Responding to Vileness

On running into a link to a rather unpleasant blog from Joe Huffman's space (his piece titled, "bigotry examples"), I left the below in comments over at the blog that annoyed me. Name-calling as a substitute for logic, and personal attacks as a substitute for facts annoy me - and on my better days, I prefer to respond with reason and fact. (Note, severe snark in other settings I actually can appreciate, at least as long as I'm not the target. )

I hope I got it right, and am quite open to any friendly input on how I could've put it better.

===================================================================

I am a gay man with a disability that severely impairs my upper body strength, and asthma that makes "run away, run away" a rather futile safety strategy in the face of any sort of unpleasantry. This combination provides me with an odd new group to be a member of - "Heightened Target Profile".

"Run and fall down gasping for air" rarely improves ones chances of either successful departure from a scene of potential badness, or for faring well once one fails to depart.

Similarly, low upper body strength means that getting physical about it all does NOT really work for me. This is something many women and elders of both genders share with me WITHOUT the benefit of major surgery required to achieve it. Coincidentally, elders also often suffer from limited mobility from a wide range of causes.

We then examine "non-lethal alternatives", as nobody is eager to suffer the legal, moral, and ethical torments involved in utilizing lethal force (or the threat thereof) to defend oneself, ones home, or ones loved ones.

Verbal de-escalation, and/or "give them what they want". Sadly, in many cases assailants and home invaders really aren't up much for a jolly chat and resist being battered with logic quite effectively. Similarly, many of the more thuggish sorts realize that "dead folks tell no tales", and apply this unfortunate philosophy with great vigor.

Whistles, yells, bells, shrieking - it'd be great if they worked. For them to work, you need someone to HEAR the alarm, who then associates the alarm with "bad thing in progress", and finally isn't too scared of the local baddies to either rush out and help out - or at least summon police who may (depending on staffing and pre-existing calls at the time of disaster du jour) show up somewhere between two and forty-five minutes after the call is made.
An awful lot of bad, and very final, things can happen in just one minute...let alone forty-five.

Impact devices (sticks and such, as most private individuals do not have access to exotica such as "bean bag guns") require that *oh my* upper body strength, and in addition, require that one come within potential striking range of the assailant - a bad choice, in anyones books.

Pepper Spray, Tear Gas, and that old reliable, Mace all have substantial downsides if employed as a sole defense without help and more substantial defense tools readily available.
First off, when employed, environmental conditions (Wind is the worst, with "blow-back"; but rain/snow can reduce range and effectiveness as well) often negatively effect, even nullifying, such weapons - they can also be borderline lethal when employed against (or in the mere presence of) persons with impaired breathing function (bystanders, the intended victim, even the assailant). (Editorial addition 7/18 2310: Another little problem with this category - often folks hit with this sort of thing are not amused, and step FORWARD with ill intent towards those who utilized the aerosol against them)

Tasers and stun guns have their own issues. Proper training with them includes taking a hit FROM them, so you may understand their limitations. Most privately owned tasers are "non-projectile", i.e., for best results you need to apply the taser prongs to your uncooperative assailant (ideally at base of skull, or body core, in that order) at arms length...and HOLD it there for 20-30 seconds while you're riding your new friend, the "Assailant Bucking Bronco", as they find the experience unpleasant and try to break away and beat you senseless. As an added bonus, by definition you are within arms length if they break free and the beating commences...AND...that "holding on" thing requires substantial upper body strength. Not a good choice for the physically challenged, elders, or most women.

Separately, the "projectile" Taser type device (if you are in an area where they are legal for you and you planned ahead) suffer their own limitations. First, they are mostly "one-shot wonders" - if you don't get a "good hit" on your assailant, your Taser is now out of service until it can again be primed (depending on make/model, a lengthy process. Even better, assuming that under stress you hit your assailant from 15-25 feet away, it had best be summertime or in a mild climate - the flechettes (think of a pair of tiny little barbed arrows dragging wires behind them using the body of the assailant, ideally, to complete an electronic circuit) are notorious for failure to penetrate heavy clothing (winter wear, leather jackets, etc) which means no circuit, and in turn, no zap, and finally one very cranky assailant. In yet another bonus, bystander and assailant safety are placed at risk as the flechettes are simply exceptionally vicious small caliber projectiles that have a good marketing campaign. They can easily take out an eye, an exposed artery, or sundry other fun things - and as with any electricity based weapon, have serious cardiac implications for those with that set of issues.

Moving right along to more lethal weapons, we visit that most traditional category, the House of the Sharp & Pointy. The primary concern, where such implements are legal in the first place, is that effective use for defense requires substantial training and practice. Valid secondary concerns include both a need for upper body strength (again disadvantaging the differently abled), and the ever present concern that to utilize these tools in all but the most exotic fashions, one must come within grasping range of the assailant - enhancing ones vulnerability.

I think we can agree that there are *no* truly non-lethal self-defense measures, any more than there is *truly* safe sex. With any self-defense utensil, things can go suddenly and horribly wrong, and either you or your assailant(s) can end up suddenly and painfully dead or seriously injured.

Finally, and after much examination of other options (and yes, there remain a wide range we've not yet examined, that I suggest are best described as exotica - improvised weapons, muscle-driven projectile weapons, blow-guns, lethal or non-lethal chemical and biological exotica both airborne and injected, etc.) we approach examining a final category, firearms.

Firearms (and pistols, specifically), today, are the most effective means of preserving ones personal safety once things have gone so wholly awry that the preferred strategies ("run away, run away", or, "be someplace the trouble isn't") are no longer valid options.

Specifically, the point where the bat-wielding bashers have lurched from the darkness; where the rapist or burglar has entered the home; when a small business owner is at threat from an armed robber; or finally, when the random elder is assaulted by a mugger - all are points when less confrontational tactics have either failed or soon will, and with flight barred, the choices are either to fight - as effectively as possible - or die a cowards death, with head bowed and neck exposed.

A firearm, cliche as it is, ultimately is the equalizer of force between the aged and the youthful, the sprightly and the disabled, the hale and the infirm, and the law-abiding citizen and violent social predators.

Having analyzed the personal safety options, the recent Heller decision (and the pending cases likely to rather thoroughly clarify the Second Amendment as an even broader individual right, in those states without even more explicit provisions in their State Constitutions protecting individual firearms ownership and carry), the "individual vs. group right" debate is now over.

The new debate is what level of restriction will pass constitutional muster at both the state and federal levels.

I would suggest that, for rational persons, that many restrictions (such as ammunition restrictions) are at best counter-productive red herrings, the legal equivalent of a temper tantrum.

That lawful firearms owners posses the means, the facilities, the supplies, and the equipment to hone their skills only ensures that should the dreadful day come that they should need to utilize their firearms as self-defense tools - that they will be much safer in their efforts.

An awful lot of similar proposed restrictions are similarly counterproductive to public safety, or, alternatively, are mis-designed to punish the law-abiding while having little or no effect upon the criminal class.

An individual about to rush out and do "bad felonious things", to be rather more blunt, is unlikely to be deterred by a gun control law - they've already made their decision to disregard the law.

Similarly, as has recently been raised, those intent on suicide (as opposed to "pleas for help") have such a wide range of other approaches that attempting to bar any one implement is of such low effectiveness (particularly with any implement or device that has even the vaguest possibility of worthwhile social or individual use) is beyond the ridiculous. If someone is bound and determined to depart this veil of tears, there is *nothing* that any of us can do - short of incarcerating said person in a so-called "safe room", to ultimately frustrate them in their goal in the long term. It is sad, it is unfortunate, it is tragic - it is also so inevitable that beyond attempts to provide counseling/medication/diversion, there is nothing that can be effectively done to prevent its ultimate completion. Life is neither fair, nor uniformly nice, nor even full of really ideal solutions.