the most basic and brutal physical security - home defense gun discussion

[renderman]

A quick google turned up http://www.enershield.com/03_security/03_security.htm for the sort of stuff I've got around (not on all windows yet as it's not cheap, and the big ass window at the front is a custom batch if I want it done)

Poke around locksmiths (I know you already do) and glaziers stores. They usually have something available. It's usually not 100% clear, but enough so that you won't notice it, or if your like me and have drapes closed all the time, you won't know the difference.

[TheCotMan]

Reminder:
Choice of Ammo, penetration power of rounds with materials, selection of weapons, technical aspects of weapons, and physical security are fine, but don't let this wander into the politics of what people should do with respect to government, or laws being right or wrong, civil liberties, and human rights.

Be careful with topics of purpose beyond personal physical security. (Like those related to government.)

Frankenstein voice... Grrnnmmrrrr.... Politicis Bad! Grrnngrrrrrrrr!

(This general reply is not to anyone in particular.)

Thanks!

[Deviant Ollam]

what people should do with respect to government, or laws being right or wrong

those sorts of topics are overtly political and i can see people shying away from them.

civil liberties, and human rights.

these matters, on the other hand, do not deal with the specific social science of "politics" but are instead discussions of "liberty"... how individuals have powers and rights to make endeavors of security (and a whole host of other things, really) as they best see fit.

while debates about the ways in which governments behave (or should behave) are debates about politics, discussions about how individuals live are discussions of liberty.

i suppose i'm splitting hairs between stepping carefully vs. walking on eggshells. just keeping it all in perspective whilst i keep my head down and my rhetoric soft.

i appreciate the reminder, of course. i'm often the first to stray onto the knobbly edge of the discourse platform and don't want to carelessly topple down on to the polemic tracks below, where i might touch the dangerous rail of left/right debate and get electrocuted by the mods. (remember boys and girls, i'm a well-versed crafter of the english language... do not attempt these flowery and verbose analogies at home)

[AlxRogan]

i've heard of people who load #2 or #4 buckshot for home defense, and even knew someone who used heavy birdshot because he feared overpenetration in a home with children. he said that he recognized how his ability to really penetrate a target was diminished, but he was willing to "keep on firing birdshot until they got the point" rather than worry about 25% of his pellets going through a wall unpredictably.

A law enforcement friend of mine and I built a crude target on his parents property one summer. We had just both got our new pistols and his new shotgun. We built a target out of 2x4's put together in a flat panel front and back, lined in heavy plastic, filled with sand about 6 inches in depth. We stood it up on some posts and let fly. Don't underestimate bird shot...#6 at 10 feet from a Remington 870 demolished a circle out of the middle of the target. There was sand running out in decent lines out of the center of that circle. The buckshot definitely left bigger holes in the wood, but the sheer volume of pellets and devestation from the #6 shot was amazing.

[Deviant Ollam]

the AP is carrying a story about the passage of new laws to remove penalties for responding to a threat with deadly force.

States signing onto NRA-backed law to expand use of deadly force

Supporters have dubbed the new measures "stand your ground" laws, while critics offered nicknames like the "shoot first," "shoot the Avon lady" or "right to commit murder" laws. At its core, they broaden self-defense by removing the requirement in most states that a person who is attacked has a "duty to retreat" before turning to deadly force. Many of the laws specify that people can use deadly force if they believe they are in danger in any place they have a legal right to be - a parking lot, a street, a bar, a church. They also give immunity from criminal charges and civil liability.

many of those speaking out against this are government officials (which i understand) and police officers (which i do not... can anyone explain their basis for not wanting citizens to stand up to violence?)

the article notes that critics highlight how only six states have expanded self-defense into public places. "There already is a presumption in law," said one person from the Brady Campaign, "that a person does not have to retreat in their home or car."

there's also a healthy bit of FUD being tossed around. Police Chief Nathaniel H. Sawyer Jr. of New Hampton, NH (a state said where passage was, surprisingly, very narrow and where the measure was vetoed by the governor) said that the legislation addressed a problem that does not exist. "In 26 years in law enforcement," he said, "i have never seen anyone wrongfully charged with a crime for self-defense."

i worry about how the passage of laws like this can affect the public's outlook on matters of security. i think on some level it can encourage the culture of fear and put people more on edge ("i must be ever on guard and ready to fire away the moment i'm threatened by those dangerous crackheads and carjackers i've seen on the teevee box!") but i don't understand the argument that such legislation makes things easier for criminals and those who would commit harm intentionally.

[bascule]

I think the UK has certainly proven one thing: If criminals know with near certainty that you do not have a deadly weapon and therefore they need not fear reprisal from their victims, they'll be a lot more likely to commit crimes.

[Quiet]

1. Do not have a firearm for defense if you are not confident in your ability to use it if the time comes. Having a firearm for defense and not having the constitution to use it will only end in your death.

This is the number one thing you should keep in mind, if you plan on or currently have a firearm for self-defense.

You should also keep in mind that if you use a firearm in self-defense, you will be subject to a civil lawsuit. Even if you are 100% in the right and the person you shot is a career criminal, you will get sued.
So, be prepared for civil as well as criminal suit aganist you if you plan on carrying/using a firearm or any other deadly weapon for self-defense.

The use of deadly force should always = fear for your life or the life of another.

Also remember if you shoot someone in self-defense, you are shooting to stop a threat. Once the suspect is no longer a threat, you must stop shooting. Otherwise, it would be considered excessive force and out of the protection of self-defense.


http://www.frontsight.com is an excellent firearms training facility and one that I recommend.

[Deviant Ollam]

You should also keep in mind that if you use a firearm in self-defense, you will be subject to a civil lawsuit. Even if you are 100% in the right and the person you shot is a career criminal, you will get sued. ... Once the suspect is no longer a threat, you must stop shooting. Otherwise, it would be considered excessive force and out of the protection of self-defense.

good points... and ones that can bite an unaware person in the ass. does anyone else have any noteworthy facts to add in the "legal" area of this thread? (people should realize that most of us are not lawyers and none of this constitutes legal advice, of course)

i was told by someone once that if they were ever in a shooting situation, they would expect to be taken into custody as a matter of plain procedure and that they would refuse outright to speak to the police about even the most basic details of the situation until a lawyer was present, even if they were clearly in the right. this was someone with a CCW, however, and therefore they were probably thinking of a situation of discharging rounds on a public street as opposed to in defense of a home.

still, the question remains... what is the most appropriate way to act after using a gun for self-defense if you are unfortunate enough to be put in that situation? any law enforcement types want to point things out here? (i think Thorn may still be on vacation)

let's say you call 911... i assume you mention that you fired off a few rounds, right? one wouldn't want to put the gun away (since i imagine police may want to see it) but i'd assume cops wouldn't want to arrive on a scene with a hot weapon still present. what's most appropriate? unloaded or just on safety? on your person or placed on a table or chair (or the ground) near you?

what about an assailant's weapon, if he or she has one? is it ever proper to mess with them at all? (say, to remove a weapon from their person as they lay there? even if a person appeared deceased and if i was 100% certain to have placed two or three shots center-mass i'd still want to check them for weapons and toss any i encountered aside. is this disturbing the scene and its evidence?

after a shooting can a citizen expect to have their weapon confiscated by law enforcement as a matter of procedure? for how long? what about any other weapons which may be owned... are they safe from siezure? does the situation vary with respect to whether or not there were any injuries or fatalities versus just a display of force? are there procedures for forcing law enforcement to return your property after an investigation or trial? (do they have any need to keep holding on to your belongings after a ballistics lab has done its thing?)

i'm curious about all these things and i'm hoping to never ever have to learn about them firsthand.

[skroo]

I thought about this all the way home, I must have seriously made that guy realise one of two things:
1. Hi, I'm an idiot for approaching a woman in a parking garage in America. I probably came off as chester the child molestor.

He would've been an idiot doing this in the UK, but given the circumstances I can understand why he did - you were the only one around within earshot.

2. Wow, they really are afraid of everything.

*Shrug* if he did, then he's an idiot for not sizing up the situation and realising why you might be apprehensive about helping him - a fact that, judging from his reaction to you, only sunk in after he figured out why you responded the way you did.

I was totally willing to help the guy out, I happen to have a tendency to help out strangers when they are lost/ stupid/in trouble/ drunk/etc etc. But I won’t risk my safety for a moment. Years of experience doing stupid shit taught me that.

Sense of self-preservation. A normal, reasonable thing for a human being to posess - unlike most, who seem to have the victim mentality.

I have always thought, and I noticed this in other countries, that America is far more fearful of the bad guys lurking in the dark than anywhere I have ever been. I have had people bust in my house before, But I knew them/ they were drunk and opened the wrong apartment door/ were off absolutely no harm with no ill intentions.

And in other countries, it's not uncommon to have no right to self-defence - armed or otherwise. We also tend to confront the things that scare us; most other places people tend to sit by and wait for someone to deal with it for them. See the massive amounts of violent crime in the UK and elsewhere for an example.

Not to say the bad guys are not out there, but how much does the media play into this fear? Perpetrators of Home invasions portrayed by the media are not always binary, there are many things that are not reported as well they tend to twist the sellablity of the article and more so promote the fear agenda.

Such as? Can you cite specifics about what circumstances would make a home invasion robbery a legitimate activity? If there's a crackhead breaking in through my window at 3am, it's pretty safe to say he's not meant to be there.

I have always been against myself having an easily accessible gun, not because I am against them But because I feel I can defend myself without it and I do not trust myself with them.

Then you've made a rational decision regarding firearms ownership.

I have katanas, nun chucks, daggers, batons, mace on my key chain and my fists etc, all trained in some degree to using them.

Three of the items on your list (nunchucks, daggers, and batons) are illegal in California. Also, one question I'd pose: can you use any of those items faster than the assailant's shot can reach your body, and can you do so in a high-pressure situation such as a dark hallway in the middle of the night just after you've been awakened and believe yourself to be in mortal danger?

That's something of a trick question; nobody can reasonably be expected to answer it until after it's happened to them. I can tell you this much, though: your assailant - if armed - will likely not be using the same weapons you would be confronting him with, which could well put you at a serious, possibly fatal, disadvantage.

Personally if I was to walk in on some chick in hello kitty pajamas wielding a katana and calmly stating she will "start by removing a limb and then kill me" I would sh*t myself.

And if I were the criminal, I'd shoot her at that point. I've already got breaking & entering on my mind, possibly considerably more; why stop there?

I am the type of person who by instinct will attempt to first dissuade the attacker, maim and then detain them whislt reading really bad poetry as torture. I am a short (5'3) chick, It can be hard to evade close contact when most men are much taller than me and naturally have a physical advantage. I can wrestle and will pin a man down, I am Irish and stubborn and when threatened I am simply insane, a gun involved would seriously jeopardize myself (accidental discharges) and I know I would hesitate to shoot a man point blank.

Okay, I see where we're separately parallel on this. I have had the experience of having to draw a gun on someone twice. Both times my life was immediately threatened. In both cases, I had taken steps to avoid the situation escalating, and was genuinely concerned that my life was in danger. Height has little to do with it (I'm 5' 9") - rather, the perception of a valid threat does. Had I not been armed in both cases, it's very likely that I would not be here now.

I really wish that we did not have to have a gun in our closets, loaded, locked or not, I would rather not have one readily accessible in any home. Don’t misunderstand, especially right now, I believe, w/o getting too political, everyone or every family should own a gun, (for what it the right to bear arms was intended for) Know how to use it, keep it safe, but there is no need to keep the damn thing readily available if your neighbor comes home Saturday night opens your door walks in your kitchen and promptly passes out in the cat food dish.

One main thing bothers me about that statement: what the fuck is your neighbour doing coming in to your home to begin with? Being drunk or high is NO excuse; I don't care how inebriated or incapacitated someone is, if they're coming into your house without your permission then you have a right to remove them and make sure that they get the message that this isn't acceptable behaviour - even letting them do it once sets the expectation with them that on some level this is OK, which leads to the possibility of it happening again.

Does that mean shooting them right off the bat is the solution? No, no matter how much of a jackass they're making of themselves in addition to an inconvenience to your life it doesn't, unless they're doing something obviously threatening - vandalism, refusing to leave, or becoming aggressive. Drag them out into the street and leave them there if you have to. If they get uppity or come back, a couple of whacks with something solid or a good hefty boot to the face can usually dissuade even the most pernicious of offenders. If it goes beyond the point where they've been reasonably warned, though, they're pretty much taking their life in their hands as far as I'm concerned.

Also, why wasn't the door locked? You've got every right to leave it unlocked if you please, but common sense dictates that keeping the person out in the first place is preferable to having to remove them after the fact.

We should be ready for overthrowing the authority, possible civil wars, revolution, have militia, that type of thing. holy crap this got long, i tend to get long winded sometimes..../rant.

While I agree with you on the above, it should not negate or remove the right to defend ourselves. Nobody (including law enforcement) is obligated to do it for us; their job is to investigate what happened after the fact. It's only in a very few cases where a serious crime is stopped before it happens; they aren't able to respond in advance a la Minority Report.

I think the UK has certainly proven one thing: If criminals know with near certainty that you do not have a deadly weapon and therefore they need not fear reprisal from their victims, they'll be a lot more likely to commit crimes.

It also proved another axiom to be true: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." I lived there when they effectively banned the 'evil' handguns and most private firearm ownership, and it was amazing how easy (and cheap) it was to purchase or rent a gun on the black market if you needed one. Still is, as it happens, from what I understand.

[jur1st]

does anyone else have any noteworthy facts to add in the "legal" area of this thread?

Why the hell not? I have now been bestowed with the illustrious Juris Docorate degree and happen to have my Bar Review materials sitting next to me.

Self defense is an affirmative defense which would mean in most cases (pure speculation here) you could probably expect at least a night in the binky plus all the other trappings which go along with an arrest for homicide including confiscation of all the weapons in the household. You would get all these back once your name was cleared, however.

Essentially a person can be justified in using deadly force (the aforementioned katana or shotgun) if they are without fault, confronted with unlawful force (breaking and entering or burglary), and there is threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

The threat is found subjectively, so it is what you reasonably believe right before you pound the intruder with Mr. 12-guage.

The majority rule is that there is no obligation to run, and even in jurisdictions where there is an obligation to flee, it is not absolute.

Retreat is never required when being robbed or when in your home and you can use deadly force to defend your dwelling when someone is trying to break in during a riot (not kidding) or to commit a felony.

Remember kids, gun control is using both hands....

knowing is half the battle!

[Nikita]

Someone had a lot to say; sorry I missed it in a timely fashion. I will indulge this, although I am not sure if I am walking on the line when it comes to off topic discussion. Let it be clear I am not talking what is right and wrong. Never once did I say guns were wrong for home defense nor did I say I was a member of the NRA. So that said to answer your questions.

Such as? Can you cite specifics about what circumstances would make a home invasion robbery a legitimate activity? If there's a crack head breaking in through my window at 3am, it's pretty safe to say he's not meant to be there.

Of course:
1>
No, of course not. You missed the point. So called media portrayed "home invasions" are not always a burglar coming in to rob your stereo and HDTV. A lot of cases are people who are in illegal affairs to begin with, or someone in the household is, domestic disturbances- meaning people you know already and should have restraining orders on and you are less likely to shoot-, teenage pranks, and etc. If a crack head is breaking through your window, no he shouldn’t be there, but your teenage daughter’s boyfriend coming in for some late night nookie doesn’t belong there either.

To twist the sellablity: The article that was originally posted I will quote from: "The man -- later identified by police as ******** -- kicked the door off its hinges and barged into the home about 3:30 a.m." Why did he have that much passion to get in the house, did he know someone, was this really a domestic disturbance? All we have is another story validating the hype that "a stranger could bust in your house for no reason other than to rob and kill you so be armed"

There are many things that we do not know about this story, but all it does is fuel fear. For all we know this could be crime on crime.

Three of the items on your list (nunchucks, daggers, and batons) are illegal in California.

Good thing I am not in California, and even if I was I guess I would have them illegally if I could not obtain a legal way to house them in my residence.

Also, one question I'd pose: can you use any of those items faster than the assailant's shot can reach your body, and can you do so in a high-pressure situation such as a dark hallway in the middle of the night just after you've been awakened and believe yourself to be in mortal danger?

Yes. Yes I can. Will I be able to deflect a bullet with a blade no. Will I, wandering out of my bedroom and bump into a burglar, be any faster at grabbing one of my weapons then grabbing a gun. No. Both would take same time, a gun much longer actually because it needs to be unlocked and made sure it had bullets in it, if you keep those in the same place or in the gun that will shave off a few seconds.

Does anyone want to discuss if a gun can go off when locked and loaded? I was told it has happened before, with certain locks and guns, but I don't know.

That's something of a trick question; nobody can reasonably be expected to answer it until after it's happened to them.

Nope. Not for me. As I have stated in saying " sh*t I have learned from in the past"

I can tell you this much, though: your assailant - if armed - will likely not be using the same weapons you would be confronting him with, which could well put you at a serious, possibly fatal, disadvantage.

I am simply not afraid of someone armed with a gun coming in my house. Plain and simple. If I become afraid of that it means I have had adequate time to become prepared for such a situation. " sh*t I have learned from in the past" I will not argue that a bullet is quicker than me, that a bullet can kill faster than a knife wound, I will not argue that a bullet to the head is not deadlier than my nunchucks (90 pounds of pressure per down swing) I will go ahead and say that not having a gun does not give me a disadvantage unless I feel helpless without it. That would be the disadvantage.

Personally if I was to walk in on some chick in hello kitty pajamas wielding a katana and calmly stating she will "start by removing a limb and then kill me" I would sh*t myself.

And if I were the criminal, I'd shoot her at that point. I've already got breaking & entering on my mind, possibly considerably more; why stop there?

Most robbers are not trying to break in when someone is home. Most of these scum know that they can get off rather easy by either a- leaving or b a public defender. I doubt that a petty home jacker would have it in his mind to shoot the witness. That is however a nice defense for someone trying to kill their rich spouse.

I have had the experience of having to draw a gun on someone twice. Both times my life was immediately threatened. In both cases, I had taken steps to avoid the situation escalating, and was genuinely concerned that my life was in danger. Height has little to do with it (I'm 5' 9") - rather, the perception of a valid threat does. Had I not been armed in both cases, it's very likely that I would not be here now.

I am short meaning that in hand to hand combat I will have to, inevitably, get closer than most in order to be effective, it is simple. I can not always reach a man to punch him in the face while maintaining my own guard. I have smaller arms, legs and torso. Often times my size has given the wrong impression that I am easily wrestled down, that mentality is too my advantage. I will throw a few good punches, but when attacked, the quickest way to hurt and detain my attacker is by letting them get close as they would naturally. My size enables me to move differently and to use their size, force and motion against them. Try to pick me up and I will have you on your knees in a headlock quicker than you can counteract, blinding you and probably break your Adams apple in the mean time. If you put me in the same situation, my hesitancy to shoot would get me shot and the gun would only get in my way of saving my ass because now he can grab it.

One main thing bothers me about that statement: what the fuck is your neighbor doing coming in to your home to begin with? Being drunk or high is NO excuse; I don't care how inebriated or incapacitated someone is, if they're coming into your house without your permission then you have a right to remove them and make sure that they get the message that this isn't acceptable behavior - even letting them do it once sets the expectation with them that on some level this is OK, which leads to the possibility of it happening again.

I don’t know where you live, but in the apartment buildings I have lived in, in Washington, they all look the same. Every f-n door is the same color, everything right down to the damn door mats. My neighbor who was a dumb ass one night opened my door by accident. A lot of people in apartment buildings have this problem, one night a neighbor was trying to use his key in my door, I told him to go home and he passed out in the landing. I happen to know stories from friends where passing out 5 feet from the door in the cat food dish, actually happened. They became great friends. And no it never happened again.

I personally had an employee who had a crush on me; he found out where I lived and came into my house with 3 other men, all drunk. He was insane. He was not going to try to kill me or rape me but he was not wanted and threatening and I didn’t know his friends either, I broke his nose and sprained his neck, I escorted him out and told his friends they could leave politely or suffer the same fate. This worked effectively and as a matter of fact all 4 were armed. Sometimes men prefer a woman who will go quietly and it is not worth the effort otherwise. There are situations where this is not the case and i understand that, there is a self defense classroom available in the phone book. Also every woman/man should be prepared for perverts.

If it goes beyond the point where they've been reasonably warned, though, they're pretty much taking their life in their hands as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed, although usually at that point they have already taken their life in their own hands, being physically smaller, I can not afford to pull my punches my warning shot will mostly likely be the loss of consciousness or limb.

Also, why wasn't the door locked? You've got every right to leave it unlocked if you please, but common sense dictates that keeping the person out in the first place is preferable to having to remove them after the fact.

When I am awake and watching tv I don’t really think about locking my door especially when im sitting within sight line, I’m just not that scared. When I go to bed at night, sometimes I lock the door, sometimes I forget. I'm not afraid of someone coming into an occupied home. If there is a threat or a situation when and where I feel that my doors need to be locked there will often be a specific person responsible for that fear and at that point all precautionary measures are up and most likely the police have been reported.

Quote:
We should be ready for overthrowing the authority, possible civil wars, revolution, have militia, that type of thing. holy crap this got long, I tend to get long winded sometimes..../rant.

While I agree with you on the above, it should not negate or remove the right to defend ourselves. Nobody (including law enforcement) is obligated to do it for us; their job is to investigate what happened after the fact. It's only in a very few cases where a serious crime is stopped before it happens; they aren't able to respond in advance a la Minority Report.

I never ever said anything to the contrary. I know how to defend myself, granted I have things to learn, but I know that a gun in my hands is the wrong decision for me. I have to defend myself and can not count on the cops, neighbors, room mate etc. I won’t screw up my chances of survival with under confidence, or over confidence for that matter. Still as I said before, and about the only thing I’ve ever agreed with noid on

1. Do not have a firearm for defense if you are not confident in your ability to use it if the time comes. Having a firearm for defense and not having the constitution to use it will only end in your death.

I am smart enough to realize that I am that dumbass.

[jur1st]

feel free to mod me down for this...but this is the best thread ever.

[Deviant Ollam]

feel free to mod me down for this...but this is the best thread ever.

my heart absolutely sings when threads come together like this. also (and this is not to needle a point which isn't going to change anytime soon) i find it interesting that some of the most rewarding (at least for me) conversations are ones that stray away from 100% tech matters and incorporate philosophical and/or socio-political matters which bear on technology. never once has this commiunity let me down when it comes to showing what a group of fine minds can do if they come together.

you may not realize how much i appreciate your comments, man. the past few days have been pretty horrible on my end... death of a close family member followed almost immediately by a failure of my largest RAID array at home. because of the hectic nature of school ending, etc etc i hadn't run a backup for like a month. the final revisions of my thesis and all my notes for a book i have in the works are in limbo as i try to restore from a broken array in between phone calls making funeral arrangements. yeah... you just made my day a hell of a lot better by giving me a simple smile which is one more than i expected at the moment.

p.s. - if anyone works for a data recovery firm or knows of one which is really reputable / affordable i may need to inquire about your services if this array refuses to come back online. it's more than a desync... i think my controller card (Promise SX6000) did something strange to it.

[GBHis]

Martial arts?

This thread is about guns, I know. But because of my age (and laws of country) (and ethical orientation) I do not own a gun and do not want to own one.
But it looks like the thread has come to be about home self-defence also?

And I had to hear your meaning about martial arts when used as self-defence...
I've been practising self-defence the last three months. Not going to a club, just reading about "moves" and "points that hurts when you press 'em" and "stunning points", then trying them out with my friends... I think I've found some rather dangerous "tricks". Some might even be useful when used against an intruding adult. I know nothing of any laws regarding hand-to-hand self-defence, but there must be some. Is people allowed to hurt intruders with their hands? (like "disabling" by breaking arms, my favourite which I haven't practised doing, just theory )
When can martial arts be used, and when can they not? What do the laws in your country say about it? And most important, what do YOU think about it?

my heart absolutely sings when threads come together like this. also (and this is not to needle a point which isn't going to change anytime soon) i find it interesting that some of the most rewarding (at least for me) conversations are ones that stray away from 100% tech matters and incorporate philosophical and/or socio-political matters which bear on technology. never once has this commiunity let me down when it comes to showing what a group of fine minds can do if they come together.

you may not realize how much i appreciate your comments, man. the past few days have been pretty horrible on my end... death of a close family member followed almost immediately by a failure of my largest RAID array at home. because of the hectic nature of school ending, etc etc i hadn't run a backup for like a month. the final revisions of my thesis and all my notes for a book i have in the works are in limbo as i try to restore from a broken array in between phone calls making funeral arrangements. yeah... you just made my day a hell of a lot better by giving me a simple smile which is one more than i expected at the moment.

p.s. - if anyone works for a data recovery firm or knows of one which is really reputable / affordable i may need to inquire about your services if this array refuses to come back online. it's more than a desync... i think my controller card (Promise SX6000) did something strange to it.

True, true and true. I've always thought that tech-matters are MUCH more interesting when there is something "ethical" about them. (should this be in quotes?)
It's more exciting, and you get a better feeling of WHO you are talking to... Often you get much more information than you expected from the beginning (like both getting the explanation AND the persons own, personal thoughts about it). I like that.


Sorry to hear about your family member. I am. I have a tendency to get much more sorry when people that I know "online" gets "down" because of death. (No, I'm not saying that I get sorry when people goes offline because someone they liked dying . I'm sorry because THEY get sorry )
Somehow it touches you much more and make you think of that ... if somebody you liked really much died. I almost get to cry when people posts posts with content like that.


If you could tell us were you live (like northern or southern part of the country) it would be easier to find a recovery-firm near you that sounds good. Would love to take some of the pressure on you.

[noid]

Well, in regards to martial arts, a lot of it has to do with what country you are in and where you are when you deploy said martial arts. I would imagine that anywhere in Europe, as bleeding heart as the region is, no one would begrudge you for beating the hell out of an attacker in your home.

However, as Jurist explained, be prepared to spend a night in the pokey and do some 'splainin'.

I heard a rough number a while back that in the average justifiable homicide/shooting situation you'll end up being out about 10K by the time everything is said and done.