Gun for self defense, but lack of support from police?

[Denma]

I live in the US. I plan to get a gun to defend myself, and I have the full right to defend myself with a gun when I am attacked. It's the 2nd amendment.

I heard that if women reveal that they had *self-defense training* after successfully fighting off a rapist, she gets charged for "premeditated aggression". I am worried because I plan to shoot down anyone who barges into my home and elsewhere, and there's no way I can cover up the fact that I planned my safety beforehand.
Due to my incapable arm and small stature, I doubt I can fight off even an average sized guy with self defense training. So I am getting a gun and NOT pepper spray or tazer. I can't afford to get an attacker near me.

Would killing or injuring my rapist be considered "premeditated aggression"? In that case, it seems like a no win situation for me. I either don't have a gun and get killed during an attack, or I rescue myself but end up in prison. The arm can't be my excuse for having a gun either because my arm's condition is undiagnosed and looks perfectly fine. My arm is weak to the point that I can't even hold a gallon of water without having it slip out of my hand.

Before anyone calls me extremist and tells me to "use softer methods" like pepper spray or tazer: I can't afford to have an assailant near me. That would be the end of me. I only have one arm and no way can I fight off some big lug with one arm. Also, why is everyone so concerned about saving the rapist's life when he obviously had no respect for mine? Why, is it too harsh to give that "poor little rapist" a boo-boo or something?

To the people who want to question if I am capable of dealing with the fact that I took someone's life: It's either my life or theirs. If I had a gun, maybe I might not be the one dead. I have a problem taking life and I am a vegetarian, but I have no problem taking the life of a scum who probably would've raped and killed other women after attacking/killing me. I think that reason alone is good to not be so morally uptight when it comes to killing my attacker. By killing the attacker, I potentially save other women's lives.

And, for people telling me that the assailant can use my gun against me and kill me: I am getting trained for this. It doesn't matter if the rapist ends up using my own gun against me since he was going to kill me even if I was unarmed. I might as well have a gun to get on a fair level with an assailant much bigger than I. Not to mention, I only have one arm.

[Aum]

First of all, I fully support shooting someone who is blatantly trying to sexually assault you. They lost the right to live when they violated you, and you have the right to defend yourself even if it means accidentally taking their life.

The problem is, whether or not it's self-defense depends on what they did to you, and how dangerous the circumstances are to your actual life.

[letyourlifesing]

Looks pretty premeditated to me. You've just said that you, in the hypothetical, plan on killing someone.

[Sonic#]

You're assuming a lot about rape:
That the goal is to kill you.
That rape is always an encounter with a stranger.
That you can tell a rapist before they get close.

That aside, it's okay to be prepared, provided that you keep in mind that self-defense is quite particular, and you shouldn't expect a situation with a straight confrontation.

Self-defense is touchy. If you fire on someone that doesn't appear to be an imminent threat, you're in danger of assault or murder. As well, when you fire, you can only do so to the point where they no longer attack. Putting a whole clip into someone at once is going to be suspicious. You have to use the gun before or during the act. After that, it's retributive killing, subject to murder.

All these distinctions are there to prevent you from killing someone needlessly, because even if they are guilty for an act, who are you to pass down sentence upon them? That's for society, or for higher powers. The moment that you move from dealing necessary force to a plan of killing, you're no longer protecting yourself. These rules, I will finally note, don't just protect rapists, but anyone who, on a dark night, might be mistaken for one. I don't want to get shot at because I pass the wrong person.

[Butterfly North]

Are you worried about a specific person breaking in? If not, and you're more afraid of random attacks (which are very unlikely), is this something which preoccupies you a lot? If so it could be good to take a step back and judge whether this is a rational or an irrational fear. Everybody has irrational fears but if this is one, it would be a shame to let it go unchallenged if it's causing you undue distress.

[monk]

I live in the US. I plan to get a gun to defend myself, and I have the full right to defend myself with a gun when I am attacked. It's the 2nd amendment.

Personally, when someone quotes the 2nd amendment at me I truly wonder about whether they are in favor of guns or not. My own philosophy is that I have decided I am going to defend myself regardless of what the "law" is, and if I do defend myself from something I will worry about whatever laws I broke later when my attacker is being hauled away in a hearse or ambulance and I am sitting there in shock with a blanket on my shoulders and hopefully a cold beer or shot of Jack.

I heard that if women reveal that they had *self-defense training* after successfully fighting off a rapist, she gets charged for "premeditated aggression". I am worried because I plan to shoot down anyone who barges into my home and elsewhere, and there's no way I can cover up the fact that I planned my safety beforehand.

You've been hearing weird things, because this is flatly untrue.

Due to my incapable arm and small stature, I doubt I can fight off even an average sized guy with self defense training. So I am getting a gun and NOT pepper spray or tazer. I can't afford to get an attacker near me.

They have tazers that shoot now, and are effective out to 30 feet or so which is about the effective range of a handgun unless you really train your ass off to master your gun and then continue to go to the range every month and stay fresh with your training.

Would killing or injuring my rapist be considered "premeditated aggression"? In that case, it seems like a no win situation for me.

A person attacking you isn't a rapist until you've been raped, the attacker might just be a regular ol'serial killer or some other kind of criminal who includes attacks in his/her profession.

I either don't have a gun and get killed during an attack, or I rescue myself but end up in prison.

People who are attacked in their homes and defend themselves rarely end up in prison.

The arm can't be my excuse for having a gun either because my arm's condition is undiagnosed and looks perfectly fine. My arm is weak to the point that I can't even hold a gallon of water without having it slip out of my hand.

If the law in your area prohibits concealed carry and you do it anyway, it doesn't matter whether your arm is weak or completely missing, you are still breaking the law and can be subjected to the penalties. Just so you know though, the penalty for shooting someone is the same whether you had the gun concealed on you legally or not. What they're going to judge is what other have said already, Where you in imminent danger? did you stop your aggression with the weapon once the danger had passed?

Before anyone calls me extremist and tells me to "use softer methods" like pepper spray or tazer: I can't afford to have an assailant near me. That would be the end of me. I only have one arm and no way can I fight off some big lug with one arm. Also, why is everyone so concerned about saving the rapist's life when he obviously had no respect for mine? Why, is it too harsh to give that "poor little rapist" a boo-boo or something?

Again, it's unlikely your assailant is going to shout at you from a distance saying "I'ma comin' to rape you!!!" so when you pull out your smoke wagon and go to work I hope you have some serious proof that this target is an actually assailant when you decide to take his life. Also, you might want to give somethought to some self-defense technique for close in situations just in case your attacker gets up real close sneaky like instead of shouting his intent from a good shooting distance.

To the people who want to question if I am capable of dealing with the fact that I took someone's life: It's either my life or theirs. If I had a gun, maybe I might not be the one dead. I have a problem taking life and I am a vegetarian, but I have no problem taking the life of a scum who probably would've raped and killed other women after attacking/killing me. I think that reason alone is good to not be so morally uptight when it comes to killing my attacker. By killing the attacker, I potentially save other women's lives.

It's good of you to think about the moral implications, me personally, I am selfish, I would kill you too if my life was made measurably better by it and I could avoid all those pesky consequences society puts on murder for profit.

And, for people telling me that the assailant can use my gun against me and kill me: I am getting trained for this.

Yeah, it's called self defense and it works even if you don't get the gun.

It doesn't matter if the rapist ends up using my own gun against me since he was going to kill me even if I was unarmed.

Just so you know, most rapes do not end in death. Of course most rapes happen from people you know and wouldn't be likely to shoot.

I might as well have a gun to get on a fair level with an assailant much bigger than I. Not to mention, I only have one arm.

I disagree, I think you should get on a far superior level from an assailant so that you can rebuff their attack and laugh about it.

Sorry if this was long and critical but guns are one of my pet peeve issues.

[Denma]

Xinzang, I doubt I will get attacked much, but it's better to have something and not need it than not have it when I need it. I live in an area where violence and invasions do happen, and as I said, I am small and live alone. I tend to be a target for harassment already, so who knows what will happen later?

I am going to answer this all at once.

"Looks pretty premeditated to me. You've just said that you, in the hypothetical, plan on killing someone."

Sure, but in that case you can call all self-defense trained girls to have been "planning to hurt someone". The least I'll do is shoot their leg to keep them from attacking me, but in a panic, I doubt I can even aim that well so I probably will end up killing them. Oh well.

You're assuming a lot about rape:
That the goal is to kill you.
-Most of the time, the raped also get killed. And I am not only talking about rape, I am talking about all attacks I may face. Burglary, murder.

That rape is always an encounter with a stranger.
-Who said it's always stranger? Don't read what I didn't write. Most women get attacked by people they know, which means a higher chance of scums learning about my weaknesses (weak arm, single living) and targeting me.

That you can tell a rapist before they get close.
-You can't tell anything or predict anything. That's why one prepares for the worst in the first place.

You have to use the gun before or during the act.
Of course, because after the act I'll either be dead or beat up pretty bad to really do anything. My goal is to prevent someone from harming me during endangerment.

who are you to pass down sentence upon them?
Wow. As I said, I am not going to be so morally uptight when my own life is in danger. They're the ones who violated MY right. Who are THEY to take MY right and pass down a sentence of death, injury, STD, or a general lower quality of life on me? I have the right to defend myself in return, even if that ends up with the other person dead. The society doesn't have my best interest, it's my own responsibility to protect myself. And don't tell me to call the cops if I get attacked. What am I supposed to do while they're coming? Lock myself in the bathroom and read a book? What if there is no bathroom or a place of protection when the attack happens? What if I get outrun? It takes time for cops to arrive, and I'll probably be dead or raped by the time the cops come. No, I'll disable the attacker from attacking me, and then call the cops. Not the other way around.
And you're the one who's assuming a lot about me. Don't think I'll just go around shooting everybody in the dark, I am not eager to hurt people.

If I am alone and catch someone or a gang sneaking up on me or chase me across some dark parking area even after I told them to stop, I am going to shoot at their feet. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should follow me when I am alone.
If things happens at my house, I am definitely shooting. There is no reason why anyone should come into my house and make a mess.


Are you worried about a specific person breaking in?
No, but where I live, it's plausible to get attacked or get my home invaded. Also, it's unlikely that I will get attacked out of the thousands of people who live in this town but it's wise to prepare anyway. No victim assumed that he or she will get attacked.

"Also, you might want to give somethought to some self-defense technique for close in situations just in case your attacker gets up real close sneaky"

I already plan on getting a self defense training. One-arm style. :/

[Sonic#]

Most of the time, the raped also get killed.

The vast majority of the time, the raped survive.

FBI crime reports statistics show that the number of reported forcible rapes is around 100,000 per year. The number of reported murders involving rapes were 4,807 betwen 1976 and 1994, an 18 year period.

Or, to look at 2009 numbers, there were 15,241 reported instances of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. There were 88,097 cases of reported forcible rape (only one kind of rape. There aren't enough murders to add up to half the forcible rape rate.

Who said it's always stranger? Don't read what I didn't write. Most women get attacked by people they know, which means a higher chance of scums learning about my weaknesses (weak arm, single living) and targeting me.

You can't tell anything or predict anything.

Too true on both counts. The preparations you are making are best suited for preventing a stranger who declares their intentions at a distance, so it's your preparations, if not you, who assume that it's always a stranger. Closer than 12 feet or further than 30 feet away, the gun's effectiveness goes down except as a deterrent (if it's visible), because it takes time to draw, it's difficult to aim at a moving target at those distances, and it's vulnerable to a melee attack. It won't keep you as safe in such situations as a taser or pepper spray, both of which can neutralize an opponent long enough to get away and are easier to aim.

My goal is to prevent someone from harming me during endangerment.

How do you determine endangerment? Many times, a threat cannot be known until the moment of attack, which, if someone is smart, will only be when you are close. As you've acknowledged, you can't tell. I think you should be prepared. I criticize, however, the idea that a gun is a far better level of preparedness, or that any level of force will keep you safe. It will only keep you safer from certain threats, and isn't particularly better at keeping you safe than tasers or pepper spray.

It takes time for cops to arrive, and I'll probably be dead or raped by the time the cops come. No, I'll disable the attacker from attacking me, and then call the cops. Not the other way around.

Let's say you shoot someone. They will either be too disabled to act again, will run away, or will persist. Do you think I'm telling you to just call the cops and hide? No. I was speaking against the ideas that you will always have time to react, that you will have a clear-cut determination of an attacker, and that "it's my life or theirs" is always going to be the situation. Merely suspicious characters, you get to a safe place and/or call the cops first.

The point I'm trying to make is that you don't know who an assailant is until they actually attack. Most of the time, they won't attack until you're close up on them. If you shoot them before that point, it's premeditated aggression. You may not have a chance to shoot them during the attack. Thus, you shouldn't rely on just a gun, or just spray, or just a taser, or just training. It's good that you're getting self-defense training. I would also counsel you to get spray as a back-up if the assailant gets too close for drawing and using a gun to be viable.

My other comments were reactions to what was implied in your other statements, a willingness to shoot at someone whose threat you can't know. I now know that you wouldn't intentionally shoot at someone who hadn't yet attacked you. As for my other skepticisms, these are the same questions I ask anyone who thinks that carrying a gun makes them safer - how can you determine threat? At what point is the threat sufficient to draw? To fire? You say that there's no time for morals in such a situation. However, if you've already thought these things through, rather than reacting to an idealized threat, then you're more likely to not overstep your ethical authority.

I am going to shoot at their feet.

If you know much about using guns, you know that when you're not shooting warning shots, you aim at the chest, because that's the largest and most central part, and most times you aren't in an ideal situation to aim for particular body parts.

[Denma]

Well, I heard otherwise several times. I am not eager to look up the statistics right now and even if assuming that most rape victims survive, how does that make my situation any better? If not death, there is still the ridicule, injury, high chance of STD (assuming that rapists already sex several times), and PTSD. So it doesn't really matter if my life is going to be taken or not, my life is going to be ruined anyway if I get attacked.

Distance doesn't mean they are strangers. Let me define a good distance as a distance where you get a considerable amount of time to react before they attacker gets hold of you. Anyone can be in that distance. Pepper spray works when they are at a distance where can attack me before I react. Tazer? That's a hit-or-miss, and likely to enrage the invader into killing me if I miss one shot. It takes time to reload a tazer.

"Closer than 12 feet or further than 30 feet away, the gun's effectiveness goes down except as a deterrent (if it's visible), because it takes time to draw, it's difficult to aim at a moving target at those distances, and it's vulnerable to a melee attack."

Same with spray or tazer. In a brawl, I doubt either weapon is going to help much. Speaking of aiming, that's why one gets training for it. I don't see how it's different from pepper spray except the gun is longer distance.


"Most of the time, they won't attack until you're close up on them."

If they're in my house in the middle of the night, I am going to shoot. If I get attacked, I am sure it's going to take place at my house anyway.

Speaking of strangers outside the house, keep a good distance and be aware of my surroundings. I don't know how to determine if someone's intent on attacking me, but gut feelings are good indications. If the other person has a gun as well and is following me, I'll shoot before asking questions. If he has other weapons like a knife, that's a good sign that I should shout at him or something. How do I know if someone is following me around and keep my distance? By being aware of my surroundings. That's the first step that prevents things, but when that fails and the guy is coming near me, I'll need a gun before he gets too close. :/

Even around people you know, you always keep a distance unless you're in a public setting. Even a trustworthy looking "friend" can turn out to be a total creep.
If I ignore my surrounds and it comes to a point where the attacker already attacks me, I doubt a pepper spray will help much anyway. Not to mention, if the guy is psychotic or there are many of them at once, a pepper spray probably isn't going to stop him/them, while shooting can be repeated several times. I've been ganged up on before, so I know how scary that can be. Having to defend against several people at once.


"and most times you aren't in an ideal situation to aim for particular body parts."

Which is why I said I might just end up shooting and killing them in the first place.

Since no one seems to be answering my question, I am not responding to this post anymore.

[Sonic#]

Well, I heard otherwise several times. I am not eager to look up the statistics right now and even if assuming that most rape victims survive, how does that make my situation any better? If not death, there is still the ridicule, injury, high chance of STD (assuming that rapists already sex several times), and PTSD. So it doesn't really matter if my life is going to be taken or not, my life is going to be ruined anyway if I get attacked.

Agreed. Someone doesn't have to die for violence to be a serious crime. I am not saying in any way that rape is not a horrible, egregious, and traumatizing act that changes a person who has undergone it. I am saying that you should kill someone only if there is no other alternative to stopping an assailant, and exaggerating or misrepresenting the violence done in rapes in order to justify self-defense does no service to those who actually suffer. It needs no exaggeration.

If the other person has a gun as well and is following me, I'll shoot before asking questions. If he has other weapons like a knife, that's a good sign that I should shout at him or something.

By this measure, you would shoot anyone else armed to protect themselves that happens to be following you.

Since no one seems to be answering my question, I am not responding to this post anymore.

Would killing or injuring my rapist be considered "premeditated aggression"?

The problem is, whether or not it's self-defense depends on what they did to you, and how dangerous the circumstances are to your actual life.

Looks pretty premeditated to me.

Self-defense is touchy. If you fire on someone that doesn't appear to be an imminent threat, you're in danger of assault or murder. As well, when you fire, you can only do so to the point where they no longer attack. Putting a whole clip into someone at once is going to be suspicious. You have to use the gun before or during the act. After that, it's retributive killing, subject to murder.

If the law in your area prohibits concealed carry and you do it anyway, it doesn't matter whether your arm is weak or completely missing, you are still breaking the law and can be subjected to the penalties. Just so you know though, the penalty for shooting someone is the same whether you had the gun concealed on you legally or not. What they're going to judge is what other have said already, Where you in imminent danger? did you stop your aggression with the weapon once the danger had passed?

How have we not been answering the question?

[rowan]

Well, to actually answer your question, we'd have to be lawyers, and none of us are, so if you want to get an answer to that you should go ask a lawyer. My guess would be "no" but I'm not a lawyer.

*shrug* I don't think a gun is an effective means of self-defense, for precisely the reasons outlined above. But frankly if you're gonna do it anyway I don't really think it matters what our opinions are. Please keep it locked and in a safe location away from children.

[Dr. What]

First off, I own guns, my father owns guns, and we do shoot them on a regular basis. We did it as more of a bonding experience but it does help to know how to handle them and use them effectively.

I hate to sound like a typical Texan, but guns can be a very effective deterrent, before there is even an attack. Though judging who is going to attack you and when can be difficult at best as the people before me have mentioned. However, I will relay a story of an experience I had a few years ago at a gun store.

There was a man with his girlfriend/wife/lady friend in a gun store looking for a home defense weapon that they both could use. The salesman helping them picked up a shotgun and casually pumped the gun loudly. EVERYONE in the store turned around to see what happened. The salesman then told them that "that sound is the most recognizable sound in the world, and you don't have to shoot them to warn them you will if they get closer." You don't have to shoot somebody necessarily to make them go away.

Also, if somebody enters your home uninvited and forcefully, you have the right to defend yourself.

That being said, there are more effective ways to defend yourself than putting a hole in somebodies head. Tasers are extremely effective and are good up to a greater distance than pepper spray or even a baseball bat. I am all for being safe, but a gun is a huge step when there are many better and safer ideas for your home, especially if you have kids.

[Wolfen]

You're assuming a lot about rape:
That the goal is to kill you.
That rape is always an encounter with a stranger.
That you can tell a rapist before they get close.

That aside, it's okay to be prepared, provided that you keep in mind that self-defense is quite particular, and you shouldn't expect a situation with a straight confrontation.

Self-defense is touchy. If you fire on someone that doesn't appear to be an imminent threat, you're in danger of assault or murder. As well, when you fire, you can only do so to the point where they no longer attack. Putting a whole clip into someone at once is going to be suspicious. You have to use the gun before or during the act. After that, it's retributive killing, subject to murder.

All these distinctions are there to prevent you from killing someone needlessly, because even if they are guilty for an act, who are you to pass down sentence upon them? That's for society, or for higher powers. The moment that you move from dealing necessary force to a plan of killing, you're no longer protecting yourself. These rules, I will finally note, don't just protect rapists, but anyone who, on a dark night, might be mistaken for one. I don't want to get shot at because I pass the wrong person.

I completely agree with this statement. this is also why I think guns should be banned.

[great girl wonder]

Denma I think you just want to be told that it is okay to shoot someone that is trying to attack you.

You can't have a gun on you all the time. So I assume you are talking about getting a gun for just your home. Have you thought about living in a more secure area? Bars on the windows, doorman, locks, security patrol.... You obviously don't feel safe where you are at right now.

Edit: I just noticed this was a revived dead thread

[edit the sad parts]

Bad necromancers, bad!