I absolutely agree - I also think that firearms should have even stricter training and education requirements. Isn't it law in one or two US states that before being able to carry a Taser, a police officer must take a hit from one?
Well, that's actually part of the issue with opening up the sale of non-lethal weapons. Pretty much everybody has a decent default level of respect for a firearm: they fucking kill people. That's what a gun is for, and people know it. There's still a problem with a lack of firearm respect, but you can instill that with a proper safety and training course. I think courses like that are mandatory in order to obtain a handgun license, and they should be. I support a rigorous safety course and periodic retesting to ensure continued compliance. To do anything less is simply irresponsible.
However, when it comes to non-lethal weapons, there's less respect than what you see for firearms. People hear "non-lethal" and they think that means you can be a bit more reckless with them. You can find Youtube videos of people shocking themselves with tasers for "fun;" I highly doubt you'll find instances of people letting themselves get shot for the hell of it. Thus, it takes a lot more training, and perhaps some more drastic training measures, to instill the required level of respect. You can shoot a gun and watch a glass bottle explode, but a taser just looks like it makes somebody hit the ground. It's sort of the same reason that a dull knife is more dangerous to the wielder than a sharp one; it takes more force, and because it's dull, there's the psychological effect of "this won't hurt too badly even if I do slip."
Also, mace and pepper spray are illegal in New York. "Bear mace" is a pepper spray formulation specifically deigned to repeal bears. It's perfectly legal to buy and have, but I believe that it's illegal to use on people, since it's far stronger than conventional pepper spray or mace.
I absolutely agree - I also think that firearms should have even stricter training and education requirements. Isn't it law in one or two US states that before being able to carry a Taser, a police officer must take a hit from one?
It's sort of the same reason that a dull knife ismoredangerous to the wielder than a sharp one; it takes more force, and because it's dull, there's the psychological effect of "this won't hurt too badly even if I do slip."
Yeah, but even without the recklessness, wouldn't it hurt more than the really sharp knife?
I absolutely agree - I also think that firearms should have even stricter training and education requirements. Isn't it law in one or two US states that before being able to carry a Taser, a police officer must take a hit from one?
It's sort of the same reason that a dull knife ismoredangerous to the wielder than a sharp one; it takes more force, and because it's dull, there's the psychological effect of "this won't hurt too badly even if I do slip."
Yeah, but even without the recklessness, wouldn't it hurtmorethan the really sharp knife?
Right, but most people don't think like that. It's a dull knife, so it obviously won't cut you as badly, right? Knife safety is typically one of those things that you learn after cutting your hands many times.
Also, I was wrong about pepper spray in New York. It is legal to possess (for persons 18 or older), but it can't be purchased by mail.
I absolutely agree - I also think that firearms should have even stricter training and education requirements. Isn't it law in one or two US states that before being able to carry a Taser, a police officer must take a hit from one?
Lets shoot everybody who buys gun.
YES!
Seriously though, someone could easily underestimate the amount of damage done by a taser.
I have never been hit by a Less-lethal weapon, but I'd like to hear from someone who has.
I absolutely agree - I also think that firearms should have even stricter training and education requirements. Isn't it law in one or two US states that before being able to carry a Taser, a police officer must take a hit from one?
Lets shoot everybody who buys gun.
I've already been shot, thank you, and I'd rather not repeat the experience, I don't feel it would be productive.
Allow me to explain the reasoning behind that particular law in those states - Taking a hit from a taser (even with applied electrodes as opposed to barbed darts) FUCKING HURTS. If the officers understand this, they are apparently less likely to use them inappropriately, or at least, that's the idea. I'm not advocating that this is used as part of civilian training, but it's an interesting idea they have going there.
Also, mace and pepper spray are illegal in New York. "Bear mace" is a pepper spray formulation specifically deigned to repealbears. It's perfectly legal to buy and have, but I believe that it's illegal to use on people, since it's far stronger than conventional pepper spray or mace.
Thank you, once again, my mistake. I made an incorrect assumption about what the common terminology was, though in retrospect, it was pretty bloody obvious.
YES!
Yeah, Let's shoot all the gun owners, that'll teach them! Hey, and let's kick everybody who learns martial arts in the face, run over everybody who buys a car, make sure anyone buying poisonous substances consumes some, and of course, make sure everyone who tries to get a pilot's license crashes fatally at least once. Oh, wait, I almost forgot the one thing all of these ideas have in common - they're fucking retarded.
Seriously though, someone could easily underestimate the amount of damage done by a taser.
Thus why there should be mandatory, comprehensive training courses for anyone who wishes to have one.
I have never been hit by a Less-lethal weapon, but I'd like to hear from someone who has.
I've been accidentally maced by the police(I caught some overspray during a barfight in the bar I was working in at the time - before you ask, we were shorthanded on bouncers, and I have my security license, so I was the one who was usually tagged to assist) and it really, really sucks. You're almost blind, your eyes are burning like crazy, your nose and throat feel like they're on fire, you feel like you can't breathe properly, you have a severe disinclination to boogie, and you really want to throw up. I've also been hit with a taser, and it really fucking hurts. It's like having the worse charlie horse you can imagine, in every muscle in your body. You just lock up, you can't do a goddamned thing and you're hurting like hell. It also really exhausts you - afterwards, it's pretty hard to do anything besides just lay there hurting and thinking about exactly how much you really don't want to do that again.
Um...yeah. I'm just gonna say that I completely agree with Rym. If I hear something making noise and I'm fairly certain that it's not my cat, mom, dog, sister, or dad, I'll usually just yell (but the amount of times that's happened is like...maybe once).
and let's kick everybody who learns martial arts in the face
If you've learned martial arts properly, you've already been kicked in the face a lot.
I should have kept my original line for clarity - and let's kick everybody who learns martial arts in the face, before they're allowed to start learning.
Um...yeah. I'm just gonna say that I completely agree with Rym. If I hear something making noise and I'm fairly certain that it's not my cat, mom, dog, sister, or dad, I'll usually just yell (but the amount of times that's happened is like...maybe once).
Seconded, though having something in one's hand in case you're right isn't always a bad idea.
I should have kept my original line for clarity - and let's kick everybody who learns martial arts in the face, before they're allowed to start learning.
Not that I didn't get your intention, but that would've precluded my wiseassery.
*ahem* Does anyone in here actually own a gun? If so, then you should know the laws regarding shooting people in your home. I don't remember if this is NC law or Federal law, but once the intruder is inside your home, it's against the law to shoot them. This is a stupid law. You can shoot them as they approach your door, but not once they get inside. I don't know what the justification is, but you should probably consider that even if you try to call it self-defense, if you shoot the guy in your home, you're probably going to be prosecuted. Similarly, I'm sure other states have laws governing use of firearms for self and home defense.
1) Guns are easier to keep control of than knives (and other "non-lethal" weapons used at close range) because you can use them at a distance. Knives can be taken away and used against you because you have to get close to the assailant in order to use them. NEVER try to use a weapon you are not trained with. You're more likely to end up hurt than to hurt the bad guy. That goes for guns, too.
2) Guns don't have to be lethal. If you own a gun, you should be practicing at a shooting range fairly regularly so that you can use it competently. There are plenty of places that will disable someone without killing them. Two in the chest and one in the head should be reserved for extreme situations. I would also like to point out that most people that own guns legally use them responsibly. *Most* gun-related crime is a result of unauthorized use of firearms. Not all, but most.
3) Whether or not to confront an intruder is a personal choice, and should be based upon knowledge (not confidence...actual, tested knowledge) of your own abilities and assessment of the risk. If you have very little chance of defending yourself and live in an area where a break-in is more likely than BF Beacon, then calling out to a possible intruder is a much worse idea than peeking around a corner to see if it's someone you recognize. The first choice will definitely alert them to your presence and possibly put you in danger. The second has a chance of alerting them to your presence, but is not a guarantee. The safest choice for you is to keep the intruder unaware of your presence while someone who is trained to deal with a possibly dangerous situation checks it out.
On the other hand, if you are trained in some way that makes you think you can handle yourself, then do whatever you think is the best option. I can identify most sounds in my apartment by listening, but if that doesn't work I can easily get into a position where I can see shadows and reflections. I have glass and mirrors strategically positioned around my apartment. I would check out the sound *discretely* well before I would call out.
There are plenty of places that will disable someone without killing them immediately.
Fixed for accuracy. If I shoot an intruder in the leg and damage the femoral artery, without immediate medical attention, they're dead. Round to the shoulder? Massive blood vessels, and IF they survive the bleeding and inevitable shock,they're crippled. If you shoot them, and they go into shock, without medical attention, they could quite easily die. Shooting to disable is pure Hollywood fiction, no matter how good your shooting is. If you are shooting, you are shooting to kill.
I can identify most sounds in my apartment by listening, but if that doesn't work I can easily get into a position where I can see shadows and reflections. I have glass and mirrors strategically positioned around my apartment.
Not to self: Never try to invade Nuri's secret underground bunker.
I guess I should feel lucky that I'm in an area of America where I don't have to be paranoid and own a gun, or any weapon period, have to place mirrors strategically around my home, or other shit like that. I know a good handful of people who don't even lock their house doors (actually, almost everyone I know doesn't...my family is one of the few that does).
This is laughable. All you people with no experience with firearms usage in a self defence context really need to shut the fuck up now, before you give some dimwit the idea that it's a good idea to go charging into a dangerous situation with a loaded weapon. Goddamn. If you have reason to fear an intruder is in your house, call the police immediately. If you have to defend yourself, make sure it's your only option, and if it is, don't try to minimize the damage - like Churba said, if you have to shoot, you have to be prepared to kill. It's fucked up, but that's how it is.
I think everyone here needs to do a proper security training course. It will change the way you look at the world.
I guess I should feel lucky that I'm in an area of America where I don't have to be paranoid and own a gun, or any weapon period, have to place mirrors strategically around my home, or other shit like that. I know a good handful of people who don't even lock their house doors (actually, almost everyone I know doesn't...my family is one of the few that does).
Same here. I live about seven miles from a very small, quiet town, so the crime rates aren't much to speak of. The worst thing we have to worry about is neighbors letting their half-feral dogs loose, and even then we're more worried about the livestock than anything.
All you people with no experience with firearms usage in a self defence context really need to shut the fuck up now, before you give some dimwit the idea that it's a good idea to go charging into a dangerous situation with a loaded weapon.
A sound point. I don't believe I've given anyone this idea in my posts on anything but the most tenuous reasoning, but seriously, don't do that. A firearm doesn't make you invulnerable.
I think everyone here needs to do a proper security training course. It will change the way you look at the world.
Indeed I have, and I put my word and warrant on that it will.
This is laughable. All you people with no experience with firearms usage in a self defence context really need to shut the fuck up now
That's uncalled-for, at least when applied generically.
before you give some dimwit the idea that it's a good idea to go charging into a dangerous situation with a loaded weapon. Goddamn. If you have reason to fear an intruder is in your house, call the police immediately. If you have to defend yourself, make sure it's your only option, and if it is, don't try to minimize the damage - like Churba said, if you have to shoot, you have to be prepared to kill. It's fucked up, but that's how it is.
I've been suggesting neither to "charge" nor "minimize damage"; the same goes for a few others here who nonetheless lack training.
I've been suggesting neither to "charge" nor "minimize damage"; the same goes for a few others here who nonetheless lack training.
True, but I still find it amazing that there are so many people in this thread who would go armed into a conflict, however cautiously, over what amounts to their DVD collection and stereos. Apart from the fact that you are essentially giving the burglars a weapon unless you are very, very well trained, you also risk killing a human being for what? $1000 worth of electronics?
The legal proceedings, therapy and emotional trauma alone is worth more than ten times that. And if you think you are special, that you can shrug off what is essentially a genetically hard wired emotional response from the times we were apes, pick up a psychology textbook, or look at the suicide rates of returning soldiers.
True, but I still find it amazing that there are so many people in this thread who would go armed into a conflict, however cautiously, over what amounts to their DVD collection and stereos. Apart from the fact that you are essentially giving the burglars a weapon unless you are very, very well trained, you also risk killing a human being for what? $1000 worth of electronics?
The legal proceedings, therapy and emotional trauma alone is worth more than ten times that. And if you thinkyouare special, thatyoucan shrug off what is essentially a genetically hard wired emotional response from the times we were apes, pick up a psychologytextbook, or look at the suicide rates of returning soldiers.
Pretty much the entire reason I personally wouldn't bother getting out a gun for home defense. With Australian gun laws as they are, it's somewhat unlikely that someone trying to rob your house will have a firearm. Just do what most of us do, and use a fucking great big hunk of timber. Less lethal than a firearm, and on top of being a rather visible deterrent, a solid whack or two will cause most people to pause, think about the poor consequences of their actions, and then commence writhing around on the floor in pain, as opposed to lying down on the floor to contemplate life, love and their newly acquired habit of rapid exsanguination.
Ma'am, Just about every gun makes a pretty clear noise when you chamber a round, with revolvers being the obvious exception. It's not really a feature, more of a design byproduct. Though, I would question any member of the police who carry their firearm without a round chambered, because if they need to use it, then that means they need to cock the weapon before they can use it - a delay that could easily get them killed. If they have a round chambered, all they need to do is flick off the safety and the weapon is live, ready to go.
Actually, Rym told me this was not the case, that guns/pistols can be made to be nearly silent when you chamber the round. I don't know. I'm just going off what I heard, not personal experience.
I think everyone here needs to do a proper security training course. It will change the way you look at the world.
Nothing any of you have suggested is safe or practical unless you also, as I noted above, have control of the situation. ^_~ This is more important than any of the considerations such as to how and/or with what you are armed.
Nothing any of you have suggested is safe or practical unless you also, as I noted above, have control of the situation.
Control implies knowledge, knowledge implies practice. So unless you are in the habit of talking to burglars, opening the window and getting out of the house is the only course of action you should take.
Hmm, he is talking about a very specific definition of control. Also: What if you live really high up? I would probably get out of the house if I could, but...
Hmm, he is talking about a very specific definition of control.
Control is control, talking to a burglar from a hidden vantage point may make you feel safe, but you are not in control unless you have actual skills in negotiating with criminals. Most likely you have just wasted option a) "stay hidden" and severely worsened option b) "run away" in favor of option c) confrontation.
You have to realize that, when a burglar gets into your house you have already lost control. Your subsequent actions are not freely decided by you, but are a response to his/her(unlikely) being there. And like Rym says, unless you're in control you aren't safe. So the only reasonable option is to get out.
Control is control, talking to a burglar from a hidden vantage point may make youfeelsafe, but you are not in control unless you have actual skills in negotiating with criminals.
I disagree. Intruders are in a foreign house, they don't know the layout (which is a distinct disadvantage). Furthermore, you are not negotiating with the criminals, you are establishing a situation in which you control the terms. By providing terms on which he should leave (i.e."I have called the police, you should leave" or "I have a loaded weapon, leave now"), you determine the pace of the engagement in which he must determine the next move.
Making yourself feel safe is no the goal, it's to make the intruder feel that he is in danger, even if he may have the physical/combat advantage. You stated earlier that a couple thousand dollars is not worth fighting for. This is exactly true, and you can use it against the intruder. Do you think they want to risk getting shot for a DVD player? No, of course not. By providing a believable threat of violence, you can instill a sense of danger in the intruder and more often than not, that should be enough to make him flee.
Comments
However, when it comes to non-lethal weapons, there's less respect than what you see for firearms. People hear "non-lethal" and they think that means you can be a bit more reckless with them. You can find Youtube videos of people shocking themselves with tasers for "fun;" I highly doubt you'll find instances of people letting themselves get shot for the hell of it. Thus, it takes a lot more training, and perhaps some more drastic training measures, to instill the required level of respect. You can shoot a gun and watch a glass bottle explode, but a taser just looks like it makes somebody hit the ground. It's sort of the same reason that a dull knife is more dangerous to the wielder than a sharp one; it takes more force, and because it's dull, there's the psychological effect of "this won't hurt too badly even if I do slip."
Also, mace and pepper spray are illegal in New York. "Bear mace" is a pepper spray formulation specifically deigned to repeal bears. It's perfectly legal to buy and have, but I believe that it's illegal to use on people, since it's far stronger than conventional pepper spray or mace.
Also, I was wrong about pepper spray in New York. It is legal to possess (for persons 18 or older), but it can't be purchased by mail.
Seriously though, someone could easily underestimate the amount of damage done by a taser.
I have never been hit by a Less-lethal weapon, but I'd like to hear from someone who has.
Allow me to explain the reasoning behind that particular law in those states - Taking a hit from a taser (even with applied electrodes as opposed to barbed darts) FUCKING HURTS. If the officers understand this, they are apparently less likely to use them inappropriately, or at least, that's the idea. I'm not advocating that this is used as part of civilian training, but it's an interesting idea they have going there. Thank you, once again, my mistake. I made an incorrect assumption about what the common terminology was, though in retrospect, it was pretty bloody obvious. Yeah, Let's shoot all the gun owners, that'll teach them! Hey, and let's kick everybody who learns martial arts in the face, run over everybody who buys a car, make sure anyone buying poisonous substances consumes some, and of course, make sure everyone who tries to get a pilot's license crashes fatally at least once. Oh, wait, I almost forgot the one thing all of these ideas have in common - they're fucking retarded. Thus why there should be mandatory, comprehensive training courses for anyone who wishes to have one. I've been accidentally maced by the police(I caught some overspray during a barfight in the bar I was working in at the time - before you ask, we were shorthanded on bouncers, and I have my security license, so I was the one who was usually tagged to assist) and it really, really sucks. You're almost blind, your eyes are burning like crazy, your nose and throat feel like they're on fire, you feel like you can't breathe properly, you have a severe disinclination to boogie, and you really want to throw up.
I've also been hit with a taser, and it really fucking hurts. It's like having the worse charlie horse you can imagine, in every muscle in your body. You just lock up, you can't do a goddamned thing and you're hurting like hell. It also really exhausts you - afterwards, it's pretty hard to do anything besides just lay there hurting and thinking about exactly how much you really don't want to do that again.
1) Guns are easier to keep control of than knives (and other "non-lethal" weapons used at close range) because you can use them at a distance. Knives can be taken away and used against you because you have to get close to the assailant in order to use them. NEVER try to use a weapon you are not trained with. You're more likely to end up hurt than to hurt the bad guy. That goes for guns, too.
2) Guns don't have to be lethal. If you own a gun, you should be practicing at a shooting range fairly regularly so that you can use it competently. There are plenty of places that will disable someone without killing them. Two in the chest and one in the head should be reserved for extreme situations. I would also like to point out that most people that own guns legally use them responsibly. *Most* gun-related crime is a result of unauthorized use of firearms. Not all, but most.
3) Whether or not to confront an intruder is a personal choice, and should be based upon knowledge (not confidence...actual, tested knowledge) of your own abilities and assessment of the risk. If you have very little chance of defending yourself and live in an area where a break-in is more likely than BF Beacon, then calling out to a possible intruder is a much worse idea than peeking around a corner to see if it's someone you recognize. The first choice will definitely alert them to your presence and possibly put you in danger. The second has a chance of alerting them to your presence, but is not a guarantee. The safest choice for you is to keep the intruder unaware of your presence while someone who is trained to deal with a possibly dangerous situation checks it out.
On the other hand, if you are trained in some way that makes you think you can handle yourself, then do whatever you think is the best option. I can identify most sounds in my apartment by listening, but if that doesn't work I can easily get into a position where I can see shadows and reflections. I have glass and mirrors strategically positioned around my apartment. I would check out the sound *discretely* well before I would call out.
Shooting to disable is pure Hollywood fiction, no matter how good your shooting is. If you are shooting, you are shooting to kill.
I think everyone here needs to do a proper security training course. It will change the way you look at the world.
The legal proceedings, therapy and emotional trauma alone is worth more than ten times that. And if you think you are special, that you can shrug off what is essentially a genetically hard wired emotional response from the times we were apes, pick up a psychology textbook, or look at the suicide rates of returning soldiers.
You have to realize that, when a burglar gets into your house you have already lost control. Your subsequent actions are not freely decided by you, but are a response to his/her(unlikely) being there. And like Rym says, unless you're in control you aren't safe. So the only reasonable option is to get out.
Making yourself feel safe is no the goal, it's to make the intruder feel that he is in danger, even if he may have the physical/combat advantage. You stated earlier that a couple thousand dollars is not worth fighting for. This is exactly true, and you can use it against the intruder. Do you think they want to risk getting shot for a DVD player? No, of course not. By providing a believable threat of violence, you can instill a sense of danger in the intruder and more often than not, that should be enough to make him flee.