A lot of progressives and radicals in the US are making the mistake now of downplaying the utility of owning a firearm, many of which are saying it's better to learn first aid.
"I've never used a gun to take or protect a life, but I have used first aid."
Learn first aid, by all means please. Don't get a firearm (or knife or pepper spray or baton) if you can't learn to use it or doing so would be too risky to you. But looking at the past 20+ years of society and thinking those rules will apply under a rabid fascist regime if pure folly.
First aid can only be rendered if someone is there to drive the attackers away. If fascists jump you or start shooting at you, knowing how to bandage a grievous wound means very little if said fascists are still actively attacking.
"Not everyone needs to learn self-defense. That's what community self-defense means."
Not everyone can, but everyone who is able should learn the means of defending themselves and others. You are part of the community, and you too need to defend it. Deferring it to some nebulous third party (even if it's "antifa") is how you get warlords or are left with no one to protect you.
You (yes you personally) have some responsibility to learn to take care of yourself, be it disaster prep or self-defense, because if you aren't prepared, you become a burden on those who are. You become a drain on critical and limited resources. Yes, mutual aid exists, but we can stretch that much further and take better care of those who can't fully care for themselves if everyone who is able first takes care of themselves.
Don't get caught in a dangerous situation. Don't do so unarmed. Don't get injured. You have to learn all these skills. If you don't, it's okay. People will still be there for you. But please try.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hakan_geijer@kolektiva.social
@hakan_geijer a gun is an investment. You need to put in ~100 hours at the range, which costs money and ammunition. You need to put in another 100 hours dry fire practice learning to draw and aim rapidly.
Sadly, "people who really need a gun in the future" and "people who can afford all that time and money" has very little overlap. And "people who can afford a gun" and "people who will look away rather than intervene" is a fucking circle.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from amberage@eldritch.cafe
@amberage You don't need to hit a target to scare it off. You might not even need to fire. And yes I've shot a variety of guns, before you ask. I'm not claiming to be an expert, and I know that confidence and technique all rapidly improve with time, but "requiring" 200 hours for self defense is a ridiculous.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hakan_geijer@kolektiva.social
@hakan_geijer a weapon the user is not familiar with is a danger to themself and everyone around them. Someone who can't draw reliably will have the gun wrestled from them.
"Only aim if you're prepared to shoot" is the inviolate rule of firearm safety.
And under stress, all that gets 10x harder. I've had the opportunity to fire a gun in a recreational, supervised setting a few years ago and I got the hang of it pretty quickly. Now last month, I nearly got robbed at night and had to leg it out of there and I barely managed to get my phone from the pocket with how badly my hands were shaking and my heart was racing.
In dangerous situations, thinking is hard. Muscle memory is what saves lives.
Sure, maybe make it 50/50 hours instead of 100/100 hours, but either way, it takes a substantial commitment of time and associated costs to become proficient enough with any weapon – knife, club, pepper spray, gun, martial arts – to reliably employ it under real self-defence conditions.
I'm all for targets of fascism arming themselves to defend their lives and communities, but someone who shoots themself in the foot and then drops the gun or jams it doesn't save anything.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from amberage@eldritch.cafe
@hakan_geijer and crucially, while "just shoot to scare them off" might work against opportunistic wannabe-bashers, it certainly won't work against neonazi militias who roll up with military-grade gear and 100s of hours of range training live fire doosmday larping under their belts. If your threat model is "Hank McRedneck who wants to punch me in a Walmart parking lot", sure, just flashing the gun might work. But that's not the only threat.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from amberage@eldritch.cafe
@amberage I'm sorry what is your point? If a death squad comes you're definitely going to die? Because 1) fascists are cowards and there's always the (miniscule) possibility to scare them off and 2) even if not, if you can injure one of them it's a deterrent for whoever they target next.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from hakan_geijer@kolektiva.social
@hakan_geijer my point is "firearm self-defence is costly, it's unfortunate that the ones who need it the most can afford it the least, absolutely go for it but be aware of the cost before you get into it".
That's my whole point. Nothing more. None of the words you put into my mouth. All I'm trying to say is "it's not as easy as buying a gun and bringing it with you". That's the whole goddamn point.
I'm not trying to talk anyone into or out of arming themselves. I'm not talking about how useful or not it is. I'm not saying when you should or shouldn't bring a gun.
The last post was the only tangent about "average nazi vs. thirsting-for-blood milita are different threat models that you need to think about different in terms of deterrence vs. defence". Up until that point, I was only talking about "know this: it's expensive and takes time".
I'm not trying to fight with you, I was trying to contribute to the discussion constructively.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from amberage@eldritch.cafe This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini