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.Denma wrote: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.
You've been hearing weird things, because this is flatly untrue.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.
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.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.
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.Would killing or injuring my rapist be considered "premeditated aggression"? In that case, it seems like a no win situation for me.
People who are attacked in their homes and defend themselves rarely end up in prison.I either don't have a gun and get killed during an attack, or I rescue myself but end up in prison.
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?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.
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.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?
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.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.
Yeah, it's called self defense and it works even if you don't get the gun.And, for people telling me that the assailant can use my gun against me and kill me: I am getting trained for this.
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.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 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.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.
Most of the time, the raped also get killed.
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.
My goal is to prevent someone from harming me during endangerment.
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.
I am going to shoot at their feet.
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.
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.
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"?
Xinzang wrote: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 wrote:Looks pretty premeditated to me.
Sonic# wrote: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.
Monk wrote: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?
Sonic# wrote: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.
monk wrote:so what you're saying is that great girl wonder beat the pants off you?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests