Today, I woke up from a nap hearing a crazy guy in my house, singing, slamming open counters, and causing a general ruckus. I lied in my bathtub, face to the floor, and called 911. Three policemen with loaded M-16s arrived at my house to find my dad with his headphones on, singing along to Shaft. FML
If you verbally confront the person from an unseen position, you are now in control of the static situation. Even if they are armed, they cannot react with immediate violence without exposing themselves to immense danger. Unless you're dealing with a trained, professional hostile (highly unlikely) or an insane and violent hostile (also highly unlikely), the momentum is now yours, and you are safe. (Even in the event of these two exceptions, you are still much safer than you otherwise would have been, but that's another topic for another time).
Now, if the noises have stopped, you can wait for a reaction. The onus to react is on the other side: you are in the static, safe position, and the possible intruder is in the unstable, reactive position. This is when your father says, "Hey, it's me," or your dog comes bounding up the stairs, or the raccoon that broke in runs away. If there is no response, then you now, for the first time, have a reasonable fear that there may in fact be an intruder: at no point before do you have this.
Have you tried using this psychobabble on a real intruder? In my personal experience they don't respond to talking with them. That typically just alerts them to your presence, and if they are armed and your not... well you do the math.
Have you tried using this psychobabble on a real intruder? In my personal experience they don't respond to talking with them. That typically just alerts them to your presence, and if they are armed and your not... well you do the math.
What? I don't think you understand on any level what I said.
Say you sneak up behind some intruder in the dark. What do you do now, hot shot? Shoot him? You haven't positively identified the person, and could very, very easily kill an innocent person/family member/unarmed punk kid.
So, instead of shooting, you do what? Yell freeze? He's liable to spin around and, if armed, attack reflexively. Furthermore, even an unarmed, harmless, or non-intruder target may react in a quick, possibly violent manner out of surprise. Now, you face the real danger of, again, killing the wrong person, or also now, being attacked before you can respond.
Control has very specific meanings in a situation like this, as any police or military training handbook will tell you. The safest, most prudent course of action is to shout an interrogative from a non-visible position. e.g., if you are upstairs, and you hear this ruckus downstairs, shout from above and beyond the landing. A simple, short, "Who's There!?" will do the trick.
Now, at this point, you have effectively controlled the situation. You have given yourself everything you need to positively identify the source of the noise, as well as a relatively safe vantage from which to take further action. Several scenarios descend from this point.
Case #1: Noise Continues unchanged
Here, you are very likely dealing with a non-person. An intruder would pause, but an animal or mechanical source would not. If the noise continues, repeat your interrogative more loudly. "I said: who's There!?" If the noise still remains unchanged, investigate in person: you are quite unlikely to run into any sort of dangerous intruder.
Case #2: A Response
Here, the possible intruder responds. If you recognize the voice, problem solved: you can go down the stairs and ask your father why he's in your house at 3am. If you do not, you continue with your interrogatives: "Who are you!?" or "Identify yourself!" Remember, you speak tersely, loudly, and with no emotion. Few, punctuated words. Try to determine who's actually there.
Now, if the response is a threat or otherwise alarming, listen for whether the possible intruder is moving toward your voice or not. Few people, let alone petty thieves, can truly move silently, and you will easily be able to determine where they are and if they present a pressing threat. If they approach, retreat behind a locked door, escape via a window, arm yourself, or do whatever else may be necessary to protect yourself. Dial 911. If you achieve any temporary safety within the structure, inform the assailant that you are armed as below.
If the response is a threat, but no movement is made toward you, inform the intruder loudly that you are armed, and that they should leave. "I am armed: you should leave." Again, terse, loud, and punctuated. Say nothing more, and repeat the exact same phrase in response to any further communication. This will end the majority of dangerous encounters. Of course, dial 911.
Case #3: No Response; Silence
Here again, use the magic phrase. "I am armed: you should leave." This case is the most likely (if there is an actual intruder), and will most probably resolve peaceably.
The reason for all of this is that, if you interrogate from an unseen vantage, the intruder's immediate reaction cannot harm you, and furthermore you cannot mistakenly respond in force to a momentary sudden reaction. You are in control, in that you are, from a tactical perspective, behind cover with an uncertain position. Theoretically, you would be able to respond with force to any advancement without the possibility of reprisal. Were you truly armed, this is the equivalent of standing behind the door to your bedroom with a handgun trained on the door.
By asserting this form of control, you are much more certain, in the event of an actual confrontation, that you are in fact dealing with a hostile. A family member or friend would not, for example, continue to advance on you after making such demands, let alone breach the final threshold (such as a door) without some sort of identification.
Your priorities in a situation like this include a positive identification of the possible hostile actor. Until you have done so, any violent response on your part runs the very real risk of serious injury or death to a friend, family member, or other harmless party. You are presenting non-violent de-escalations of the situation, while at the same time protecting yourself with control of the situation and a defensive posture.
You should, of course, actually arm yourself before verbally calling someone out. In the unlikely event that you are physically confronted, you don't want your threat of being armed to be an empty one.
I didn't say all of Albany was a shithole, but Washington Park is simply not safe at night, and Arbor Hill is an actual ghetto, complete with gang turf wars. If I lived alone in Arbor Hill, you better damn well believe that I'm going to assume any unusual noise is an intruder. It's simply prudent.
Well, I'm pleased no-one took my bait. In any case, Rym's was the only sensible approach posted in this thread. I would've thought it would be obvious to anyone that the greatest priority in the case of an intruder is to avoid confrontation wherever possible. I'd like to add a couple of points to what Rym has said, though. Firstly, once you have called the police (or even before) it would also pay to inform the intruder that the police are on their way. Secondly, if there is an opportunity to escape without any chance of a confrontation (i.e. a window you can climb through), it is a good idea to take it.
One thing that I've always liked about this forum is that no one is afraid to go off-topic, because more often than not the new discussion is a lot more interesting than the thread's original intent. It also extends the life of a thread that would normally just die.
Well I've learned a lot from what you all have said (specifically Rym), but I'll explain in a little more detail what caused me to do what I did.
In the last month, there have been 5 break-ins in the immediate vicinity of my neighborhood by three black men who are still at large. One even occurred just the day before this incident took place. I woke up from a nap to hear someone slamming open cabinets, and singing (conversing?). I obviously was spooked, and, not wanting to alert them of my position lest they attack me, I hid in my bathroom and called the police.
There certainly were many errors made on my part, but when it's your life or health on the line, I think most of you would err on the more cautious side.
By the way, the gun may not have been an M-16, but it looked very similar to an M-4 (my dad pointed out it was an M-16).
By the way, the gun may not have been an M-16, but it looked very similar to an M-4 (my dad pointed out it was an M-16).
This is a reasonable assumption - most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an M-16, an M-4 and an AR-15 without a close look, and the M-16 being the most famous of the type, would just assume the rifle was an M-16, or maybe an M-4. To be honest, the police, if they had that sort of weapon, were probably carrying AR-15s.
And if you, good sir, would assume robbery when you hear about the Black Private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks, and indeed is the man who would risk his neck for the brother man, you should be shot.
It's really an alien way to act from personal experience. I've been robbed twice in my life and in both events as soon as the intruders heard me or heard me opening the door they ran. (The first time someone was trying to steal the family Sega Master System and Sega Megadrive).
How much fear do US citizens live with on a regular basis? It's laughable reading it on a board.
Plus why would you want a response with cops requiring high powered rifles - that's the major plus point of gun control in Australia, cops usually only ever react turning up with regular pistol side arms.
I wouldn't call it "fear" per se. Therearemany Americans who live in fear, but that's more of a universal human condition, I think. I'm talking about beingprepared. You might think it unlikely that you'll ever be mugged or assaulted at some point in your life, but so does everyone until it happens.
I live 2 blocks away from the section of Albany where people are murdered for wearing the wrong color clothing. The park to which I am adjacent sees muggings and assaults at night. While I don'texpectto have a crime perpetrated upon me at any point, itcouldhappen. I don't lose sleep fearing for my safety at night, because I keep myself prepared for it should it happen.
The other thing to note is that the US has more violent crime than other Western nations, so the impetus to be prepared is not unfounded.
Please don't think all other western nations are crime free paradises either - when I lived in London there would be news of stabbings and organised crime related murders on a regular basis.
3 months ago, when I lived in Sydney, myself and 2 of my friends were beaten up by a gang of 15 youths when we were walking home from dinner. My friend who ran back to help us was stabbed in the thorax. We all went to the closest emergency room immediately.
The emergency room was worse than the attack! The emergency room doctors were not confident enough to stitch up my friend's wound, they called the "on call" surgeon who didn't turn up for another 10 hours i.e. Just before his normal shift would have started. I was highly frustrated as I could have easily stitched the wound up myself. The only reason I didn't was because we were easily visible and the legal implications would have resulted in the loss of my license.
When I asked for pain relief, all I was offered was paracetamol or paracetamol with a tiny dose of codeine. I specifically asked for Non steroidal anti-inflammatories as I had been hit to the ground and was repetitively kicked in the head by 3 of the assailants. Once again no dice, the ER doctors didn't think I needed it. I truly believe I give better treatment to my patients and wonder what they would say if they could speak! I will never go to an emergency room out of my own free will again. I was really dissapointed by the public health care system. I can't think of how bad it must be in the US if it is worse than Australia.
Well, I'm pleased no-one took my bait. In any case, Rym's was the only sensible approach posted in this thread. I would've thought it would be obvious to anyone that the greatest priority in the case of an intruder is toavoid confrontation wherever possible. I'd like to add a couple of points to what Rym has said, though. Firstly, once you have called the police (or even before) it would also pay to inform the intruder that the police are on their way. Secondly, if there is an opportunity to escape without any chance of a confrontation (i.e. a window you can climb through), it is a good idea to take it.
I agree with you. As far as you punk kids who disagreed with Rym, understand that he isn't making this up, but learned it from a policeman friend of his father's. Your "grab a gun and go get 'em" method is a horrible method to use in this situation. It's people like you who shoot Japanese exchange students on Halloween.
The safest, most prudent course of action is to shout an interrogative from a non-visible position.
Perhaps, but shouting isn't really my thing... have you ever heard the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun being cocked? I assure you that is a better deterrent than shouting; but I'm the type to go investigate. I understood what you said, but I will react in a way to defend my family, not save myself. I have full confidence that I can handle a common thug. A 12 gauge bean bag or disruptor round is more than enough to take down almost anyone that would dare break into my house.
Perhaps, but shouting isn't really my thing... have you ever heard the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun being cocked? I assure you that is a better deterrent than shouting; but I'm the type to go investigate. I understood what you said, but I will react in a way to defend my family, not save myself. I have full confidence that I can handle a common thug. A 12 gauge bean bag or disruptor round is more than enough to take down almost anyone that would dare break into my house.
Perhaps, but shouting isn't really my thing... have you ever heard the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun being cocked? I assure you that is a better deterrent than shouting; but I'm the type to go investigate. I understood what you said, but I will react in a way to defend my family, not save myself. I have full confidence that I can handle a common thug. A 12 gauge bean bag or disruptor round is more than enough to take down almost anyone that would dare break into my house.
Paraphrased: "Someone in house, must hurt!"
I'm not a fan of "shoot first, ask questions later," but it's sensible to have some sort of home defense.
I'm not a fan of "shoot first, ask questions later," but it's sensible to have some sort of home defense.
True, however I'm only commenting on the stupid thinking of having to hurt the intruder before he even poses a threat. On second thought, I should've added some "Hurrrdurrrr" to that paraphrase.
Perhaps, but shouting isn't really my thing... have you ever heard the sound of a 12 gauge shotgun being cocked? I assure you that is a better deterrent than shouting; but I'm the type to go investigate. I understood what you said, but I will react in a way to defend my family, not save myself. I have full confidence that I can handle a common thug. A 12 gauge bean bag or disruptor round is more than enough to take down almost anyone that would dare break into my house.
Actually, the sound of a gun being cocked, in addition to a firm vocal command, works as a deterrent as well. Police guns make that noise on purpose because it gives warning. They could be silent, but they are actually designed that way because the noise works. How is your method helping your family? All you are doing is putting yourself in a dangerous situation when you don't have to. This isn't bravery on your part, it is lack of common sense. Ask a person who trains soldiers. Ask a police firearms instructor. Macho posturing and waving your gun around is not the best way to defuse the situation. I have nothing against people who own and learn to use firearms, in fact, I respect the people who have respect for weapons. People like you, on the other hand, seem to be the ones who go off half cocked. It's like the story this third degree black belt in Karate told me, about how masters will try to use words to end a conflict, and only those who lack training and the ability to control the situation will start swinging first. In the three real life conflicts he experienced, twice he talked the guy down, and the third guy? Well, the third guy rushed him and got his arm broken in two places.
It's like the story this third degree black belt in Karate told me, about how masters will try to use words to end a conflict, and only those who lack training and the ability to control the situation will start swinging first. In the three real life conflicts he experienced, twice he talked the guy down, and the third guy? Well, the third guy rushed him and got his arm broken in two places.
That's one of the reasons I prefer a ranged weapon as a form of personal defense. The 3rd degree blackbelt was most likely in no danger from a physical confrontation from most people, yet chose to talk people down. That's because, no matter what, a hand-to-hand confrontation is the riskiest place for you to be. Even if you have a knife, or a bat, or some such weapon, putting yourself in the range needed to use it is a giant risk. Far better to have a gun and let someone know about it.
You're absolutely right about not waving a gun around. Anyone with a basic knowledge of firearm safety knows that you never point a weapon at a target unless you absolutely intend to fire. You also should know to keep it pointed in a safe direction so as to minimize the threat of an accidental discharge. More often than not, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to dissuade a criminal.
More often than not, the merepresenceof a firearm is enough to dissuade a criminal.
Thus the issue of control over the situation. Unless you have control, the intruder will react to your presence before he becomes aware of the weapon, possibly leading to disaster.
Police guns make that noise on purpose because it gives warning.
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.
I'm not a fan of "shoot first, ask questions later," but it's sensible to have some sort of home defense.
This is true, however, if you are going to have some sort of a firearm for home defense, if you're not prepared to use it in a lethal fashion if necessary, you shouldn't have it. Get a big can of bear mace or a taser instead.
The 3rd degree blackbelt was most likely in no danger from a physical confrontation from most people, yet chose to talk people down. That's because, no matter what, a hand-to-hand confrontation is the riskiest place for you to be. Even if you have a knife, or a bat, or some such weapon, putting yourself in the range needed to use it is a giant risk.
Have you considered that maybe the blackbelt preferred not to unnecessarily hurt people?
This is true, however, if you are going to have some sort of a firearm for home defense, if you're not prepared to use it in a lethal fashion if necessary, you shouldn't have it. Get a big can of bear mace or a taser instead.
Bear mace is legal, IIRC, but I'm pretty sure that tasers are not in New York.
I'd be a huge proponent of legal non-lethal weapons for sale to the public, though they'd have to come with some pretty strong training and education requirements.
Have you considered that maybe the blackbelt preferred not to unnecessarily hurt people?
Sure, that factors in, but a 3rd degree blackbelt also inherently understands the dangers of hand-to-hand confrontations. It's a combination of factors.
Have you considered that maybe the blackbelt preferred not to unnecessarily hurt people?
It's a combination of both. If you have a good Tae Kwon Do teacher (I can't technically speak for other martial arts) pacifism and caution will both be heavily emphasized. The average 3rd-dan can take on most unarmed attackers and have a good chance of coming out on top, but it's always better to have no physical confrontation at all.
Yeah, what TheWhaleShark said. I got distracted as I wrote this post.
Yes, However, If you're jittery and unprepared, then it's far more likely you'll have to do it, as opposed to being calm, collected, and (To the other party) Visibly unaffected. Also, If push comes to shove, if you're prepared to do it, then you're probably not going to hesitate, and that lack of or lesser amount of hesitation could save your life in an armed confrontation - Not to mention if you're cool, calm and and collected, you are less likely to accidentally shoot a family member, pet, or unarmed intruder.
Also, you must remember that there are no "non-lethal" shots that you can realistically take. Shooting a gun out of someone's hands is utter fiction at your average person's level of training and a bad idea at any level of training, and any other shot has the capacity to kill. There are a number of places you could hit them where you could sever an artery or puncture an organ, and hell, just going into shock might kill them.
Bear mace is legal, IIRC, but I'm pretty sure that tasers are not in New York.
My apologies - I was under the impression that "Bear Mace" while an actual product, was also the colloquial term for the extremely large canisters of mace - about the size of a small fire extinguisher. As for Tasers in New York, buggered if I know, but if that's the case, seek other methods.
I'd be a huge proponent of legal non-lethal weapons for sale to the public, though they'd have to come with some pretty strong training and education requirements.
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?
Posted By: RymThe safest, most prudent course of action is to shout an interrogative from a non-visible position.
I understood what you said, but I will react in a way to defend my family, not save myself.If you have multiple isolated people, they should each react in the same way that an individual would react if they were alone in the house. If everyone acts to save themselves, everything works out. Everyone, especially children, should be prepared in advance to react correctly.
In any case, as this seems to be Xandro's issue, what if there are people present who might not react correctly? What should one do to control the situation?
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?
Comments
Say you sneak up behind some intruder in the dark. What do you do now, hot shot? Shoot him? You haven't positively identified the person, and could very, very easily kill an innocent person/family member/unarmed punk kid.
So, instead of shooting, you do what? Yell freeze? He's liable to spin around and, if armed, attack reflexively. Furthermore, even an unarmed, harmless, or non-intruder target may react in a quick, possibly violent manner out of surprise. Now, you face the real danger of, again, killing the wrong person, or also now, being attacked before you can respond.
Control has very specific meanings in a situation like this, as any police or military training handbook will tell you. The safest, most prudent course of action is to shout an interrogative from a non-visible position. e.g., if you are upstairs, and you hear this ruckus downstairs, shout from above and beyond the landing. A simple, short, "Who's There!?" will do the trick.
Now, at this point, you have effectively controlled the situation. You have given yourself everything you need to positively identify the source of the noise, as well as a relatively safe vantage from which to take further action. Several scenarios descend from this point.
Case #1: Noise Continues unchanged
Here, you are very likely dealing with a non-person. An intruder would pause, but an animal or mechanical source would not. If the noise continues, repeat your interrogative more loudly. "I said: who's There!?" If the noise still remains unchanged, investigate in person: you are quite unlikely to run into any sort of dangerous intruder.
Case #2: A Response
Here, the possible intruder responds. If you recognize the voice, problem solved: you can go down the stairs and ask your father why he's in your house at 3am. If you do not, you continue with your interrogatives: "Who are you!?" or "Identify yourself!" Remember, you speak tersely, loudly, and with no emotion. Few, punctuated words. Try to determine who's actually there.
Now, if the response is a threat or otherwise alarming, listen for whether the possible intruder is moving toward your voice or not. Few people, let alone petty thieves, can truly move silently, and you will easily be able to determine where they are and if they present a pressing threat. If they approach, retreat behind a locked door, escape via a window, arm yourself, or do whatever else may be necessary to protect yourself. Dial 911. If you achieve any temporary safety within the structure, inform the assailant that you are armed as below.
If the response is a threat, but no movement is made toward you, inform the intruder loudly that you are armed, and that they should leave. "I am armed: you should leave." Again, terse, loud, and punctuated. Say nothing more, and repeat the exact same phrase in response to any further communication. This will end the majority of dangerous encounters. Of course, dial 911.
Case #3: No Response; Silence
Here again, use the magic phrase. "I am armed: you should leave." This case is the most likely (if there is an actual intruder), and will most probably resolve peaceably.
The reason for all of this is that, if you interrogate from an unseen vantage, the intruder's immediate reaction cannot harm you, and furthermore you cannot mistakenly respond in force to a momentary sudden reaction. You are in control, in that you are, from a tactical perspective, behind cover with an uncertain position. Theoretically, you would be able to respond with force to any advancement without the possibility of reprisal. Were you truly armed, this is the equivalent of standing behind the door to your bedroom with a handgun trained on the door.
By asserting this form of control, you are much more certain, in the event of an actual confrontation, that you are in fact dealing with a hostile. A family member or friend would not, for example, continue to advance on you after making such demands, let alone breach the final threshold (such as a door) without some sort of identification.
Your priorities in a situation like this include a positive identification of the possible hostile actor. Until you have done so, any violent response on your part runs the very real risk of serious injury or death to a friend, family member, or other harmless party. You are presenting non-violent de-escalations of the situation, while at the same time protecting yourself with control of the situation and a defensive posture.
You should, of course, actually arm yourself before verbally calling someone out. In the unlikely event that you are physically confronted, you don't want your threat of being armed to be an empty one.
Nothing says "Welcome to your new home!" like boarded-up houses and bars on the windows.
I didn't say all of Albany was a shithole, but Washington Park is simply not safe at night, and Arbor Hill is an actual ghetto, complete with gang turf wars. If I lived alone in Arbor Hill, you better damn well believe that I'm going to assume any unusual noise is an intruder. It's simply prudent.
In any case, Rym's was the only sensible approach posted in this thread. I would've thought it would be obvious to anyone that the greatest priority in the case of an intruder is to avoid confrontation wherever possible. I'd like to add a couple of points to what Rym has said, though. Firstly, once you have called the police (or even before) it would also pay to inform the intruder that the police are on their way. Secondly, if there is an opportunity to escape without any chance of a confrontation (i.e. a window you can climb through), it is a good idea to take it.
That doesn't mean people can't have a serious discussion.
In the last month, there have been 5 break-ins in the immediate vicinity of my neighborhood by three black men who are still at large. One even occurred just the day before this incident took place. I woke up from a nap to hear someone slamming open cabinets, and singing (conversing?). I obviously was spooked, and, not wanting to alert them of my position lest they attack me, I hid in my bathroom and called the police.
There certainly were many errors made on my part, but when it's your life or health on the line, I think most of you would err on the more cautious side.
By the way, the gun may not have been an M-16, but it looked very similar to an M-4 (my dad pointed out it was an M-16).
And if you, good sir, would assume robbery when you hear about the Black Private dick that's a sex machine to all the chicks, and indeed is the man who would risk his neck for the brother man, you should be shot.
3 months ago, when I lived in Sydney, myself and 2 of my friends were beaten up by a gang of 15 youths when we were walking home from dinner.
My friend who ran back to help us was stabbed in the thorax. We all went to the closest emergency room immediately.
The emergency room was worse than the attack!
The emergency room doctors were not confident enough to stitch up my friend's wound, they called the "on call" surgeon who didn't turn up for another 10 hours i.e. Just before his normal shift would have started. I was highly frustrated as I could have easily stitched the wound up myself. The only reason I didn't was because we were easily visible and the legal implications would have resulted in the loss of my license.
When I asked for pain relief, all I was offered was paracetamol or paracetamol with a tiny dose of codeine. I specifically asked for Non steroidal anti-inflammatories as I had been hit to the ground and was repetitively kicked in the head by 3 of the assailants. Once again no dice, the ER doctors didn't think I needed it. I truly believe I give better treatment to my patients and wonder what they would say if they could speak!
I will never go to an emergency room out of my own free will again. I was really dissapointed by the public health care system. I can't think of how bad it must be in the US if it is worse than Australia.
Sorry I ranted way off topic.
As far as you punk kids who disagreed with Rym, understand that he isn't making this up, but learned it from a policeman friend of his father's. Your "grab a gun and go get 'em" method is a horrible method to use in this situation. It's people like you who shoot Japanese exchange students on Halloween.
How is your method helping your family? All you are doing is putting yourself in a dangerous situation when you don't have to. This isn't bravery on your part, it is lack of common sense. Ask a person who trains soldiers. Ask a police firearms instructor. Macho posturing and waving your gun around is not the best way to defuse the situation. I have nothing against people who own and learn to use firearms, in fact, I respect the people who have respect for weapons. People like you, on the other hand, seem to be the ones who go off half cocked. It's like the story this third degree black belt in Karate told me, about how masters will try to use words to end a conflict, and only those who lack training and the ability to control the situation will start swinging first. In the three real life conflicts he experienced, twice he talked the guy down, and the third guy? Well, the third guy rushed him and got his arm broken in two places.
You're absolutely right about not waving a gun around. Anyone with a basic knowledge of firearm safety knows that you never point a weapon at a target unless you absolutely intend to fire. You also should know to keep it pointed in a safe direction so as to minimize the threat of an accidental discharge. More often than not, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to dissuade a criminal.
I'd be a huge proponent of legal non-lethal weapons for sale to the public, though they'd have to come with some pretty strong training and education requirements. Sure, that factors in, but a 3rd degree blackbelt also inherently understands the dangers of hand-to-hand confrontations. It's a combination of factors.
Yeah, what TheWhaleShark said. I got distracted as I wrote this post.
Also, you must remember that there are no "non-lethal" shots that you can realistically take.
Shooting a gun out of someone's hands is utter fiction at your average person's level of training and a bad idea at any level of training, and any other shot has the capacity to kill. There are a number of places you could hit them where you could sever an artery or puncture an organ, and hell, just going into shock might kill them. My apologies - I was under the impression that "Bear Mace" while an actual product, was also the colloquial term for the extremely large canisters of mace - about the size of a small fire extinguisher. As for Tasers in New York, buggered if I know, but if that's the case, seek other methods. 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?
In any case, as this seems to be Xandro's issue, what if there are people present who might not react correctly? What should one do to control the situation?