Self Defense

[Tread]

Originally Posted by aw9725

I also have a 12 ga Remington 870 if anyone should break into my home as well as an AR-15.

Originally Posted by aw9725

For my home, a 12 ga works well. I have a standard Remington 870 that I got at K-Mart. I have added a pistol grip and a shorter barrel. My AR-15 would most likely go through the walls and kill the neighbors but it looks awesome!

I first thought you use the AR-15 for home defence as well. Nice to hear you don't.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Rifles like the AR-15 can be tailored to the operators needs and fire cartridges that have a good compromise between stopping power and recoil. That is why they are seeing an increased use in home defense.

I totally forgot the US walls that are made of paper (exaggeration like to blow away an elephant). Why use weapons that go through humans and walls for home defence. That's a risk for uninvolved people.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I own an M44 Mosin-Nagant and I primarily use it for target shooting and other recreational purposes, however it is also used as my home defense weapon. I don't have it just as an excuse for anything; I have it because it has a variety of uses; home defense being one of them.

If you use it primarily for sport, I don't see it as excuse. To buy a rifle, that is usually made for longer distances than handguns, for the reason of home defence sounds for me like an excuse, or a big calibre guns.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You have a car because it is more efficient in terms of time, distance and practical uses, correct? I own a rifle because it is more efficient compared to OC spray and tasers because of the standoff distance which doesn't require me to get in within arms distance of an assailant to use it.

The difference is: I need something to travel time efficient, and no need for a big home defence weapon, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I behoove you to at least go to a range and shoot for a day. That way you can develop an accurate opinion of firearms.

I can't just go to a range and shoot different weapons.
Don't know what an accurate opinion of firearms should help. I'm sure I would have fun shooting some guns, I would also have fun to shoot with or drive a tank through heavy terrain, little trees or cars, I would have, and had, fun blowing things up or shooting with a bazooka. In my opinion there should be as less possibilities, that this can happen in public or home.

There are too many people who can not handle things accountably.(nearly) everyone has the right to handle loaded weapons at home, even they shoot through walls? You don't let everyone drive a car, unless they killed some with it. You have to prove your knowledge, responsibility and skills before you're allowed to dive freely.

But, my question's was about home defence and not firearms in general.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Unless you know why someone is in your house, it is always better be on the cautious side. Especially if said person has forcefully uninvited themselves into your house.


There is something that a wise man named Col. Jeff Cooper wrote called:

The 4 Rules of Firearms Safety
...1;2;3;4;...

Mr. Tread. Alot of these risks can be mitigated with common sense rules like this. Training is key when handling firearms. Should you become proficient in handling a firearm, you will not have to worry about accidently hitting your family as things like this will make you more aware of what you are doing and how you are doing it.

Right! It could also be a person you don't want to hurt.
It seems like you and some other have the responsibility in use with guns, but that's not a precondition to use it and I'm sure many don't follow that rules or train enough.

You can never 100% sure at a moving target or about ricochet bullets from bones or objects, especially a family member is close to the psychotic person. Training and HP/SP ammunition can lower the risk, but it is still there.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

SWAT teams are usually called in for a barricaded hostage situation, not home invasions.

The psychotic threatening/hostage situation wasn't that far away from SWAT, for a shooting example, or.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Rachel

In this country Mr. Tread someone somewhere used their piece to PREVENT a crime today. And yesterday it happened and will tommorow. These occurances are not reported.

And even more to do a crime.

Originally Posted by Rachel

Happened to me twice a few years ago.
...
Now had I not been armed that day Mr. Tread what do you suppose might have happened to my family?

Originally Posted by Rachel

The second time ...
In both these instances my pistols prevented crimes without firing a shot.

I didn't want to discuss weapons for self defence or in general, but you ask me directly to it.

I can't say what would have happened. There are not many facts to build a clear picture about the situations. Not one of the three persons that walked in your direction has threatened you or your family. A violent potential or weapons wasn't visible either, expect by you.
You judge them to be criminal by their looks, age and walking in your direction. You should always be aware in suspicious settings, but it's not sure they were criminals. In the second case, if he watched you the whole time, and waited for you, he is supposable after your money.

If you want to say swinging around a gun on street keeps people away, if criminal or not, you are right.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Unlike most people here, I actually used to get robbed quite often when I was whoring in the big city.
...
I'd like to get a shotgun to complete my home protection package.

You don't have to answer, but I like to know:
Are you ever violent or by threatening robed while being at home?
Why do you want an additional shotgun to complete home protection?

[jimnaseum]

Originally Posted by Tread

You don't have to answer, but I like to know:
Are you ever violent or by threatening robed while being at home?
Why do you want an additional shotgun to complete home protection?

Hey Tread,
The first place I bought was a townhouse in a bad neighborhood, I got robbed twice, the second time the thief actally got my revolver.
I'm real non-violent, I've been in jail a couple week-ends for petty offenses, I didn't like it.
G Gordon Liddy had a radio show, he said when he was an F B I agent and his team had to go out on an assignment that was most likely going to be "up close and personal" that the agents wisked right by the machine guns for the Shotgun rack. That made sense to me.

[The Conquistador]

Granny stops robber with a gun.

http://www2.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/crime...Robber/25296/#

[randolph]

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies --in the final sense --a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. . . . It is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954

What would he think of us today?

[Tread]

Thanks to all who answered me to get a better understanding. I hope I'm not too annoying.

Originally Posted by aw9725

... I think a shotgun is a very effective weapon under home defense conditions--especially at close range. ...

That's a detailed answer.
I informed myself more about the crime in the different states compared to other countries. I was a bit surprised that I live in a county with so low homicides. And murders are done on the street, bars, or money transports. In other cases the murderer was a trusted person to the victims, friend, family, benefactor (tramping, meal, lodging), a client (prostitution), or something like this.
Maybe I don't know enough about the violent home attackers in the US, serial killers or about the addicts with money problems to see the home defence need.

I also looked up the advantages and disadvantages of shotguns, and still don't see why to buy an extra one.
A shotgun (pump-action) and the shells are usually cheaper than handguns but it's heavier and not so handy in buildings. They usually have less shells/bullets and a lower rate of fire (pump-action) than semi-automatic handguns. They are easier to use and have a better stopping power with one hit. If you have to shoot more than once the handgun is better. The spread of shot against the accurately of the handgun is not a big advantage at a room close rage. The penetration is lesser (limbs, walls).
So what is the reason not to use the gun you already have and use for self defence? If you let a shotgun out of the safe, you could also let your handgun at that place.

Originally Posted by jimnaseum

Hey Tread,
The first place I bought was a townhouse in a bad neighborhood, I got robbed twice, the second time the thief actally got my revolver.
I'm real non-violent, I've been in jail a couple week-ends for petty offenses, I didn't like it.
G Gordon Liddy had a radio show, he said when he was an F B I agent and his team had to go out on an assignment that was most likely going to be "up close and personal" that the agents wisked right by the machine guns for the Shotgun rack. That made sense to me.

I meant, was there one who robbed you violent or threatening at/in your home, while you were home.

Why it makes sense to you or/and the agents?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Tread

And even more to do a crime.

A common fallacy that people have regarding firearms.

[Rachel]

[QUOTE=Tread;11172 Not one of the three persons that walked in your direction has threatened you or your family. A violent potential or weapons wasn’t visible either, expect by you.
You judge them to be criminal by their looks, age and walking in your direction. You should always be aware in suspicious settings, but it’s not sure they were criminals. In the second case, if he watched you the whole time, and waited for you, he is supposable after your money.



Hmm I thought I described the situation quite well enough for a rational person to put themselves in my shoes at that time and place. And I suppose all 3 gentlemen were just approaching me for friendship and good conversation? You are very naive Tread.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Hmm I thought I described the situation quite well enough for a rational person to put themselves in my shoes at that time and place. And I suppose all 3 gentlemen were just approaching me for friendship and good conversation? You are very naive Tread.

It's not his faul Rachel. Maybe this pic will help you understand.

[SweetCharmer]

ok now this is just my observation but i think this Thread has slightly lost the plot.

this thread obviously started out in helping people get information on getting DIFFERENT ways on self defense but all i can is that its boiled down into an argument between those inside and outside of America. look Tread. Stop trying to push your views onto people when guns have obviously worked in america for the last 200 years or so. different cultures have different rules, thats the beauty of this world. in the end you're gonna get crime anywhere. plus i don't hear you going on about other places with gun crime like thailand, etc.

At the same time Rachel and AngryPost, i know from reading the posts that guns have saved you or your loved ones time and time again yet it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge the usefulness of hand to hand. there was a story here in the UK of a cop that was almost stabbed in the neck if it weren't for his training and fast reflexes yet at the same time here people are so eager to have a gun that they've taken to modifying BB guns to fire live ammo. gun crime is everywhere. different countries deal with it in different ways and for each country it seems to be working for a while.

Bottom line. if someone asks for advice on this thread instead for stating the importance of a gun alone. put down some ideas for hand to hand as a added help. it never pays to be well prepared.

Love & Peace

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by SweetCharmer

At the same time Rachel and AngryPost, i know from reading the posts that guns have saved you or your loved ones time and time again yet it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge the usefulness of hand to hand. there was a story here in the UK of a cop that was almost stabbed in the neck if it weren't for his training and fast reflexes yet at the same time here people are so eager to have a gun that they've taken to modifying BB guns to fire live ammo. gun crime is everywhere. different countries deal with it in different ways and for each country it seems to be working for a while.

Mr. Tread was asking why some use rifles and shotguns as opposed to a pistol; I was merely explaining why, albeit we did get a wee sidetracked. The importance of unarmed combat(UAC) is definetly not overlooked. When in public, I carry a blade on me but sometimes it is not practical or lawful to do so and I know various holds and strikes for when I am unarmed. There is a wooden riot baton that I keep close to my bed that I also train with. Knowing other ways of injuring or killing people is definetly a useful skill.

Ms. Rachel also stated in another thread that she is trained in Muay Thai.

[Rachel]

I told Pixie to carry brass knuckles like I do.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Tread

I totally forgot the US walls that are made of paper (exaggeration like to blow away an elephant). Why use weapons that go through humans and walls for home defence. That's a risk for uninvolved people.

The .223/5.56 will not punch through a human, even with ball ammuntion. It was designed to tumble on contact with a target. There is even frangible ammunition marketed for home defense use as it shatters once it penetrates an object. it will go through 1 layer of sheetrock but not the other.

Originally Posted by Tread

To buy a rifle, that is usually made for longer distances than handguns, for the reason of home defence sounds for me like an excuse, or a big calibre guns.

You may view it as an excuse but alot of people view it as using the most efficient tool for the job. One mans paranoia is another mans prudent planning.

Originally Posted by Tread

The difference is: I need something to travel time efficient, and no need for a big home defence weapon, in my opinion.

But regardless of the tool and what it is used for, you still use it because it is more efficient, correct?

Originally Posted by Tread

You can never 100% sure at a moving target or about ricochet bullets from bones or objects, especially a family member is close to the psychotic person. Training and HP/SP ammunition can lower the risk, but it is still there.

It takes considerable skill to fire a pistol and accurately hit a target even 25meters away. As much as you might not think so, a rifle is more accurate than a pistol. If one of my family members was in the vicinity of the criminal, I would trust a rifle over a pistol. There are risks involved in everything you do, regardless of whether or not you are shooting, driving to the store, playing a game of soccer or football etc. Proper training is key.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

A common fallacy that people have regarding firearms.

From Wikipedia Gun Violence

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.
...
During this same time period, 1987 and 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides, and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.
...
Kleck's survey with Marc Gertz in fact used the largest sample size of any survey that ever asked respondents about defensive gun use - 4,977 cases, far more than is typical in national surveys.[69] A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.
...

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Tread

From Wikipedia Gun Violence

It would sound more believable if it was from something other than wikipedia.