people invade my neighborhood" isn't really one of them. Rioters usually cause property damage, and in most cases shooting them a) wouldn't be something you're legally allowed to do (I don't think you can ethically shoot someone to prevent them from overturning a car or setting a bonfire down the street, and that's 99% of riots) and B) probably would make the situation worse (by giving the mob a target. Even cops know there are situations where you don't escalate.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this other than that its ok to use a dead child as some sort of Old Testament example of what happens if you commit crime, and that no emphasis for punishment should be given to the over-judicious shop-keeper who gunned down a child in cold blood over a matter of a few cents worth of merchandise to justify the vague premise that "at least noone else will try that again".

Noone is arguing that people shouldn't "prepare" themselves, what I'm objecting to is the idea you seem to be pushing that violence must always be the first and only resort - and that in a riot you should not only be able to blow up hundreds of densely packed people with explosives but expect to get away with it as a reasonable defence.

That has been done in the past, of course - where soldiers have opened fire on crowds to break up gatherings of people (e.g. the Amritsar Massacre) but many of these are rightly regarded as atrocities - because in our society its the role of the judicial system to determine whether actions taken were appropriate and "legal".

[justashooter 430]

Carrying a gun doesn't prepare you to deal with the psychological implications of being faced with a situation that's beyond your comprehension.

You've not heard of shell shock or PTSD? Pretty well documented phenomenon in the armed forces...

carrying a gun (with proper mindset) can protect you from the psychiological implications of being faced with a situation that is beyond your control. using a gun in self defense will reduce the possibility of shell shock or PTSD.

shooting another person is not easy to do. people have to be trained to do it. once they are, though, they are prone to do so without hesitation. it becomes a part of their cognitive schema. if they are sure it was warranted after the deed is done, they are generally OK with the result. sure, they have just "gone where few men have gone before", and it can be an isolating experience, but it won't result in shell shock or PTSD in a person that has a reasonably well developed ego and has made a "good shoot".

shell shock and ptsd are two very different things.

shell shock is the result of imposition of change upon a person's experience that exceeds their ability to adapt. it can be a result of a disruption of an individual's perceived reality. it can be a result of privation in terms of creature comforts, like a good meal, warmth and shelter from weather, a hot shower, and clean clothes. it can be a result of exposure to loud noises on a consistent basis, and the resultant interruption of the sleep cycle. it is the result of exposure to real or perceived danger for extended periods of time, in which the body's adrenal system is hyperactivated beyond it's capacity, and shuts down to prevent permanant damage to the body's organic systems.

combat troops usually loose effectiveness due to shell shock within 60 days of deployment. in WW1 the average american deployment was 90-120 days between R&R. the english held such long periods thru WW2, by which time americans were at 90 days, putatively. in modern times just about every country in the civilised world understands that "fresh is best", turns the front lines over much more frequently, and attempts to quarter troops well to the rear of true danger zones.

we can make this more understandable, and relate it to a forum in which family relationships are the centerpiece of discussion. divorce can cause "shell shock" in a person, if they were living with the expectation of trust within the marraige and are suddently, violently, and repeatedly betrayed and/or attacked. receiving aggression from an individual against whom all defenses are useless can result in shell shock. children can also be traumatised in similar ways by sudden and significant repeated betrayal or abuse by a parent that had cared for them previously. "shell shock" is all about unexpected change/danger and it's cumulative effect on the body's hormonal system.

PTSD is the result of having witnessed an event, and feeling that somehow it could have been prevented by the witness. PTSD is what a man feels after his son dies in a car crash, because he thinks that if he had just taught the boy to drive better... PTSD is what a soldier feels after his buddy is killed, because the soldier feels that if he had shot sooner, or held his buddy back, or thrown that grenade a little farther, his buddy would still be alive. PTSD is all about guilt residual to the change/danger.

[Caladan 19]

But what will YOU do if the Zombies show up! Like in the MOVIE!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of making sweeping assertions about how people would react in given situations that they have little experience of.

But what will YOU do if the Zombies show up! Like in the MOVIE!

Are they George A Romero zombies or the 28 Days Later variety?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What really irks me about Americans today is they'd rather be unprepared and live under the illusion of "safety" than make preparations to defend themselves.

Slim, I firmly believe in the right to own guns, but the notion that they are the most effective self defense in most situations is simply not accurate. People should ultimately be concerned about the safety of their family and whatever precautions they make to ensure their family's safety should be grounded on that premise.

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

What really irks me about Americans today is they'd rather be unprepared and live under the illusion of "safety" than make preparations to defend themselves.

Slim, I firmly believe in the right to own guns, but the notion that they are the most effective self defense in most situations is simply not accurate. People should ultimately be concerned about the safety of their family and whatever precautions they make to ensure their family's safety should be grounded on that premise.

Wow! New sidebar, Steve!

You are right that there should be an integrated family plan for what to do in any emergency, not just a riot. For instance, what is the best evacuation plan, and where does the family meet up in case they are seperated? Protection is good. Having food, water, and medical supplies is good. But, so is the plan to "bug out", while the getting is still good, or when your position becomes untenable.

--Bullwinkle