This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Reposting on request from Zorba:
The discussion of defensive gun usage in a major survey in the CW thread got me thinking about an experience I had some years back. I thought I'd tell the story to illustrate the sorts of things that can happen around violent or potentially violent situations. For what it's worth, I'm not sure if I classify this as a defensive gun use or not, but it qualifies under the terminology of the survey. It was very much a memorable night, and made me rethink the way I carry guns and the sorts of scenarios I prepare for.
First thing: I was drunk. Dancing-in-public drunk. My girlfriend and I had attended a wedding of some friends, someone else was the DD, so I took full advantage. At the time, my girlfriend lived with another single girl in a house outside town. Isolated, quiet. Cornfields and scattered houses. The housemate had been on a date, and the two of them were back at the house when we got dropped off. We said hello and left them to do whatever people on dates do on darkened living room couches while we went upstairs to bed. I passed out almost immediately.
The GF woke me up a short time later, there was a commotion downstairs. A strange man had arrived and was banging on the main door of the house, loudly demanding to speak to the housemate's date. I went downstairs, the date said he knew the man, that it was his pastor. He said he'd handle it, so I went back upstairs. As a precaution, I retrieved my carry gun and kept it close to hand. At this point, I was regretting the drinking. Waste of a good drunk.
Outside, the date had gone out onto the porch to talk to the guy, we could hear muffle conversation, then escalating in volume. There was a series of loud crashes, and the housemate started screaming that she was calling the police. Fuck me running. I remember clearly getting out of bed the second time, gun in hand, wearing basketball shorts, dress socks and nothing else. An ironic thought occurred to me: "so this is why people look like this on 'Cops'". Not the sort of situation I had envisioned when I started carrying a firearm.
I got downstairs and the date was bleeding from his face, apparently his pastor had assaulted him. The housemate had called the police, but it would be over twenty minutes before they arrived (given where we were, that was probably a fast time). Meanwhile, the pastor had discovered a hatchet that had been left out of the shed and started walking around the house, hitting the siding with the hatchet and shouting for the date to come back out and talk to him. Needless to say, that dude didn't seem enthused about the proposition. The crashing I'd heard had been the date falling into and through the screen door on the porch after the guy decked him.
The GF was curious, but I sent her back upstairs, told the housemate to lock the door behind me, and went out onto the porch. I might be tanked, but it was not my first rodeo. I leaned against the wall of the house (casually, I hoped) both to stay steady on my feet and to conceal the pistol I was now holding behind my leg. The situation was fairly simple: The man would have to make a 90-degree turn to come up the steps to the porch, after which I'd be within arms reach. I set my line at the bottom of the steps. If he tried to come up onto the porch, I would shoot him.
For a lunatic who was banging a hatchet on the side of a random house at 2AM in the middle of a cornfield, the pastor sounded lucid. He just wanted to talk, he felt bad, the whole thing had gotten out of hand etc. etc. Whole time he had the hatchet in his hand. In my hazy state, I decided to go with simplicity. "Put down the ax, go back to your car, and drive away". He'd try to argue something, and I'd just repeat it. This went on for maybe ten minutes. I was feeling like a broken record, but finally, finally he walked away. He dropped the hatchet, got into his car, and drove away. Shortly thereafter, the police showed up.
I went back to bed.
The coda is that the date didn't press charges, turns out the "pastor" was a self-proclaimed one with a long history of mental illness, sort of a street-preacher type. The housemate had to pay for the siding repair herself. The police were little help, and the prosecutor's office wasn't interested in dealing with a mental patient over property damage.
So that's the story. It's weird, but in my very limited experience it looks a lot more like the median "DGU" than a shootout in a pawn shop. These are the sorts of stories that do not generally make the papers or the police reports, but happen on a daily basis, many many times.
While this would certainly qualify as a defensive gun use, this is the kind of use that makes me highly suspect of the actual utility of it. Yes, from the story you tell it sounds like you would have had a clear case of self-defense, but I (and presumably anyone else reading this) is going to be biased toward your side of the story. The police, however, are not necessarily going to share this natural bias. Suppose you shoot and kill the guy; what then? Your story makes a good case for self-defense: The guy had already assaulted the housmeate's date and was brandishing a dangerous implement, which he was already using to vandalize the house. He refused to leave when asked to, and approached you with the hatchet in a presumably threatening manner.
There's another side to this, though. You were drunk. The guy didn't enter the house. You didn't know the guy and weren't involved in the initial altercation. You deliberately left the safety of the house and went outside with a gun looking to confront the man. I'm not trying to say that your actions were unreasonable given the circumstances, just that the cops don't know what happened and they aren't going to just take the word of the guy in basketball shorts and dress socks who has a pretty good reason to tell stories.
Unless you're incredibly stupid, you aren't saying anything without a lawyer present, and given that it's 2 am on a Sunday morning and you're drunk, you can pretty much guarantee that you'll be spending the rest of the night in a police holding cell. Best case scenario you can raise a lawyer the next morning, the police buy your story, and they let you go right away without pressing charges. All it cost you was at least $500 in attorney's fees (put probably more like a thousand) and the worst night of your life.
More likely, though is that the police do an investigation that lasts months. This is a homicide, after all, and it isn't a clear-cut case of self-defense like a home invasion or attempted robbery. the victim's family could pressure the police. The story you give might not match up with ballistics. The investigators could simply not believe you. The police are going to interview everyone who was in the house last night, and who there can corroborate your story? Your girlfriend was upstairs the whole time and probably can't do anything but testify to the banging and yelling. The housemate might be able to provide a little more detail about the altercation, but probably not too much. The date can provide the most information, but given that he didn't want to press charges against the guy (and he presumably looks to him for spiritual support) there's a good chance he downplays the whole incident and makes it look like your actions were unjustified. Now you're looking at months of hell and thousands in attorney's fees, even if it all ends with the DA declining to press charges.
There was a case in Western PA last winter where a guy at a hunting camp was shot after erratically firing an AK-47 and forcing the other people at the camp to stay at gunpoint. The incident happened in December but the investigation dragged on until the middle of March before the DA announced that they couldn't overcome their burden of proof in a self-defense case. This was in a rural area that is generally pro-gun. Alternatively, had you stayed inside, ordered the others upstairs, and waited with the gun in case the shit hit the fan, the police probably would have arrived before he was able to break in (if that was even his intention), and if you had to shoot him, the self-defense case in much clearer.
Would that be this case? It's a little interesting, but this summary seems to be skipping over a couple details, especially given that the out-of-state interest in the matter driven by reporting certain it was a hate crime, which was so severe and widespread that today, months after the conclusion of the investigation, the Venango DA's website still has a brightly-highlighted statement emphasizing that he's taking a "complete and thorough investigation".
If this is the case you're referencing, "couldn't overcome their burden of proof" does not seem an accurate summary where the DA explicitly called it justified self-defense.
And, yes, more broadly, this seems like a central example of the_nybbler's "Anti-self-defense people have managed to rig the system so completely against self-defense that even someone who shoots someone dead for good reasons will be made to seriously regret it". This says a lot about a lot, but not about self-defense itself.
I actually deliberately left that information out in the hope that an enterprising individual such as yourself would track down the story and find out that there was a bit more to it than a straightforward case of self-defense. The point I'm trying to make is that the way I presented it is the way it looked to the shooter at the time: Guy on shrooms waving a gun around, acting crazy and refusing to let them leave. Then once the deed is done more complications come out of the woodwork. There's a bias investigation because the guy was black. There's the fact that the guy never made any direct threats. There's the fact that he was shot nine times in all parts of his body. When you're the one in fear of your life all these things seem like pointless details that you don't even remember. But the police aren't in your shoes. The victim's family isn't in your shoes. The police can't just take your word for what happened, no matter how reasonable it may seem to you. That's why statements like "Anti-self-defense people have managed to rig the system so completely against self-defense that even someone who shoots someone dead for good reasons will be made to seriously regret it" don't quite make sense to me. I mean, yeah, it's certainly possible that that's true at least in some places, but it doesn't really say much about what I'm getting at. If someone is shot dead the police have to investigate. If they were simply to take every self-defense claim at face value then we'd effectively have legalized murder, especially in gangland situations. Unless you can prove that the other guy didn't shoot first, you can't arrest anyone. And if you're taking the guy at his word that the victim did shoot first, then there's not much else to do. As soon as you agree that an investigation needs to be completed, and it's not going to be some half-assed investigation meant to corroborate the shooter's claim of self-defense, then the shooter needs to get an attorney. And the more inconsistencies and complications that investigation uncovers, the worse it's going to be. It's not a question of whether the legal system is unfairly biased against self-defense claims, it's a question of what needs to occur to have a functioning legal system at all.
uh:
I think that's kinda gonna count.
uh:
The family's attorneys have found a forensic pathologist who disputed the self-defense claims, but that focused on which direction the shots went, with Wecht holding that most of the wounds on Spencer's back were entry wounds, and the state's forensics department saying they were exit wounds. There are professionalism arguments in favor of not magdumping. This shot list does not, on its own, raise serious questions about the self-defense claim. It is, charitably, a bit of a stretch to call the head, torso, and buttocks "all parts of his body".
There's been people making similar arguments over the Rittenhouse, and the Gardner cases, and a good few others.
In one sense, it's true! Someone claiming "they were coming right for us!" alone isn't reason for the police to pack it up and go home! In one sense, yes, there's a reason self-defense experts like Masaad Ayoob recommend having a lawyer on retainer.
((I mean, not actually, descriptively true, but that's more because there's a number of police departments that are garbage.))
But for this specific case, day one had every witness at the scene says that the shot guy was threatening to shoot up the place and was trying to block their escape, his pockets are filled with their keys and one of their cell phones, and there's a bunch of recently-used shell cases matching the shot guy's gun, and tons of gunpowder residue up and down shot guy's arms. Nothing to contradict the self-defense claim comes up. And then on day two, the post-mortem tox report lights up like a Christmas tree in ways that support the suspect's claims, and completely unaffiliated witnesses from the camp owners -- who the suspect might not even have know were there -- give testimony about the shot pattern that matches. Still nothing to contradict the claim.
((And that's ignoring the stuff probably not admissible in court and shouldn't be considered by prosecutors but often is, like the rifle with an obliterated serial number and the already-active ATF investigation.))
Notably, unlike your hypothetical, no one was arrested or detained overnight. Now, this isn't the clearest-cut case of self-defense, since there was no video evidence. But I'm exceptionally skeptical that an honest and impartial prosecutor, not having the force of the state attorney general, the state police hate crimes side, national media coverage, international media coverage, so on, hits your parade of horribles.
And, what a coincidence! The same group is all, every single one, conveniently also opposed to civilian gun ownership and self-defense.
Yes, tradeoffs exist. But the opening framework was not whether an investigation could occur, but that "this is the kind of use that makes me highly suspect of the actual utility of it." The scale of the tradeoffs matter. 1K USD and a bad night is not actually that bad compared to axe wounds and/or tens of thousands of dollars in property damage. There's a lot of things people will deal with for even a moderate reduction in the chance them and three of their friends of getting shot in the head by someone hopped up on shrooms, demanding that they sprawl out and call him a good, and confiscating their keys and cellphone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What do you mean by "it" in:
More options
Context Copy link
This is all true, and it's why I didn't make a statement to the police at all. I'm fairly sure I was on firm self-defense territory, but I'm glad we never got to find out. You never know when you're going to fall into a media scandal, or an overzealous prosecutor, or just a bad cop. At the time, my thought was that with the hatchet, he could break the sliding glass door on the other side of the house and be inside in seconds. It is also the case that staying on the porch was on purpose, as it is legally part of the house (or curtilage).
Of all of it, the intoxication thing got to me the most. Prior to that night, it never occurred to me that just because I don't carry a gun to the bar doesn't mean I might not have to use a gun while drunk. There's no straightforward solution except to not have guns or not drink, and neither option appeals to me. I drink less now, and the lessons of that night are one reason.
More options
Context Copy link
All this reads as "Anti-self-defense people have managed to rig the system so completely against self-defense that even someone who shoots someone dead for good reasons will be made to seriously regret it". Except, of course, there's that other counterfactual. The one where nobody has a gun and the "pastor" kills one or more people with that hatchet. That one still seems worse than months of hell and thousands in attorney's fees.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, that explains why the study below used such an expansive definition of DGU. This is obviously in the broader category, and it also is a clear example where having the gun changed the dynamic entirely.
The alternative was something like locking the doors, trying to talk the guy down through a wall or window, and waiting for the police. I think there’s a valid argument for letting them do their job. For those inclined to grand theories, it sets up a tidy dichotomy between (cowardly/responsible) collectivism and (responsible/vigilante) individualism.
More practically, it illustrates that not knowing is a big part of the problem.
The “right” decision changes if the cops are 2 minutes out vs. 20, if the pastor is confused or murderous or intoxicated, if he realizes the barriers of the porch or the door. Without some sort of weapon, your options collapse down into “confront unarmed” or “hunker down.” Without perfect information, those are awfully unappealing. Your weapon (and level-headedness) enabled a more proactive stance and, perhaps, the best outcome.
And it's all subject to power laws.
The spread of possible outcomes ranges from "he leaves in peace and nobody is harmed" and "he charges me and bashes my head in with a hatchet."
There are important reasons you might want to clip the risk of those worse outcomes, even if they are comparatively unlikely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So just to be clear, the gun was never actually used except to make you secure in the knowledge that you could use it?
To my knowledge, the guy never saw the gun. I did not display it, I did not mention it. I don't think the housemate or her date saw it either, though as I said, I was on the liquor a bit and not really dressed for concealment.
More options
Context Copy link
Russia never dropped a nuke, yet other countries thinking it is capable of doing so, enables Russia greater leeway in foreign policy; notably invading Ukraine.
Thus not even possesion is required, merely convincing others of it is.
That's all well and good but I wouldn't go on to describe every foreign policy move this enabled as a 'use' of nukes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In much the same way that having a tire jack, air compressor, and spare tire in your trunk might make you feel secure enough to embark on a long drive through relatively rough conditions where assistance might take a long time to arrive.
That is, if you didn't have these tools available you might not take a particular course of action.
And if they become necessary, you thank your respective Gods for having them.
More options
Context Copy link
If you've been in a situation like this, the difference in that "secure knowledge" of having a gun vs not having one is.... significant.
Having the gun enabled JTarrou to confidently approach the "Pastor" and verbally talk them down. Having a use-of-force upper hand that allows you to de-escalate a situation is using it.
Of course, but if we're going to count 'defensive gun use' as 'any time a gun made its owner feel safe' we're getting dangerously close to making policy based on feelings. Should we count every time the presence of a gun made someone feel unsafe as an offensive gun use? I don't think police departments would support that sort of standard.
The law does support that kind of standard, so long as the fear is reasonable and provoking fear is intentional.
Assault: ["intentionally place an alleged “victim” in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm."](
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/what-is-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon/)
Brandish: " For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person." (emphasis mine)
If it's done subtly it can be hard to know how to score it, let alone prove it in a court of law, but that doesn't make it any less real or game changing. There's a very real chance that the "pastor" was able to correctly infer that JTarrou was armed from his behavior, and that otherwise he wouldn't have backed down so peacefully. I've been in a similar situation, where out of place confidence clued me in that the people threatening me were almost certainly armed, and that I couldn't afford to risk trying to de-escalate the way I otherwise would. My inference happened to be proven correct, but the presence of weapons changed things on both sides well before they came out.
More options
Context Copy link
We already do that. What do you think "brandishing" is?
I meant merely glancing and seeing someone open carrying in a non-threatening manner.
Would you count every single traffic stop ever as a 'gun use?'
At some point you have to stop counting the crazies, otherwise Paranoid Pete has 7.9 billion defensive gun uses per hour since "everyone's out to get him". I think we've drawn the line in a decent spot, where it has to substantially affect your behaviour before it gets counted.
Let's ignore all of the ones done by unarmed officers.
No, I wouldn't. I'd only call it a gun use if the officer would have otherwise called for backup (or taken some other protective measure). Furthermore, I'm not sure about counting on-duty police officers in defensive gun use statistics, since they can also initiate force instead of just responding to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As I said at the beginning of the story, I'm a bit on the fence on the classification of that night myself. If you're criticizing the methodology of the survey, that's fair enough so long as you recognize that most of the time when a gun is present in a dangerous situation, it is not fired, and sometimes not even brandished. Maybe there needs to be an intermediate category, but the point is, this is why people want guns, and because the situation resolved peacefully, that can be lost as a data point. We should not take the moral restraint of legal gun owners as an argument to disarm them.
Bottom line for me is, I was going out on that porch with or without a gun. Having the gun gave me a better plan than bringing a knife to a hatchet fight with a guy who outweighed me by a hundred pounds.
Thanks, I was.
Perish the thought.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link