RyanRaduechel

iTrader: (10)

Well now you made me second guess my selection in rubber slugs. The tactical slugs are going back in.

One of the very few joys of working a split shift, just went to the range for an hour and a half with my brother. Took my shotgun, his Ruger 30-06, .38 Long Colt, 1911 Colt .45, and a little Sig .22 pistol (don't laugh, ammo is cheap, and it's fun to shoot) went through about 200 rounds before going back to work.

mellowout

iTrader: (2)

Id say I live in a "good" neighborhood, and I carry every day. I wouldn't get to choose when, where, or if I may need a firearm, and cant imagine not having it if I needed it.

For me its not so much a question of "why should I need it?", as much as it is a "why wouldn't I have it?"

Why wouldn't I want to protect myself if the situation required it?

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

+1 and +1
I was thinking really ugly used bike that won't get stolen for $35.



The first rule of self defense is don't put yourself in a situation with increased risk unnecessarily. That includes the neighborhood. And it isn't about you. I wouldn't want to expose a girl I care about to unnecessary risk if I could help it. Don't roll the dice if you perceive the threat to be credible. Extricate yourself asap.

If you don't perceive the threat as credible, then don't worry about it.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

Or you may be called upon to protect an innocent from harm.

mellowout

iTrader: (2)

Very true, and actually the thought that prompted me to buy a firearm wasn't to protect myself, but the thought of not being able to protect my family.

TheScaryOne

iTrader: (3)

I don't think this comes up enough in firearms talks. When you carry, you're basically volunteering to defend anyone in your vicinity from deadly harm. It's a mindset you really have to think about before you carry. It's why I don't carry yet. It's a big responsibility and I want to be more prepared for it. There is no duty to act for an armed civilian. Carrying is still a big responsibility, and I want to be a better shot before I start.

DaveC, it sounds like you're assuming that all criminals are rational human beings with logical motives. That's not the way it is. Wittyworks said that these people were smoking crack on the stairs of his building, in public. He said they were under 17. Who knows what they would have done for the money for their next fix? You can't trust an addict to be rational and clear thinking. Drugs do horrible things to people.

I will second getting a dog. But not some yappy football. Rather than deter crime you'll probably just come home to a dead dog and a robbed place. If you have a big dog, don't leave him outside unattended, or leave his food and water anywhere where the public can see/get to it, or they will just poison your dog before robbing your place, likely while you're at the vet. Get a large dog, and become his best friend. I recommend a pit bull, as I have never owned another breed of dog that bonded with their owners as deeply. Sucks if you're in California, or if you have a clause in your lease, or your insurance.

DaveC

What I'm assuming is that all criminals are human beings that are interested first and foremost in looking out for themselves. Which is to say that the crack heads in the hall were probably not interested in entering the apartment and hurting the occupants. It's certainly possible, but (I'm guessing) not likely. They might have seen an opportunity to take advantage of the people in the apartment, but hurting them as a goal in itself, is simply not likely. The news reports don't support it. The news reports are full of violent crimes, but look closely; it usually involves people that know each other, or at the very least are threatening each other in some way.

My point is that the safety of a person or their family is almost always put at greater risk by challenging the bad guy. Pulling a gun is more likely to get you hurt than keep you from getting hurt.

If avoiding personal injury is truly ones objective, then I contend that a gun will take you in the wrong direction. If you just like the idea of having a gun, then this argument doesn't apply to you.

Well, I disagree. The deterrent to the robber is not the threat of being bitten, but the threat of being caught because the dog drew attention. I don't buy the common argument that the robber will just shoot the dog and then rob your house. Why would they? Imagine that you're a robber, even a drug addled, desperate, crazy robber. Why would you enter a house with a dog (of any size) while the dog is barking, then take the time to kill the dog, and only then rob the place? You could just as easily pick a house without a dog. Even a really stupid drug addict has a basic desire to not get caught.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I read everything you wrote several times and I completely understand where you're coming from and why you may think those things, and I will attempt in as short a post as possible to make it very clear how deadly a game you play when you make assumptions about a criminals intentions and motivations. It's a great example of how people simply don't realize that self-defense is is about YOUR life or death, not the bad guys.

Castle Doctrine essentially states that a person who breaks into your home is there to kill you. Of course there's tons more to it, but a criminal, upon breaking the plane and entering your dwelling, is immediately understood to be in the act of attempting to cause you great bodily harm. From the homeowners point of view, that's the only possible reason he could be there. Any other thought on your part allows him the seconds he needs to get a tactical advantage and kill you. You have neither the time nor the resources to make the determination of whether he's there to steal your TV, or murder you. The law makes that assumption for you and allows you to use deadly force inside your dwelling under almost all circumstances. That's just about as plain and simple as it can be said. As a homeowner, defending your life and the life of your family, this is the way you want it. Anybody who breaks into your house is to be engaged with deadly force to the fullest degree you can apply it until they are no longer a threat.

I'm almost certain that no state still has "duty to retreat" laws on the books for homeowners. Even states without an actual Castle Doctrine have laws that essentially say the same thing that CD does. Sometimes these laws are more generalized and favor the homeowner even more than a specific CD law would.

NOW... I've said nothing about actual tactics inside the home. There is really only one circumstance that I can possibly see where I would leave the safety of my bedroom/hallway and venture downstairs or into the main area of the house to investigate a "bump in the night".

If you wake up to the sound of shattering glass or hearing voices, the very last ******* thing on earth you want to do it grab a gun and go out there. Assume your pre-planned defensive position inside your bedroom or hallway, dial 911, and shout/yell/scream at the intruders to go away... and wait for the police. They get paid to clear houses for a living and will probably bring a dog with them. YOU STAY IN THE ******* BEDROOM AND WAIT FOR THEM.

The only reason to leave the safety of your defensive position is to ensure the safety of a family member... ie, you sleep upstairs while the kids sleep downstairs, or something crazy like that. If all people are accounted for, your best chance for survival is to stick to your plan and hole up. Ask any police officer what he hates the most about his job... and somewhere in his top-3 will be "house clearing". The bad guys have the advantage in a big way, and if they want you dead, you're dead. Cops hate clearing houses, so should you.

More on "the plan". As I've been preaching, your overall approach to personal/family/collective self-defense is planned/layered/phased/practiced/rehearsed. DaveC was right, criminals want an easy target. However, a person intent on killing you won't be deterred no matter what you do. However, in blowing past all your layers, he's going to make it very obvious what he's there to do, and make it very easy for you to react with deadly force against him. I hope it’s starting to make sense.

Preparing your house is easy and cheap'ish:
Security System
Dog
Signs
Strong locks/doors
Motion sensor lights
CCTV
Prepped yard
Neighbors
etc... lots of stuff you can do to make your house less of a target... which means if a guy picks your house even with all the deterrents (ie, not picking the easiest house), he's motivated by more than theft.

The last point I'll make is something I take very seriously, both as a law-abiding citizen and a military officer. I believe that every person should feel an inherent duty to do everything they reasonably can to oppose evil when they encounter it. I go about my daily life with the intent that I will never be anybody's victim, and that I will not allow my family to be harmed through my lack of foresight. My liberty is my responsibility to protect. I'll protect yours the best that I can as well, but it would be awesome if you were on board.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

This is terrible, no you're not.

There is absolutely no "duty to act" for an armed citizen. In fact, it's been decided by the Supreme Court that this is the same for police. Neither you, nor the police have any legal obligation to defend anybody, including yourself, simply because you're armed. You can allow yourself and everybody around you to be hurt through your own inaction and be legally liable for nothing.

When an event happens, you evaluate your options, weigh the risks, and act. If that act happens to be that you run away while innocents are killed, the law will take no notice that you happened to be armed and chose to flee.

The solution is simply to plan as much as you can.

When looking at the "standard" shooting by legally armed citizens, it's very predictable. 1 citizen, 1 bad guy who is armed, night, point blank range, public place, outdoors, 1 shot fired, incident timeline 30 seconds or less. This is the primary thing you're preparing for when carrying.

Of course there is an endless list of scenarios to think about. The big one right now is "active shooter"... basically a person who is walking around shooting others and facing little resistance. I have thought about this one... and have 2 plans. First plan involves me being with my kids... I grab them and run like crazy Forest Gump style and tell the wife to keep up. Second plan involves me being without kids (if wife is present, she can run)... assume a defensive position, survey scene, identify the shooter, return fire when able. Of course it's not my desire to die while trying to save innocent lives, but I'll be damned if I'm going to run from an active shooter when it's just my own life I'm putting in greater danger. "Even the most well-layed plan doesn't survive first contact with the enemy"... I'm aware of this.

TheScaryOne

iTrader: (3)

I've noticed this a lot, living in a large city. Almost no one ever gets to know their neighbors. This is really a cheap way to gain a lot of security. Say hello. Gift a pie. Something. Get to know your neighbors, and they will watch out for you and your ****.

QFT. Another eloquent post by samnavy. He needs to write a book.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I didn't know there wasn't a duty to act, especially as Arizona's stand your ground law exempts actions on behalf of another. I guess it was something my grandfather must have told me and I just took it as gospel. I knew there was no duty to act for law enforcement, Warren vs DC, right?

Mobius

iTrader: (2)

The question is not "should you buy a gun." The question is "how many guns should you buy."

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Dave, you simply cannot make statements like this.

That goes directly against your earlier comments about criminals liking soft targets. By your own logic, a citizen who challenges a criminal by introducing a firearm into the equation is instantly a bad bet, and should cause the criminal to flee to something easier. In fact, it's estimated that an armed citizen pulling a gun to deter an attacker happens 5000 to 8000 times a day in this country. Somewhere on the order of TWO MILLION times a year that a citizen defends himself with a gun. Most of these without a shot fired.

In fact, you've walked yourself into the most common blind scenario there is. Here's what you've got in your mind... a man and woman are walking along and are accosted by a criminal carrying a gun/knife who demands money. The man resists and gets knifed/shot and killed, and the criminal kills the woman to leave no witnesses... it's a cookie cutter scene played over and over in the movies and what every soccer-mom thinks will happen when the husband wants to buy a gun.

Somebody who has been through even the most basic training knows that there are un-winnable scenarios where the best chance for surviving is to "give the guy what he wants"... but even in a situation like that, your training, or simple natural instinct to survive will force you to look for even the smallest tactical advantage you can muster in order to turn the tables. If no advantage presents itself, then the bad guy gets away, and maybe he doesn't stab you for good measure anyways, but who knows.

What we've been talking about in this thread, and that I've been highlighting in every post, is your PLAN. While the goal of the plan from the get-go is to avoid all confrontation, the process of the plan makes it very hard for any bad guy to get the jump on you. Most people who are "street smart" and have good situational awareness, are never taken by surprise. This comes from a conscious effort over many years until the person simply knows when **** is about to go down and can flee prior to the event happening, or be prepared if boxed into a corner. In the event that something happens with no warning, we can train for offensive, defensive, and passive reactions. In no way should "comply" be your default setting when faced with a life-and-death scenario.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

That's the most recent case out of the DC COURT OF APPEALS, and is semi "landmark'ish"... but the primary SCOTUS case is Gonzales '05. There is Deshaney '89, but is less significant than Gonzales in spelling out the whole "duty to act/protect" issue.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

If you didn't, go read the story. There are some excellent lessons to be learned from it and "no lawful citizen should carry a concealed firearm" is not one of them.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Pretty stupid that you cant shoot the guy thats breaking into your house.

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

Defense of property is not cause to use deadly force in every state. Texas and a few others tend to be more "understanding" if you shoot a guy in your front yard, and some states define "dwelling" or whatever differently. But in most states, the person actually has to be in your home. A guy who is in the process of "climbing in the window", but may have his legs still outside... the advice is to make sure when you hit him, that he falls IN the home and not back on the lawn.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

This is a perfectly reasonable position assuming you take the baseline foundation that all criminals act (A) from that position and (B) in a rational and logical manner.

I do not assume that baseline foundation. There are a number of criminals that act primarily out of maliciousness. Their risk/reward thought process is not the same as yours or most law-abiding citizens. Often times, that's because they feel their prospects are so poor that the threat of jail or prison does not, in fact, deter them.

Again, you assume a rational and logical thought process as the baseline. I disagree.

2 arrested for College Park burglaries

DaveC

You say criminals like soft targets, I say people in general - including criminals - prefer to make things easier than more difficult. Specifically, I'm suggesting that a criminal is more likely to injure an innocent if they feel that it improves their own odds of getting out unhurt. Consequently, I'm suggesting that a victim that threatens a criminal is increasing the odds that the criminal will take violent action against them.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about a potential victim that is interested only their own person safety. It's not about protecting their property or even their dignity. It's not about justice and it's certainly not about legal rights. The comments that I made earlier about an intruder shooting a home owner in self defense were not raising the question of who would get into more trouble when they faced a judge. It was raising the question of how likely it is that the intruder would use a weapon in the first place.

I have to admit that that is an alarming statistic. Suppose I make a wild-assed guess just for the sake of discussion. Suppose I guess only 1 in 5 victims have a gun to use. That would suggest that 20000 to 32000 times per day an innocent person is injured by an attacker. Is that right? Is that what you're saying?

Right! The reasoning that I offered yesterday primarily concerned individuals that consider bringing a gun into their home to protect themselves from intruders. Because we can't prepare for EVERY possibility, I'm taking a probabilistic approach. I'm asking this simple question: if an intruder comes into my home and I point a gun at him, is he more likely to attack me or less? This is a question that can be answered definitively with statistics. I admit that I don't have those statistics.

EDIT: Jack, I understand exactly where you're come from. I think one difference between our perspectives is that I'm not trying to plan for every possible psychological defect that any given criminal might suffer from. That would be literally impossible.

In fact, I'm not even trying to predict the motives or thought processes of any particular criminal, I'm just making the basic observation that they are all humans (which, I think, is not up for debate) and that most of them, by and large, react in ways that are somewhat predictable based on the fact that they are human and posses most of the basic instincts of other humans.

hornetball

iTrader: (4)

I must confess, I didn't. Title turned me off. Looked like it would be a sensationalized anti-gun article. I'll go check it out.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

My wife thinks I'm paranoid with all of the "what if" scenarios I contemplate. I call it mental preparedness, but frankly, it makes me tired. I hate crowds and confined areas with crowds are even worse.

I figure this to be a far greater threat than the threat of home invasion or burglary for him. This is where the bad guy has the advantage and the good guy has no weapon (because the victim is coming from campus). The bad guy will often have numbers in his favor and will have the element of surprise. Standing up straight with your shoulders back and your eyes up and alert will make you seem less like prey. Keep your head on a swivel and make confident eye contact with people to let them know you are aware of them. This will likely not help out your girl, though. She will be victimized long before you will. She will be alone and there will be more than one of them.


This is the "throw your money one direction and run the other direction" scenario I was taught.


Sometimes it may be smarter to turn around and walk the other way for a half hour or more if there are thugs hanging around his doorway.



I still think the smartest thing to do is move to a safer location as soon as possible. I don't give a damn about convenience.