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

[skroo]

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.

Failing to see how this is off-topic - self-defence is a valid aspect of firearms ownership.

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.

Nor was anyone inferring that. However, the responses you gave left a number of things open-ended.

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.

That doesn't change the fact that none of those people have a right to enter without permission. Further, if you've taken out a restraining order against someone, it's generally because they've become enough of a nuisance in or threat to your life that first-step legal recourse is necessary, but restraining orders make poor defensive devices against crazy, possibly violent, people; well-adjusted, law-abiding individuals are rarely the subject of such orders.

Regarding 'teenage pranks': if someone doesn't know why we don't just walk into other people's homes by the time they're an adolescent, that person does not have a set of judgements that, by and large, match those held by the rest of society. This is demonstrative of prototypical (at that age) sociopathic behaviour, which is often an early indicator of later criminal tendencies. The trespass alone is a criminal act, regardless of intent or action. If they've already broken the law just by being there, there's every chance they will break further, less pleasant laws.

Does this justify shooting first and asking questions later? Possibly, depending on the circumstances and level of threat the person poses. But it doesn't justify it in all cases. The individual's ability to assess and respond when faced with a criminal act in their own home is key here, but so is protecting the safety of those who live there.

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"

Emphasis above mine, but it stands to reason that if someone is kicking your door in (violent entry) in the middle of the night, they probably aren't meant to be there to begin with.

Having said that, I really think you're reading more into this than is there: what you have written in that paragraph past the emphasis is essentially speculation. This is not a veiled exhortation to go out and arm yourself to the teeth because something bad might happen; rather, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it strikes me as a factual report of a breaking-and-entering incident.

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.

Sure, but again, that's supposition. And even if it were, that doesn't put it outside the bounds of law.

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.

Odd that the vast majority of firearms owners in this state wouldn't contemplate owning a weapon that was illegal; why would it be acceptable in your case?

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.

Okay, and this is the point I was getting at. The other part of this: if your assailant is already armed, can you get to your weapons faster than he can use his? Further, will you be able to meet any force he applies to you with at least equal force?

I'm not saying that you personally are incapable of doing so, but that the circumstances of the situation may mean that it's not feasible.

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.

Preparedness is key, firearm or not. However, the old adage about not bringing a knife to a gunfight is sticking in my mind here.

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.

I have not heard of a case where a locked firearm has unintentionally discharged. However, while it seems unlikely that it would happen in this state, I wouldn't go so far as to discount the very remote possibly that it may. They're usually the result of poor handling practices, but happen considerably less often that is normally portrayed. In the roughly 27 years I've been handling firearms, I've never had one.

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.

Right, but you've missed the point somewhat. I don't live in fear of an intruder entering my home (armed or otherwise): however, I intend to be able to stop one who may enter as immediately as possible, preferably without having to pull the trigger. Having said that, I would not put myself at a disadvantage against an intruder by not having the capability to meet their force in kind if necessary.

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.

Disagreed. While the petty thieves may know that leaving is better for them in the long run, not all intruders are that timid. Again, if they've got the balls to break in, they've likely got the balls to go further than that. Further, not all B&E incidents are theft-related; many are part and parcel of sexual assaults, and the intrusion is only a precursor to the crime that's ultimately committed.

Similarly, I don't buy the 'rich spouse' angle. While this may work for a while (Phil Spector springs to mind as a recent example), the courts are generally pretty good at getting to the validity of claims such as these.

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.

Los Angeles. And yes, I've lived in places like that before. I actually had a sticker on my door at one point so that I could pick out my door from the dozen others on my floor.

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.

This is presenting the incidents in question in a different light than they had been previously; the actual threat sounds to be far less than it was in the earlier post. However, it still begs the question of why someone was able to just walk in. As I said before, it's your prerogative to not lock your doors - but common sense (not fear) states that doing so is a reasonable idea.

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

I'm wondering how, if the guy's drunk and obviously nuts, you could know that he (or more accurately, they) wouldn't try to rape or kill you. There's no knowing what's going on in their minds at that point.

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.

You're also extremely fortunate that they didn't retaliate. Regardless of whether they did so with firearms or not is immaterial; three against one is still not good odds even if they're only swinging fists.

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.

Yes, but again: the police are under no obligation to protect you. I do realise that you understand this, but it bears repeating. Further, the threat may not come from someone you already know, or who has a history with you.

[skroo]

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.

Actually, this isn't always the case. In general, you can defend yourself against an attacker with 'similar force' - a pretty nebulous concept in and of itself. If someone comes at me with a knife and I hit them with a lead pipe, is that similar force?

As this relates to martial arts: if you use them against an attacker you may be deemed to have used unacceptable force. I really wish I could cite specifics on this, but there have been a couple of cases where muggers have been knocked down by their intended victims only to have the victim end up being prosecuted because they used <insert martial art here> against the attacker. The argument I seem to remember being aired in this case was something along the lines of, "the attacker wasn't using a martial art to attack, so therefore the use of martial art in defence was unjustified." A pretty feeble argument IMHO, but there you have it.

[Deviant Ollam]

i'm not planning on storing any firearms in a cocked-and-locked sort of fashion, but i'm curious... is there any significant detriment to a weapon if you leave it stored in a loaded and/or cocked fashion?

i'm thinking here of a 12 ga that is stored with a full mag of nine shells or a 1911 with a full mag of ammo and/or the hammer half- or fully-cocked with the safety on. in what sort of a time frame does this start to wear on the springs? weeks? months? years?

cue noid's knowledgable response in 3... 2... 1...

[noid]

Months. I cycle my magazines every few months to keep the springs fresh. As far as shotguns go, seems to be years. I know one of my friends has a charged Benelli near his door and has kept it in that state for quite a while. He lives in a rural area, so it does see action from time to time (against animals, not people). Even if you dont shoot it, you should still maintain it regularly. I know a lot of folks up my way that clean and service their carry piece monthly, regardless if its fired or not.

[renderman]

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

Which, depending on the circumstances, makes some sense to let the cops sort things out. No rational cop would come to your aid, see a dead or maimed guy on the floor and just sweep him up and leave. There's usually a few outstandig questions.

I doubt you'd end up in a cell, but a trip to the station is quite likely and quite appropriate really. Better the cops make sure of the situation and make sure you were'nt just taking pot shots at 'the damn kids on the lawn'.

Besides, if I blasted some intruder, I think sleep would be one of the last things I'd be doing. At the very least I'd be getting the paper towels..

[noid]

Ya, I do a lot of volunteer work with the sheriff so I get to hear about a lot of things from a cops point of view. One of the biggest things I hear is that people expect the cops to arrive on scene and somehow be fully apraised of the situation. That they will arrive and know who the bad guy is, who the good guy is, and what exactly happened. So when they show up and start hooking people up, people get pissed.

"Why are you cuffing me, I was the guy that stopped the attacker from killing that other guy. "

They dont realize that from the cops perspective, no you were the guy standing in the street in a Bad Boy Club tshirt and a pair of boxer shorts with a handgun while another guy was sitting on the curb with his hands up. They dont know that the guy on the curb was beating someone with a tire iron and you came out and put a stop to it, that will all flush out later. More than likely in a situation like that, they will take everyone into custody on the scene and then sort things out without having to watch their backs. In the event you do end up at the station under arrest, request a lawyer. Even if you are in the right, you are pretty sure the cops know that, and you want to be helpful, get a lawyer first before you say anything. Its just CYA on your part, and if the cops start saying 'if you are innocent why do you want a lawyer', tell them exactly that. 'I want to be helpful, I am innocent, I would just prefer legal council be here before I start talking to make sure my rear is covered'.

[Nikita]

Failing to see how this is off-topic - self-defence is a
valid aspect of firearms ownership.

Is debating media propaganda fear and my defending my preference to
sword and fist on topic? When it comes to somewhat controversial topics
I am walking the "cot man defended" line, lest someone else makes this a political
or legal debate.

To me this just seems like this is the gun version of "my OS is better than yours".

but restraining orders make poor defensive devices against crazy,
possibly violent, people; well-adjusted, law-abiding individuals are
rarely the subject of such orders.

I don’t assume it is, 80% fail, but it is a civic duty to inform law enforcement of
crazy ass people this is to document you told the asshats go away,
build your case against them, and protect yourself if he/ she walks in
your house but doesn’t come out walking.

Having said that, I really think you're reading more into this than is
there: what you have written in that paragraph past the emphasis is
essentially speculation. This is not a veiled exhortation to go out and
arm yourself to the teeth because something bad might happen; rather, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, it strikes me as a factual
report of a breaking-and-entering incident.

Do you watch the news on a regular basis? See further explanation below:

Odd that the vast majority of firearms owners in this state wouldn't
contemplate owning a weapon that was illegal; why would it be acceptable
in your case?

You said it yourself- If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.
If they made owning a shot gun or a 22 against the law I would go buy
one right now on principle. You can not tell me that any blade I can own
or weapon that was created years before the handgun does not apply to my
right to bear arms. Anyone want to argue that? Go ahead. An AK47 is
Excessive and I can understand putting a restriction on that. A katana
and nunchucka is not excessive and it is my right to arm and protect
myself. For the record, I did Preface my statement with if I fail to be
able to have them legally.

Okay, and this is the point I was getting at. The other part of this:
if your assailant is already armed, can you get to your weapons faster
than he can use his? Further, will you be able to meet any force he
applies to you with at least equal force?

What about you, do you have it under your pillow for crying out loud? In
the middle of the night the speed it will take me to arm myself will be
Significantly faster than the average gun owner- assuming they have a
lock on the gun and it is not under the pillow. Can I dodge a bullet
with a sword no, but I wont stand there in the line of fire either- this
question is recockulas.
Use equal force- who has the right to determine that my measures of self
defense are any less effective then a handgun. It works for me and that
is what i care about. If i know my attacker has a gun and i am in the
position to avoid getting shot or making it worse i will.

I'm not saying that you personally are incapable of doing so, but that
the circumstances of the situation may mean that it's not feasible.

Don't make assumptions about another persons ability to defend
themselves, that mentality is key to failure.

Preparedness is key, firearm or not. However, the old adage about not
bringing a knife to a gunfight is sticking in my mind here.

If a man is shooting down my hallway, yeah. Duh. That is where brains
come in to play, and you adapt for self preservation. But I am not
afraid of someone busting my door in with the intent to shoot me. The
likelihood of something like this happening to me where I didn’t know it
was coming is so slim.

I have not heard of a case where a locked firearm has unintentionally
discharged.

I have, although i need to figure out where...sorry to lead yall on with this one.
But I have heard it has happened before.

Right, but you've missed the point somewhat. I don't live in fear of an
intruder entering my home (armed or otherwise): however, I intend to be
able to stop one who may enter as immediately as possible, preferably
without having to pull the trigger. Having said that, I would not put
myself at a disadvantage against an intruder by not having the
capability to meet their force in kind if necessary.

I intend to stop an attacker, as soon as possible, I may even have to
evade( in the so ultimate super rare chance that bullets are streaming
down *my* hallway), and if not and i engage preferably without severely
injuring the criminal. My not having a gun is not a disadvantage.

You are again assuming that i am defenseless without a handgun and that
my force and choices will be less effective than yours.

Disagreed. While the petty thieves may know that leaving is better for
them in the long run, not all intruders are that timid. Again, if
they've got the balls to break in, they've likely got the balls to go
further than that.

Most homes robbed are unoccupied. This is not coincidence, if a theif comes in
and is surprised chances are pretty damn good he will run.

As I said before, it's your
prerogative to not lock your doors - but common sense (not fear) states
that doing so is a reasonable idea.

I will make this as simple as possible, Because I don't have to. I don't
lock the door all the time if i am sitting on the couch watching tv, If
i have the patio door open to let some cool air in, My home is not a
fortress that locks me in it. I don't think it is an issue of common
sense but instead determined by personal necessity. If you need to lock
your doors then common sense to you says lock your doors. If your buddy
is coming over to watch the game and everyone is out back at the bbq, do
you still lock your front door? Or is it more common for him to walk
in, announce himself, assumed not going through your wife’s underwear and
join the rest of the party? Honestly, Locking your doors is the most
flexible measure of home defense. Locks can be picked, doors can be
kicked in, If you are that concerned with it the default entry
preventions are not going to do you any good anyway. Fear does have a
lot to do with it. Perhaps fear someone will see and steal your
equipment, I have that fear a lot, data means more to me, you fear the
bad guy will come in and rape your grandmother, that trolls are
wandering the streets with aluminum foil on their heads and fish in
their pants. ( Not you directly but the “them” You ) Our society perpetuates
that fear to the point that it balloons the actual cases. The fear of the action outweighs the percentage of occurrence by 300%.
Our American news does not help, if you watched planes crashing and hearing about plane crashes days and days in a row,
your fear of flying turned into never flying. It imploded in your
soul, It turned from a fear to an etched in, never changeable, believed fact.

I'm wondering how, if the guy's drunk and obviously nuts, you could know
that he (or more accurately, they) wouldn't try to rape or kill
you. There's no knowing what's going on in their minds at that point.

Because I worked with him everyday. And being a "victim" in the past has given me
pretty good intuition about that kind of thing.

You're also extremely fortunate that they didn't retaliate. Regardless
of whether they did so with firearms or not is immaterial; three against
one is still not good odds even if they're only swinging fists.

What was I to do, serve them dinner? Yes, I am fortunate that it did not
escalate further, they were happy at laughing while their friend got his ass kicked
by a girl. NO, I cant always count on being that lucky, but I am smart enough to
judge when i can get away with what and how to manipulate a defensive situation.

Yes, but again: the police are under no obligation to protect you. I do
realize that you understand this, but it bears repeating. Further, the
threat may not come from someone you already know, or who has a history
with you.

I don't fear my neighbor. I don't fear my peers. I don't fear the druggy or homeless guy in
the alley. I feel the worst threat is the enemy who knows you well enough and has the passion
to attack you regardless of consequences. Those people are stalkers, they are scorned lovers, they
are sour business deals, they are the man you fucked over or who thinks you fucked him over. In that
case you should know it is coming. I don't expect the police to protect me from them, but they should
be advised within the letter of the law to cover your own ass. If anyone knows how long it takes a cop to show up when
you are getting beat to death I do, learned that when i was 12. Being that my mother, step-father and grandfather
were cops, I have heard the other side of the stories that end up on the news, I waited for my grandfather to come home at night.
This fact only solidifies what I believe in the right to bear arms. specifically intended and to protect militia and in this day in age we forget that

[TheCotMan]

Ok. Perhaps people want a crash-course on what kinds of political discussions are bad, and a review of sample posts in a discussion.

[The views expressed here are only my own, and not necessarily those of any other mod]

Is debating media propaganda fear and my defending my preference to sword and fist on topic?

Sure. The topic of the thread is, "the most basic and brutal physical security - home defense gun discussion." Alternate forms of defense would likely come up.

If you look through the history of forum threads, it is also natural for threads to change topic. This is not an issue here.

When it comes to somewhat controversial topics I am walking the "cot man defended" line, lest someone else makes this a political or legal debate.

It is difficult to build rules for what political discussions shold be allowed based on what discussions have been allowed.

Re-stated, Religion is a big, fat, no-no.

Politics, however, is more difficult to limit. There are issues peripheral to politics, that could be defined as political topics, that are quite on-topic for Defcon. Laws and policies, supposedly designed to increase security can be discussed to show flaws. Risks associated with things like, "the Clipper Chip," might also have been on topic.

There are many examples of topics near the political namespace that have been discussed here as on-topic. Perhaps it is best to define what Political topics would be considered too political:
Condemnation or praise of any leader, or political party
Assertions that laws, political figures, political party agendas are right or wrong-- (Right and wrong are different from correct and incorrect: objective vs subjective.)
Activism to push political agendas.
Discussions of "Should" and "Shouldn't" with respect to laws, or restrictions/entitlements of liberty, human rights and civil rights.
(More)

Also, I enforce the No-Politics rule, but it is a moderator-decided issue. There are 15 people with "mod-votes" that are able to participate with making decisions on politics being on-topic here. The last time this came up, a majority of those that voted, chose to keep politics off the forums. Until this changes, expect the rule to be enforced.

So far, this thread does not seem too political to me, and none of the other mods have made comments about this becoming too political. Perhaps some mods are even particiapting in this thread. :-) There have been a few phrases that seemed to cross the line, but overall, the health of this thread seems good to me.

To me this just seems like this is the gun version of "my OS is better than yours".

"Debates on Opinion" are as difficult to resolve as debates where each side can't agree on definitions to terms being used.

Opinions manifested as laws lead to political discussion, and laws influence and restrict people's lives. People have strong opinions on how they should be allowed to live their lives, and how others should live their lives. People connect a way of life with a political party or collection of beliefs until those ideas become part of their identity, and are used by people to define themselves.

This makes discussions of politics and to a greater extent religion, discussions that can lead people to perceive disagreement as personal attacks on their own identities, and "belief system." Discussions can become heated, and people can become emotional and irrational. Given sufficient time, with increased frequency of incidence, over a wide enough spectrum of topics, the result is almost always dissention from within the ranks of, "the community."

Most of the long-time users have a pretty good idea where the line exists on the topic of politics, as they have witnessed the /dev/nulling of threads that went too far. Lurking can help people to understand these limit better than the above

For the most part, people are stating what they, as individuals would do in certain circumstances. When some question reasons for this behavior, others answer.

This is not guaranteed to make content acceptable, but there is a history where it has been accepted.

-------------
How aboput a review of posts for political content, as I see it? Perhaps a crash-course by review of what I see in posts of this thread:

Is post#1, Devian Ollam mentioned, "gun control," which under a diffierent context could be flame-bait/trolling. It seems it was not taken this way, so that is not a negative.

Noid in post #2 is great as it is not political; it is a collection of information and advice and how to be safe.

renderman in post #3 offers opinions but supports those opinions with other material and, "common sense." It also includes advice. This is another good post.

Noid in post#4 another good post: there is description of what he would do, but there is no push to state how others should act, or political content.

renderman in post #5 was good again. Here we have scope of personal security, and a disclaimer on topic of legality.

Virosa in post #6 brings up technical discussion of ammunition and asks questions. Another good post.

Noid in post #7 offers answers and more advice. Good again.

renderman in post #8 offers resources to answer technical discussion. (Good again.)

AlxRogan in post #9 includes experience, comments about technical items and offsers cited resources. Good deal.

Nikita in post #10 offers an experience related to the topic at hand.and what you would do in given circumstances. A good post except for:

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.

No matter how much I may agree or disagree, this is political.

Deviant Ollam in post #11: Technical discussion, answers, questions, experiences, no politics. Another good post.

Deviant Ollam in post #12: he replies to your political comment, because he really likes to discuss politics, and your statement seemed to resonate with his beliefs. This opens risk for political discussion with items like this:

there always exists the possiblity of a breakdown is societal order. this can be brief chaos (looting and large-scale theivery in the wake of a natural disaster) or sustained disruption (mass rioting, revolts against totalitarianism, etc) and in case of either such circumstance i'd like to know that i'll be weathering the situation with some firepower available should the need arise. an armed populace is the best defense against tyranny. well... that plus an active and vigilant news media not driven by profits and sensationalism.

That may not be "too political," but can spawn political discussions.

renderman in post #13 is perfectly fine-- it is social and includes commentary, but is not political.

renderman in post #14 acknowledges risks in discussion of a topic noted in one of Deviant Ollam's posts. (These clues are great for new users, so they can see markers left for landmines to avoid when lurking through a thread.)

Devian Ollam #15 acknowledges the comment from renderman. Perfectly fine, and doubles the flagging of a landmine for any other users to observe and avoid.

renderman in post #16 cites a resource and offers more help for answers. Good post.

My, "buzzkill warning" about politics is in post #17. This stopped new posts for a while. Maybe I was too scary? I saw risks in a few posts, and an emerging trend, and wanted to see if a small correction could help reinforce what renderman and Deviant ollam caught in previous posts, as well as other minor risks-- all without mentioning specifics.

Deviant Ollam in post #18 offers exceptions.
(I PM Deviant Ollam a response, since I don't want to pollute the thread.)

AlxRogan in post #19 provides related experience, and another good post. Social posts are good too,

Deviant Ollam in post #20 cites a political article, but asks questions about reasons for the view. This borders on politics, but, to me, isn't quite there. Discussion about a specific law, with requests for reason and foundation are reasonable for the forums, so this post is also good.

bascule in post #21 offers his opinion, and is on-topic, but not political.

Quiet_Wolf in post #22 offers opinion, experience, and cites a resource-- good post.

Deviant Ollam in post #23 asks questions about due process, arrest, dealing with a crime scene, and does well at avoiding politics.

Skroo in post #24 mentions "right to self defense" but in the context it is not something that would be "too political" on the forums. He makes comments, and asks questions.

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?

Is like a rhetorical question. A response is not necessary, but could be offered. It seems it exists to provoke thought. By itself, this is no big deal, but an escalation of rhetorical questions, until they become silly is something that often happens when threads become too political.
With exception to the semi-political slogan, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," it's not really politica. This post is fine.

jur1st in post #25 offers technical content, which is great. The only item that is political is the often used slogan, "gun control is using both hands," but taken in context, appears to be humor, not an attempt at moving people to agree. Also, taken with the rest of the content of the post, it is fine. Good post here too.

Nikita in post #26 answers some of skroo's questions, and makes comments.

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.

Citation is a good thing. If you can find stories that show this, it is good to cite them. It does not have to be this story, but it is good to cite specific examples to show it happens. (I'm not picking on you. Other people cite sample sources too.)

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.

For such things, if you have surveys or statistics that you can cite, then include them, otherwise, it is best to not pass these off as facts. Simple disclaimers would help here instead of making a claim without citation.
Example: "It seems reasonable, that a thief would prefer to steal from an unoccupied house, and avoid or flee a house if it was determined there were people inside while it was being robbed."
(We have many examples of people making claims that are unsubstantiated, and this does not go over very well.)
Overall, the post is fine, and is lacking politics.

jur1st in post #27 grades the thread. This behavior is not encouraged. If this was the only post by jur1st in this thread, the post would have probably been /dev/nulled for not adding any value to the discussion. However, because this user contributed to the thread earlier, it seemed reasonable to leave it there.

Deviant Ollam in post @28 comments about jur1st comment. It is a bit off-topic, but like jur1st, contributing users and members are afforded some latitude (at least by me) when participating in threads. (It is natural for a discussion to grow in different directions, and acting overzealous with rule enforcement stifles socialization-- the 3rd purpose for the forms, in my view.)

GBHis in post #29 brings up martial arts. Good deal. This is related to the topic at hand. Also includes comments on the off-topic tangent, but this is perfectly fine, and normal for a thread. Good post.

noid in post #30 offers information, but does not cite any source for the 10k and 1 day in jail for killing someone in self defence. HOWEVER, noid is an established person here with a good reputation for providing accurate information. A view through the contributions he has offered earlier is another plus. Any person interested in citation could easily ask, or do the non-lazy thing and google for it. Another good post.

skroo's post #31 is rational, and does not refer to rights, or issue of politics. This is a good post.

Skroo's post #32 a comment on a legal defence but no politics. another good post.

Deviant Ollam in post #33 asks a question. no politics. good post.

noid in post #34 answers Deviant Ollam's question. good post.

renderman in post #35 adds comment to what noid wrote. good post.

noid in post #36 responds. good post.

Nikita in post #37 responds to skroo. In this post, it seems to me that you are becoming emotionally invested in this. There are a few instances where issues of "rights" comes up, and these are political.

Defensive responses like this to skroo's comment:

I'm not saying that you personally are incapable of doing so, but that the circumstances of the situation may mean that it's not feasible.

Don't make assumptions about another persons ability to defend
themselves, that mentality is key to failure.

Are a little silly to me. The discussion is civil, and a basic view of weapons would seem to provide answers to this question without the need to resort to questions of skill.

A handgun is (primarily) a distance weapon. A sword is (generally) a short-range, mele weapon. A infinite number of variations can be added to the use of these two weapons between two people, from level of skill, to proximity, to location, to rounds or type of ammo, shealthed/holstered, and terrain. Polluting a discussion with "what-if" around these brings few solutions. A common ground for discussion must be established for any kind of agreement.

Resolution comes when both parties recognize the limits of their respective weapons and accept those limits in their decisions on the weapons they choose.

You can not tell me that any blade I can own or weapon that was created years before the handgun does not apply to my right to bear arms.

Sure I can, but that does not mean it is true. ]:>

Anyone want to argue that? Go ahead.

Civil rights and civil liberties, and how they should or should not be applied are political.

What about you, do you have it under your pillow for crying out loud?

This is a sign that the discussion may be taking a turn toward politics.
(Guilt by association: loss of "cool" is also seen in threads on politics.)

In the middle of the night the speed it will take me to arm myself will be
Significantly faster than the average gun owner- assuming they have a
lock on the gun and it is not under the pillow. Can I dodge a bullet
with a sword no, but I wont stand there in the line of fire either- this
question is recockulas.

The question that prompted this response is another sign that this thread is becoming political.

"Can you dodge a bullet?"
"Do you sleep with a loaded weapon under your pillow?"

Both are rhetorical questions, designed to illustrate a point. As these kinds of questions become more silly or demonstrate fallacies, we have more indications that a thread has become too political.

Examples taken from usenet:
"What? Are you stupid?" (Possible question made by someone who is agitated, which is also either trolling or flaming or both.)
"When will you stop supporting Hitler's propaganda?" (Loaded question with inclusion of Godwin's Law and a violation of the off-topic rules through inclusion of a political leader.)

I have, although i need to figure out where...sorry to lead yall on with this one. But I have heard it has happened before.

Cite it. You're rather new to the forums, and don't have a reputation in the view of many forum members yet. Citing examples to your claims gives you a better foundation in discussions and may be leveraged in the future when you don't have the time to cite something you know you can find if you need to.

End of Crash-course on political topics on the forums.

Enjoy!

[Deviant Ollam]

You said it yourself- If they outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns. If they made owning a shot gun or a 22 against the law I would go buy
one right now on principle.

i hold strong agreement and sympathy with that sentiment. on the other side of the same coin, i know a good number of people who have invested in a few weapons because they fear they day when guns may become outlawed... aparently (and i see their point a little bit) they find it a less objectionable notion to illicitly refuse to surrender weapons than to illicitly purchase weapons.

You can not tell me that any blade I can own or weapon that was created years before the handgun does not apply to my right to bear arms.

i have to say that it is particularly silly how standards can be drawn up which ban certain items outright eventhough these items are orders of magnitude less dangerous and less capable of harm than other items which are still legal. to go along with the "how did our nation's founders consider this matter" line of reasoning, i cannot imagine George Washington or any of these other individuals who placed such a high value on self-protection deeming bladed weapons or brickbats as unworthy of ownership.

An AK47 is Excessive and I can understand putting a restriction on that.

heh... not everyone on this board would agree with you there. in my mind, each specific piece of weapon technology should be evaluated by measuring its potential for responsible, safe use against its potential for terrible harm. a bomb, artillery, and other vastly explosive ordinance is innapropriate for civilian ownership since there most people have little ability to use them without posing a significant threat to someone other than the intended target. the potential for devastating splash damage in a wide radius is too great. something like an assault rifle, however (while it can be used to terrible effect by a criminal) is easily weilded by a responsible person in a safe manner. i agree with closer scrutiny by regulators when it comes to ownership of such hardware... but the likelihood of a criminal rampaging with one is dwarfed by the magnitude of people who would peaceably own them. (noid can tell you more about how Form3 gear was fine and society wasn't threatened by collectors in the pre-86 days)

For the record, I did Preface my statement with if I fail to be able to have them legally.

this raises an interesting issue... the right to have the best means and methods at your disposal even if your permission to obtain them changes. put another way... has anyone ever used a piece of freeware (say, a diagnostic utility) for a long time and come to love it... only to see that some future version is released as a product with a price tag? how many of us continue to use the old freeware version instead of upgrading? what about if you're at a job site late at night after any stores have closed but you need a utility... i have on more than one occasion FTP'd to a warez server or used a CD from my bag of tricks with improper licensing. not a direct parallel, but it bears on a similar point... a person's right to accomplish a goal (security, in almost all these cases) with whatever tools are available, despite how this may not jive with regulations.

I will make this as simple as possible, Because I don't have to. I don't lock the door all the time if i am sitting on the couch watching tv, If
i have the patio door open to let some cool air in, My home is not a
fortress that locks me in it. I don't think it is an issue of common
sense but instead determined by personal necessity. If you need to lock
your doors then common sense to you says lock your doors. If your buddy
is coming over to watch the game and everyone is out back at the bbq, do
you still lock your front door? Or is it more common for him to walk
in, announce himself, assumed not going through your wife’s underwear and
join the rest of the party?

i am with you on this one. truth be told, i do not have my doors locked all the time. i feel there is a time and place for security of the highest order and then there's a time when social intereaction and casual interpersonal contact has a higher value. remember, there's always a cost to every layer of security one installs/uses... at times people like nikita and i simply choose to weigh that cost as too high when compared with the social value gained through openness.

Our society perpetuates that fear to the point that it balloons the actual cases. The fear of the action outweighs the percentage of occurrence by 300%. Our American news does not help

correct on all points here, i would say.

I don't fear my neighbor. I don't fear my peers. I don't fear the druggy or homeless guy in the alley. I feel the worst threat is the enemy who knows you well enough and has the passion to attack you regardless of consequences. Those people are stalkers, they are scorned lovers, they are sour business deals, they are the man you fucked over or who thinks you fucked him over.

ah, but are these really the types whom you can predict? are there any proper ways of protecting oneself from them 24/7? would leaving a trail of scorned men and broken hearts ultimately make you forfit the ability to leave doors unlocked?

This fact only solidifies what I believe in the right to bear arms. specifically intended and to protect militia and in this day in age we forget that

interestingly enough, how to define "militia" and whether or not the 2nd amendment was describing exlcusively the militia or whether it distinguishes between them Militia and the People is a matter of great debate even today. one thing that i find astoundingly interesting is the "punctuation" issue. did you know that the constitution as it was ratified by the states when we became a nation isn't the same document that is displayed in the national archives (and in many printed editions)?

this is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

however, when the display copy of the Constituion was prepared by the House scribe William Lambert, he wrote this amendment as follows...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

google for Lambert and 2nd amendment to read up more about how this affects interpretation. a fascinating topic, in my mind. go and look at your copy (or copies) of the Constitution... which version did your publishers use?

[Virosa]

There has been some really good discussion on this thread. I may have missed it (please point me in the right direction if so), but I don't think anyone has touched on what goes on before Joe Badguy enters your house and you are forced to use your Glock/Katana/baseball bat/Boots of Asskicking +3. Because let's face it - if someone kicks in your door at 3:00 in the morning, you are jumping from deep REM sleep to making split second decisions in a few seconds. Saying that you would be in an unprepared state of mind would be an understatement.

In a worst-case scenario, an attacker has targeted you for more than random burglary, and might be rushing to you, which further limits your time to grab your weapon, ready it, and prepare yourself to use it. There may be some people who can snap out of a deep sleep ready to dish out death and destruction, but (a) saying such a thing makes my bullshit detector peg and (b) I feel real sorry for spouses, children, and pets in such a household. Most of the rest of the world needs some time to assess the situation and mentally prepare ourselves, and there isn't much time in such a situation.

So what can be done to give you some advanced warning that maybe something bad is about to happen? Obviously one answer is an off-the-shelf security system. Since there are a large number of DIY-ers here, I imagine that someone has modified or built something like this from scratch. I own a house, so my surveillance system / early warning system would be very different from someone living in a flat or townhouse. Specifically, I need to have cameras covering a large area, and would possibly need to send video wirelessly if I chose to mount cameras away from my house. I'm wondering if anyone here has tackled this problem, since I have not yet seen a good commercial solution that combines low power, night/low-light resolution, and encryption of the wireless signal. That last part is usually completely absent from commercial wireless video cameras, and I don't like the idea of making my backyard a public broadcast station.

Any thoughts on shoring up perimeter security on apartments/condos/other habitats? Anyone built a meatspace IDS, or seen good open source projects that would make a good part of one? I didn't see any threads that covered this in the forums, but again, perhaps my google-fu was poor today.

I will contribute some links in a few hours when I get some downtime, but I wanted to get the ball rolling in the meantime.

[Virosa]

I will contribute some links in a few hours when I get some downtime, but I wanted to get the ball rolling in the meantime.

Here's an interesting link to a project that might make up a part of a good home Intrusion Detection System, although I think this would be more practical to use to guide a PTZ camera than to rain down destruction upon the Amway salesman that comes knocking on my door.

EDIT: no source code is included in this link, but it's still kinda nifty.

[skroo]

something like an assault rifle

Emphasis above mine, and a quick point of clarification here for the benefit of the thread: assault weapons are not the same as automatic weapons.

Assault weapons are typically semi-automatic - that is, they fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger and have no repeating action, though they are likely self-cocking and self-feeding. They're usually patterned on military weapons and have a militaristic appearance (the Colt AR-15 is a good example of this) but that's about it - they're not 'spray & pray' weapons as is commonly believed. It's also worth noting that with the sunset of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban a couple of years ago, there is no longer a Federal definition of an 'assault rifle', though some states (notably California) maintain their own definitions.

Automatic weapons (aka 'machine guns') have been Federally-regulated since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. Further, quoting from this link, "An amendment to the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 generally outlaws the sale, transfer and possession of new machine guns." The FOPA is also interesting in that it basically affirms the applicability in law of the rights conferred by the Second Amendment, but I'll let someone who isn't an armchair lawyer handle that.

So, basically, the only way someone can legally posess an automatic weapon now is to buy one manufactured prior to 1986, pay the $200 transfer tax, and essentially submit to registration with the BATFE. However, the carbines on sale in your local gun store are not the same as these weapons, nor are they automatic weapons.

Not picking on you - it's just that this is an important distinction to make, and people on both sides of the Second Amendment argument often get it wrong.

[Voltage Spike]

i have to say that it is particularly silly how standards can be drawn up which ban certain items outright eventhough these items are orders of magnitude less dangerous and less capable of harm than other items which are still legal.

I'm not sure exactly what California's specific law is, but it usually isn't an outright ban. It was my understanding that quite a few people went out and purchased these types of weapons when Kung Fu became cool a few decades back. You had a lot of armed people running around without training and trying to seriously use them ... a situation with predictably tragic results. Therefore, most laws today try to limit possession to people who are in training or have been trained to use them.

The laws actually mesh with your next point:

each specific piece of weapon technology should be evaluated by measuring its potential for responsible, safe use against its potential for terrible harm.

[Nikita]

T

Any thoughts on shoring up perimeter security on apartments/condos/other habitats? Anyone built a meatspace IDS, or seen good open source projects that would make a good part of one? I didn't see any threads that covered this in the forums, but again, perhaps my google-fu was poor today.

If I was not sick and about to go back to bed for the 4th time today i would do a google to try to remember the old stuff i used.
I had a studio apt a while back and i was very strong on the IDS factor. Not only did i install a key pad entry alarm, generic but recommended, but i had some freeware apps that were useful. ( some of them with pain in the ass memory leaks but still useful ) The web cam was placed in the inside window facing the frount door and the programs i used had excellent apature for night time, It watied until it caught a difference in the video frames and then began recording the footage. I had it to alert me when the motion sensor caught those differences. So when someone walked near the landing or up to the door i would have notice and it would be recorded for my benefit later. I did not have a land line telephone so the noise i choose was a telephone ringing ( rather loud). I thought since it was loud and one could hear the phone ringing a burgler may change his/her mind if the phone rang once or twice seeming to be picked up. You would not have to worry about it being encrypted as my solution was not wireless. Another benefit to using this system was if i wanted to i could view the webcam feed from work and check on things when absolutly bored out of my mind. Also...This may be something one could modify for changes in audio as well, but in an apartment setting you may or may not be legally invading privacy when you introduce audio. I would assume that since when audio is involved in survellience, no matter how innocent, it could be interpretated as pushing the bounds and "tapping".
Now i will go back to bed.

[Thorn]

OK, I'm back in the US. In answer to Deviant's earlier questions, here's my take on what you should do if you're in the unfortunate situation of being involved in a shooting.

As Noid mentioned, the arriving cops will be abrupt. They will have guns drawn, and be ordering everyone down. They will not be interested in hearing about a damned thing until they know that the scene is stablized, and no one is doing any more shooting. You do not want to be holding your weapon in any threatening manner at this point, and you sure as hell want to be cooperative. Hopefully if the bad guy is down, your gun is at least depressed.

You WILL be taken into custody, transported to the station and questioned. You will probably be cuffed. You may be arrested and charged with some level of homicide. Expect it to happen. Be happy if it does not.

Even if you are completely in the right -the guy was a 7' tall, coked-out shotgun-armed killer wanted in 16 states for aggrevated murder, and you nailed him in the X-ring with one shot when he kicked in your door- you should NEVER make any statement without consulting with an attorney.

If you for some assinine reason think you have to say something, then the ONLY thing you should say is "I was in fear for my life." Then shut up and wait for the lawyer.

Giving a statement to the police, after talking to the lawyer, may help clear you. Your lawyer should be able to keep you from making any verbal or written mistakes that would paint you in a bad light.

Understand that the investigating officers are interested in finding out what actually happened. That means if you are in the right, they will try to clear you. Having seen and probably been in similar situations, they may even sympathize. It also means that if you violated the law, they will be out to nail you with hammer and tongs. They same goes for the prosecutor, although prosecutors will be much more motivated by politics and public opinion than the police will tend to be. This can translate to a prosecution because of "public demand" even if the shooting is legally justified.

Depending on the juridiction, you may have to go before a Grand Jury, or the chief prosecutor for the area (State's Attorney, District Attorney, Attorney General, etc.) may make their own decisions for/against charges without a Grand Jury.

Your weapon will be seized and subject to firearms examinations. This includes "ballistics tests" (which aren't tests for ballistic flight, per se- They are actually several tests to determine that the Known gun fired the Questioned rounds). Secondly, the gun will be examined for modifications, which will be reported. While modifications may be perfectly legitimate, understand that if prosecuted you will likely be portrayed as a "gun nut who customized his guns." This can be a disaster with suburban "soccer mom" juries.

If you are cleared, there are legal procedures in most places for the return of the weapon, along with anything else seized as evidence. These vary according to the juridiction but usually required submitting a written request to the court and the investigating agency.

One other point which several others have made, but bears repeating: If you have not previously thought out "I can and will kill another person when needed", then you have no right to be carrying a gun. That moral quandry has to have been decided in the cold light of day, knowing all that it implies, long before you're standing there screaming at someone to stop advancing at you.