Self-defense

[jIM_Ohio]

Originally Posted by Scanner

You know, thanks for bringing this subject up.

I am thinking of getting a shotgun not for self-defense per se in the usual sense of what everyone fears here. . .but rather if there becomes a chance of civil unrest due to a Hurricane, nuclear attack, energy prices/food shortages, etc. Then I feel a gun is a necessity.

I generally agree with DisneySteve. . .in the chance of an armed burglarly. . .reaching the gun may not happen in time and the advantage IMO is only slight (the intruder has the element of surprise and probably initiative on his side), if there is any advantage at all.

Besides, without my contacts at night, I am as blind as a bat.

However, when there is civil unrest in which the social order we have in America can degrade within a matter of 2 days IMO. . .you could have roving thugs and gangs in your streets out to take what is yours or hurt your family.

So. . .I just plan to keep the shotgun and shells in a locked armory.

I have read that a shotgun is the recommended ultimate defensive weapon - it doesn't penetrate walls as easy as a highpowered rifle or handgun (and injure someone accidently), can blast in a wide dispersal pattern for DW, and the sound of it cocking is usually enough to get surrender.

Anyway, I have never bought a firearm. . .what's the best way to go about it? Do I buy it and then sign up for a gun safety course or vice-versa?

So how much does the market need to decline before we all need to invest in guns and ammo?

[jIM_Ohio]

This thread is very interesting.

We have no guns and no interest in owning one. We do have an alarm system. My wife is the survivor of a violent crime and the person she testified against has since been released and lives not too far from us.

While some of you here would probably say owning a gun would protect us more, my wife has said she could not stand to have a gun around.

So regardless of my opinions, no guns in our house. I do know from talking with a friend which is a firefighter that our house is 12 minutes from call to fire trucks on scene, so I would assume police could get there somewhat sooner once alarm goes off.

[Johansen8]

I have known a great many people that have used their guns in self defense, and not always by firing them!

Sometimes just "showing a little steel" can make the perp back off (showing is fine, but be ready to back it up!).

During a year long stay in "the bad part" of a major city ... among just my friends and co-workers:

10 home invasions were cut short. (Three by the homeowner yelling "I've got a gun aimed at that door, break in and get shot!").

5 assaults were stopped cold.

3 Convenience store robberies were unsuccessful.

1 murder was unsuccessful (the perp brought a knife to a gun fight!).


If you truly want to defend your home, the experts will tell you to get a shotgun. Any handgun has an effective range of about 35 feet. Beyond that distance, you may not hit your target. With a shotgun and some scatter buck shot, you are going to hit what you are aiming at.

[Broken Arrow]

Originally Posted by jIM_Ohio

So how much does the market need to decline before we all need to invest in guns and ammo?

Well, if the indications of the incoming secondary wave of recession sending the Dow spiraling further down turns out to be true....

Originally Posted by jIM_Ohio

While some of you here would probably say owning a gun would protect us more, my wife has said she could not stand to have a gun around.

I would not be one of those.... I'm not a tool-orientated person. Well, yes I am, but I'm more of a mindset/training-orientated person. Anyone who is reasonably trained in this field will tell you the same. But when you think about it, this also applies to just about any other field. That isn't to say that tools aren't important, just that training and mindset is much more so.

Originally Posted by Johansen8

I have known a great many people that have used their guns in self defense, and not always by firing them!

Sometimes just "showing a little steel" can make the perp back off (showing is fine, but be ready to back it up!).

....

If you truly want to defend your home, the experts will tell you to get a shotgun. Any handgun has an effective range of about 35 feet. Beyond that distance, you may not hit your target. With a shotgun and some scatter buck shot, you are going to hit what you are aiming at.

Respectfully, I have to strongly disagree with this. Showing your weapon without the proper context of life-and-death situation is a felony in my state, and I doubt mine is the only one. The best thing to do is to make sure you are up-to-date with the relevant state laws. Make sure you know precisely when you can and can not pull out your gun. Otherwise, you could end up in jail.

I've pulled my gun on several occasions, in my previous line of work. All of them were justified, and about the only reason I didn't pull the trigger was because, at the last second, they either backed off or ran off. Show of force was never part of the plan. No, I had planned to shoot them, but again, the situation changed at the last second. And that's what most trainers here would tell you anyway, that if you pull your gun, be sure it's a situation you really are justified to do so and that you seriously intend to shoot. Otherwise, don't do it.

I also have somewhat a thing against shotguns, but I've listed them earlier in this thread so I won't regurgitate it. Suffice to say, there's a myth about scatter guns not requiring any precision aiming. Yes, that's a myth. Anyone who has shot clay from even 10 yards out knows that you do have to have a decent aim to hit it.

The thing is, even if you have a perfect shot spread, I've long argued that it isn't necessarily a good thing. One of the cardinal rules of firearm safety is to know what you're going to hit. If you're in an environment where there's a lot of people or things around that you don't want to damage, you may not always be able to account for where your pellets are going to scatter to.

Plus, I wonder if people realize how much felt recoil is in a shotgun? And yeah, call me a wimp, but it's also heavy and unwieldy. Not my idea of an ideal CQC tool.

But don't get me wrong. They are a lot of wizards out there that can work magic with the shotgun, so really, it goes back to my earlier point about skill trumping tools.

[GREENBACK]

I guess I somehow missed this whole discussion when it started. The different viewpoints and opionions are very interesting.

As one who has spent my entire career in law enforcement I've seen quite a few scenarios where armed citizens have used firearms to defend themselves. I've also observed people that own a gun that aren't prepared for what may be a life or death situation

Proficient use of a firearm at a firing range is quite different than being in a really high stress situation where you may have to decide in a split second to shoot someone or not. People react quite differently to stressful situations(even cops).

Over the course of my career I have had thousands of hours of training with many different types of weapons. This is continuous training month after month and year after year. This training is intended to simulate real life scenarios. The idea is that it gets ingrained into your psyche so that you respond instinctively to what you have learned in your training.

I know from experience that it works. I also know that given all the hours of training from professionals ; in a real life and death situation you experience things physically that no scenario prepares you for. Your heart rate soars, you develop tunnel vision, Your fine motor skills diminish. This is when you have to react instinctively.

I wholeheartedly believe that people should be allowed to use firearms to protect themselves. Calling 911 is great but violent crimes often occur in seconds and when law enforcement shows up it's usually Going to be after the crime has occured.


I don't discount the effectiveness of dogs, pepper spray, locks, etc.. They are effective and so is situational awareness whereby you avoid putting yourself in a situation where force may be needed.

With all that said, Hopefully I've added something to this discussion. The point I wanted to make is simply that if you choose a firearm to protect yourself make sure you do much more than take a basic course. If you have a firearm in your home for self defense it should not be thought of a something you'll use as merely a deterant. The mindset to use deadly force should be established well before It's needed.

[Snave]

I'm more of a baseball bat guy. I keep one under my bed. It is a little-league bat and is 29" and a little easier to swing if need be. Never had to use it, but did have to have it out one time. When I lived in an apartment building downtown, a pissed-offed boyfriend was pounding on his girlfriends door in the middle of the night and screaming for her to let him in. I opened my door and he asked who the hell I was. I opened it a little more so he could see the bat and told him I was the guy with the baseball bat.

[Broken Arrow]

Yes, well said Greenback.

Real life is indeed very different from the range, and basic courses aren't enough to prepare one for such a situation. That's why simply having a firearm will not magically protect the owner, just as simply having a car (and even taking basic Driver's Ed) does not magically make one an expert driver.

It's something I've mentioned earlier here and elsewhere. While I am a staunch supporter of our 2nd amendment rights, people really need to know what they're getting into before they actually commit the use of deadly force in self defense. That and adequate training is needed to back it up. Otherwise, it could have disastrous unintended consequences.

[kork13]

Originally Posted by Snave

I'm more of a baseball bat guy. I keep one under my bed. It is a little-league bat and is 29" and a little easier to swing if need be. Never had to use it, but did have to have it out one time. When I lived in an apartment building downtown, a pissed-offed boyfriend was pounding on his girlfriends door in the middle of the night and screaming for her to let him in. I opened my door and he asked who the hell I was. I opened it a little more so he could see the bat and told him I was the guy with the baseball bat.

HAHA That's great. I'm probably closer to that as well. I will say that I'm trained, competant, and confident with handguns, rifles, and shotguns. However, I just don't really want to own one (at least not right now). In a situation where someone is in my home, I'd be more comfortable defending myself and others with my own two hands rather than a firearm that could more easily cause collateral damage/injury.

So here's a chance to accuse me of being a bit medieval.... I don't have a baseball bat (...yet...), but I do have multiple other weapons. Spread throughout my apartment, I have two 1ft long daggers, a 3ft short sword, and two 4ft training swords (this count is building, I collect swords/blade weapons). They don't have the mass/force of a baseball bat or the range of a firearm, but I'm competant in their use for defending myself and making veritable threats if necessary. In a close-quarters scenario, I trust those more than a gun in almost any case. And I think that's what's most important--that you are comfortable and competant in defending yourself and others, by whatever means you may prefer.

[Broken Arrow]

Hehe, I'm a bit of a knife person as well.

However, I just want to point out that knives are also legally the same level as guns. It's viewed as a deadly weapon. So, I would be sure to read up on whatever laws available surrounding that.

Psychologically, knives are also more difficult to handle. With a gun, most people at least have the luxury of distance and getting it over with fairly quickly. With a knife, you have get up close, you have to cut and watch people bleed. Worse yet, most are not mentally prepared to Be Cut in the off chance of being over-powered and them using your own weapon against you.

So, believe it or not, knives actually require much more training than even guns, because the use of it guarantees that you have to be within arm's reach of your assailant(s).

Just throwing it out there....

[GREENBACK]

Kork
I won't neccesarily accuse you of being"medieval" but when Ancient armies discovered projectile weapons, particularly those employing gunpowder, you can guess which side gained a decided advantage.

I think it was stated several posts ago"don't bring a knife to a gunfight". The only thing worse to bring to a gunfight is a stick(baseball bat, club,etc.). If a knife or sword or whatever bladed instrument was most effective the police and the military would be using them instead of the firearms they trust as their primary weapons.

If you're comfortable with a knife then go with it but don't take on someone with a gun unless you're a ninja. Then again, they were defeated by guns too.

[kork13]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

Kork
I won't neccesarily accuse you of being"medieval" but when Ancient armies discovered projectile weapons, particularly those employing gunpowder, you can guess which side gained a decided advantage.

I think it was stated several posts ago"don't bring a knife to a gunfight". The only thing worse to bring to a gunfight is a stick(baseball bat, club,etc.). If a knife or sword or whatever bladed instrument was most effective the police and the military would be using them instead of the firearms they trust as their primary weapons.

If you're comfortable with a knife then go with it but don't take on someone with a gun unless you're a ninja. Then again, they were defeated by guns too.

It's a question of range. If you're 5-10m or more away from the person, yea, projectile weapons are easily more effective. I don't know about others, but I don't have wide open spaces like that... I walk out of my room and i'm 10 feet from my front door. In such cases, a knife/blade seems just as effective, and also less dangerous for others who might be around (like in surrounding apartments). Stray bullets can go through walls. A knife, even if thrown, will stop when it hits a wall or the floor. What's more, it is better controlled than a bullet that can be accidentally fired with a single twitch of the finger (whether intentional or otherwise). So in a home-protection situation, I would personally prefer a bat, a blade, or something similar.

But you're right. Against someone wielding a gun, the only thing you can do is be passive. If trained in unarmed combat, you could try to disarm, but again, there are no guarantees there.


BA, do I understand it correctly that if someone breaks into your home, you cannot threaten harm, draw a gun or other weapon, or anything like that unless there is a threat of death to you? That's absurd. To draw a weapon is a threat. When your home is broken into, isn't there an implied right to protect yourself, your family, and your property? The guy is trespassing if nothing else, and threats can be used. Yes, to actually fire or cause physical injury is a different story. Without implied threat of death or grievous harm, even police, military, and federal agents are not allowed to fire. However, in circumstances of ensuring security or safety (as is the case with a break in), weapons may be drawn and threats may be given. And if this is not the case, well, fine. I'll face the consequences when my attacker sues me for threatening him while he's breaking into my home.

As for the psychological element, you're right. It is difficult. However, it's also true that once a person realizes the need for close combat, adrenaline goes crazy and the fight/flight mechanism sets in. You have to either fight to whatever end, or figure out a way to escape. When the latter is not an option, the former will set in. That's human nature. (the other case, a person may freeze up entirely, which really is about as dangerous as doing nothing at all, so it's a wash anyway)

[Broken Arrow]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

I think it was stated several posts ago"don't bring a knife to a gunfight".

Ah, the good ole "Don't bring X to a Y fight". Elsewhere in the internet-land, I try so darn hard not to get drawn into that, because in the end, it just depends on the situation.

In the case of a burglary, where everything is indoors, close quarter weaponry such as knives are actually extremely effective. In the right hands. In some ways perhaps more so than firearms. They don't require loading. They don't require ammo. No issues of over-penetration. The list can go on and on.

This subject, long mused, analyzed, and debated, have eventually come to the consensus by groups much more experienced and skilled than I am, and it's what I have stated earlier: Skill trumps tools.

Originally Posted by kork13

BA, do I understand it correctly that if someone breaks into your home, you cannot threaten harm, draw a gun or other weapon, or anything like that unless there is a threat of death to you? That's absurd.

Heh. Yeah, I've heard of that rebuttal before. I'm not saying it has to make sense to both you and I. But that doesn't mean it isn't the law.

Fortunately, laws surrounding the circumstances of self defense varies from state to state. Texas? Most likely legal. Massachusetts? Most likely not. It just depends, so again, I urge everyone who wants to take self defense seriously to be up-to-date on their state laws.

To draw a weapon is a threat. When your home is broken into, isn't there an implied right to protect yourself, your family, and your property?

No... you can't imply that. Not unless you can clearly articulate the threat of serious bodily harm or death clearly based on the events and circumstances that follow. For example, a burglar going after your TV isn't the same as a burglar going after you or your loved ones.

When it comes to serious situations such as this, be prepared for anything, but don't assume anything. I might sound overly dramatic, but it really can spell the difference between life or death, freedom or prison. This isn't the same level as losing money in our 401k.

That said, I'm not a lawyer and don't even pretend to be one in your state. So, again, please check with credible sources and your state law for further guidance.

As for the psychological element, you're right. It is difficult. However, it's also true that once a person realizes the need for close combat, adrenaline goes crazy and the fight/flight mechanism sets in. You have to either fight to whatever end, or figure out a way to escape. When the latter is not an option, the former will set in. That's human nature. (the other case, a person may freeze up entirely, which really is about as dangerous as doing nothing at all, so it's a wash anyway)

Well, yes, I'd agree. However, as we sit comfortably in front of our computers, ruminating the possible scenarios that may occur, it's... pretty easy to discern how things should work out....

In an actual fight or flight though, those who are not properly prepared and trained mostly just freeze up. This may even include some who have supposedly trained for years in self-defense (because they didn't train properly for it).

Yeah, ultimately, we all do what we have to do. However, it's funny how some people, when they finally face that white elephant, up close and in the flesh, what we often end up doing is far from the results we hope for. Many just end up in the hospital with a lot of gashes on their forearm and torso because they simply find themselves frozen and balled up in the instinctive defensive posture. Is that what they wanted to do or have even trained for? No, but that's reality.

For anyone who is serious about self defense, the real question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are you prepared to risk your life to fight? Are you prepared to get beat, get cut, and slowly bleed to death for what you are fighting for?

Now, I'm not asking, "Do you want to?" Nobody wants to get hurt. I'm asking, "Are you prepared to ante up to that level of risk to yourself?" Because, that's what we risk in real life lethal encounters, whether we realize it or not.

If not, that's OK. It means you're a rational individual like most of the rest of society. That's also why it's universally recommended to avoid a fight if it can at all be helped. Actually, even highly skilled individuals go out of their way to avoid fights if they can help it.

However, being prepared to hurt someone isn't the same thing as being prepared to get hurt. Most people can somehow get past the first part, but few are actually capable of handling the second. And that's why even some supposedly trained individuals end up freezing. That's the life and death difference.

However, if you ARE willing to sacrifice yourself that way. If you ARE willing to get hurt and die for what you believe in. Well, then....

[GREENBACK]

My state recently passed a law called the "Castle Doctrine". It essentially states that if you cause harm (shoot) an intruder in your place of habitation (this may be temporary or permamnent) It is now up to the prosecution to prove that you did not act in self defense. Incredibly, it was the reverse of this prior to September 08. It used to be that you basically had to prove you were acting in self defense.

So much for "innocent until proven guilty".

As for close quarter encounters, you can't predict anything. The situation dictates your actions. A person that enters your home with no weapons but grabs a broom and come at you with it. Is he carrying a deadly weapon? Are you willing to shoot that person? you have a split second to decide this. The courts have months/years to decide your fate. Can you articulate that this now dead person was filled with rage and if he hit you with the broom he would have taken your knife or gun and killed you with it.

The fight or flight scenario works in a perfect world but it may come down to fight/fight.

So much of what we see in the media and on unreality tv makes things look cut and dried. In the real world it's not like that. You may come away from an encounter cut, beaten, bleeding or dead. The goal is to overcome the situation and survive no matter what.

[Broken Arrow]

Originally Posted by GREENBACK

The goal is to overcome the situation and survive no matter what.

Amen.

[tripods68]

I do believe in self-defense but not with a gun.

[GREENBACK]

tripods68
I fully understand your position and won't begin to try to persuade you otherwise.

It's important that everyone knows who they are mentally and physically. It's also important to know what you're capable of and what you're not capable of. Only we as individuals can determine this.

[Snave]

Someone I know brought up a good point the other day that I never thought of when it comes to security systems, etc... She read/heard somewhere to keep an extra car remote on/in your nightstand. The last thing someone wants is a lot of noise and to ptentially wake your neighbors. I thought this would be smart for someone who does not have a security system. Just check that from your bedroom, your remote could work.

[lemarquis]

I think it is a good idea as long as you learn as much as you can about safe gun ownership. Having the ability to own a gun to protect your family is a right. Just make sure that you don't do any harm to your family by introducing a gun into your household without everyone learning about it's responsible use.

[destiny10]

protection is better than cure. go 'head get the gun.

[sandyandry]

If you really want to have a gun for self defense then go for it. And it is better if you take lessons for that. Good luck

_________________
Budget management