Michelle, you’ve made some interesting and good points which I’d like to address.
Are handguns necessary for self-defense?
This is probably the best question I’ve seen from the pro-gun control side of this thread. It’s good because it questions a fundamental premise of ours and does so in a way that doesn’t invite an easy answer.
It is a flight of fancy to pretend that we (humans) are capable of preventing other, more violently aggressive humans, from obtaining the things this man found and improvised. So, I’m going to start from the point of view that we need some sort of tool to combat an attacker armed with the same stuff that the Batman shooter was armed with. I am also going to limit my selection to things that a movie-goer would reasonably be able to carry with them. The theater could have put in some sort of improved door or armed guard, but the costs are prohibitive so I will leave that alone for now. So, what tools are appropriate, cheap and available?
This is the list I came up with; Feet (running), Bare hands, Thrown Weapons/distractions, Collapsible Batons, Knives, Pepper Spray, Tasers, and Handguns. The Batman shooter had ample space between himself and most of his victims, so I’m going to rule out anything without the appropriate range (hands, batons, knives). He attacked his victims in an area where mass retreat would lead to a “bottleneck,” leading to more casualties. Running toward the victim or throwing stuff at him to create a distraction while you close the distance is either too risky or requires more cooperation than can be expected of relaxed theater-goers. This rules out feet. Pepper spray is usually an excellent close-range defense against an attacker armed with a firearm, but even a shooter without a gas mask could fire blindly at a crowded theater and still hit someone. Because the shooter had both a gas mask and a crowded theater, I’m ruling out pepper spray. We are left with firearms and Tasers.
The shooter was wearing armor. I am not intimately familiar Tasers, but I have no reason to believe they won’t function when someone is wearing armor. Armor does reduce the effectiveness of many firearm projectiles, especially when fired from a handgun. The barrels are rarely long enough to effectively capture the pressures needed to propel a projectile fast enough to pierce armor. Some handguns do, in fact, create such speed. An example of such a handgun round is the .38 Super – a small bullet packed with lots of powder. Combined with a fully-jacketed projectile (no hollow-points), a .38 Super could have killed the Batman shooter.
We have two effective self-defense tools. Which one is better? I think it depends on the person. The Taser has a limited range and can only be fired a small number of times, but can be more effective if it hits a non-vital part of the body. A handgun has more range and can be easily reloaded, but requires more training to deal a killing (thus incapacitating) blow. So, I believe the answer to your question is, “yes,” depending on the person.
The second point that should be addressed is that a firearm’s primary design is for killing. I’d agree with this, but I’d like to point out the differences in firearm/projectile design that lead to different “secondary” functions that are so great they may have to be considered “primary functions” depending on the context. A .22 comes out fast, has a relatively straight trajectory and packs a very small relative punch, and so it is not a good tool for self-defense, but rather is great for short/medium range target practice and hunting small game. A handgun has a short barrel, which limits the amount of powder that can be effectively utilized to propel the bullet – long range killing is out of the question. Rifles are the ultimate long-range personal weapons because they have long barrels and heavy projectiles with lots of inertia, but fail at close-quarters because their long-barrels become cumbersome. Shotguns are unparalleled medium-range killing tools, and can be shortened to minimize the drawback of a long barrel for close-quarters fighting.
In the military, when they issue a weapon to combat troops it is almost always a rifle. Sometimes it is a sub-machine gun (basically a big machine pistol), or a shotgun. These are for the troops who’s primary job is to kill enemy soldiers. For the officers who, if everything goes well, don’t see combat, they issue pistols. The reason is that pistols are more easily kept at hand for self-defense in case something goes wrong and a combat troop or spy gets close to the higher-ranked officers. This is evidence that the handgun is a better self-defense tool than killing tool.
Finally, but not unimportantly, Michelle, is your point about being uncomfortable when sitting next to an armed person. I understand how you could feel that way, but please also be aware that I feel the exact opposite. I have worked in retail environments where co-workers were almost always carrying a firearm. I live in Wisconsin where the occasional person would carry openly even before our concealed-carry law was passed. I have always felt safer when I saw it, because none of the people carrying exhibited threatening behavior. In general, I welcome armed strangers – but only when they appear respectful, competent and sober. As long as they maintain proper etiquette, there is no reason to be fearful of an armed person. Generally, you are safer when you are in the company of armed strangers.
