Going Armed: Understanding Utility and Hoplophobia

[Phil Elmore]

Going Armed: Understanding Utility and Hoplophobia

 

[Kris]

Thats pretty opinionated.

I tend to agree with the idea that one shouldn't carry weapons, just for the fact that if you do carry them, you are likely to elevate a violent encounter beyond what it may have been if you hadn't pulled a weapon.

However i can also see the logic, the old saying still applies, 'your better off having it and not needing it than needing it and not having it.'

I also tend to in general consider it hypocritical to slag off criminals (no i'm not symapthetic to them at all) for carrying weapons, then to do exactly the same thing yourself. However whens it your life on the line being hypocritical is a small issue.

 

[Ceicei]

Opinionated or not, it's a well written article. I have no argument with the points that were brought up.

- Ceicei

 

[Kris]

He raises valid points, it's true.

And generally speaking a weapon in a trained persons hands is not a problem. And thats in the massive proportion of cases.

The problem arises from arogance on the authors part, just as he has accussed others of being arogant, he is also. Does he really think he could draw down on and then gun down 3 attackers before they shoot him? not a chance.

It's just as dillusional to believe that you could drop multiple attackers with weapons, even if you are armed, before they kill/injure you or someone else. Just the same as it is dillusional to believe you can kick the crap out of them with your bare hands.

Best just to try and avoid it all where possible.

No offence to anyone who carries weapons, your choice and a fair enough one.

 

[mandirigma]

Very cool article.

As Hunter Armstrong demonstrates, hoplology is human combative behavior. I think a "hoplophobe" would then have an aversion to human combat, not just weaponry.

Let's not count OC out! There is not a clear hierarchy to pistols, OC and knives. As such, we shouldn't say the order of efficacy is pistols, then knives, then OC. As (I believe) Ayoob has pointed out in reference to knives, ~"I have not seen a pistol sever someone's arm/head." Also, OC (like Fox) is typically a much better man-stopper than pistols. The vast majority of pistol incidents involve the BG simply running away (you won't know if you hit or not), or the BG falling, then subsequently getting up and running away. People hit with Fox are incapacitated with much greater efficacy than pistol wounds. (It takes a lot of work to make a pistol work for you.)


A very thought provoking article! Cool, logical stuff!

Have a great day.
:asian:

 

[Black Bear]

Kris, I don't know how much your remarks convince me. If I'm facing three guys with hostile intent, whether or not they themselves are armed, if I have the choice of having a Glock on my hip or nothing, I'll still rather have the Glock. It might not be pretty either way, but there's obviously an edge with the handgun.

One sword keeps another sheathed, as the saying goes.

I just read through the article, and it has some good arguments but frequently lapses into a rhetorical device (or logical fallacy, depending how you look at it) called "Bulverism". Bulverism is a variant of the ad hominem in which you argue that the REAL reason that opponent says or believes something is such-and-such, and therefore their argument is invalid. A sort of amateur psychoanalysis. This can be seen mostly in the "Arrogance" and "Projection" headings.

Let me explain Bulverism. The all-time classic example of Bulverism is when theists and atheists argue. The theist will argue that the atheist doesn't believe in a God because (s)he doesn't want to be accountable to a higher moral authority. The atheist will say that the theist chooses to believe in a God because (s)he is insecure and wants to believe that there is a big Grandpa in the sky looking after them. Even if both are correct about the other's psychodynamic roots of their beliefs, it does not mean that their belief is true or false, or whether or not the argument they use is valid or not.

Likewise, the article states that "hoplophobes" are arrogant, they fantasize, they project their insecurities on gun advocates, etc. Okay, maybe so, but...

Now, the term Bulverism is usually used in a derogatory manner to express disapproval of an argument. To be fair, if a person believes they have reason to believe that their opponents' beliefs come from "insecurity", "projection", etc. I think it is fair to mention this, as Phil has. Heck, the anti-gun folks use it too. It's not a great argument as far as the subject matter goes, but it's something for readers to weigh and consider. Fair ball. But when an article relies heavily on Bulverisms, it's a weak article. In fact, it can be downright pathetic, especially when it becomes clear that the intention of the article is to derogate the opposing views and to veil this as cogent argument. For instance, I saw one article written by a pro-gun psychiatrist in which he or she (I don't remember) showed how all twenty-odd of Freud's defense mechanisms applied to anti-gun folks. What readers were supposed to take with them from the article was that these defense mechanisms are the REAL REASONS that anti-gun people hold the values and opinions they do. The jargon may have overawed some naive people, but anyone with a cursory familiarity with psychology could see through it easily.

That was just unspeakably lame.

 

[Kris]

Black Bear, your a completely right that having a firearm would give you the edge. My point is, will it save you? Unlikely if things are that far gone.

I see it as arogant to pretend that you will always be in total control in these situations as the author seems to percieve he would be. It strikes me that this is the one major difference between the mindset of civilian weapon owners and those of the military etc, the military in CQB aknowledge the ****up factor. Civilians say, 'yeah but i can have a weapon, it won't be dangerous cause i know where my bullets will go,' or something along those lines. Might be very true on the range, but what about if you are grappling on the ground or have just been smashed over the head and dazed?

However the point remains, you do still have a better chance with a weapon.

I agree with most of your points, and being an atheist that goes to a Christian school i know exactly what you mean

Honestly though i think weapons just elevate disputes. This however is only a valid point if you are in a situation you can get out of, i.e. your adversary is sane and just pissed off, not hostile, it's not true if your getting seriously attacked, cause it was always going to become violent if thats the attackers intention.

He does have a point though about fear of weapons coming from lack of knowledge, it's true of everything, hence the British Parachute Jump Instructors moto, 'Knowledge Dispels Fear.' Who doesn't have a fear of jumping from ridiculous heights with a bit of special cloth attached to your back?

 

[mandirigma]

...One sword keeps another sheathed, as the saying goes...

Darn. Black Bear's all smarted out 'n stuff.

True enough. Logic doesn't have to be accurate. Can't speak to bulverism (I learn something new every post), but does feel like there are some circular reasoning/suspicious cause-effect relationships here. (Not just in the article, but in all aspects of this on-going, boring debate.)

I like the article because, since there is really no way to clarify the cause and effect anyway, the soft scientists might as well guess. Again, 'fair ball.' We must ethically be cautious not to represent our guesses as fact, of course.

Personally, I do think there is an element in the non-gun crowd that I have never been able to put my finger on. I'm not even close to calling it arrogance, etc. Ignorance might be closer. My GUESS is that it is probably genuine ignorance and/or cultural/personal worldview that makes one initially an anti-gunner. There's no intrinsic malice in this case; things just are the way they are. A second category would be those who have looked at the issues, and still are anti-gun. This category might harbor an element, or reason, for remaining anti-gun. What this is, however, is anyone's guess. I think it might be closer to plain old laziness (not wanting to truly train and become educated on something new...it's easier just to point fingers) and/or standard conformity pressure toward or against the gun group.

Who knows. Perhaps Cooper got it right with envy. However, to me that would still imply a level of laziness too (wouldn't some subjects work to achieve what they covet?).

Enough arm-chair guessing.

Fun topic. :asian:

 

[KenpoTex]

First of all, good article. I think there were some very valid points made. I personally happen to believe that most "anti-guner's" are simply ignorant of the facts as they relate to the relationship between guns and crime. Those that are aware of the facts (i.e. the "Brady Bunch" etc.) don't care. with them the issue isn't crime or preventing accidental firearms deaths among children (which are really extremely low) it is disarmament plain and simple...but that's another discussion.

The vast majority of pistol incidents involve the BG simply running away (you won't know if you hit or not), or the BG falling, then subsequently getting up and running away. People hit with Fox are incapacitated with much greater efficacy than pistol wounds. (It takes a lot of work to make a pistol work for you.)

Depends on what type of pistol you're using...I guarentee that if I hit someone with my .45 or my .357 they're not going anywhere. And as far as mace and OC sprays, they work great sometimes, I carry it myself. However, I wouldn't want to have to depend on it.

The problem arises from arogance on the authors part, just as he has accussed others of being arogant, he is also. Does he really think he could draw down on and then gun down 3 attackers before they shoot him? not a chance.

Who said they were trying to shoot him, or were even armed for that matter? If I'm in a situation I can't avoid and am facing three (or more) guys, armed or otherwise, I may not be able to shoot them all but I'm going to even the odds a little. Furthermore, as was stated in the article, many times (about 90%) of the time, merely displaying the weapon is enough to end the situation. I just know that if facing multiple attackers or even a single armed attacker I'd much rather have a pistol in my hand than have to rely on my MA training.

Black Bear, your a completely right that having a firearm would give you the edge. My point is, will it save you? Unlikely if things are that far gone.

See Above.

Honestly though i think weapons just elevate disputes. This however is only a valid point if you are in a situation you can get out of, i.e. your adversary is sane and just pissed off, not hostile

If you are in a situation that you can get out of you should never introduce the weapon into the scenario.

We could go back and forth on this issue all day, there was a discussion similar to this on one of the other forums recently (I think it was on the "what do you carry?" thread but I'm not 100% sure). Anyway someone made a comment that I think sums up the situation nicely. basically they said that there are the people who realize that you can be attacked anytime so they carry everything they can legally/feasibly/comfortably carry. then there are those who say that the chance of being attacked is minimal and that the weapons might not help anyway so why bother. both are logical points of view. I happen to be of the first category but I can respect the point of view of people in the second category...all I ask is the same understanding.

 

[Phil Elmore]

A gun is not a magic wand -- and no one said it was. There may be hypothetical situations in which possessing a firearm will not help you at all -- but this does not render immaterial the numerous situations in which possessing it will help you greatly.

 

[Makalakumu]

Phil has some great techniques on his website that show good handgun techniques for self-defense. I don't think that many of the pro-gun crowd understand this. The use of a hand gun requires as much training as ANY other weapon. More, in fact, then most. I would say, comparable to that of a sword. Without the training, a user will have a greater chance of hurting themselves or someone not involved in the altercation. It becomes a hinderance, a deadly hinderance. I don't believe in gun bans. I do believe in gun control. Gun control, in my opinion, is education. I think that anyone who purchases a gun should undergo a mandatory six week class that teaches safety, parts and cleaning, shooting, and usage scenarios. This class needs to mandatory for ALL firearm sales and should be taken for EVERY firearm purchased. For some, this information would be redundant. For others, since families no longer provide this training, it would be life saving. People are dying and its not the gun's fault. It's because people have no concept of their usage.

 

[TonyM.]

I thought it was a well written article. I agree with the points presented as I have never had a rational discussion with an anti gun person. They invariably get hysterical and sometimes insulting. I have also observed that noncriminal gun owners when carrying seem to be smart and stable enough to avoid arguments and other potentially violent confrontations. ie. most people carrying concealed weapons do exactly that, conceal that they are armed unless they are in a potentially deadly situation and then need to brandish their weapon. I worked with a fella for a couple of years before the topic of concealed carry crept into a conversation and was surprised to find out he had been carrying all along. I have also noticed a disturbing trend of vocal antigun folks secretly having their own firearms.

 

[Makalakumu]

As an interesting counter-point, it has been noted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, bear attacks against people who were armed are almost triple those against people who were unarmed. I think this reflects the fact that when armed, a person is more willing to relax their normal guard and to take risks they know are unsafe. For instance, hauling salmon out of a bear pool. In my opinion, this translates to human/human situations. It means that people with a gun, show it, whether it is concealed or not. Our body language is not the same and there IS an increase in bravado.

 

[Makalakumu]

Another aspect of projection is inability. Many hoplophobes believe they would be unable to use a weapon even if they possessed one. They wrongly project this inability on others because they don't want to feel that others can do what they, the hoplophobes, cannot. Thus they believe weapons to be useless for self-defense. In this manner they build yet another layer of defense between their ill-conceived opinions and the truth of an armed citizenry.

For the "hoplophobe" this fear is justified by the fact that any weapon is useless without training. If the "hoplophobe" grew up in an environment totally removed from contact with firearms, the weapon would truly be USELESS for that person. Or at the very least, extremely dangerous to said person, persons around them, and their assailent.

 

[Makalakumu]

Phil has some great techniques on his website that show good handgun techniques for self-defense. I don't think that many of the pro-gun crowd understand this. The use of a hand gun requires as much training as ANY other weapon. More, in fact, then most. I would say, comparable to that of a sword. Without the training, a user will have a greater chance of hurting themselves or someone not involved in the altercation. It becomes a hinderance, a deadly hinderance. I don't believe in gun bans. I do believe in gun control. Gun control, in my opinion, is education. I think that anyone who purchases a gun should undergo a mandatory six week class that teaches safety, parts and cleaning, shooting, and usage scenarios. This class needs to mandatory for ALL firearm sales and should be taken for EVERY firearm purchased. For some, this information would be redundant. For others, since families no longer provide this training, it would be life saving. People are dying and its not the gun's fault. It's because people have no concept of their usage.

To add to this point, I would like to see a written exam and a proficiency test become a contingency toward obtaining a "permit for ownership". In my opinion, this is the only real gun control because incompetent users would be weeded out. Meahwhile, those dedicated to the goal of gun ownership are not denied that right.

 

[Gary Crawford]

What a good thread!Firsthil,very good article.Black Bear,great counterpoints.I think both of you are over-complicating things though.Carrying weapons should be a honest-with-yourself decision.I think many people who are against those who carry weapons are only projecting their own lack of self confidence in their ability to use weapons against attackers and think that others possess the same fears.Nothing will ever change their minds.I personally know many people who carry guns on a regular basis that if attacked will probably not use them and they will most likely be killed by their own guns.That brings me to my point-Those who do carry weapons only have an edge if they are skilled in using them and are carefull and quik decision makers.I personally do not carry a gun at the present time,but I have in the past,when someone was really trying to kill me.After that person killed himself,I happily abandon my gun.I still carry weapons such as knives on a daily basis.I train with them every day,but hope to never use them.I have only used my tactical knife once and didn't have to do more than display my willingness to use it to a guy who refused to get away from the ATM while I was using it.

 

[mandirigma]

... [A)] I guarentee that if I hit someone with my .45 or my .357 they're not going anywhere. And as far as mace and OC sprays, they work great sometimes, I carry it myself. However, I wouldn't want to have to depend on it....[B)] If you are in a situation that you can get out of you should never introduce the weapon into the scenario.....

On pt. A:
You would think so but it's just not true. This includes all manner of defensive handgun calibers- 380, 38, 9, 40, 45, 10, 357 sig, 357. It is most likely they'll run away and you won't know if you've hit or not. (Remember, if they run that's GOOD. We want to solve problems, not kill people.) Thus, the way we shoot with a pistol is based on technique, not the type of gun. We now teach (mostly) to use our sights and start hitting center mass, and then move up with our hits to the center of the chest (called the "Zipper" technique). They still might run away, but you've done the best you can with a pistol.
You're right, many sprays are no better than a rabbit's foot for luck. Fox Labs is worth trusting, as it has an excellent service record on a wide variety of BG stops in this and other countries.

Pt. B above is excellent!

Take care! :asian:

 

[Black Bear]

You are right if you think that my remarks had little or nothing to say to the issues of people should carry handguns, or whether handgun carry should be legitimized by a society. It was just a commentary on the article.

Some of you may know that I am a non-gun guy in a non-gun society. I don't presume to know what is best for any given society, but I do exist and function fairly happily in my own. Social science findings must be integrated and weighed with the values of that particular society. The legislative issues should be resolved in a way that is constitutional and democratic. Matters of personal choice should be resolved in a responsible manner. I'm not saying that these issues aren't complex. They are. I'm just saying that the Angry Laser Monkey isn't really hopped up about them personally. Different folks regard different "causes" as particularly important.

 

[moving target]

In genneral I liked the article, but I would point out that there is a diffrence between being prepared and being over prepared. Some people make SD training a hobby like how some people play sports. I have deffinatly noticed with some freinds that they are far less likely to attempt to de-escalate a given situation if they feal confident in their ability to defeat someone in a fight. Also some people I know do seem to think that carrying a gun or a knife makes them safe and because of this will do un safe things. I'm not by any means saying that anyone with a weapon is more inclined to use it, but I would point out that there are people in the world who don't so much train with a weapon(s) with the single goal of making them selves and those around them safer. Of course this does come into play with martial arts, but with a weapon the stakes are higher. So I do think there is some validity in a fear of an armed populace. I deffinatly would trust most of my freinds and fammily with fire arms, But I do know some people who trained or not, I would not trust with such a weapon.

 

[moving target]

Almost forgot. Disliking weapons or not training with weapons does not mean that the individual is not a martial artist. A martial art may be an art that pertains to war but that does not nessesitate the use of a weapon or any specific goal. A martial art that focuses on fighting in a situation where no weapon is available (how ever rare it may be) is still a martial art.