Even if it removes certain physical elements from the encounter you're also increasing the likelihood that the assailant is armed. That significantly improves the chance that average joe facing the assailant is going to die even if there's a better-than-average chance that he'll shoot first. It turns a shitty situation into a genuine life-or-death situation.
But you don't know what kind of a situation it will be if AJ has no gun.
Some AJ unarmed scenarios:
1) Just end up losing some valuables and insurance covers for them... ok, not too bad, certainly better than dying in attempt to defend the sanctity of your home.
2) Wife/daughter gets raped, everyone lives. Depends on your POV if this is a better outcome than "X chance of dying while shooting the would-be rapist." But you can adjust the probability in your favor with things like training and layered home security until it becomes acceptable.
3) Robber kills everyone in the house.
4) Robber kills someone in the house.
5) Some combination of rape/murder/torture/humiliation/kidnapping...
Now, 1) might be statistically more likely to happen than the rest put together, but I'd rather not leave the lives of my family and myself in the hands of a random person who's desperate enough to go invading homes -- or worse, not desperate, but invading for the thrill of raping/murdering.
And maybe i prefer the police being more armed than most threats to society. I dont want family-man defending his home, the local village rapist (favourite crpg meme 2015), the police, and the pasty nerd who got diddled by his uncle to all have equal firepower and pose an equal threat. Or the possibility of a miniature 'arms-race' as not all firearms are born equal.
Sure. My preferred option would be that you have be an upstanding member of society (former police, military, politician, Ph.D... i.e., something that takes more dedication than 99.99% of random shooters have), have no criminal record or mental illnesses, and have to go through an annual firearms training course (~20 hours) to keep your carry permit active. I'm also OK with US style "no limitations" carry, but I slightly prefer Europe's "no one can carry" policy.
1. You and your assailant both have guns
2. You have a gun and he doesnt
3. You dont have a gun, but he does.
4. Neither of you have a gun
Armed with a gun (G), armed with a knife (K), unarmed (U).
G=G>K>U
U=U<K<G
Game theory wise, having a gun is always superior to not having a gun.
In Scenario 1, even if you give yourself a better-than-odds chance of winning that encounter it still poses a high risk of death to you and anyone with you at that time if you're a normal human being.
Not necessarily a high risk of death. There is some risk, yes, but like I said before you can significantly skew the odds in your favor with training, forethought and certain security measures. If you know an assailant is coming, and you know from where, you're almost certainly going to come out on top.
Scenario 2, sweet, he can back the fuck away, stay where he is till the police show up, or die as a result of 'self defense' (c'mon, nobody will ever prove it wasnt).
That is, if he makes his motives clear to you before he's close enough to grab your arm. If not you are basically fucked if you lose the grappling match cos he'll know you were going to pull that gun on him and there goes any chance for mercy.
OK, so you're not just talking about home invasions? I thought you were since you used "Average Joe" in your example before, like I did when talking about home invasions. That's almost better, though -- because you have the option
to not draw. That's why CONCEALED carry is smart and open carry is dumb. And again, if you have no gun and you can't beat the dude in hand-to-hand, then you leave your fate in his hands (and the fate of whoever's with you.)
Scenario 3, depends what they want since you're unarmed. What's more important to you, your wallet or your life? Genuine question, each can make up their own mind and take their chance, pride or life? Of course he may want to rape you and that'll change the way you balance that decision, or if the gods of chance hate you they may just be a serial killer. This one depends most on what they want and what you as the unarmed party choose to do. Whilst being the most at their mercy of all 4 scenarios, your actions have the most say in whether you die or not.
Most likely you'll just lose your valuables, yes, but again, leaving your fate in the hands of an unstable person whose motivations you have no idea about. And being armed doesn't mean you can't give up your valuables... only thing that changes is that you get the option to try to draw if it looks like you're going to eat a bullet after you hand over your wallet.
Scenario 4, do they have a knife? Will they genuinely try and kill you? Can they kill you? If you dont fancy your chances physically then it's the same as Scenario 3, except it'll be much more effort on their part to kill you.
They don't even have to want to kill you. An untrained person getting punched in the head and falling on asphalt is a dangerous combination.
Yes, but it actually requires you to aim, and I don't think there are many automatic .22 guns that let you spray in the crowd out there (I may be wrong, but whatever). And then, try to pierce a kevlar vest with a .22, and try again with a 5.56, guess which one is gonna actually do the job. I'd not be so mad about the fact firearms are sold to civilians if the calibers remained small and actually required careful aiming to kill someone.
Because selling them directly to citizens doesn't make things easier for bandits and drug dealers to get a lot of them legally, right ?
The whole "kevlar piercing" discussion is 100% pointless. Who cares if they can pierce body armor or not? Their victims don't wear body armor and if 100 cops can't handle some loon shooter they've got bigger problems than armor-piercing rounds.
