Lady faced 14 year jail sentence in Australia for having pepper spray.

[pdg]

@Anarax

I think if you're wanting to use a handgun for effective self defence it has to be under the same process as a martial art - ongoing and expanding.

My point about the police having their weapons turned on them was that while it's a tiny percentage, it can happen to people who are trained in and used to violent altercations. The chances must be much higher for an inexperienced person with limited training.

It looks a bit like you're saying a short term firearms course prepares you sufficiently - if so, I entirely disagree. Compare to a 'normal' self defence course, whatever those ads say you can't learn to "end any fight in 3-5 seconds" by doing a weekend course, but at least a misplaced punch isn't going to be taken away from you and used against you...

And yes, there should be more to firearms training than shooting a paper target - real life situations are orders of magnitude more difficult. Being able to hit anything in a stress situation with a snub nose handgun? One shot one kill is highly unlikely even if you're quite well trained, even five shots one stop is probably pushing it when the gun toting self defending teen is under pressure in the dark.

 

[Anarax]

I think if you're wanting to use a handgun for effective self defence it has to be under the same process as a martial art - ongoing and expanding.

That's what I'm saying, firearms training is more complex than what most people think.

My point about the police having their weapons turned on them was that while it's a tiny percentage, it can happen to people who are trained in and used to violent altercations.

I understand, my point was don't only look to the worst examples.

The chances must be much higher for an inexperienced person with limited training.

The limitation is solely on the individual. There are varying courses that cover different concepts of firearms. The limitation is only on how much training the individual wants.

It looks a bit like you're saying a short term firearms course prepares you sufficiently

No, I'm saying the opposite. Firearms training is more involved than most people think. There are many different types of firearms courses that cover an entire spectrum of concepts, techniques and scenarios.

Being able to hit anything in a stress situation with a snub nose handgun? One shot one kill is highly unlikely even if you're quite well trained, even five shots one stop is probably pushing it when the gun toting self defending teen is under pressure in the dark.

All of that has to do with the firearm being used and the training of the individual. FYI, "One Shot One Kill" is part of the Marine Corps Sniper motto.

 

[pdg]

That's what I'm saying, firearms training is more complex than what most people think.


I understand, my point was don't only look to the worst examples.


The limitation is solely on the individual. There are varying courses that cover different concepts of firearms. The limitation is only on how much training the individual wants.


No, I'm saying the opposite. Firearms training is more involved than most people think. There are many different types of firearms courses that cover an entire spectrum of concepts, techniques and scenarios.


All of that has to do with the firearm being used and the training of the individual. FYI, "One Shot One Kill" is part of the Marine Corps Sniper motto.

From that post it seems like we're almost on the same page with the majority of it - that in the right hands a gun is a very effective self defence tool.

Your initial posts read as if your suggestion was something along the lines of putting a gun into every college girl's bag...

Would you agree though that in the wrong hands (i.e. under trained and under prepared) it's just as likely to be a liability?

My use of "one shot one kill" was because quite a large number of people think being shot means dying - the fact it's part of the sniper ethos just reinforces the point that it's extremely hard to achieve.

 

[Anarax]

Your initial posts read as if your suggestion was something along the lines of putting a gun into every college girl's bag

No, I didn't come up with that scenario, but I don't disagree with it. If the college girl wants to lawfully carry a gun that's her decision. However; I want her to get the proper training so she can use it safely and effectively.

Would you agree though that in the wrong hands (i.e. under trained and under prepared) it's just as likely to be a liability?

Anyone who feels safe because they carry a weapon that they're not proficient with has a false sense of security. When one is well trained in anything(martial arts, knives, firearms), they're a danger to their attacker. When someone is untrained in any weaponry they carry, they're a danger to everyone else including themselves.

My use of "one shot one kill" was because quite a large number of people think being shot means dying - the fact it's part of the sniper ethos just reinforces the point that it's extremely hard to achieve.

My point was anyone(concealed carriers, Police, Security) that has an understanding of firearms knows that the one shot one kill mentality rarely applies to pistols. I wanted you to know where the motto came from as well.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@Anarax

I think if you're wanting to use a handgun for effective self defence it has to be under the same process as a martial art - ongoing and expanding.

My point about the police having their weapons turned on them was that while it's a tiny percentage, it can happen to people who are trained in and used to violent altercations. The chances must be much higher for an inexperienced person with limited training.

It looks a bit like you're saying a short term firearms course prepares you sufficiently - if so, I entirely disagree. Compare to a 'normal' self defence course, whatever those ads say you can't learn to "end any fight in 3-5 seconds" by doing a weekend course, but at least a misplaced punch isn't going to be taken away from you and used against you...

And yes, there should be more to firearms training than shooting a paper target - real life situations are orders of magnitude more difficult. Being able to hit anything in a stress situation with a snub nose handgun? One shot one kill is highly unlikely even if you're quite well trained, even five shots one stop is probably pushing it when the gun toting self defending teen is under pressure in the dark.

In your prior post, you set up worst case scenarios and predictable mistakes.In some of them (being grabbed and carried off with arms pinned), while the gun didn't help, it also didn't hurt, so the issue is the scenario not the weapon.

You're operating on suppositions about the incidence of guns being taken away. I don't recall any specific statistics, but I seem to recall that being actually pretty rare. There's a couple of differences in the situation between cops and civilians. Firstly, the cops aren't usually trying to leave, so can easily get caught up in stuff I'd bug out on. Secondly, their weapon is obvious and known. Grappling for that weapon can (and sometimes does) start before the weapon is even drawn. That's unlikely with a concealed weapon.

Like any physical skill, retaining a weapon and using it in complex situations will require more training. Deploying it takes less training. Deploying and firing, not much more than just deploying. Actually hitting a target under stress requires a good bit more, but there's pretty good evidence that hitting a target isn't often a deciding factor in ending a threat when a gun is presented (others here can cite the statistics on that, but in the majority of cases firing the gun isn't even necessary).

 

[jobo]

It's illegal here too.

In fact, if it can be shown that you're carrying anything (say a pen, or a credit card) with the intent to use it as a weapon, then it's classed as an illegal weapon.

if here is the UK, then yes your are quite correct, a spray is classed as a,fire arm, and owning one is ( i think) a,ten year max sentence, the difference with other weapons being ,that having it in a,draw at home will still get you convicted, where as most,weapons ( except fire arms and flame throwers etc)can be owned but not carried in public with out a dam good excuse.

there are sprays for dog attacks, that however, for reasons I'm not completely sure of, drop out of the fire arms classification that can be carried.as long load your not " intending" to use it on anything but an attacking dog

nb a pen isn't classified as an illegal,weapon, just a,weapon, all weapons,are illegal

 

[pdg]

I wanted you to know where the motto came from as well

I already knew they used it, but I don't think they invented it.

you set up worst case scenarios and predictable mistakes

Well, here's another (mis)quote - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

If you don't train with the mindset of "everything could go wrong" then really you might as well work on your qi ball

if here is the UK, then yes your are quite correct, a spray is classed as a,fire arm, and owning one is ( i think) a,ten year max sentence, the difference with other weapons being ,that having it in a,draw at home will still get you convicted, where as most,weapons ( except fire arms and flame throwers etc)can be owned but not carried in public with out a dam good excuse

Yes, here is the UK.

I don't think there is a minimum or maximum sentence - I might be wrong but I believe it's subject to context (if it looks like it's been sat in a drawer for 10 years you're unlikely to face the same penalty as if it's in your pocket). Unlicensed firearms, quite a few categories of bladed weapon - different matter.

I badly phrased "illegal weapon", I should have said something more like "illegal item". Again depending on context, absolutely anything could be legally construed as a weapon and lead to prosecution.

Anything over and above saying "please don't hurt me" in self defence is theoretically illegal anyway - and that extends to animals as well... For example, if someone comes into my garden and kicks my dog then gets bitten, my dog gets the death penalty and I get prosecuted for not keeping it under control (under the latest amendments to the dangerous dogs act.)

 

[jobo]

I already knew they used it, but I don't think they invented it.



Well, here's another (mis)quote - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

If you don't train with the mindset of "everything could go wrong" then really you might as well work on your qi ball



Yes, here is the UK.

I don't think there is a minimum or maximum sentence - I might be wrong but I believe it's subject to context (if it looks like it's been sat in a drawer for 10 years you're unlikely to face the same penalty as if it's in your pocket). Unlicensed firearms, quite a few categories of bladed weapon - different matter.

I badly phrased "illegal weapon", I should have said something more like "illegal item". Again depending on context, absolutely anything could be legally construed as a weapon and lead to prosecution.

Anything over and above saying "please don't hurt me" in self defence is theoretically illegal anyway - and that extends to animals as well... For example, if someone comes into my garden and kicks my dog then gets bitten, my dog gets the death penalty and I get prosecuted for not keeping it under control (under the latest amendments to the dangerous dogs act.)

it is an unlicenced fire arm.

no your completely misunderstanding your rights to self defence, you can use the force that is reasonable to protect yourself, your family, members if the public and your propery including your dog, including using your dog as a,weapon to defend your propery including your,dog

if it decided to eat a,12 yo that's come to get his ball back you have problems

 

[jobo]

I already knew they used it, but I don't think they invented it.



Well, here's another (mis)quote - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

If you don't train with the mindset of "everything could go wrong" then really you might as well work on your qi ball



Yes, here is the UK.

I don't think there is a minimum or maximum sentence - I might be wrong but I believe it's subject to context (if it looks like it's been sat in a drawer for 10 years you're unlikely to face the same penalty as if it's in your pocket). Unlicensed firearms, quite a few categories of bladed weapon - different matter.

I badly phrased "illegal weapon", I should have said something more like "illegal item". Again depending on context, absolutely anything could be legally construed as a weapon and lead to prosecution.

Anything over and above saying "please don't hurt me" in self defence is theoretically illegal anyway - and that extends to animals as well... For example, if someone comes into my garden and kicks my dog then gets bitten, my dog gets the death penalty and I get prosecuted for not keeping it under control (under the latest amendments to the dangerous dogs act.)

your also miss understanding the weapons thing, anything that is obviously a,weapon is,illegal anything that has been modified to make it more,dangerous is illegal.

anything that is carried with the intent of being used as a,weapon is illegal, however you can carry absolutely anything not included above, and the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable,doubt what your intention was in carrying it. That is more or less impossible unless you admit it or you have been waving it about threatening people, I've had this debate with the police over pool cues and baseball bats,amongst other things

 

[pdg]

Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.

If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.

The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...

 

[jobo]

Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.

If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.

The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...

no that's just not true, reasonable force is a,stone wall defence to any any charge. And is a well established right.

further the force has only to be reasonable in regard to what you believed the threat was, ,not what it,actually was, so its,a personal judgement

 

[Tez3]

Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.

If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.

The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...

yes reasonable force is allowed even with a weapon.

Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service
Look up 'Reasonable Force'

 

[pdg]

I have looked up reasonable force, and it's very fluid. What I might deem reasonable in some circumstances could lead to me being prosecuted if someone else "with more power" decides it was excessive.

I like outlandish hypothetical situations, so here's another:

I'm in my kitchen making a cup of tea, a person with a knife comes in the front door so I react by throwing the kettle of boiling water at them, which slows them down enough for me to hit them over the head with a chair and they die.

Given there's a door to the garden 5 feet away from me, at what point does my use of force become unreasonable?

I could have avoided the entire situation by locking the front door, so any of it is unreasonable because I didn't take adequate precautions. But I left it unlocked because my wife is due home any minute with the kids so would it be unreasonable to want to dispose of the threat entirely before they get home instead of running away and potentially leaving that situation for them to walk into? Or is it still excessive given they weren't in imminent danger and I could possibly have run away and intercepted my family before they walked in?

It's far from black and white and given that any of my hypothetical actions could be construed as excessive I stand by my interpretation that any force in self defence is illegal (but may or may not be prosecuted).

 

[Tez3]

I have looked up reasonable force, and it's very fluid. What I might deem reasonable in some circumstances could lead to me being prosecuted if someone else "with more power" decides it was excessive.

I like outlandish hypothetical situations, so here's another:

I'm in my kitchen making a cup of tea, a person with a knife comes in the front door so I react by throwing the kettle of boiling water at them, which slows them down enough for me to hit them over the head with a chair and they die.

Given there's a door to the garden 5 feet away from me, at what point does my use of force become unreasonable?

I could have avoided the entire situation by locking the front door, so any of it is unreasonable because I didn't take adequate precautions. But I left it unlocked because my wife is due home any minute with the kids so would it be unreasonable to want to dispose of the threat entirely before they get home instead of running away and potentially leaving that situation for them to walk into? Or is it still excessive given they weren't in imminent danger and I could possibly have run away and intercepted my family before they walked in?

It's far from black and white and given that any of my hypothetical actions could be construed as excessive I stand by my interpretation that any force in self defence is illegal (but may or may not be prosecuted).

Do you suffer from anxiety? You are really overthinking things a lot here. The fact that someone walks into your house armed with a knife means you are in the right to do whatever you have to at the time to defend yourself. The test for reasonable defence is what you thought to be reasonable at the time even in the cold light of day it may not seem like it to someone who wasn't there and the legal ruling goes with that. You may think it's not clear but it is.

What wouldn't be reasonable is you throwing the kettle at him, him running out of the house with you chasing him up the street and beating the hell out of him.

 

[Headhunter]

Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.

If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.

The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...

Rubbish

 

[pdg]

Rubbish

Well, as you make such a well thought out and eloquently worded response to my ideas I feel I have no place to make a reasoned argument.

Now that every one of my points has been proved wrong with your single post I shall bow out of the discussion.

 

[Headhunter]

Well, as you make such a well thought out and eloquently worded response to my ideas I feel I have no place to make a reasoned argument.

Now that every one of my points has been proved wrong with your single post I shall bow out of the discussion.

There's nothing to say. You're talking rubbish plain and simple.

 

[jobo]

I have looked up reasonable force, and it's very fluid. What I might deem reasonable in some circumstances could lead to me being prosecuted if someone else "with more power" decides it was excessive.

I like outlandish hypothetical situations, so here's another:

I'm in my kitchen making a cup of tea, a person with a knife comes in the front door so I react by throwing the kettle of boiling water at them, which slows them down enough for me to hit them over the head with a chair and they die.

Given there's a door to the garden 5 feet away from me, at what point does my use of force become unreasonable?

I could have avoided the entire situation by locking the front door, so any of it is unreasonable because I didn't take adequate precautions. But I left it unlocked because my wife is due home any minute with the kids so would it be unreasonable to want to dispose of the threat entirely before they get home instead of running away and potentially leaving that situation for them to walk into? Or is it still excessive given they weren't in imminent danger and I could possibly have run away and intercepted my family before they walked in?

It's far from black and white and given that any of my hypothetical actions could be construed as excessive I stand by my interpretation that any force in self defence is illegal (but may or may not be prosecuted).

yes there are shades of grey,but that situation isn't one of them, there no requirement to take precautions to prevent an attack, you don't need to run away and you don't need to wait for them to attack you, nor do you need a wife and kids to defend yourself,

throwing the water is fine, as is, hitting them over the head if you still believe them a threat, hitting them repeatedly after they have past out might be a problem.

someone has obviously given you some very dodgy advice

 

[CB Jones]

And what's the chances she'd actually get to it in an abduction scenario anyway?

More likely the attacker would have a victim and a bonus free gun.

Depends on her.

I know of a female that was abducted from a gas station.....at a stop sign she was able to draw her handgun, shoot her abductor in the leg, jump out of the car, and escape. Who knows what would have happened had she not been armed.

Whereas, one of my wife's friend from highschool(who was unarmed) was abducted twenty years ago, raped, murdered, and body dumped in the woods....who knows what would have happened had she been armed.

My first homicide investigation as the primary case agent was a home invasion in which an elderly unarmed female was beaten to death...again who knows what would have happened had she been armed.

When I was a teenager I had a cousin who was home with her 6 month old son....a man broke into her home by breaking a window and climbing through. The man was between my cousin (who was in the front of the house) and her sleeping baby (in the baby's room). Being armed, she was able to shoot the intruder, get to her baby, then flee the house. The intruder fled to the bathroom, locked himself in the bathroom, and bled out. Again who knows what would have happened had she not been armed.



With 18 years experience in L.E., of which 6 years was as a violent crime detective, and the last 7 years as a narcotics agent, I very much advocate having and carrying firearms/weapons. Better to have and never need it than need it and never had it.

Baton Rouge police: Man shot, killed by homeowner after entering home on Canyonland Drive

Armed Robber shot by store Clerks----

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

"We rely upon the good will of our fellow man and the forbearance of reptiles.".....is not a great strategy, IMHO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, here's another (mis)quote - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

If you don't train with the mindset of "everything could go wrong" then really you might as well work on your qi ball

If you assume everything will go wrong, no training is effective. We can't evaluate options against the worst possible scenarios. If someone has me on the ground with a gun to my chest and a knife at my throat, with five of his most deadly friends standing around, I'm screwed. That's an absurd situation, but not much more so than saying a gun is useless if someone is grabbed with their arms pinned and carried off by a much larger attacker. Once you get to that point, so very much has gone wrong that not much is likely to save you.