|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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... |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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..... |
Quote:
|
Pfft, I'll just defend my house using harsh language. That hasn't been regulated yet.
|
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
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." |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Gun ownership has nothing to do with murder rates. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
... I hope that dumb redneck vigilante turd in Texas gets life. Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
*dumps Gatorade on his face*
I'll be with ya in a minute. I feel like we've gone over this crap in other threads. |
Ive been robbed.
I KNOW I wouldnt kill someone to get my stuff back |
Quote:
^^It's not about this. Quote:
Quote:
Okay, I've previously had a comment typed out for this thread and deleted it because I didn't feel it was necessary. Clearly it is. There's a huge misconception going on in this thread at the moment - that all gun owners are bloodthirsty and just want to shoot someone for breaking into their house and stealing their stuff. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Responsible gun owners are simply people who have realized that there are people in this world who have no regard for the sanctity of human life. Many of these people are criminals, most of whom are armed, and think the best way of getting ph4t l3wt is to rob someone's house or place of business. These people don't care if you live or die, or how you do so. Need a little reality check? Please watch this video: Alright, so I'll fess up: I own a handgun right now, and plan on owning at least one more, along with a good rifle. Once I get a CCW permit, I'll be carrying almost every day, helping to deter would be criminals, and generally making the world a safer place with no one the wiser (bless states which are shall-issue).The purpose of these weapons is to STOP, not to KILL. Killing the target may be a consequence of stopping them, but that is something that is a given when using ANY weapon against someone. As soon as there's a weapon created that will instantly shut down the central nervous system of a target with 100% reliability, guaranteed not to kill, and with the capability to follow up in case of misses (what does stress and adrenaline do to you?), I'll take 3. Until then, I favor a rifle. Guns can kill, dogs can kill, tasers can kill (and have), swords and knives can kill (and are very likely to). If you're not prepared to kill someone when using a tool capable of deadly force, you have no business bringing it to a fight, for it is just as likely to be taken from you. If you're not prepared to make that decision should it arise, you will falter, and you will die. The point I'm trying to make is that I will NOT use lethal force to stop someone from stealing my stuff, or to retrieve said stuff. That's what insurance is for. However, if I'm home, and someone, uninvited, is rummaging through my house or garage, they have made it my business, and I will investigate these felonies being committed on my property. I will be armed, and I will be PREPARED to use lethal force, in case they escalate the situation. There is NOTHING to stop a criminal with no regard for life from killing somebody just 'cuz. You may give them everything they want, and afterwards they may just as soon injure or kill you, for any reason - a show of strength, to avoid witnesses, just for fun, or for no reason at all. It's impossible to guess the motives of someone who does not think the same as normal human beings. This, in my mind, and in self defense laws, makes their lives immediately less valuable than mine and the lives of others once the intent of lethal force has been shown by them. Gun owners recognize this - they have made the conscious decision that if someone is threatening them or any other human with lethal force, the necessary action is to STOP them from carrying through with their intentions. We must realize that stopping them has a likely chance of their death, and thus their lives are worth less than the lives of others once force is shown. That was the criminal's decision, and that's sadly the way they made things have to be. Contrary to popular belief, few, if any, gun owners actually want to pull the trigger on someone - all it means is a world of hassle. The firearm used gets taken away immediately, we're probably arrested, our names get in papers, we must go through legal processes and fees, we may suffer hearing loss from firing said weapon, and our house has had blood shed in it - all of this costs a ton of money and grief, so anyone wanting it to happen to them is just nuts. The thing is, though, we're prepared to go through all that anyway, just to protect life. The ONLY thing that will make me pull the trigger on another human is the threat of equal force. There is also a side of that video of the Texas shooting which is missing. The media likes to make excuses for not showing the whole story, such as because of violent or traumatic content. The thing is, there's so much violence in our society that we're desensitized to it anyway - they're really deleting these things to influence people's opinions on important issues, like the right to self defense (duh :)). The thing about that video is that they didn't show that he went outside with his shotgun, announced his presence loudly and his ability to use force - he didn't just shoot them in the back out of cold blood. After announcing "Move, you're dead." to the robbers, there was a pause, and then the gunshots - it's possible (and likely) that he was acting in self defense at this point, if the robbers did not respond to his threat and reached for something instead. If so, at this point he was not defending his neighbors property, he was defending himself. Watch the video with shots here: The only difference between this shooting and the other story in this thread ( http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6697.html ) is that it was his neighbors property, and the criminals didn't do EXACTLY what the man wielding the shotgun ordered. I'll end this post with a quote that I'm especially fond of: "The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized. The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle |
Excellent post, Moot. I feel like I've said the same things over and over in these kinds of debates. The human factor always seems to be tilted the wrong way.
Quote:
|
Edited to add 2 words to make it not a complete generalization... yeh caught me at 3 in the mornin :D Originally I tried to eliminate that later in the post, but it's probably better for it not to be so broad in the first place.
Anyway, further comments: the neighbor who went out with his shotgun and ended up killing the two robbers - I would tip my hat to him, depending on the situation. Perhaps he didn't know if his neighbor was home, and not only wanted to stop the robbery, but wanted to make sure his neighbor was alright, and not bleeding to death from the crooks' assault. I think that either way he gets "neighbor of the year" award... Once enough cases like this happen, perhaps people will think twice about breaking in to another person's home, whether or not they're home, and expecting to get away scott-free and unharmed. They will in Texas, at least ^_^ I also disagree that owning a gun doesn't change you as a person - at least not for me, anyway. Before owning one and considering defending myself and others from deadly force, I had never seriously thought that other people's lives could be worth less than mine or those around me. Once you have the capability to return deadly force, it's something you have to examine pretty carefully. Sure, you see the death penalty used and hear about cops killing bad guys all the time, but once that decision is in your hands it really makes you think seriously about the subject. Do certain actions merit the immediate demise of the perpetrator of those actions? I have decided it to be true that other lives are worth less once deadly force has been shown - it's best to decide that now, instead of when/if the moment comes to use that force. It's sobering, to say the least. I'm not saying that owning one immediately qualifies you to use one, but many people that do own them have thought these thoughts, and get extensive training in their use because of it. Just because there are idiots and bad people who own guns doesn't mean that they're the only ones :D |
First off, taking a life while defending you and yours isn't something easily forgotten, however, It is YOU who must make the decision of whether the one or four assholes who busted down your door just want your TV or want your little girl as a plaything.
Second, if in shooting back at home invaders, you inadvertantly kill your neighbor, case law SHOULD hold the home invaders responsible. This is usually not the case though because we still have bleeding heart pro criminal and anti self defense politicians who will prosecute YOU because you had the temerity to defend yourself instead of submitting like a little peon and letting paid agents of the state clean up your dead body. Thirdly, if you find yourself faced with either beheading your opponent or sticking a 3 foot piece of steel through his rib cage, always hold the blade parralel to the ground so it doesn't jam itself between the bones. |
First point: I concur completely with your perspective on family defense.
Second point: Arguing fault is like arguing the shape of the universe. You can do it, but no one can ever really be 100% sure. Third: If all I have is a sword? I'm telling the guy I got a shotgun. |
Quote:
I hope your neighbors all have very, very thick walls. And I hope they don't have your temerity. |
Will, I bought you an Uzi for x-mas.
|
Aren't those Israeli? Damn it, you've got me googling guns again...
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
You know what would suck about killing in self-defense? If it were your spouse.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"...the World Health Organization [found] that 40-70% of female murder victims in Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States were killed by intimate partners." |
Quote:
Quote:
And yes will, it was invented by an Israeli. |
Quote:
:expressionless:, indeed. |
So the spousal accidental homicide rate and the divorce rate are roughly the same?
Intriguing. |
In my town we recently had a murder- a 50 year old grandmother working as a night clerk at a hotel was robbed- she handed over the money, and was then raped,sodomized, and brutally murdered by her 21 year old attacker......
Wil- you are clearly articulate, intelligent, and have as I understand it, been involved in violent incidents- and have chosen a radically different belief system than most of the people that I know who have been involved in similar situations - I respect your convictions, but having dealt with more than a few violently inclined people, I feel that your approach is naive- You, I fear, give people too much credit for being reasonable, perhaps because you are reasonable- To me, a person who chooses to break into my house is a mortal threat to my family, and I cannot trust them to stop at a point that a reasonable professional criminal might- like any responsible gun owner, I do not fire blindly, nor am I a bloodthirsty killer- I will always identify my target and what is behind it (including my neighbors houses) and given that a burglar does not attempt to attack me when confronted, I will gladly hold them at gunpoint for the police- But I will not allow someone to endanger my family so I can claim the moral high ground- hell, in my own mid sized college town, 2/3's of the home invasions we have had resulted in the homeowner being killed- not great odds for me letting them take the T.V. |
You know what really sucks about killing in self defense: most women aren't taught how to do it!
As I read this thread, being the over-analyzing feminist cow that I am, I noticed a trend. Young daughters and "little" wives seem to come up rather a lot as subjects of defense. Now, I'm sure that you all are nice, enlightened people. Maybe you've just caught a particularly resistant strain of patriarchalsocietitis. I say this because none of you seem to have realized that the best way to defend women is to give them the means to defend themselves. Enough quibbling over how you should decide whether or not an intruder intends to rape your loved ones. Circumvent the problem by training women to defend themselves. Then if the intruder tries to pull her pants off, your little wife can blow off his head, instead of waiting for you to play he-man defender-of-the-family. Now, I know it isn't as if gun training isn't available for women, but if you talk about women as if they can't defend themselves, and tell them they don't need to because you will protect them, then women feel as if they don't have to learn these things, and in the end, that hurts everyone. Cut it out! Consider the implications of the way you talk about women! In the case of young children incapable of handling guns, I think sufficient argument has already been made. If you're going to take responsibility for someone's life, it is a greater evil to risk the life of your ward than risk the life of an intruder. You can't exactly play 20 questions with Johnny Robber over a cup of tea, and waiting to see what happens beyond announcing your presence and telling the robber to leave is an invitation for them to snatch the child and use it as a shield. As a further aside, I think that parents with teenaged daughters (say 14 and up) should consider giving them a gun for protection (along with extensive training). I know this seems like a risky proposition, but I think we tend to give teenaged girls too little credit. Yes, we can be giggly idiot-bags, but we have a right to self defense, we generally have the level of responsibility needed to control weapons, and we are much more likely to need to be able to defend ourselves. In closing, if nothing else can illustrate my point about women needing to be able to defend themselves (and I would contend that guns are most effective for women who do not have large physical stature or amazing martial skillz), Barakaguru's statistic should really grind it in: the self-proclaimed protectors of women, their husbands and boyfriends, are the ones most likely to kill them. |
my wife owned her own gun long before she met me, and already had survived being stalked by the crazy nazi that murdered her mother- I married her in part because she could handle herself in a fight, and she has taken several practical self defense courses ( by practical I mean lethal)- our daughter will learn to shoot, and will be getting her own battle rifle at some christmas in the future, as well as being enrolled in REAL martial arts (kali for one). Women should learn to defend themselves and their families, and if we have a problem of the bump in the night variety, my wife is an integral part of the equation for home defense- I will, however be in the front, as I have had more training, and as I consider myself more expendable than she is.....
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm of the understanding that the "freezing up" is that brief moment when the mind and body are going into overdrive. The body is pumping full of adrenaline and the mind is gearing up for that ultimate decision: fight or flight.
It makes sense to me. I'm not sure there are many out there who would "lay down and die." This is likely a misconception. Even Buddhists would kill in defense. |
Not literally, of course... but those who just stand there... no fight or flight.
I've seen too many kids with the proper training just slack-jaw during a gunfight. |
Quote:
|
Sheeet, I'll fight the hell out of a Buddhist.
Let's test this theory. |
Quote:
I wish to watch you test this theory. :thumbsup: |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for me, I'm one of the large percentage of ADHD people whose brain structure is different enough that the freeze and panic reflexes are skipped and I go right into response mode. I've seen a few bad car accidents and other serious things happen, and I had always punched in 911 and hit send on my phone before everything stopped moving. One of my friends (also ADHD) is the same way, and he's a firefighter. I think peoples' immediate responses to any emergency situation is an interesting thing to study and analyze, far beyond the typical bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility that is covered in psychology 101. And I also want to see Crompsin vs. Buddhist Monks. It might even make Human Weapon worth watching. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Question:
You're walking down a deserted street one night after a movie night out with your wife and two small children by your side. Suddenly, a desperate-looking crackhead with a huge Rambo knife comes around the corner and is running at you with the knife poised over his head, drooling and screaming obscenities. In your hand is a loaded Glock pistol and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do? Metrosexual Yuppie Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion. Man Answer: *BANG!* |
Wait, I'm a liberal yuppie.
My answer: Disarm and disable. Separating someone from a knife is actually very simple, and once you've gotten the knife not only are they not armed, but they know you are and you're capable. Worst case? After I take his knife, he continues to attack and I have to put him in some basic lock (preferably knocked out but not otherwise injured). I could shoot him, in this scenario, but then I will have killed someone. That doesn't sit right with me. |
Liberal may be interchangeable.
"Best of all possible worlds." |
Quote:
Also as will said, its not that hard to disarm someone with a knife if you know what you're doing, especially some crackhead who probably doesn't have much experience with said knife. |
Ugh, nevermind. I figured everybody would pull some Chuck Norris gunplay crap.
Expert shots shoot center mass. That comes from training. Shooting at moving legs is not only nearly impossible but missing may harm an innocent bystander. Disarming a running man with a knife isn't that hard if you have the training and experience and big brass balls, but let's assume that you don't want to risk some adrenalin-juiced nutbag from dropping a 12" piece of sharpened steel across your flesh. The primary selling point of firearms is that they have range. I don't want to get close to someone who is trying to hurt me. ... Hahaha... I totally just pulled a DK. |
Quote:
|
I guess I gave the perfect answer? :thumbsup:
|
I'm not. This thread is about as popular as a "GO TALIBAN" T-shirt.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Yeah, it works great on teevee.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Practically the first thing they teach you when addressing knife and other weapon disarms is that no matter how talented a martial artist you are, there's an incredible likelihood that you'll be seriously injured when performing l33t ninja disarms like this, especially when your attacker isn't caught by surprise... You're also making assumptions that said attacker is definitely not experienced in any combat, and will be easy to disarm - this is a potentially deadly mistake. It's often best to err on the side of caution. You also don't address the issue in this scenario of the reactions of the bystanders - what are they going to do and where will they be when in about 2.5 seconds you and a raging crackhead with a knife struggle in an epic melee? That is, if you can engage him - nobody ever said (and you don't know) who his target is. Will you put them at risk and accept the consequences of doing so? What if your kids or wife are gravely injured as a result of your refusal to defend them using the deadly force you're being attacked with? I don't see it as terribly unlikely in the ensuing brawl that one of them gets in the way and ends up hurt or dead. It seems to me, will, that you're out to prove yourself better than everyone else, on the basis that you wouldn't kill someone trying to kill you or others. You're trying to hold all life to the same level of value, and would put yourself and others in danger because of it. Sure, they might make a movie about you if you were able to pull it off, but what if you don't? You'll either be the hero or the shame of the city, so I'd suggest you be damn well prepared, and remember it still might not help you. Further, what would your answer be if you weren't involved in this scenario, and it were up to a woman to choose what to do? Would you have her be a martial arts expert, and put herself and her children at risk to attempt to disarm someone with a weapon? Perhaps have them run (and be subsequently outran) or lay down and beg for mercy? As hedwigstrange pointed out earlier, guns happen to be great equalizers. Most strong women, let alone an ordinary woman, are still not as strong as a man. I'm not trying to be sexist, but it's a fact of life. Would you still hold them to your standard of not responding to force with the same level of force? Nobody ever said you have to not announce your ability and intention to defend yourself. You are not required to kill in cold blood. You're not even required to shoot, or shoot to kill. Here's my response, once deadly force and intent has been shown: 1: draw concealed pistol - check for response from attacker. 2: YELL: FREEZE! I HAVE A GUN! or something of that nature, with gun clearly visible in low ready position (aimed near attacker's kneecaps/groin) - check for response from attacker (it's likely that FREEZE will be the only part to get off before the distance is closed - that is sufficient.) 3: if no response: aim for center of mass, fire twice. hopefully two low torso hits - check for response from attacker. 4: if still no response, and attacker persists despite being shot, then an immediate killing blow is necessary. people hopped up on drugs can often continue to attack, despite being shot. This is why the Mozambique drill exists. All this has to happen in that minuscule amount of time between the attacker and myself and family - checking for responses is something you have to do on the fly because it happens so fast, but I wrote them out to emphasize a point: if the attacker desists in his actions, so will I. I will only use deadly force if it's the only action which will bring the incident to a stop before anyone else is hurt, once deadly force has been shown on the attacker's end. It's still not my intention to KILL anyone. It's my intention and duty to STOP them before they harm myself or my family, and killing may be the only way to stop them. That's something which has to be accepted before carrying/using ANY lethal weapon to defend oneself. I, personally, will not risk the wellbeing of anyone to prove myself somehow better than a thug on the street. I don't see it as "stooping to the thug's level" if I respond to deadly force with deadly force, because I'm not the one going around attacking people with no provocation. I find you naive, will, for making such an assumption, and for being willing to put others at risk because you have such faith in your martial arts abilities to stop others intent on harming you and yours. You value a hoodlum's life more than you value your own, and I think that's far too dangerous for everyone else, and giving the hoodlum far too much credit at being human. I pray (despite being an atheist) that nobody is ever forced to rely on you to keep them from imminent harm, and I also hope beyond hope that you're never put into that position, and never go into politics. This is not to say that I wish to be exposed to such situations - as I said before, it's every gun owner's worst nightmare to be forced to use their weapon. However, I will prepare to the best of my ability to respond to such situations, and those around me will be all the better for it. I'll make every attempt not to use my weapon, and to use non-lethal means before using lethal ones - but, if it comes to it, anyone attempting to infringe upon the safety of myself or those around me will end up with nothing more than a belly full of lead and a pool of their own blood to drown in.* I don't think that killing another human "sits right" with anyone. I do think, however, that sometimes that's the only option, and the array of possible alternatives would sit with me far less well than having put an end to the life of someone trying to do me or my family harm. *quote shamelessly ripped off from Sargent Johnson in Halo 1 |
I'm curious here and not being sarcastic.
Would tasers be a viable alternative, the kind that have some range? Of course they could be mis-used as anything else, but think of the fast knock down power, especially if you had one equipped with a laser pointer, and the bright blinding lights of decent tactical weapons. |
Ring: Tasers depends a lot on their use. They have trouble with thick clothes, and they can easily be used to disable victims if used by criminals. On the positive side, they are pretty effective in practical use. Most tasers can disable an average or even large man when used correctly, and their fatality rate is pretty low (few muggers have artificial hearts).
moot: I have more than enough training to disable someone who has a non projectile weapon, especially a simple knife. The first thing you're taught in real classes (for me it was everything from Krav Maga to Kali) is to avoid confrontation, but the scenario which Cromp laid out made it clear that the intention of the question was that wasn't an option. Considering my training and the average person who's used a knife before, I should be fine. I put myself between the other intended victims (wife and child) and the attacker so that his attentions are on me. I tell them to run while I engage him in combat. There's virtually no chance of this guy not just getting by me, but getting by me fast enough to get them. BTW, no one who ever bravely defended their family has been the shame of the city. That kind of sentiment is childish and is intended to try to control my perceptions by insulting me or appealing to ego. I'd disable him. It's really that simple. If by some miracle he manages to do any level of harm to me, my family is long gone and has probably called the police. It has nothing to do with ego or anti-guns. He's not going to die and neither am I. If he had a gun, I'd again get between him and my family as we went for the closest cover unless it was clear that cover was too far away. If cover is too far away, I toss him my wallet. People out there who just want to kill indiscriminately are exceedingly rare and it's not reasonable to prepare for that. |
Well said sir.
As a woman who lives alone, and has been robbed at gun-point twice when I was working retail in San Francisco years ago, I see that every circumstance has to be read in a split second or two, I feel confident that the reality of ever having to use my training is slim yet having it, I sleep sounder. The seven times I was threatened with deadly intent...a calm and rational demeanor, I believe, saved the day. |
Quote:
|
well, like others have said, i would imagine that what would "suck" about beheading someone with a sword (?) who broke into your house would be.....
wait, what are we talking about? where did all the guns come from? i thought we were imagining beheading someone with a sword. and what would suck about it. everything, i would expect, would suck about beheading someone with a sword. i watched alexander nevsky yesterday. it featured lots of sequences that involved cinematic whacking and dismembering. it looked like pretty much everything about it would suck. this version, however, looks lilke it'd be more fun because you get to fly in it: http://www.freewebs.com/stick_figure...swordmelee.gif but i think the actual killing part would suck. and that is my conclusion and the evidence upon which it is based. btw: i do not buy for a second that this sort of fantasy scenario thread says anything about what anyone would actually do were they confronted--somehow--with a situation in which they found themselves threatened by an intruder while holding a sword, but rather says alot about how people like to deploy their imaginations. given that all that is happening here is an exchange of imagined scenarios with more or less detail as a function of whether you happen to spend your time filling out the detail in such scenarios, what i dont understand is the sense that seems to run everywhere that one group's fantasy life is more manly than another's. on the other hand, i put up a graphic involving stick figures who engage in swordplay, so perhaps my inner life is that of a manlyman as well. |
We could be heroes... just for one day...
|
"You know what sucks about killing in self-defense?"
You don't get to keep a trophy? No head to mount on your wall? Hmm that would make an awkward conversation piece. I caught Will's post on the end of the first page... and honestly... I would do all I could to first subdue any intruder. If they had intentions of killing me or others in my home even though all they came for was my stereo equipment (joke's on them, I am poor)... unfortunately I doubt I would hesitate in that moment. |
Moot,
Great post. Gah, don't quote video games. Makes you look like a douchebag to most adults. ... The value of the human life always shocks me... in how much it varies. Quote:
Quote above? Human nature in action, I'd say. We are combative creatures by design and thus it would seem only logical that a good portion of our kind would indulge in such fantasies in a world where the reality is socially unacceptable at best. What is fantasy but merely an extension of our animal desire to fight, to dominate, to survive. Somebody define the human condition for me. Plenty of violence in that story. Biological processes are often violent things and we're nothing more than a supremely pretentious biological process. |
Quote:
I've been enjoying your style and very much appreciate your contributions to this forum. -bear |
Quote:
|
we had another home invasion in my town the night before last- and for the first time, the victim responded in accord with the castle doctrine, which we passed here in august- He shot one of the invaders in the throat, the other fled- the shot invader died last night in the hospital.....
|
I guess that's one fewer drug addict on the streets of Columbia.
|
Quote:
|
So he can risk getting shot in the throat too?
|
hopefully, the collaborator will get the death penalty or life without parole for his role in his companions death.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project