![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Man Foils Armed Robbery Using Facebook
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Depends on the state. I can defend my home, but they must be IN my home (IN and KY are both this way. dunno about others). There are ways around the property thing, though,
See, you are making my point for me. It shouldn't be considered an act of bravery or heroism to stand up and defend yourself and your family, it should be instinct. Yes it is dangerous to engage armed thugs, however I suggest it's even more dangerous to put yourself at their mercy and hope for the best.
How is defending yourself considered escalating? If you don't defend yourself, who will? The Police are a great asset to society, but you can't have them with you all day, and as a US Supreme Court case determined about two years ago, the Police have no duty to protect you (the case involved a woman who was killed by a stalker despite having a restraining order against him and a police protective order on herself. Her family sued, eventually got to the SCOTUS and they ruled that the police have no duty to protect any individual, and can't be held liable if something happens even after they offered such protection).
Like I said in a previous post, I'm using him as an example to point out, like you said, that 98% of people are not prepared to deal with something like this. I'm advocating that those 98% seek out training to prepare themselves. Whether a gun, martial arts, whatever. We should not have to accept that being a victim is the price we pay for living in a modern civilized society. Even in a modern and highly evolved society like the US, there are still bad people willing to do bad things to good people. The good people need to take a bit more responsibility for their own wellbeing. No one cares about your life as much as you do, so its just basic logic that if you want to preserve your life, you should probably be an active participant.
marylandman
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 789
You must not understand what a castle law is and what protection it offers the person. in the state of maryland you have to retreat into your house until you cannot retreat anymore and then, only then can you use deadly force. also, even in this case you open yourself to issues with the law. people need to realize that state law runs a wide gamut and better educate themselves,
Last edited by a moderator:
Excuse me? You don't know the first thing about me. I know perfectly well what castle doctrine is. Some states have it, others don't, and some have laws that actually recognize that a person being attacked has every right to defend themselves wherever they are. When a state legislates away someone's right to self-defense, they essentially grant criminals free reign to terrorize the citizenry with impunity. Your lovely state of Maryland with its laws that require you to give the upper hand to an assailant by forcing you to retreat is an example of a state that does not trust it's citizenry. Fortunately, the state where I live actually trusts it's citizens. We have the right to concealed as well as open carry. We have the right to use deadly force to protect ourselves and others regardless of where we are when attacked. And we have no duty to retreat, as our legislature recognizes that in requiring citizens to do so essential creates safe havens for criminals where no law abiding citizen would dare wander.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just to be a devils advocate, those 98% of people tend not to prioritize this as they see the chances of their home being invaded as slim. Investing all the time/money required in order to become efficient at defending their home just does not seem necessary.
I wonder how many of those same people also don't have car insurance, home insurance, or don't even own a fire extinguisher at home? All of that is stuff we spend money on despite the fact that we hope to never need it. Your car, your home, your "stuff" can all be replaced. You can't be replaced, so why would you ignore the preservation of the one thing you have that once taken can never be gotten back??
That renders the "money" argument moot but what about the time factor? I've seen the word "training" thrown around quite a bit but I haven't seen anyone detail what is required. I highly doubt a "Firearms Safety" course would be sufficient enough to explain fields of fire, how to clear a room, active/passive defensive plans, stairway entries, etc. And should you find one that covers all of that, taking one course would not be sufficient as you would need to constantly practice/train. And of course you need to factor in all the time spent at the range becoming proficient with your weapon. Can you really expect the Johnsons living with their 2.5 children in their suburban home to do all of that?
Again, it comes down to priorities. The Johnsons living with their 2.5 children in their suburban home probably make lots of time for things like movies, soccer, t-ball, etc. The amount of time that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson need to invest to ensure their family can survive should their domestic tranquility be shattered one day is far less of an investment than they spend running the kids around to different events.
Assuming someone has never fired a gun before, they could start with a basic gun safety and familiarization course, about 3 hours of time. Follow that up with a basic handgun class, figure another 3 hours. Then move on to a general defensive handgun course, about 16 hours over 2 days. Follow this with an intermediate defensive handgun course, another 16 hours over 2 days. Assuming you practice about 1 - 2 hours every two months or so, you should be able to hone and maintain your proficiency to the level that is necessary to effectively defend yourself against the average untrained but street-wise thug. So to go from zero to trained and ready you are looking at a time investment of about 50 hours in the first year, and about 12 hours per year afterward to maintain your proficiency. In the first year that amounts to giving up two weekends, and probably two mid-week evenings for training, and then an hour or two every other month to practice.
Is that really such a huge inconvenience for something that could save your life and the lives of your family someday?
Geef
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2009
- Messages
- 338
I like the idea of more than one way to do things. I've trained in martial arts so I might have a little more confidence than the 20 year old had, but just by looking on my computer desk I see several ways to resolve the problem without a gun. A philips head screwdriver, one off my tougher pens, a wrench up above me on the shelf, and also a knife laying around here somewhere.
that or get a cell phone...
While I totally agree with your point, the point I am trying to make is not everyone can be trained for such a thing. You can train a person to weild and use a gun, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD use one. I see people come into my workplace frequently and try to train on my area. Some people get it, some don't. Some we keep, some we send packing. All the training in the world is not going to help someone if they just don't get it. This kid used what he knew and it worked, thankfully.
Agreed, one size does not fit all, and not everyone is capable mentally or physically to do what I'm advocating. I simply wish those who are capable would empower themselves. Society as a whole would be better off.
TheWeazmeister
<a href=http://www.blogcdn.com/www.parentdish.com/
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 3,346
Sickb0y
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,279
SamuraiInBlack
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 5,771
A couple days a week in firearms training, safety courses, and being at the range pays off the first time you need to shoot a sub-human scumbag who wants to hurt you or your family, doesn't it?
I'd rather be prepared and go my whole life never having to use it than to be unprepared and totally screwed.
You do realize that in the 11 year olds case, it was 3 teenagers in the home. If say, it was 3 20-30 year olds, people that aren't afraid to hurt you, that kid would have been screwed. How many mature burglers you think are scared of a small pink bolt action rifle wielded by an 11 year old? Not many.
As for the topic at hand, the guy was resourceful and used what he had at his disposal to safely alert police without endangering himself or his family. Know why you never hear the story about the individuals getting their pistol and trying to defend against 3 burglers? Usually it doesn't go so well for them.
Your first point is pure speculation, you have no data to back that up at all.
Your second point is just pure wrong. It happens a lot, but "Man defends family with firearm" doesn't make the national news like "Family raped and murdered in home invasion" does.
Try browsing this site a bit:
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
Vermillion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,414
For once Facebook wasn't a complete waste of time, code, and bandwidth. First and last time I might add...