Self Defense

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by DSL

by
blind instinct he pulls his weapon and fires!! down the stairs, killing who was
at the bottom. he went down to take a closer look it turned out to be his
16 year old daughter

These are unfortunate incidents but could have been prevented through simple training. It doesn't cost much to go through a home defense class and you are taught proper engagement of a target and numerous other things. Even in the military, you are taught to issue a warning before you engage someone. It only takes a second to shout out,"Halt!" ,"Who goes there?" or "Identify yourself or I will fire upon you!"

Escalation Of Force training will help you to handle a situation without guns blazing. If you are going to be armed, take a class on how to properly use your weapon of choice; simple actions like learning how to properly handle a weapon and proper escalation and de-escalation of force and rules of engagement can save lives without ending them.

People need to understand that weapons handling is not like in the movies where you pick up a gun/knife/baton and suddenly you are an expert with nerves of steel. There are very real emotions that come into play such as fear and very real consequences that arise as a result of your actions. With proper training, you can overcome the stresses that might cause you to otherwise do something rash like firing without properly identifying your target.

If you choose not to properly train or go through the motions of proper weapons use, you have no business handling a weapon.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

These are unfortunate incidents but could have been prevented through simple training. It doesn't cost much to go through a home defense class and you are taught proper engagement of a target and numerous other things. Even in the military, you are taught to issue a warning before you engage someone. It only takes a second to shout out,"Halt!" ,"Who goes there?" or "Identify yourself or I will fire upon you!"

Escalation Of Force training will help you to handle a situation without guns blazing. If you are going to be armed, take a class on how to properly use your weapon of choice; simple actions like learning how to properly handle a weapon and proper escalation and de-escalation of force and rules of engagement can save lives without ending them.

People need to understand that weapons handling is not like in the movies where you pick up a gun/knife/baton and suddenly you are an expert with nerves of steel. There are very real emotions that come into play such as fear and very real consequences that arise as a result of your actions. With proper training, you can overcome the stresses that might cause you to otherwise do something rash like firing without properly identifying your target.

If you choose not to properly train or go through the motions of proper weapons use, you have no business handling a weapon.

This is all well and good, but it's not happening. No training is required to own a gun. I found it ludicrous when California required training to buy mace but not a gun.

[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/#

[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 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.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

This is all well and good, but it's not happening. No training is required to own a gun. I found it ludicrous when California required training to buy mace but not a gun.

The PRK is chock full of many stupid rules. To try and grasp the stupidity would drive you mad. Actually you do need proof of training to buy a handgun in Commiefornia. If you see someone who you know has not had firearms training and is being stupid with a weapon i.e. pointing it at someone or pointing it at themselves to demonstrate that "a loaded gun won't fire on SAFE" you are well within your rights to slap the ever loving shit out of them and chastise them for being a dumbshit.