I had this reaction to people talking about gun possession and threats to my person, say at an incident of road rage with an assailant coming towards me. If I saw them coming at me with a katana I'd be very worried. I probably would be mildly concerned if they got out of their car with a gun in hand or on their hip (though quite a bit more so if they started shooting immediately). Just their fists or some short blunt instrument, like a tire iron, not so much. In such an event I am after all surrounded by a case of steel and plastic, with a giant mobile shield in the form of a door right next to me. Out of the three, someone wielding a sword seems to me the most dangerous and imminent threat to my survival and safety. For one thing, who carries a sword in their car? That would have to be someone who knows how to use it to lethal effect or a fully deranged person likely to use it. A gun has some restrictions on the latter for ownership and not that many people are crack shots with a gun relative to the numbers who own one, especially a handgun. A sword is therefore the most likely instrument, other than an automatic rifle or sub-machine gun (again, who keeps those in their cars?), to cause serious risk.
My general reaction was that I wouldn't actually need a gun to defend myself except in very extreme and unlikely circumstances as a result. Even simply to display that I had one and intimate that I would use it. Much less to actually have to use it.
So to me, the idea that someone with a sword in hand did not dissuade someone from attacking could be taken as a reasonable precaution of quickly gauging their intention to harm and justify self-defense. This line in particular was basically my reaction: "If someone attacked me when I was visibly armed with a deadly weapon, I think I could reasonably believe that he must be very dangerous himself."
It's a lot harder to quickly kill some assailant with a sword. Though lopping off a hand would tend to take some of the fight out pretty quickly. What's curious to me is that this even became an issue. Ie, would someone have asked this question if it involved a gun instead of a sword? We seem to be assuming the gun must have been used in self-defense there but I'm not aware of too many Americans trying to go on some sort of offensive killing spree using swords in recent history. They would seem to me to be in the circumstances described, just as useful as a defensive weapon for protection and just as likely to dissuade attackers. In medieval societies, one mark of civilization was not having to walk around towns armed at all times. Since swords were the weapon of choice generally, it seems reasonable to presume they were used defensively for protection and displayed openly to dissuade the need to do so in the places where there was lawlessness.
Alcohol estimates
14 minutes ago
Posts
4 comments:
Right, so unless they can find some connection between the samurai sword owner and the intruder...I wouldn't say his fucking living room should be a place of lawlessness. Like you said, considering the area it was probably some random crackhead.
Basically yes. It does appear from the story that his living room had become a place of lawlessness: a previous break-in to steal a PlayStation for example.
And it does appear likely that this was a "random crackhead". It specified he was released from a "Baltimore facility" (usually implying a mental institution, drug rehab, or a jail). I think it is fair to investigate, to inquire when something like this happens. But once you come up with no implied connections between two people and a presentation of a threat, self-defense takes care of the rest.
There are people who argue that defending property or against mere assault isn't a justification for lethal force to be applied. But in most cases, it's sort of hard to tell the difference between mere threats to property with perhaps a punch to the face involved and "life or death" in the immediacy of the situation.
I don't fuck with people brandishing weapons, whether or not I'm right: that's irrelevant at that point. I'd never brandish one either, unless I felt absolutely fucked, because I always figure chances are it makes the situation worse than it would have otherwise been, and knowing my luck, the weapon would be taken from me and used against my person.
I think that was my logic on whether or not I should need a gun to defend myself. My having one seemed to me more likely to increase the probability that it would be used, either by me or by the other person.
And I could think of few circumstances that it would enhance my safety. Unarmed combat I'll take my chances if it becomes necessary. I have some reach and size effects that should be just as intimidating to prevent some fights. But realistically, most fights of any sort, gun-fights, sword fights, etc, are going to be caused by irrational actors in the first place. Having a gun, a sword, or really long arms isn't going to dissuade anybody like that.
Post a Comment