I'm really late to this thread, so please excuse if others have already posted similar statements.
One thinks of a weapon as an advantage in a self-defense situation, and to be sure, it is. But I believe that there are also disadvantages involved in weapons carry.
Hmmm... Not particularly major disadvantages.
First, if one has a weapon, one must protect that weapon from being taken away and used against one. Whether it is a gun, a knife, a bludgeon, or whatever; nearly any weapon that one can carry can be used against one if it is seized by an aggressor.
For the most part, this is easier done than said. You read that right, "
easier done than said." Generally speaking, the willingness to use a weapon dramatically increases the difficulty for a defender to take it away. This is particularly true when the weapon is employed at its ideal range. Waiting to employ an 8 foot staff or a firearm at 2 feet away is not the ideal range, shows an lack of willingness to use the weapon, and decreases the difficulty that a defender will have in defending against it.
Second, nearly all weapons one might carry could potentially be considered capable of inflicting deadly force, at least in legal terms and in the USA (I do not know the laws of every jurisdiction, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc). However, it is my belief and understanding that one may only legally resort to deadly force when one is authorized to do so; for example when legitimately in fear of one's life.
Well, yes, if it is a Deadly Force weapon or if it is being used in such a manner. Take, for instance, the expanding baton. When used against the head it is considered deadly force. LEO's are now taught to only use it (or use it first) against extremities and to try to strike nerve clusters in those extremities. When used in this manner, it is not considered Deadly Force, usually.
Third, a weapon, as many here know but some may not, is not a magic wand. One does not pull it out, wave it around, and things get better. In general, once a weapon is brandished, the chances that it will have to be used become much, much, higher. In other words, even if a given confrontation was not life-threatening, by introducing a weapon, now it is. And that may not be a good idea, depending on the circumstances.
Well, in general, yes. However, the more "intimidating" a weapon is, the more likely its very presence will cause the threat to decide to remove itself. Statistically speaking, in the U.S., this is particularly true for firearms. Most studies which track the use of firearms show that merely displaying one has a high chance of dissuading an attacker. This isn't because a firearm is magical, it's because the attacker is generally convinced that a firearm is particularly intimidating and dangerous. The less intimidated a person is by a given weapon, the less likely that he will be dissuaded by its display and the more likely the defender will be required to actually commit to using it.
Fourth, weapons in general require proficiency to be anything other than a dangerous detriment to the person carrying them. A knife, a gun, even a taser or pepper spray. One gains little advantage from depositing them in a purse or glove box or carrying them in a pocket if one has no particular experience using them. As a former Military Policeman, we took part in extensive training with our weapons, including spraying each other directly in the face with Mace (before pepper spray). We did our best to become and remain proficient with our weapons, and we used them constantly in self-defense situations (Marines in garrison, what can you expect?). I do not think most civilians practice to obtain that level of proficiency.
In general, yes, true. However, weapons are "Force Multipliers." They allow a person to have equal "force" to someone who is unarmed but with greater training. In other words, while it may take 10,000 hours of training for a person to be expertly deadly with their bare hands, it may take only a few hundred with a sword when employed against someone who is bare handed. Certain weapons are usually "easier" than others and require less training and demand less physicality than others. A knife requires less physicality than a Meteor Hammer, for instance. And a firearm tends to require the least physicality of all, allowing even a physically disabled person or an aged and weak person to employ a Force Multiplier to be "even off" against a young, strong, and trained unarmed person. This is the reason why armies have always employed weapons and have always gravitated to the most effective personal weapons available which require the least physicality and the lowest training threshold. In Late Medieval England, the freemen class was required, by law, to practice with the longbow every weekend.
Fifth, the willingness to use a weapon to take a life. I suspect that most people who carry weapons have not thought a lot about what happens when you take a human life, or they don't think (or want to think) that the weapon they choose to carry might end a life, or that they would employ it in that manner.
Well, that depends on the weapon, of course. You earlier mentioned Mace, which is generally considered a Non-Lethal/Less-Lethal alternative but still a "weapon," and often bearing a regulated status in some legal jurisdictions. Most people would not worry too much about taking a life when using a Taser or Pepper Spray because circumstances which end a life while employing either of those are, statistically, minuscule. On the other hand, if someone were to carry a knife for self defense, then the possibility of taking a life raises significantly over that of Pepper Spray.
I am not trying to say that one should not defend one's life with deadly force if the need arises. I am saying that I don't think many people have through through what it means to do so. To intentionally end a human life is more than pulling a trigger. There will be blood, brains, fecal matter, urine, vomit, and the general chaos that ensues after such an event. Even if justified in killing a human being, there will police, questions, lawyers, and expenses. There will almost always be emotion and financial costs. Still better than being dead oneself, true. But I would hope that no one seriously thinks they can blow away a mugger (for example) and tell the cops what happened and that's that, end of story. Your life will change, forever, starting at that moment, and in many ways not for the better, other than the major upside of still being alive.
There may be legal consequences, even if your actions are justified, which could ruin you financially and destitute your family. The families and sympathizers of attackers have shown an increased willingness in recent decades to sue. Even if the suit is eventually thrown out of court, it may end up costing your life savings and earthly possessions.
Now, if I am the person being punched, of course I will defend myself. But if I am carrying, say, a gun, now I have to worry that the person punching me will tackle me or knock me down and somehow gain possession of that gun.
Nah. Gun Retention techniques are easy, well known, and well disseminated as well as being augmented by a willingness to use the firearm in defense. Same goes for any weapon. They're harder to take away than most people imagine. Sadly, I find this to be particularly true of "trained martial artists." I believe this to be because they have always trained their disarming techniques in a compliant manner and learned them from those who have also done so.
It appears to me that there are many who seem to have a preoccupation with the notion of carrying weapons they can 'get away with' in terms of not having them considered to be weapons by law enforcement. In my opinion, this is dangerous thinking. I only worked in law enforcement for a short time and I only studied Criminal Justice in college for a few years, but I did manage to absorb some basic understanding that has served me well over the years. For example, it's not what the item is, it's how you use it. A screwdriver is a screwdriver, until it's used as a weapon and the person who was carrying it INTENDED to use it for that purpose. Then is it a deadly weapon. I'm sorry, there's no way around this. All the various items that companies make with the idea that they will be mistaken for innocuous items and not weapons, but which are intended to be employed as weapons, they won't pass muster if one actually purchases them with the intent to use them as weapons and then does so. There are no cheats that work. Sorry.
To a certain degree, you got that right. The best defense for why you used a "weapon" is "he was trying to do serious bodily harm or cause death to my and/or innocent third parties." The only justified use of Deadly Force is against Deadly Force (using "the Reasonable Man" test).
Most controversially, I will add that in my experience, there are some people who seem to have either what I would consider an unhealthy obsession with weapons or a tendency to engage in magical thinking about what weapons do for a person. I do not suspect that such people are going to gain any advantage at all if they carry weapons about for the purposes of self-defense.
Content yourself with the knowledge that the Mall Ninja will, statistically, never be in a position which requires him to deploy his weapon of choice.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
