• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Advances in non-lethal defense make the 2nd amendment unnecessary

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
karmypolitics said:
Yes it is. You are threatening death or severe injury to the other guy.
Since the number one objective in self defense should be to get away from the attacker.
I do admit that my theory breaks down when talking about store owners in inner cities. THey I do feel have a legitimate need for firearms.
Click to expand...
In the case of a home invasion, should my objective to flee my home and leave my family to fend for themselves against the intruders?
 
CallMeJoe said:
In the case of a home invasion, should my objective to flee my home and leave my family to fend for themselves against the intruders?
Click to expand...

In the event of a home invasion you could incapacitate someone using non-lethal force. If you're truly worried you could invest in one of those home monitoring services that have police show up within 5 minutes.
 
karmypolitics said:
Yes it is. You are threatening death or severe injury to the other guy.

Since the number one objective in self defense should be to get away from the attacker.

I do admit that my theory breaks down when talking about store owners in inner cities. THey I do feel have a legitimate need for firearms.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The number one objective in self defense is your own safety/survival.

Running away is not a very good solution, because you have no idea if they can run faster than you. If you're woman wearing high heels facing a potential rapist, you will not outrun him. As for in your own home, absolutely you have no cause to run away, besides, depending on where you live, you might not have an escape option behind you. Hold your ground, you have them in visual contact, there's no chase, there's no "oh god where is he?", just shoot him and be done with it.

Your theory doesn't just break down, it never was viable in the first place.
 
karmypolitics said:
In the event of a home invasion you could incapacitate someone using non-lethal force. If you're truly worried you could invest in one of those home monitoring services that have police show up within 5 minutes.
Click to expand...
There is little chance of a five-minute response in my rural area, and your non-lethal solutions are far less than optimal if there is more than one intruder.
 
karmypolitics said:
In the event of a home invasion you could incapacitate someone using non-lethal force. If you're truly worried you could invest in one of those home monitoring services that have police show up within 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. Not a good solution. You don't know if the intruder(s) have help with them. You don't know how fast they will recover. You have a house to secure, a family to locate and unify in one safe location, and all the while, with your non-lethal solution, the intruders are recovering. Do it with a gun, and they won't be recovering.
 
CallMeJoe said:
Don't you need something that sounds like a real gun for foley?

edit: get a real gun and remove the firing pin.
Click to expand...

And have the barrel plug-welded shut. Also, I think a properly disabled gun or a purposed replica is preferrable over a model made by Mattel® as it's pretty obvious to recognize the difference in how they're handled due to the weight difference between them.

As an aside, you know what really cracks me up? Occasionally in movies, after a gunfight of any sort, the camera would zoom in really close to some smoking spent brass and they'd all have crimped mouths on them. 😀
 
MotF Bane said:
When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. Not a good solution. You don't know if the intruder(s) have help with them. You don't know how fast they will recover. You have a house to secure, a family to locate and unify in one safe location, and all the while, with your non-lethal solution, the intruders are recovering. Do it with a gun, and they won't be recovering.
Click to expand...

seconds matter. lol. you're not being attacked by elite special forces. you're not important. Most likely an intruder is some dumb teenager poking around (there are many stories of elderly shooting dead some dumb teenager who trespassed for fun).
 
Karmy, enough now, you have just become progressively silly in this thread

"most likely an intruder is some dumb teenager poking around" - /facepalm
 
karmypolitics said:
seconds matter. lol. you're not being attacked by elite special forces. you're not important. Most likely an intruder is some dumb teenager poking around (there are many stories of elderly shooting dead some dumb teenager who trespassed for fun).
Click to expand...

That is completely ridiculous. Yes, seconds do matter, and to say otherwise is pure ignorance. It takes just seconds to kill someone with your bare hands, and less with a blade or any other weapon really. Most likely, the intruder is a criminal, seeking jewelry, small electronics, or cash, and has already decided before entering that they will kill you to make their escape if you interrupt them.
 
karmypolitics said:
Here's an example:

http://www.decaturdaily.com/stories/Teen-burglary-suspect-killed,42806

14 year old kid does something stupid. Gets shot dead.

yadda yadda he was breaking the law etc. Non-lethal force would have been more appropriate in the situation.
Click to expand...

Burglary. That's a crime. And if he weren't armed and confronted them, do you suppose the three would run away? Or would they have attacked him to eliminate a witness? There's no way the homeowner could know that, so he defended himself and his property, which is completely justified.
 
MotF Bane said:
When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away. Not a good solution. You don't know if the intruder(s) have help with them. You don't know how fast they will recover. You have a house to secure, a family to locate and unify in one safe location, and all the while, with your non-lethal solution, the intruders are recovering. Do it with a gun, and they won't be recovering.
Click to expand...

He doesn't care.

The proper tactic is to keep everyone safe and don't go hunting. If someone comes after you then they aren't looking for directions. You protect you and yours. Shotguns are the best solution.
 
MotF Bane said:
So you admit that taking away guns is violating rights. Thanks, we're done here.
Click to expand...

Well he never said he cared about rights. That pesky piece of paper called the Constitution is just trash to him unless it suits his agenda. Why should those in power be restricted by rules?
 
karmypolitics said:
I'm just making a point, sir. non-lethal defense systems have made great advancements in recent years. Law enforcement in particular has been big on it as of late. It is also an interesting way to sidestep the debate. You can have effective self-defense without carrying around a murder tool.
Click to expand...

You're a clueless tool. I think even you have to know that.

Two weeks ago one of our Officers got called out to Walmart's loss prevention office. Someone tried to steal light bulbs. Long story short, the perp drew a gun, and our Officer shot and killed him. According to you, he should have used his pepper spray. Ever hear of not bringing a knife to a gun fight?

Even if all Police Officer's used only pepper spray and tasers, do you really think the bad guys would do the same? Our tasers are good for 25 feet, much less than any pistol or rifle is good for. Again, you're clueless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top