Ways to defend yourself/Gun Alternatives

Yeah, I'm with Barkey on this. There's no way to guarantee that someone who's breaking into your house is just there for your stuff.

Then again, this is from my own personal experiences growing up in a bad neighborhood. On one particular occasion, a group of teenage thugs broke into a house the next block over, killed the elderly couple living there, and left. Didn't even steal anything.

So yeah, I'm going to react as if someone breaking into my house is there to murder/rape/maim me, because they very well might be.

@Barkey I just feel it's a bit too black and white. Granted, I think such a situation would have the instinct of "kill or be killed". To confirm, you seem to be a prevention/no tolerance of this behavior person right?

I guess we just have to recognize our upbringing differences. Many of us are probably biased depending on whether we've lived a safe community versus a rough neighborhood. I personally don't like the idea of having one major option, but maybe I'm confusing effectiveness and avoidance

edited 18th Nov '12 12:40:32 PM by blueflame724

I have to agree with Barkey, too. If you just cooperate you're basically putting your faith in the criminal. I don't have that much faith in criminals.

On the subject of defense, though, I feel like any non-lethal means aren't cutting it. I know certain jurisdictions have different laws and requirements, but here where I live lethal force is allowed for instances where you have a reasonable fear of your life - i.e. any instance in which you might need to resort to self-defense. A non-lethal option like a baton or mace might be handy for instances where you know for a fact that your assailant isn't really trying to do you serious harm, like if a drunk buddy starts trouble, but if I get accosted on the street I feel like anything less than something that can put him in the dirt is a dangerous choice.

You can mace someone, and they can walk it off. You can strike them with a baton, and he can be too drugged up to feel it. But if you shoot him... well, he'll have a much harder time injuring you.

Martial arts training is good. But it's not a be-all end-all.

No training can really prepare you for combat; in the dojo, even with the most intense and realistic training or sparring, you know it's just that, and your partner isn't actually trying to inflict serious injury. In an actual fight you have no such assurance.

As far as carrying a knife, if you're going to you'd better be damn well prepared to use it when you pull it out - and ready to deal with whatever legal, moral, or physical consequences will result when you do.

^ I'd say it goes beyond knives, and covers any weapon, regardless of whether it's supposed to be "non-lethal" or not. If you're not prepared for the use of the weapon and its possible consequences, don't pull/draw/etc, or even carry in the first place. No need to give the goblins more tools for their trade, so to speak.

If I couldn't have a gun, I'd at least want a cross bow.

On Martial arts training: The best thing you can really do is eliminate the freeze reflex. I've been in a fights (not many, thankfully) and the worst thing you can do is freeze. If you've been training the way you should, you shouldn't have to think about what to do next. It should just be reflex.

And also, a calm head goes a long way. In fact, I'd argue that everyone should have some training just so that they do not fall into the panic response and lash out randomly, which is dangerous for both the victim and the attacker.

Psychological training is the big thing.

Whether you're ready to kill upon trespassing, or you don't want to resort to lethal force if it can at all be avoided, you need to overcome panic. You cannot make big ethical decisions in a dangerous situation as you won't have the time, and you cannot make small tactical decisions in a dangerous situation if you freeze up. Decide your priorities in advance and train accordingly.

I don't want to hurt people. I'll do it if I have to, but hurting people, even criminals, is something I want to avoid. I live in a low-crime area, I don't possess visible luxuries, my house has lots of cover, there are plenty of improvised melee weapons around (and a few staffs and wooden swords), and I have trained for over a decade in a martial art that emphasizes nonlethal takedowns and submissions. Those are the decisions and preparations.

^

This. Your mind is your greatest weapon. There is no weapon that can really be a good substitute for being mentally alert and ready for conflict.

I don't really see why it needs to be any more complicated than that. Someone breaks into my house, there's no possible way for him to have a good reason. At all. I'll give a verbal warning, but it won't be to leave, it'll be to get on the fucking ground ASAP. There's two options(for me) in that scenario, either the perp lays down until the cops get there, or he's getting shot. I don't tolerate people who victimize others. I don't care what his intentions were, even just taking my stuff is too far.

It isn't about the fact that stuff can be replaced and life cannot. For me it's about principle. We have a duty to get dangerous people who victimize others out of society, and make an example of them to the rest of their kind that behavior like that can and will get you killed or arrested, that there is no "winning" in that scenario.

Now it's not like I'm going to shoot someone for knocking on my door at 1 AM, but I'm sure going to have my gun out and be alert and cautious if it happens, because the list of good reasons to be trying to get a hold of me at 1 AM is pretty miniscule.

I did have one break-in attempt once, I was working graveyards and awake, and around 2 AM I heard a knock at my door. The lights were all off, and from the outside there were pretty much no signs of life in my house. I crouched behind my couch with a gun and pointed at the window next to my door, and saw a hand trying out the windows to see if they were locked. I stomped my foot on the floor hard, and the guy heard and bolted down the stairs. Never had anything like it happen since.

If that guy would have broken my window and been halfway through when I was alerted to his presence, I'd have probably end up shooting him, because he would have taken a chance and tried to crawl back out through the window to get away. If he were smart, he'd get on the floor if he really valued his life that much.

I guess being a cop/soldier, my perspective is a bit different on things like this.

edited 18th Nov '12 3:25:52 PM by Barkey

If we're talking home invasion then in places where it's practical you can just get a dog. That or some other guard animal (we've used a goose against foxes) acts as a deterrent, an alarm and an actual defence mechanism. If nothing else the time the burglar/home invader spends dealing with the dog is time that you can use to either set up defences/call the police.

The advice one of my professors gave us in class once was to get a pump action shotgun. The reasons he gave for that are: 1) the sound the shotgun makes in order to get ready to fire is recognizable and gets a reaction. I think he mentioned it was legally considered a "get out" type of threat in some states too, even. 2) you don't have to have as good of aim with a shotgun as you do a pistol or something like that. 3) Buckshot won't go out with as much force, and is more likely to be stopped by a wall or what have you than a bullet, making it safer for firing in a residential area.

I suppose if you have kids or something you could have an unloaded/inert one and just rely on the sound, but if the intruder has a gun too and you ain't got no ammo...

That I strongly agree. You put it in words better than I do, Barkey.

edited 18th Nov '12 4:03:18 PM by IraTheSquire

Honestly an 800k stun baton would be pretty ideal. Legal in most states(even CA!) to have in your home, and all you have to do is spark test the fucker and it'd scare off any burglar.

Stun baton test.

Those guys are being rather gingerly with it, but if you hit someone while you've got the throttle down on it, they are going straight to the ground with no real injuries, unless they hit something sharp on the way down.

This thread has made me put in a mental note to check up on the self-defence laws of my country.

Thanks TV Tropes!

@Radical Taoist I agree, it would honestly be very difficult to do the contemplating we're doing now in such a tenuous situation.

@Barkey I can't say I really agree with that mentality...on paper at least. So if criminals act dangerous, then we deal with them and eliminate them as an example? What about the issue of people not right in the head? I think these scenarios also deal with a bit of projection.

edited 18th Nov '12 8:20:56 PM by blueflame724

I don't really care if someone breaking into my house is mentally ill, they are breaking into my house.

There isn't really a "It's not their fault!" or "They didn't mean any harm!" excuse for breaking into someones house that I find to be valid.

It's something you obviously shouldn't be doing, and there isn't really any justification for doing it. Breaking into someones house is essentially invading their territory, and that's what you do to people who invade your territory, you deal with them.

Crying over someone who gets shot breaking and entering is just a waste of tears. That's the risk you run when you do that, the person in the home shouldn't be held liable for defending their property. If they weren't breaking the law, then it would be a non-issue.

Now I'm not saying that mentality fits for outside the home, out in the streets. This is specifically for a home invasion scenario. If you kill or injure someone breaking into your home, you should not be held at fault. It's a dangerous activity that could result in your injury or death, if you decide to sneak into a lions cage to mess with it and get mauled, you don't hold the lion responsible. If you decide to go down Niagara falls in a barrel and die, you don't decide that the falls are dangerous and need to be fenced off. The idiot who decided to do such a stupid thing has all the blame.

edited 18th Nov '12 8:45:58 PM by Barkey

I always lived in relatively safe neighborhoods. Hell, for a significant chunk of my life, I lived on military installations. You want to talk about a gated community? Our gated community could provide its own air support!

That said, I think how you react to a criminal depends largely on the situation. There's an anecdote where someone asked Chuck Norris what he would do if a thug pulle a gun on him and demanded his wallet. Chuck said that he'd give the guy his wallet (worth noting, Chuck Norris is not only an actor and martial artist, but he's also familiar with firearms, being a security policeman when he was in the Air Force.) Even Bruce Lee can't move faster than Samuel Colt.

So if I'm carrying a concealed gun and some Quincy Punk puts a gun to me? That gun will stay concealed while I give him my wallet. And then I'll call the authorities to report the loss of my identification and credit cards and then try to keep a careful watch on things created in my name. Identify Theft sucks, but even the effects of that are a lot less permanent than having my life taken, which will probably happen if I try to start drawing my gun while the other guy has his finger on the trigger of his.

As far as my own home goes, my preferred defense is a solid door and a dog, and just not trying to make it obvious that I have anything worth breaking in for. That said, once a bad guy gets through the door, he's made the decision to engage, and I have little choice but to oblige him. He's broken through the last solid passive defense I have and I'm going to go to condition red, lock and load one 7 round magazine, the range is now hot. And unlike him, I know the layout of my house.

That said, my family home is currently on a military installation, so we can't have private firearms, but any serious bad guy (not counting some troubled military brat) would have to go through a lot more trouble to get to my house than my TV is likely worth to him.

Regarding buckshot, I saw some thing somewhere that demonstrated that for a projectile to hit with enough force to be effective against a human, it also has to hit with enough force to penetrate most materials used in home construction. So you still need to worry about what is beyond your target when you engage the intruders.

As far as "less lethal" rounds go, I don't put a lot of stock in that. A gun is a deadly weapon, regardless of what you load in it, and if you are not prepared to end a human life, you should not be using a gun, if only because the bad guy does not know what you have loaded in your gun, and if he has a gun, he can be reasonably expected to fire whatever he has loaded in his gun at you.

Regarding rock salt: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm

So in a sense you're saying they deserved to die? That a misguided idiot who goes into the lion's cage deserves to die? Are the actions stupid? Yes, but that it's completely their fault is something I'm unable to grasp here. There's an implication that the situation itself was already unstable.

edited 18th Nov '12 9:35:03 PM by blueflame724

Regarding someone being "not right in the head", here's another question: What if the person breaking into your home is right in the head? Does that make a difference to the person inside the home? How are we supposed to know?

While it might contribute to the factors that lead to the guy breaking into the house, once he crosses that line, the only thing the people inside are concerned about is making sure that they stay alive and safe, and that may quite possibly mean using lethal force to defend their homes.

Now, addressing another thing someone mentioned up above: Guns in a house with kids. Keep your guns secured. Kids with dangerous household chemicals? Same thing. Kids with prescription medication? Yep. Kids with power tools? You see where I'm going with this? Plenty of ways for a child (or an inept adult) to get badly hurt or killed, even without bringing guns into the picture. When you have children, you need to take the responsibility for keeping them as safe as you reasonably can.

EDIT: Now, that said, I'm not saying people are obliged to use lethal force to defend their possessions, their selves, or even their families. That's a very personal decision that each person needs to make for themselves, and it might vary widely based on their culture or upbringing.

edited 18th Nov '12 9:21:56 PM by AFP

"Deserved" is a pretty loaded term. But to put it simply (as I understand it), if they break into someone else's home and get shot for it, it's on their own head.

I put the emphasis where I did because, from a certain point of view, they are already attacking you. And you can't really fault someone for defending themselves.

Personally I would not want to use lethal force, because that defeats the purpose of being trained to keep calm in that situation though.

^

Using lethal force effectively also requires being calm. It doesn't defeat the purpose.

I'd give him my wallet, and then shoot him in the back and take my stuff back.

Not deserved as in "Something needed to happen to make them die, regardless of if it was them trying to go into the lions cage." but if they try to break into a home, and they get killed, then it isn't anyone elses fault but theirs.

It's not so much that they deserve it, as much as it is the person who defends their home shouldn't be held liable for it. What they did was not a negative thing, and the guy who got shot ran the risk when he decided to victimize someone else.

edited 18th Nov '12 9:56:52 PM by Barkey

While that might be the morally superior action, it's also not legally tenable. If he's walking away and you shoot him, it's no longer self defense; that's a well-established legal precedent.

I'm aware of that. I'd probably take my wallet back, police my brass, and get on out of there fast.

If that wasn't tenable, I'd articulate that I drew my weapon, he turned to run, but he was already in the process of turning around to run as I fired. "I feared for my life since he had a gun on me, and it all just happened so fast!"

It's something cops excel at, learning to articulate why we do things in a court of law. In a case like that, a properly articulated case that uses the heat of the moment and objective reasonableness at its core is pretty ironclad in most cases.

Guy had a gun on him and my wallet, I pulled my gun out since he still had it pointed at me and he turned to get out of there, but I fired on him as he turned, and didn't realize until I'd shot him several times that he had turned to run because things moved so fast!" is a perfectly ironclad defense, especially if you have law enforcement training.

Essentially, I feel that people who die in the act of victimizing others really do have it coming to them. If you can detain them and wait for the police, that's optimal. If not, take em out, but do not let them get away so they can continue to victimize people and possible kill them. It is absolutely important that you stop the chain, right then and there.

edited 18th Nov '12 10:01:00 PM by Barkey