You know what sucks about killing in self-defense?
 

If I were to, say for instance, chop the head off an intruder with my samurai sword in self-defense.. it would suck because I'd be all over the news the next day. I wouldn't want to get famous for it, I wouldn't want anyone to know about it... Damn media bullcrap, no privacy what the hell.

Just let me defend my house and go about my business!

A dead-bolt and double pain glass doesn't get one on the news. If that's what you're interested in. You also won't need to clean 2 liters of blood from your carpet.

Also, most people don't have the strength to actually remove someone's head with a sword. An axe, maybe, but even a sharp sword probably couldn't do it. I think it's called a katana, too.

I don't mean to give you a bad time, either. Just trying to clear things up as best I can.

Oh, I was going to mention all the paperwork. And blood stains on your carpet.

And the fact that your weapon(s) will be taken, you'll be immediately arrested and have to go to court. It'll ruin your year.

Sucks, seems like all the laws favor criminals.

If a burglar hurts himself while trying to rob your house he can sue you now.

Crazy world....

Yes it sure sucks all the attention you would get for killing someone...

Oh for the day when we could take someone's life and just carry on with our daily business as if nothing had ever happened... I mean really. It's just a human life, right?

I wonder how many people Jesus killed in self defense.... oh wait.

It's called self-defense for a reason. What people should not defend themselves?

You expect that something such as taking a life isn't newsworthy?

I didn't comment on self defense one way or the other.

not to mention its expensive... lawyers and all that
and even if your acquitted in criminal court, any family that may turn up can sue you in civil court and theres no "beyond reasonable doubt" in that court...

I think we are talking about two different things then.

You know, I was talking with my roomate about this last night actually (we were watching CSI). Like what would happen if our place was invaded and robbed (I live in LA, an extremely high risk area) and we tried to defend ourselves and shot back. But accidentally shoot our neighbor and she dies. I wanted to know if we would actually be charged with something and given our justice system, the criminals who invaded us would probably get off. Even if we were exonerated; the trials, lawyers, bad press, stress etc of it all would have to be too much. I didn't think it was worth it. I have called 911 so many times, each time, I either get an answering machine or a busy signal. I think it sucks we can't defend ourselves. The police can't help us and it's not their job to either. When they do come, they always say, there's nothing they can do about it blah blah blah.

I finally came up with: buy tons of insurance so that nothing you own is "irreplaceable". When the robbers come, let them have it, you will be insured, and pray that they won't get violent (that's the big x factor). Losing material items while it sucks, is at least manageable and replaceable. Bodily harm is another thing. Then when they leave, hope that karma will bite them in the ass (or pray). Sucks but the law is against you to defend yourself.

I find it hard to envisage a scenario where you lopped off someone's head, where it was the ONLY course of action that was available to you.

Unless you are defending your home from a psychotic berserker, most assailants would be put off by you poking a few holes in his torso...

I agree with Daniel_ and have to ask, what accidentally shooting your neighbour has to do with being able to defend yourself?

Do you honestly think that you should get off if you accidentally kill someone else when you miss shooting at your intruder? Who is to blame in this case? Is it the intruder? What would happen if your gun went off while you were cleaning it and you accidentally shot and killed your neighbour?

I don't know the answers to these questions.

How did we go from swords to guns?

I suppose guns are in every thread.

...

Keys to success in using a firearm for self-defense?

A: Use of a big flashlight to identify your target and your background.
B: Choice of ammunition that won't keep going through drywall for fifteen miles.
C: Marksmanship training that would allow for consistent body shots.
D: Immediate surrender of weapon upon law enforcement arrival.
E: Good lawyer.
Z: Living with WillRavel.

Wow, we turned a sword conversation into a gun conversation without dksuddeth? Doesn't that violate one of the basis foundations of TFP?

If there's one thing I've always said about choking a bitch, it's the damn inconvenience. Why, it's the only thing that keeps me from carrying MY sword into business meetings. That and the fact that my sword is an epee and my clients usually aren't impressed with uncommon sporting goods.

Its not a sword conversation, its a killing in self defense conversation


as for the missing the bad guy and killing the neighbor or something along those lines, I think it was manslaughter, there might have been a more specific name for it, but I cant remember off the top of my head. But thats why you spend time getting proficient with your weapon and use hollowpoint ammo that will help minimize over penetration... or you could use a sword

I wouldnt even consider pulling my gun unless it became a me(or my family) or them situation. All my stuff is just stuff, I can replace it all unless I lose it all and all my money paying the guys family after a lawsuit in civil court

here in missouri we have the castle doctrine- if they break in, they are commiting a felony- you may use lethal force on them without incurring the wrath of the law- and you MAY NOT be sued in civil court, by anyone for doing so..... Many states are enacting these laws, and that is a good thing- If someone decides to break into a house and steal someones property, then they should expect to be shot- frankly, they have decided to be scum, and while I value human life, when they choose to invade another's home they have chosen to forfeit their right to life- As to the neighbor shooting question, you can expect at least manslaughter charges, as you are responsible for anything you shoot, even accidentally. As to using a katana inside, I have quite a bit of background on that- and there are some large problems

1- Space- there really is not enough space in most modern homes to swing a katana around at all- take a boken, try some basic strikes, and you will see what I mean- your best bet is to start in a low ready position, (the european oxtail stance, your blade is low and the point is behind you) and cut up through the groin- if you miss you should wind up with your blade facing up at shoulder level between you and the agressor- this stance also prevents a takeaway should you come around a corner and suddenly find yourself face to face with a bad guy.

2- skill- if you have not practiced A LOT with a weapon you are more likely to hurt yourself or just look idiotic- this goes for any weapon, guns are not a magical solution-

3- people bleed a whole fucking lot- and spurt if you hit an artery - whatever room you decapitate someone in is going to need new paint, carpet, and probably furnishings too...


As to the media, here in my town, in the past ten years or so we have had two people defend their homes with swords, both times the burglar lived and no charges were filed against the swordsmen- though in both cases the burglar suffered severe injuries......and in both cases the burglar went to jail after the hospital stay.... there was very little media attention.....

I suppose its a good plan if you don't mind being nailed to boards.

Pfft, I'll just defend my house using harsh language. That hasn't been regulated yet.

That reminds me of an England police officer screaming at a fleeing bandit, "Stop! or I'll say Stop again!!!"

"In England, the police don't have guns, and the criminals don't have guns, and England's a very safe place."
"Especially if you're a crook, and you've got a gun."

But anyway, I'm from Texas and it's legal to shoot an intruder if they're on your property.

I got to thinking about it after watching this http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ma...sed/3391068868

Dumbass, racist, paranoid, white trash rednecks should not be used as a standard to judge self-defense laws.

Especially when they commit first degree murder.

I think, justifiably, there would be a feeling that chopping someone's head off might be going further than is strictly necessary for pure self defence.

Of course, this is not exactly true... as a certain Brazilian electrician might have been able to testify, if he had not been shot to death on a tube train while unarmed and having not committed any crime by an entire squad of armed police.

The UK has more violent crime per capita than the US, and a lower murder rate (and much more restricted gun ownership)

The thing about self-defense is "an appropriate amount of force used to neutralize the threat."

Firearms make it easy to kill someone with one or two shots, if not leave them a drooling vegetable for life. They're efficient and any moron can "activate" them. An obese midget can kill someone with a gun as well as a military body builder.

Swords? You gotta try to kill somebody. They're neutralized long before they're dead unless you run them through. Severe wounds versus death.

Generally speaking, a gun can be assumed capable of killing someone instantly while a sword cannot. That's why we use guns instead of swords today. We call that "progess."

I don't know the answer either which is why I posted the way I did. My temporary conclusion - foregoing the "defense" aspect and going with insurance and cooperation is not exactly genius. I think it is a tough question but nonetheless releveant and has implications.

The accidental killing occurs in a hypothetical self-defense scenario (collateral damage) where an act of self-defense results in the death of an innocent 3rd-party. At the very least, this would be a very messy situation, hence my temporary conclusion. I believe it is relevant because the assumption in self-defense is 2 parties: 1 attacker, 1 counter-attacker. But it is quite probable there are extra parties. Like the mall shooting.
if a security guard had shot the shooter but also shot and killed a mall shopper, would he then be culpable for the accidental death and charged with murder even though it was self defense? Or the church lady who shot and killed the shooter who shot up the church. What if one of her bullets had killed a passerby? Even though it was self-defense and she saved hundreds of lives, would she be thrown in jail for murder of the passerby?

We have the castle doctrine in Texas as well. But there is no case law yet, so you cant necessarily depend on it to keep you in the clear.

You have a lower murder rate mostly due to the nature of our gangs. I have about the same chance of being murdered in the US as you do in the UK.

Gun ownership has nothing to do with murder rates.

Wha... What? Say that again. It gives me the shivers.

You know, I think that if all firearms were taken away, there would probably be a lower murder rate. And this is simply because it would be much harder to kill someone.

But I don't think blaming guns is the answer. Guns don't kill people, Chuck Norris kills people.

The sunglasses in your avatar kill me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/09...nquisition.jpg

I'd like to start by saying that everything about this news story is awesome, except that he has a modified choke when a home defense gun should really use a cylinder choke.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=6697

Second, you're insane if you think that you can do anything but look ridiculous trying to defend yourself with a sword, especially if it wasn't hand made for combat by a professional. There have been a few cases over the years of people trying to fight with display swords, the kind you get on home shopping networks, or at the Chinese novelty store at the mall, or at the Remington store before they closed, or from catalogs, you get the idea. All of those people ended up in critical condition or dead.

Next, whose fault is it if a neighbor is shot accidentally? It is the intruder's fault that you had to shoot, the intruder's actions put you under stress and caused you to not fire the gun to the best of your ability, and therefore it is the intruder's fault that someone else is dead. If a cop accidentally kills a bystander in a shootout with a bank robber, the robbers are held responsible for creating the situation, and civilians acting in legitimate self defense should be given equal treatment. Unless there is irrefutable evidence of gross negligence, someone acting in legitimate self defense should suffer no punishment beyond the psychological trauma of knowing that they killed an innocent person.
This is a myth.
I once again feel it's necessary to point out that a significant portion of homicide in the US, as well as the "facts" that you're most likely to be killed by someone you know and that children (arbitrarily defined as people under age 24 in the reports,) are based on statistics that are skewed by gang violence. If you remove instances of gang members killing other gang members from the statistics, our violent crime rate plunges dramatically.
If they all disappeared, yeah. Unfortunately, the only people who would let them be taken away are lawful owners.

But what's really dead is Chuck Norris jokes. As for the sunglasses, here's one of me.
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3...1336xy9.th.jpg

Sorry to disagree crompsin, but swords are not easy to incapacitate someone with and guns are not easy to use - I train with both, though I have more years in with the sword, a gun is not some simple point and click interface- a gun eliminates a lot of the need for muscle, but none of the need for skill- Please do not confuse the two.......... as to the wounding characteristics, to stop someone using a sword requires the same type of attack that using a gun does, that being a potentially lethal one to a vital area- chop off an arm or leg and they will die quite quickly, and that is about the least damaging thing that would stop an attacker RELIABLY that I can think of- a great many people survive gunshot wounds, many of them being criminals shot by homeowners. weapons are tools, designed to kill, and no weapon is inherently honorable or more humane- they are tools, apropriate for different situations but the same in their intent- I prefer to look at it from the philosophical standpoint that "there is the sword that kills and the sword that gives life." a weapon that is used for defense, or to stop a greater evil is a sword that gives life......

Personally I'm not a fan of swords. I'd have no problem belting an intruder with a chunk of wood, or sticking them with a carving knife.

Guns are indiscriminate and not graceful - but they do scare the tar outta people, s I can see the attraction.

WARNING! WARNING! WEAPON TIRADE DETECTED! WEAPON TIRADE IN... 5 SECONDS.

Gun: You manipulate the firearm, not the projectile. The bullet from a fat midget's AK47 is the same powerful bullet from a ninja bodybuilder's AK47.

Sword: You manipulate the blade, which is the projectile. You are the propellant.

I already stated that it is harder to incapacitate someone with a sword. Range would be the primary factor. Guns? OH SNAP, I can do it from across the room.

A firearm IS a simple point-and-click interface. I've retrained a dozen morons on how to hit targets at 300 yards with the M4. Anybody can do it. There is a reason we use guns and not swords in our military today. Three factors: Range, lethality, and they're easier to master.

Swords? Require balance, strength, dexterity... traits that not every has, traits that you can't necessarily learn.

People that survive gunshots? Well, they need to be shot by bigger guns. If you're gonna do it, do it right. Homeowners that utilize .38 Special and 9mm ball ammo should invest in a 12 gauge with 00 buckshot. Concealed carry permits make mouse guns popular. Physics hasn't changed with fashion, however, and it still takes a certain amount of Oomph! to kill a man.

I prefer to look at it from a logical standpoint: The more technology you have in a process = the less human you have in that process. A sword is more "honorable" because it requires more skill to utilize than a firearm because more of YOU is involved in wielding it. A sword represents a closer-to-natural combat approach with hand-to-hand being the most honorable of fighting styles. A firearm is the most inexpensive and furtherest detachment from personal combat you can carry in your hands right now.

Swords are honorable but defending your house with one is "not the best idea ever." I'd recommend a large dog or a shotgun or maybe some land mines.

Chunk of wood indeed! Table legs for everyone!

...

I hope that dumb redneck vigilante turd in Texas gets life.

Uhm... not necessarily. Depends on the load used and how fat of a "range cigar" you want with said load. IC works real "grood" too.

Now, if he was tossing 00B out of a Mossberg 500 with a 28" tube with a full choke? That'd be kinda silly... but sweet-Jeebus... imagine the wounds!

Quoted for truth.

Oh, and to address the thread title, what really sucks about killing in self-defense is that even if they deserved it, even if there were no other way to save yourself or others, you're still killing someone. Cops get paid leave and free counseling when they have to do it because they should. Civilians get scrutinized, probably arrested, maybe tried for murder, and then have to pay for counseling on their own. I've been told it's easy to brush off and put in the back of your mind if you're at war, the other guy is shooting at you, and you pop him from hundreds of feet away, but self defense is an up-close-and-personal thing, it's really rough even if you had to do it.

crompsin- I do not find using a gun dehumanizing, and respectfully disagree that it would be easier or involve "more of me" to use one weapon over another- hence my contention that no weapon is inherently more or less "honorable" any more than a table saw is more honorable than a drill press- its a tool for the job situation, and I am comfortable with either- some people are not so comfortable, for example, while in school, I was present at a talk by a vietnam era navy seal, who had killed a great number of people, and he was most bothered by the one he had killed with a knife (he was very adamant about this, and became distressed while talking about it) while blowing people up was not a big thing for him- conversely, a green beret colonel who came in had a similar carear and was bothered by something different- thus, I suppose that people will react differently to the stress of having to kill someone- personally, I feel that it is not the how but the fact that it had to happen that should bother someone.......

You know what sucks about killing in "self-defense", explained as a home invasion/robbery? Someone has to die because you don't want them to have your shitty 18" Awex color TV and rabbit ears. What sucks is that some people just can't wait to get their gun off because they have some terrible misunderstanding of how humans are supposed to treat other humans. They have no concept of the value of human life. That sucks.

I would like to again say, and agree with those who have said, I would rather than any article of my property taken from me before I would kill a man.

Sometimes you worry about yourself when it isn't. :expressionless:

You should recognize the stink waft coming from those comments, bro. C'mon, man. You know damn well it isn't about the type or value of the property. It is about someone breaking into your house. If they break into your house with a lethal weapon (large knife, firearm) or pose a lethal threat (big man vs. your tiny wife) they should be neutralized. They've already committed two felonies just by showing up in your living room with a weapon.

Straight burglary? We've been over this. If they guy is smart enough to case your house... he's smart enough to know when you're not home. Darwin's ideas apply to thieves.

You talk about people who have no concept of the value of human life... I assume you mean the homeowners who get scared when someone breaks into their house and get trigger happy. What do you say about the human toilet that is breaking into my house with a Glock in his hand? :no: C'mon.

You just reinforced that a bladed weapon is more personal and thus more demanding than a firearm... making firearms easier to use if only to say that it is easier to pull a trigger than it is to cut a man What are we trying to debate here? I'm lost.

That's just it, though. If you're trained with a gun, you know that if you shoot, you shoot to kill. 'Neutralization' would be incapacitating. Shooting is likely to kill. I'm for everyone having tasers/mace/big dog/etc. I'm for everyone having a big door with a dead bolt. I can't imagine ending someone's life because they want my DVD stereo system. The stupid thing was a couple hundred bucks. Just because someone is breaking the law and being an asshole doesn't make his life worth a few hundred bucks.
So if they're stupid they die? I mean you'd have to be an idiot to have such an unstable vocation anyway.
Responding in kind to criminals puts you on equal moral and intellectual standing. Of course they're fucking assholes and idiots for trying to steal my shit. Just because I don't want to kill them doesn't mean I won't try to stop them. San Jose Police have been timed as fast as 45 seconds from call to arrival. My hope would be that the police show up in force and the idiot gives up and is brought to justice.