Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AustonT wrote:You have no idea what ... you are talking about. Have a good evening,

AustonT is correct here.

Rimmy wrote:Clearly you believe that all situations require the use of a firearm. I do not. I have in fact, been witness first hand, to situations where it was safer for everyone involved NOT to draw a weapon.

Sure, there are always situations where it's safer for everyone involved to NOT draw a weapon. However, I am at my most unsafe when I have no weapon and the other guy does. Conversely, the safest situation in these circumstances is for me to have a weapon and the other guy not to. In other words, your empty platitudes are pointless to this discussion. You may as well chime in with "Some dogs are big. Some dogs are not as big".

Rimmy wrote:and regardless of what the maximum trajectory of the weapon is, I said effective range. meaning that within 7 yards (21 feet) it is possible for an assailant to get to you and cause harm or fatality regardless of whether or not you have a gun pointed at them. Within that same distance, if you have NOT managed to stop the attacker, it is possible for them to use the weapon on you.

It is possible =/= it is likely. I fething loathe the "just close your eyes and think of Christmas" argument that you are presenting here. It is the same argument that used to be given to women in case they were being attacked, and it is complete and utter BS. If I'm within 21 feet of someone, the odds of them reaching me before I can get at least 2 rounds off is slim to none, and at that range I'm not going to miss center mass when handling a firearm that I'm comfortable and practiced with. And I don't rattle easy, either. This all leads back to the repeated advice given to the OP of "practice, practice, practice". However, experience notwithstanding, the general claim that an attacker will hurt you worse if you have a weapon is an unsupported falsehood: the very nature of an attacker is to harm you. The level of harm is irrelevant to the attack, as you should consider your life to be in jeopardy irrespective of weapons. An unarmed attacker could potentially kill you with their bare hands.

Rimmy wrote:You know what, its really not worth arguing about anyway. I hope to God you never find yourself in a situation having to pull your gun. I certainly don't want to do it again. and yes, I did manage to have my 1911 ready and near by when someone tried to break into my house. and yes I did grab it. because NO I am not trained in hand to hand.
judge whatever you like. you're not changing my opinion.

This is the part that is aggravating. You were advocating that the best defense against an attacker in your home is to disarm the attacker with your bare hands, -which is stupid beyond reason to begin with- yet you are now even admitting that you don't even know how to accomplish this, or if it's even possible, as you have no hand-to-hand training yourself. I was right when I said that you seemed to be offering advice you learned from watching David Bradley movies.

Do you always spend this much time giving arbitrary advice that you have admittedly no experience in?

Do please keep in mind, I'm not trying to convince you. I have no desire to do so. But I do want people to recognize how foolish and incredibly dangerous the advice that you have posted is, and I want to make sure the OP in no way heeds it, for his own safety and that of people whom depend on him.

 Rimmy wrote:

 AustonT wrote:


The maximum effective range for an M9 is 50 meters; that's 164 feet in case you were wondering.
FM 3-23.35
The maximum effective range for a current M1911 is 70 meters; that'd be 229 feet.
TM 00526A-24

and regardless of what the maximum trajectory of the weapon is, I said effective range. meaning that within 7 yards (21 feet) it is possible for an assailant to get to you and cause harm or fatality regardless of whether or not you have a gun pointed at them.

See those nifty things within the quote that say FM and TM?? In the Army, those mean Field Manual and Technical Manual. In regards to firearms that the US Military system uses, these are generally compiled and produced by the manufacturer within Gov't specs (as in it's in the military shape and size, as opposed to their civilian manual counterparts). So, I'd trust their Effective Range much more than your completely bogus "7 yards"


Also, for the record, that shotgun you posted is illegal in some states of the US due to it's length.

If you looked me square in the face, and told me that you take advice about home defense from a website devoted to plastic miniatures and tabletop wargames, you would be as stupid as you are clueless.

What do you do for a living? hmm? I manage security systems for the federal government. Yes I am former Air Force. Yes I am trained on how to use a weapon, no I am not trained on hand to hand (for obvious reasons, I joined the air force)

I spend half of my time with federal and local law enforcement. all you backyard hero's with all your opinions on what you'd do IF someone presented you with an absolute worst case scenario.

would you like to know what your actual statistical numbers are in ACTUALLY going through this scenario?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf

Is the Department of Justice analytical study on victimization done in 2011 recent and credible enough for you? Want a better definition of Robbery as defined by the Department of Justice? http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=313

Wanna know what the federal officers here at work use in our buildings as they train for close quarters situations? shotguns. Benelli 12. ga tactical semi automatic's to be exact. The secondary weapon in a return fire against a pistol? an M-4 assault rifle. wanna know what they CARRY but do not use unless its a last resort? a Beretta 9mm.

So tell me again all you hunters and non security and law enforcement agent WOULD do IF someone were to jump in your house.

Check your damn facts before you spout off what you THINK would happen in a situation I can almost assure none of you have been in and likely never will, seeing as how that crime is exactly 3.95% of the entire population of the united states.

Say what all you want. Poke fun at whatever you want. call me whatever you want. my advice remains the same.

Shotgun. 12.ga short barrel pistol grip, coupled with some defensive art training. If you have little expeirnce witha firearm, I am firm that a pistol is going to cause more harm than good.

lay on it people. You got nothin on me but talk and opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


See those nifty things within the quote that say FM and TM?? In the Army, those mean Field Manual and Technical Manual. In regards to firearms that the US Military system uses, these are generally compiled and produced by the manufacturer within Gov't specs (as in it's in the military shape and size, as opposed to their civilian manual counterparts). So, I'd trust their Effective Range much more than your completely bogus "7 yards"


Also, for the record, that shotgun you posted is illegal in some states of the US due to it's length.

Effective for the round. put a guy in front of you with an airsoft pistol, or in our case the sesams rounds our officers use to train and then tell me otherwise.

Also for the record the OP IIRC mentioned he lived in the Phillipine's. ie who cares about US law.

 Rimmy wrote:

So tell me again all you hunters and non security and law enforcement agent WOULD do IF someone were to jump in your house.

I'd probably try hiding until I had the opportunity to take a swing at them with my walking stick. More likely, I would tell them I'm going for a pint and then walk out, letting my insurance cover it afterwards. My fear of this happening though is precisely 0%.

But this is dakka. Reality is not something we actually work within the scope of here. I thought that was more obvious than it apparently is. Thanks for ruining the immersion. :(

 Rimmy wrote:

Also for the record the OP IIRC mentioned he lived in the Phillipine's. ie who cares about US law.

Just because the OP is in the Philippines doesn't mean that there aren't others who have looked at this thread looking for the same thing as he asked about.

And while I was stationed in Germany, we "got" to use the "paint" rounds during a training event, all of my rounds found their mark. Does that translate exactly to a real life, high pressure situation? No, but during my second tour in Iraq, my team was ambushed and got into actual firefights enough that I know how I personally handle those types of situations.

Am I smart enough to realize that the chances of my home being broken into are slim, yes. But I also don't make my place a target by leaving blinds open, or doors unlocked. I get pissed at the wife when she does things like that. But, as with all things, you go into them hoping you'll never have to go through it but need to realize that it CAN.

You advocate home defense training, which is all well and good, but the person who does that training NEEDS to get it into their heads that gak can hit the fan for real, and treat the training they pay for with the due respect it deserves. If they take a course like this at say, 25 and die at 80 never having had to use the training then that's all well and good. But if they did that training, go through a situation where their "training" needed to kick in and didn't because they didnt take it seriously will regret not doing so.

Exactly my point.

Anf every ditch digger and jarhead in the world thinks that their house is friggin Kabul and they're Captain frickin America.

real worl thugs, they aren't combatants. they don't fight with that tenacity. they aren't heavily armed. Oh they're bad people, but christ, the scneario isn't about prior service members and an arsenal. its a normal civilian trying to scare off someone from burglarizing his home.

All you greenies are all alike. just mo dakka all the time.

why outsmart them with you can simply outgun them right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rimmy wrote:

Also for the record the OP IIRC mentioned he lived in the Phillipine's. ie who cares about US law.

Just because the OP is in the Philippines doesn't mean that there aren't others who have looked at this thread looking for the same thing as he asked about.

And while I was stationed in Germany, we "got" to use the "paint" rounds during a training event, all of my rounds found their mark. Does that translate exactly to a real life, high pressure situation? No, but during my second tour in Iraq, my team was ambushed and got into actual firefights enough that I know how I personally handle those types of situations.

Am I smart enough to realize that the chances of my home being broken into are slim, yes. But I also don't make my place a target by leaving blinds open, or doors unlocked. I get pissed at the wife when she does things like that. But, as with all things, you go into them hoping you'll never have to go through it but need to realize that it CAN.

You advocate home defense training, which is all well and good, but the person who does that training NEEDS to get it into their heads that gak can hit the fan for real, and treat the training they pay for with the due respect it deserves. If they take a course like this at say, 25 and die at 80 never having had to use the training then that's all well and good. But if they did that training, go through a situation where their "training" needed to kick in and didn't because they didnt take it seriously will regret not doing so.

Thank you for your service.

But seriously, does ANY of your training, at all, make you think that an average civilian can emulate that? You spend HOW many hours training?

Oh trust me, being an Airmen didn't remotely qualify me as an expert compared to the grunts in the field, but i'm also not naive enough to think that your average person can respectfully juy buy a gun an magically its all better. no way. they buy a pistol, they are inviting danger beyond the worst case scenario.

Criminals aren't soldiers. and they don't act like them. and they don't fight like them. and they don't think like them. you CANNOT compare a meth head to a military engagement.

 Rimmy wrote:
why outsmart them with you can simply outgun them right?

So you're saying he needs the assault rifle and/or the tank that was undoubtedly recommended somewhere between pages 2 and 4?

While it is unlikely a criminal that is armed will be packing an AK, it is possable.

Assault rifles are more common on the streets then people will care to admit. The other possable situation is them having a sawed off shotgun.

Don't assume the armed guy breaking into your house is carrying a pistol. Be aware he could have something bigger, or that there could be more then one guy breaking in.

Rimmy wrote:again, your best solution, learn to dis-arm an attacker and do it with your hands.

Rimmy wrote:What do you do for a living? hmm? I manage security systems for the federal government. Yes I am former Air Force. Yes I am trained on how to use a weapon, no I am not trained on hand to hand (for obvious reasons, I joined the air force)

I'll just leave your posts side by side here and let everyone just see how ridiculous they are. Either you work in a security-monitoring call center and fantasize about watching American Ninja 3 or else.... nothing. That's probably it.

Rimmy wrote:I spend half of my time with federal and local law enforcement.

And yet you appear to have learned nothing. Tell us some more about how learning to disarm armed attackers with your bare hands is the best defense. Please, I'm curious. Go on.

It seems Gecko45 has come out of his long hiatus with the new handle Rimmy. Welcome back mall ninja.

AustonT wrote:It seems Gecko45 has come out of his long hiatus with the new handle Rimmy. Welcome back mall ninja.

I don't get it.

 azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:It seems Gecko45 has come out of his long hiatus with the new handle Rimmy. Welcome back mall ninja.

I don't get it.

http://lonelymachines.org/mall-ninjas/

 daedalus wrote:

 Rimmy wrote:
why outsmart them with you can simply outgun them right?

So you're saying he needs the assault rifle and/or the tank that was undoubtedly recommended somewhere between pages 2 and 4?

I would go for the tank, just park it outside with the barrel pointed through the window at the door. All you need is a remote trigger, that can be activated from your bed, and blam, you kill the intruder, yourself, anyone else within probably 100 feet to the sides, and everyone within a couple blocks down muzzle. I like this better than the flame thrower idea. Not only will the intruder not get your stuff, neither will your neighbors, or their neighbors just in case!

Note: above numbers are completely made up, I have no idea what the shock wave from the muzzle of a tank barrel indoors would do, but I like my scenario




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks for that link too Auston, great stuff lol

Hi. Former cop here.

A firearm for self/home defense is wasted money. The chances of someone breaking into your home are tiny. Truly tiny. And the overwhelming majority of criminals who attempt to break into your home will flee when confronted. A simple "Hey, get the hell outta here, I'm calling the cops!" is enough to send them running.

Further, it's dangerous. A firearm for home defense needs to be loaded, or able to be very quickly loaded, and it needs to be very quickly accessible. Which means the wrong people can access it. Oh, but you'd never let the wrong people in your home, right? Everyone has high-level training and would never do anything silly?

Wrong. Tradespeople, other peoples kids, friends and relatives will be in the house. Even the people you've trained and who would never do anything silly with that firearm will eventually do something silly with that firearm.

At the end of the day, you're taking a significant risk to combat an insignificant threat, and that's just not clever. But, it's wired into the reptilian part of our brain to protect our territory and defend our tribe, so the sentiment to have a gun in the house is a lot stronger than the desire to, say, get your electrical wiring checked over and change the batteries in your smoke alarm, which on the balance of probabilities are far more likely to save your lives and property than a gun is.

 azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:It seems Gecko45 has come out of his long hiatus with the new handle Rimmy. Welcome back mall ninja.

I don't get it.

Legendary moron on gun forums, google his posts they're hilarious.

As to disarming your opponents, well I'm not a highly trained air scout and security whatzit who hangs out with LEOs a lot, but I am a Marine, a fourteen year martial artist (so I think I can say I know my way around hand to hand and a gun) and just to final line it here.

If you are in ANY threat situation in ANY environment and you are unarmed while your opponent(s) are armed you are at an extreme disadvantage that will in all honest have a solid chance of killing you or hurting you severely. If you've trained for it for a long freaking time you still have a pretty good chance of ending up on a slab at county. Doing that in a home defense situation is even dumber. You just woke up, it's 3am, you're groggy and disoriented and now you're going to try to do a complex hand to hand maneuver in the dark on a guy you can only really see the silhouette of? You may as well kneel down and point to the side of your body you want the bullet wound on because that's what you're sorely begging for.

Compared to a full martial art firearms are not affected by your size and musculature, any one can be lethal and train to use a gun effectively from your 90 year old granny on down, it takes time and you need to develop the mindset to go with it which also takes practice and preferably training, it however does not take even as long as it does to make a Marine or Army infantryman combat ready to turn someone who's never picked up a gun before into a competent marksman or woman. Practice your draw and stance every day, shoot whenever you can, get your permit and carry everywhere, even when you're not armed develop an alert mindset and take proper steps to secure your home, go through in your mind how to react if and when the worst happens. Drill until your weapon, no matter what you choose is a part of you.

DO NOT EVER try to fight someone for a weapon when you don't have to. My instructors at my martial arts school have all been training for 20-30 years and can do things to masonry with their bare hands that make you not want to spar with them. They ALL carry concealed handguns and have pistols in the home for home defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaldor wrote:
Hi. Former cop here.

A firearm for self/home defense is wasted money. The chances of someone breaking into your home are tiny. Truly tiny. And the overwhelming majority of criminals who attempt to break into your home will flee when confronted. A simple "Hey, get the hell outta here, I'm calling the cops!" is enough to send them running.

Further, it's dangerous. A firearm for home defense needs to be loaded, or able to be very quickly loaded, and it needs to be very quickly accessible. Which means the wrong people can access it. Oh, but you'd never let the wrong people in your home, right? Everyone has high-level training and would never do anything silly?

Wrong. Tradespeople, other peoples kids, friends and relatives will be in the house. Even the people you've trained and who would never do anything silly with that firearm will eventually do something silly with that firearm.

At the end of the day, you're taking a significant risk to combat an insignificant threat, and that's just not clever. But, it's wired into the reptilian part of our brain to protect our territory and defend our tribe, so the sentiment to have a gun in the house is a lot stronger than the desire to, say, get your electrical wiring checked over and change the batteries in your smoke alarm, which on the balance of probabilities are far more likely to save your lives and property than a gun is.

It's fair to point out that Kaldor is a cop from the part of the world where firearms are the root of all evil and is highly biased. There are also a number of methods that keep a weapon secure to wandering hands but accessible to you. For example I keep my pistol with the rest of the toys in the safe when it's not on me and when I hit the rack it has a nice little holster hidden behind the headboard. Alternate secure storage methods that are easy for fast access include a bio locked safe. I have a couple friends with those in their dresser drawers and they seem to like them a lot. The wife can get the gun, he can get the gun, but no one else can get it open.

I know OP is basically decided on buying a gun, but there are other options. Collapsible Batons are getting pretty advanced, and can be had on the cheap. Black Jacks, Tazers, Mace and Titanium Bats can all be bought at major sporting goods stores.

Obviously, a knife could protect you, but only if you know what you're doing, and don't mind getting cut up, or the possibility of it being turned on you. I don't know. I'm stuck on knives. It's probably a totally different feeling to be up close and personal with your enemy, watching the blood pour out of their body. I've never had someone else's blood on my body. I've heard it's pretty traumatizing.

Captain Fantastic wrote:I know OP is basically decided on buying a gun, but there are other options. Collapsible Batons are getting pretty advanced, and can be had on the cheap. Black Jacks, Tazers, Mace and Titanium Bats can all be bought at major sporting goods stores.

Obviously, a knife could protect you, but only if you know what you're doing, and don't mind getting cut up, or the possibility of it being turned on you. I don't know. I'm stuck on knives. It's probably a totally different feeling to be up close and personal with your enemy, watching the blood pour out of their body. I've never had someone else's blood on my body. I've heard it's pretty traumatizing.

If you're going to use a weapon, use the most efficient one: the firearm. A baton will just get you shot.

Knives are a terrible idea, generally. Unless you know exactly what you're doing, and I mean formal combat training, then you're basically going to be in for an ugly, nasty, bloody dogfight. If there is any way to avoid getting up close enough to use knives, then use that method, please. A knife fight should be the last thing anyone wants to get involved in.

I saw or read somewhere that one way to see what a knife fight would be like and how badly you will get jacked up, is to:

1. Get a friend who has anger issues
2. Give friend a Giant marker, the ones with a giant chisel tip.
3. Get yourself another marker thats the same size, but make it a different color.
4. Put on a white shirt.
5. Have your friend attack you with his marker and you fend him off with yours.

Any mark on your clothing indicates a spot you were cut, any marks on arms or neck could be a show stopper, dropped knife or cut artery..

Dunno where I saw that at but its an interesting idea, and actually sounds like a bit of fun on a boring afternoon.

But none of that really matters if they shoot you, a la Indiana Jones style.

Anyway I would give that a shot if you wanted to see what knife fighting is all about on a level that you could reasonably expect to face in the event of a robbery.

IronWarLeg wrote:I saw or read somewhere that one way to see what a knife fight would be like and how badly you will get jacked up, is to:

1. Get a friend who has anger issues
2. Give friend a Giant marker, the ones with a giant chisel tip.
3. Get yourself another marker thats the same size, but make it a different color.
4. Put on a white shirt.
5. Have your friend attack you with his marker and you fend him off with yours.

Any mark on your clothing indicates a spot you were cut, any marks on arms or neck could be a show stopper, dropped knife or cut artery..

Dunno where I saw that at but its an interesting idea, and actually sounds like a bit of fun on a boring afternoon.

But none of that really matters if they shoot you, a la Indiana Jones style.

Anyway I would give that a shot if you wanted to see what knife fighting is all about on a level that you could reasonably expect to face in the event of a robbery.

This is a great idea to get a sense of how crummy the experience might be. A slightly more realistic option is to buy a couple rubber training knives and put some red lipstick on their edges. Neither capture the arterial-spray goodness or the glorious tendon-cutting action, but it'll give you a general idea.

Yep first rule of a knife fight is you're going to get cut, probably a lot if it lasts for more then a couple seconds and it shouldn't if you're any good, and if you're not then you'll be dead and it will cease to be a concern of yours. Every combat engagement where weapons are involved is to the death, thinking of it in any other way will earn you a nice piece of real estate with a rock over it.

Here's a fun little chart.



Notice how most of that is in SECONDS. This chart doesn't have the femoral artery which I believe is in the very low seconds as well. (I recall hearing three seconds till you pass out, and death in six, but don't quote me on it)

I concur with IronWar and Azazel for any one curious about fighting with knives. I've used both methods and they work just fine for letting you know just how quickly you'd die in a knife fight. The markers and white T-shirts are a lot cheaper then training knives and lip stick though if you're on a budget.

Fun thought, in the bad old days of martial arts in the 30s and 40s death matches did occur, sometimes with short sticks, ye olde equivalent to a telescopic baton. Average time for match? Seconds again, they were over in two blows and who ever landed the first blow would land the second and final. Disabler. Death blow.

I'm not a bad hand in a fight, but I'll stick to my pistol. Better to both outsmart AND out gun one's opponent.

 Kaldor wrote:
Hi. Former cop here.

A firearm for self/home defense is wasted money. The chances of someone breaking into your home are tiny. Truly tiny. And the overwhelming majority of criminals who attempt to break into your home will flee when confronted. A simple "Hey, get the hell outta here, I'm calling the cops!" is enough to send them running.

Further, it's dangerous. A firearm for home defense needs to be loaded, or able to be very quickly loaded, and it needs to be very quickly accessible. Which means the wrong people can access it. Oh, but you'd never let the wrong people in your home, right? Everyone has high-level training and would never do anything silly?

Wrong. Tradespeople, other peoples kids, friends and relatives will be in the house. Even the people you've trained and who would never do anything silly with that firearm will eventually do something silly with that firearm.

At the end of the day, you're taking a significant risk to combat an insignificant threat, and that's just not clever. But, it's wired into the reptilian part of our brain to protect our territory and defend our tribe, so the sentiment to have a gun in the house is a lot stronger than the desire to, say, get your electrical wiring checked over and change the batteries in your smoke alarm, which on the balance of probabilities are far more likely to save your lives and property than a gun is.

Thanks Kaldor.

AustonT/azazel the cat: did you read this? just making sure you are capable of eating humble pie.

As said, his PoV as a Cop is highly prejudiced as he is from a place where Guns are treated as insanely taboo. The root of all evil.

Plus its it the interest of Cops and Government for the citizens to not be armed.

 Rimmy wrote:
Thanks Kaldor.

AustonT/azazel the cat: did you read this? just making sure you are capable of eating humble pie.

That's not really constructive to the conversation at hand :-/

Like everyone else that starts one of these threads, it always goes back to what you feel comfortable with. I'm comfortable with my former housemate's .22lr pistol, and I have slept with it next to my head with the thought that our house might be attacked, my housemate was fooling around with a girl who said her baby daddy was out of the picture, turns out he wasn't and was fething ticked, so for a solid week we slept with various handguns within arms reach and magazines next to them should ish go down. I have since moved out since I couldn't afford loans and rent, and I have a Mosin in my basement, I live in the attic. I don't feel comfortable with that because it's too dang big for our house, and we have an alarm system (that I have set off, so I know it works ). Not to mention that unless you're holding a gun that says Replica and the guy breaking into your house is holding a Desert Eagle point five o, then simply brandishing a gun goes a long way too... Would I shoot someone if it came down to it? I don't know, but would I have the muscle memory to pop a few .22 shots into his chest? Yes, and when you need to react on instinct muscle memory goes a long way.

Much like you have said AustonT and others words won't go to change your opinion on not using a gun against an intruder, OP has stated he is looking to buy a gun, so instead of saying, OP you're putting everyone in danger by buying a gun, be constructive and say, while I don't think you should buy a gun, if you are dead set on this, look at x, y, and z, for these reasons...

Just my 2 cents..

 Rimmy wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Hi. Former cop here.

A firearm for self/home defense is wasted money. The chances of someone breaking into your home are tiny. Truly tiny. And the overwhelming majority of criminals who attempt to break into your home will flee when confronted. A simple "Hey, get the hell outta here, I'm calling the cops!" is enough to send them running.

Further, it's dangerous. A firearm for home defense needs to be loaded, or able to be very quickly loaded, and it needs to be very quickly accessible. Which means the wrong people can access it. Oh, but you'd never let the wrong people in your home, right? Everyone has high-level training and would never do anything silly?

Wrong. Tradespeople, other peoples kids, friends and relatives will be in the house. Even the people you've trained and who would never do anything silly with that firearm will eventually do something silly with that firearm.

At the end of the day, you're taking a significant risk to combat an insignificant threat, and that's just not clever. But, it's wired into the reptilian part of our brain to protect our territory and defend our tribe, so the sentiment to have a gun in the house is a lot stronger than the desire to, say, get your electrical wiring checked over and change the batteries in your smoke alarm, which on the balance of probabilities are far more likely to save your lives and property than a gun is.

Thanks Kaldor.

I'm drowning thanks for throwing me this anchor

If you'd like to subscribe the the fantasy that the chances of someone breaking into your home are tiny, sure. I mean only one out of every five homes are broken into; what are the odds right?
About 1 in 5. I know, numbers right? I've already come to terms with the very real possibility that you won't be able to absorb this information as with previous posts involving numbers. Maybe you can ask your new friend what the effective range of his service weapon was. Oh but let's not dig open old wounds with obvious and readily obtainable answers. Lets talk about the miniscule chance (20% per annum) that your home would be broken into. I mean everybody runs away right? All you have to do is yell "oi, get out!" and they scurry off into the wild. That must be why 38% of all assaults and 60% of rapes occur in home invasions.
If only someone collected data on these kinds of events (the FBI) and they were compiled into some sort of easy to understand graphic by an organization not touting the values of gun ownership. Oh, right.

Awkward, right?
But you might ask yourself.

 Kaldor wrote:

What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications?

Well, you for one, as you've already mentioned ITT. Let's put aside the fact that whilst digging this hole to China you've demonstrated all of the actions Kaldor stands against. Let's just focus on the fact that Kaldor is making statements that simply don't hold up to the facts.

 Kaldor wrote:
Most rapists are friends or family of the victim, not strangers attacking them at night.

If perchance you widened your net to sexual assault then he'd be right but there's those silly data sets again that report that 38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance and 7% are a relative. I'm sure those idiots at the US Department of Justice just make up these numbers anyway. If they did at least you'd have something in common with them.
Nom nom, delicious pie. I'm not sure its humble though. Cherry?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it particularly fair that I used Kaldor's previous anti gun arguments: not particularly. But it serves as a reminder this isn't the first time Kal has walked down this trail.

right so the propoganda and fear mongering you're spreading from the FBI are magically better than the DoJ numbers I pointed out to you earlier, where they define the number of robberies and associated crimes across the last year and submit that there are approx 550,000 of them per year. given the population and statistics, its a 14% chance your home will be a victim, a ~4% chance you personally will.

so you CAN read. you just choose to read arguments that support your Rambo experience instead of trusting the men and women that do this as a profession.

Since we like big fancy photo's: I took the liberty of highlighting the violent victimization chart in the results page, by household location. you can determine where you stand based on this data. 27,000 cases in the western REGION of the US for suburban areas (where I live) (granted all of this data applies only to the US)

given my odd's, I think i'm fine. make your own decision.

but asking the LEO's in my neck of the woods, its generally accepted to be bad practice to buy a gun with the sole intent of home defense.

but thats ok, you'll have another bogus reason to support your flawed logic like fear mongering and other propoganda to entice the sheeple to buy guns.

HAHAHAHAHA I just noticed your so called "FBI" poster was made by the Homeowners Insurance group. (bottom right) nice. yea cuz they're TOTALLY looking after YOU right?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know, a buddy of mine just said to me. that lowering myself to your level at this point is stupid. he's right. I might as well be arguing with a stone wall.

Do your thing. I'll be removing myself from this thread.

 Rimmy wrote:
right so the propoganda and fear mongering you're spreading from the FBI are magically better than the DoJ numbers I pointed out to you earlier, where they define the number of robberies and associated crimes across the last year and submit that there are approx 550,000 of them per year. given the population and statistics, its a 14% chance your home will be a victim, a ~4% chance you personally will.

It's almost as if the FBI is PART of the DOJ /shock. It's also almost as if "home invasion" and "robbery" were different crimes. Oh righto, they are.

HAHAHAHAHA I just noticed your so called "FBI" poster was made by the Homeowners Insurance group. (bottom right) nice. yea cuz they're TOTALLY looking after YOU right?

Yeah those silly feths, using DOJ statistics that you value so dearly and making them into pretty pictures. One might ask themselves if much has changed since 2000 when that graphic was cobbled together.

Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey: Victimization During Household Burglary wrote:
Violence during household burglaries remained stable from 2000 to 2007. The percentage of these burglaries that included violence remained stable between 2000 (6.3%) and 2005 (5.7%). Between 2005 and 2007, however, there is some indication of an increase in the percentage of violent burglaries from 5.7% to 7.7%.

Oh so what you are saying is nothing has changed?

Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey: Victimization During Household Burglary wrote: That's exactly right AustonT, instead of posting nebulous links and saying, "here this proves my point stupids!" it helps to read what the data actually indicates.

You know, a buddy of mine just said to me. that lowering myself to your level at this point is stupid. he's right. I might as well be arguing with a stone wall.

Do your thing. I'll be removing myself from this thread.

I know right? It's almost like when you make gak up and someone (or you know, a whole grip of people) calls you out on it, you should stop.
Hey make sure that friend puts an extra layer of duct tape on that back trauma plate, could be a rough day out in the mall.

IronWarLeg wrote:
I saw or read somewhere that one way to see what a knife fight would be like and how badly you will get jacked up, is to:

1. Get a friend who has anger issues
2. Give friend a Giant marker, the ones with a giant chisel tip.
3. Get yourself another marker thats the same size, but make it a different color.
4. Put on a white shirt.
5. Have your friend attack you with his marker and you fend him off with yours.

Any mark on your clothing indicates a spot you were cut, any marks on arms or neck could be a show stopper, dropped knife or cut artery..

Dunno where I saw that at but its an interesting idea, and actually sounds like a bit of fun on a boring afternoon.

But none of that really matters if they shoot you, a la Indiana Jones style.

Anyway I would give that a shot if you wanted to see what knife fighting is all about on a level that you could reasonably expect to face in the event of a robbery.

This really won't help. Given what I know about stress, my personal fighting experience and jujitsu knowledge you aren't learning anything to help you. The way I've learned to disarm someone with a knife, they have to stab at you first and you have to catch them in the act of stabbing at you. The best solution is to not get there in the first place and give them what they want. The way to disarm a gun is to basically be in a stick up situation with the gun inches from you and pray you're fast enough. Again best solution is give them what they want.

Rimmy, not to go off topic, but... you're not allowed to host non-wargaming images to dakka...

And this thread WAS doing a lot for those of us that would like to own a gun for personal reasons, including target practice and home defense, and was providing good information both factual and anecdotal...

Please don't ruin this thread with this gak-storm that is brewing. If you don't like the idea of someone defending their home with a gun, come in, say your peace and then leave. This is reaching dangerous levels of dickery...

 Surtur wrote:

IronWarLeg wrote:
I saw or read somewhere that one way to see what a knife fight would be like and how badly you will get jacked up, is to:

1. Get a friend who has anger issues
2. Give friend a Giant marker, the ones with a giant chisel tip.
3. Get yourself another marker thats the same size, but make it a different color.
4. Put on a white shirt.
5. Have your friend attack you with his marker and you fend him off with yours.

Any mark on your clothing indicates a spot you were cut, any marks on arms or neck could be a show stopper, dropped knife or cut artery..

Dunno where I saw that at but its an interesting idea, and actually sounds like a bit of fun on a boring afternoon.

But none of that really matters if they shoot you, a la Indiana Jones style.

Anyway I would give that a shot if you wanted to see what knife fighting is all about on a level that you could reasonably expect to face in the event of a robbery.

This really won't help. Given what I know about stress, my personal fighting experience and jujitsu knowledge you aren't learning anything to help you. The way I've learned to disarm someone with a knife, they have to stab at you first and you have to catch them in the act of stabbing at you. The best solution is to not get there in the first place and give them what they want. The way to disarm a gun is to basically be in a stick up situation with the gun inches from you and pray you're fast enough. Again best solution is give them what they want.

Iron was suggesting this as a method to see just how screwed you are in a knife fight, not learn how to disarm a knife.

Right, my post was geared more towards those that feel a knife is a good self defense option over a gun, it demonstrates more of what would happen should you go heads up with a knife against someone else with a knife, as opposed to having a gun. Most will not know how to disarm another person with a knife and, if it came to it, go slashy stabby time in a manner completely bereft of professionalism.

That is more what my post was about