This myth about pepper spray not being an indoor weapon is b.s… In the last 20 years I’ve sprayed dozens of people with both cs/cn tear gas and pepper spray, more than half indoors, in close quarters (especially during domestic disturbance calls). This myth that it’s going to affect the user as well is nonsense.
Why?
The secret is to use the stream version not the version that sprays in a cone burst. In fact, many departments won’t allowed officers to carry anything but the stream version.
Let me repeat that I’ve sprayed lots of people indoors (mostly pissed off drunken husbands) and had no problems. Had I used the version that sprayed in a cone shape I’d have been screwed.
Fuck the rest of the OP, and its artificial, bullshit construct.
“What if…,” is a game we can play all day. For every “what if” some bleeding heart moron can come up with, I can too.
If the fly had a .45, the froggy wouldn’t fuck with him.
samarm:
And it is precisely because I have no idea what this uninvited intruder into my home at 2:00 A.M. in the morning might do that I am justified in, at the minimum, confronting him (or her) with lethal force ready to hand. In my home state, should I blow the little shit away, that’s too damned bad.
Bottom Line: NO one has any business in my home, uninvited, at 2:00 A.M. in the morning, regardless of whether I lock every door and window, or leave them all wide open.
Ask yourself: would YOU go into someone’s home, uninvited, at 2:00 A.M. in the morning? Would YOU want someone in your home, uninvited, at 2:00 A.M. in the morning?
Knowing that the cops might take anywhere from 5 minutes to 5 hours to respond to your 911 call, what are you going to do? Hide under your bed and hope that nothing bad happens to you? Your family?
Face it: the only kind of person in your home, uninvited, at 2:00 A.M. in the morning is NOT the kind of person you want in your home under ANY circumstances. It displays a basic lack of respect (whether developed, undeveloped or underdeveloped) for other people’s property, privacy, and even lives.
A person with such qualities is a person the human gene pool, and my home, at 2:00 A.M., uninvited, is better off without.
In any case, the “homeowner” can also simply say, “FREEZE, Muthafuckah! You even twitch and I’ll blow yer ass AWAY!”
Theres nothing wrong with playing “What if…”. In fact, you should run situations through you mind to decide how you’re going to react.
What i hate about the OP is, it seems to suggest that deadly force is never a proper option. It seems to blame the home owner rather than the intruder. That’s b.s.
My posts have been about people legally protecting themselves.
I have no problem with folks shooting on sight, but the law in many places does. I’d hate to see some poor home owner go to jail because some prick broke into his house! I have a feeling that if the OP were on the jury, that’s exactly what would happen!:mad:
pk: since I keep my guns locked up and unloaded, my Mercenary sword (essentiall a very sharp cut-and-thrust broadsword, with triple fullers included) is probably closer to hand than any of my handguns. While I’m not quite as proficient with a sword as I am with a firearm, I am still more than capable of dealing significant damage with it, plus it looks a hell of a lot meaner en garde than my .45.
Were my community plagued with more frequent home intrusions, at least one of my handguns, or perhaps my shotgun (I named it “Sarah,” as in “Sarah Brady’s Worst Nightmare”) would probably be more readily available. Between tactical lights and laser designators, any nominal home intruder is going to have a brief but spectacular audio/visual experience.
Not that I actually worry about such things. Much.
Yeah, it would, but when, and how much? IIRC, Kirk could set his phaser to stun, but that was in the 23rd century right? Right now the most cost effective reliable weapon for home defense is a firearm. Preferably a pump action shotgun or a six shot revolver, which anyone could afford (like in the $300 range).
and i’ll like to have some Weapons of Mass Destruction. the only reason to own a lethal weapon when (if) there are ‘just as good’ alternatives is to kill. why would you kill another human being? i’m obviously way out of my league (WOOML) here, because i cannot contemplate why.
considering my WOOMLness, i think i can understand Model-Shipwright’s Willie Hampton story, but isn’t that more of an argument for vigilantism?
yeah too bad, i guess my hypothetical is moot then. (our weapons are soo crude…)
Non lethal weapons are not science fiction, they are science fact. Stun guns are available which can incapacitate an attacker, giving you time to overpower them.
Also, if you choose to arm yourself with a .22 calibre gun, I suspect you are far less likely to buy your attacker a ticket to the afterlife than if you are yourself with a .357 magnum.
Name ONE, just ONE non-lethal weapon that is “just as good” at stopping an attacker as a good handgun, in most situations. I can’t think of any that don’t have some trade off. Mace type weapons are unlikely to stop the person, very questionable effectiveness (Might stop him… Might just piss him off). The touch-stun-guns, that you have to hit the person with, rely on you getting much too close for your own safety. The ranged ones are one-shot-and-you’re-done deals, mostly. And if you want to get into such interesting ones as bean-bag rounds for a shotgun, people have taken a half dozen shots from those and not even budged, before.
And Samarm, that suggestion about the .22 is, well… Stupid. First off, a .22 LR can kill. I know, I’ve seen a friend killed by one. And it’s also not something you want to rely on to stop an attacker. I know, I also saw another friend shot center-mass (Punctured a lung, broke a rib, and exited out the other side) who then proceded to get up, run 20 or so feet, and tackle the guy who shot him.
If you’re going to use a .22, I highly recommend that you file the front site off first, otherwise it’s going to hurt a bunch when the bad guy sticks it up your butt.
How will he do that when he’s dead?
Are you aware that a large number of people are killed each year with .22? Especially those cheap little pistols the gun control Nazis like to refer to as “saturday night specials”.
A .22 wouldn’t be my first choice by all means, but I don’t think any of us would be laughing at one if it were pointed at us!
I’m well aware of how many people are killed with .22’s each year. The problem is that it doesn’t stop quickly, thereby reducing it’s effectiveness as a self defense weapon. Who gives a crap if the guy is going to bleed out in 15 minutes if he is bouncing a brick off your head the entire time?
John Harrison has a point, part of the reason for using a weapon like a larger calibre revolver or a .45 is for the stopping power.
Can someone tell me what it is about firearms that makes them such a hot issue? If someone collects stamps, or vintage erotica, or baseball cards, it’s not a big deal.
If someone collects swords, or knives, or Indian Arrowheads, nobody blinks.
But if a person owns a gun, there are going to be people who immediatly think he’s a dangerous lunatic. Why?
As long as people remember that regardless of the caliber a shot won’t stop anyone if it misses. Practice. Practice often. Practice dilligently.
Because guns are like, totally different from every other inanimate object in the world. See, even though they require an operator to make them do anything, a gun can still kill people all on its own.
It’s a ridiculous thing, isn’t it? When a person gets shot by a criminal, people talk about gun violence and how it wouldn’t have happened if guns were off the street. So then why when someone gets stabbed don’t we hear all about the evils of knife violence and see the campaign to eliminate knives?
Well, popping a guy once in the arm with a .22 certain won’t help. Shoot the bastard in the chest several times. Shoot them in the head. A 22 has some stopping power if the shot placement is right. A shotgun or a .45 are much better to have of course, but
maybe a 22 is all Grandma can handle. Better she get good with it than to have no protection at all. You and I can handle a big gun. Some people can’t.
Also, a .22 shot out of a rifle is quite good. The velocity can get high enough out of a rifle that it will defeat some body armour.
For those of you who have read Col. Jeff Cooper (who coined the term hoplophobe, BTW), he advocates a .22 for home defense. He’s credo is, with a .22, one shot in the eye ends the threat. .22 rounds cost, what, $6-7 for 500 rounds, you can practice all day every day and become quite proficient without the cost and physical discomfort of the higher calibers.
Yes, but think about the situation you could find yourself in. You aren’t seriously saying that the average Joe could accurately target an intruder’s eye, with one shot, in the dark, from 6 feet away?
