Weapon for home defense

Martial Tucker

Black Belt
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
618
Reaction score
14
Location
Sweet Home, Chicago
andy said:
anything to keep guns out of the hands of 'civilians' right martial tucker?

sometimes lethal force is necessary--sad but true
No, that's not what I said, or what I meant. If I lived alone, I would have a handgun. My wife is afraid of them, so she wouldn't use one if there was one in the house anyway. I also have kids. That mandates a locked gun. A locked gun is of little use if I wake up in the middle of the night and there's someone in my bedroom. I was just offering a reasonably effective alternative for people who for whatever reason don't want a firearm in the house. Philosophically, I am absolutely fine with civilians owning firearms, as long as they are trained for safety.

And, I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with the concept of lethal force.

Please don't imply an agenda where there is none.
 

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
143
Location
Springfield, Missouri
OULobo said:
There is also a reason they don't use them in the military as a sidearm anymore (low capacity, underpenetration).
They don't issue them as the standard sidearm anymore. However, the 1911 is still the weapon of choice for many of the "high-speed" guys (Delta, Marine-recon, Special-forces, etc.). In fact, I remember reading a while back that the Marine Corps contracted Kimber to provide them with several thousand 1911's.


As far as the shotgun vs. handgun thing...any of them will go through the average wall, it's the responsibility of the owner to be proficient with whatever weapon you choose so that you don't kill your next-door neighbors.
 

andy

Green Belt
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
109
Reaction score
8
Location
texas
martial tucker,
I did not mean to cause offense, it was alittle off the cuff and perhaps a poorly thought out joke. you have my apology
 

Jerry

Blue Belt
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
226
Reaction score
14
Of course, the main benefit is that it is non-lethal in the event of an accident, or case of mistaken identity.
This sort of begs the question as to why this more powerful variant is not in use to stop people? Standard pepper-spray is not terribly effective against a determined aggressor.
 

Martial Tucker

Black Belt
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
618
Reaction score
14
Location
Sweet Home, Chicago
andy said:
martial tucker,
I did not mean to cause offense, it was alittle off the cuff and perhaps a poorly thought out joke. you have my apology
No problem, Andy. We all say things now and then that don't come out quite the way we meant.
Your comment obviously hit a nerve with me because I do
very much believe in civilians right to bear arms, and I think the laws these days favor the criminal way too much, so I didn't want my comments misconstrued as anti-firearm.

Anyway, thanks for the note, and have a great day!
 

Martial Tucker

Black Belt
Joined
May 31, 2004
Messages
618
Reaction score
14
Location
Sweet Home, Chicago
Jerry said:
This sort of begs the question as to why this more powerful variant is not in use to stop people? Standard pepper-spray is not terribly effective against a determined aggressor.
I honestly don't know. I'm not a LEO or a lawyer, but I' guessing that because the stuff is strong enough to incapacitate a human for several days, it's probably been deemed to be too strong for police to use. I would rather be "tasered" than sprayed with this stuff. The recovery is MUCH quicker with the Taser.

I'm pretty sure that
it is illegal to carry on your person for "human defense", even in states where pepper spray is allowed. Of course, in a home invasion, anything goes (at least in my house). The stuff is a bit expensive (about $40/bottle), and the standard container size is a bit large for carrying onthe street, but they actually make "quick draw holsters" for this stuff in "bear country" outfitters.
Besides the strength of the "heat", the other value of the container is the range and "pattern" of the spray itself. I maintain that in a stressful situation, and at relatively short range 5-20 feet, it is easier for a typical civilian to hit a target effectively with the spray than with a handgun, and quicker than a shotgun. Certainly not as "final" as the effect of the firearm, but pretty darn effective, and, as was my point originally, "reversible" if a mistake is made.

However, if you're trained and comfortable with a firearm, I'm all for it....
 

Latest Discussions

Top