Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I Feel SO Much Safer
Speaking of NPR [Gene e-mails to say it was some other morning news]... Gene Healy nails them for the grotesque use of the term "gun safety laws" to describe Washington D.C.'s handgun ban. I'm finding myself suddenly a little more emotionally involved in this particular issue, incidentally, because this weekend, some thug broke into my house. He crawled in the window of a housemate's bedroom and (while, unfortunately, the rest of us slept) threatened his life and robbed him before realizing there were others home who might wake up and bolting. The police arrived only a couple of minutes after being called—fast, but not fast enough to have done more than administer CPR if things had gotten ugly. The officers informed us that it's common in cases like this for the guy to return for a follow-up attempt within a few weeks. I'm keeping a fireplace poker handy in the event our friend the urban explorer decides to see what he missed the first time, but on the off chance that he's a little less law abiding than my housemates and I, I don't know how much good it'll do. But now that I think about it, maybe NPR got it right after all: The burglar must sure be enjoying his "gun safety."
Yaron|9.28.04 @ 4:18PM|#
Did this change your views on gun control in any way, or just make the issue more visceral? It brings to mind the old definition of a conservative, "a liberal who's been mugged".
|9.28.04 @ 4:19PM|#
No; I've always opposed the ban... now I'm just really, really angry about it too.
|9.28.04 @ 4:28PM|#
Get a dog. If you wake up with a gun pointed at you, having your
own gun in the dresser won't do you much good.
Rufus barking away will prevent the entire situation from
developing.
Are you as angry about your landlord's pet policy as you are about
the city's gun laws?
fyodor|9.28.04 @ 4:35PM|#
Too bad dogs bark at a lot more than criminals, often making them a downright nuisance.
|9.28.04 @ 4:36PM|#
Get a dog, then get a gun. That way you can shoot the guy while he's shooting your dog.
Xrlq|9.28.04 @ 4:36PM|#
If I were you, I'd comply with D.C.'s unconstitutional handgun ban by getting the hell out of D.C. Why put up with that crap when you can commute from shall-issue Virginia instead?
|9.28.04 @ 4:38PM|#
joe-
First, let me start with the standard H&R disclaimer that
obviously a private property owner should have the right to ban
dogs, just as the property owner should have the right to ban guns.
But the city shouldn't ban either of those items. And, as long as
I'm issuing my standard caveats, I'll just observe that Kerry would
be much worse ;)
Anyway, back to serious discussion:
In all fairness, a lot of the problems caused by dogs are the
result of mere negligence, while most of the problems associated
with guns are the result of deliberate actions and malice. The
number of people who won't take responsibility for a dog greatly
outnumbers the people who will deliberately shoot another person.
Therefore, a landlord's pet policy actually makes a lot of
sense.
Now, there is the issue of people who injure innocent people with
guns due to carelessness rather than malice. I'll grant that a
careless gun owner can do more damage to people and property than
most careless dog owners (unless the dog is an attack dog, but
mostly dogs just scratch walls and go to the bathroom). I'd be
interested in whether anybody has compiled statistics to
demonstrate that defensive uses of guns greatly outnumber
accidental firearm injuries. I seem to recall hearing of such
numbers, but I don't know any details.
|9.28.04 @ 4:41PM|#
BTW, does DC ban the ownership of rifles and shotguns? With the
lapse of the assault weapons ban, maybe you could defend your place
with an AK-47.
Or is there a local ordinance against those as well?
Xrlq|9.28.04 @ 4:42PM|#
Are you as angry about your landlord's pet policy as you are about the city's gun laws?
Why should he be? His landlord should be able to make whatever
rules he wants. It's his property!
|9.28.04 @ 4:42PM|#
I am deeply sorry to hear your home was invaded, Mr.
Sanchez.
I believe even Washington, DC, allows the private ownership of
sporting shotguns. For a mere a $250, you can purchase a reasonable
well-made Winchester 1300 or Remington 870 12 gauge pump shotgun.
Loaded with a light pellets (say #6) even a modest wall will stop
the shot. This same load will also make a rather large and
unsightly hole in an intruder.
I think the shotgun is more "persuasive" than the handgun and safer
for the neighbors. The sound of cycling a shell into the chamber is
universally understood as, "That's about far enough."
As for the gun laws in DC... utter stupidity.
|9.28.04 @ 4:42PM|#
If it's any consolation Julian I'm licensed to carry here in Houston and make use of that little piece of plastic on a semifrequent basis. This however did not keep my barbecue grill from being stolen last week. My solution to that problem was to meander over to our shipping department and make several stencils that read "STOLEN BY A CRACKHEAD". Irregardless of what's on your hip your best weapon is as always between your ears.
|9.28.04 @ 4:43PM|#
Does DC have a ban on shotguns? If not, might I suggest a
Mossberg 500 with an 18 inch barrel?
At any rate, sorry to hear about your misfortune.
|9.28.04 @ 4:47PM|#
iirc correctly (i can't remember the source, and i can't remember the year, but it was a relatively recent article on suicides citing statistics from a recent year like 2000 or 2001, and i don't have the patience to look it up) there were about 30,000 gun deaths that year, 200 of which were accidental, and around 15,000 of which were suicides.
|9.28.04 @ 4:49PM|#
See Gene's article. Rifles must remain unloaded at all times and be disassembled or bound by triggerlock.
|9.28.04 @ 4:51PM|#
From the Gene Healy link:
"You can register certain rifles and shotguns. You just can't
legally use them when your life is threatened. District law
requires all guns to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a
triggerlock" at all times -- and it makes no exception for lawful
self defense. If a burglar confronts you in your home, and you load
your shotgun to defend yourself, you've just committed a
misdemeanor offense punishable by up to a year in jail. "
|9.28.04 @ 4:55PM|#
Personally, I recommend against a short-barreled "home defense"
shotgun. If you are forced to shoot an intruder, it is far better
to show the police officers a firearm that looks like it was meant
for duck hunting or some other purpose... a $10,000 Purdy double
with lovely gold engraving would do quite nicely. In a place like
DC, one must expect to go to trial for the poltically incorrect
measure of protecting one's life. Give your attorney every
advantage by selecting a gun that does not look like you were
hoping for intruders.
I also must point out that the shotgun does not need daily feeding,
regular walks or vet visits. The shotgun need not be placed in a
kennel during long trips abroad. The shotgun will not run away from
away or make a mess on the carpet... well... not usually.
|9.28.04 @ 4:55PM|#
I had a similar thing happen to me living alone in Venice, CA. I
was fortunate that I woke up in time to yell the guy out of my
apartment. It's impressive the effect agressive posturing can have
on a drug addict.
The cops there told me I they wished I would have shot the guy and
too bad I didn't have a gun. Of course when I went into work that
morning and told people of my experience they said I was lucky I
didn't have a gun or I would have just been killed with it.
That was almost four years ago and I still kinda wish I would have
captured or capped that guy so he would still be out there
victimizing other people.
|9.28.04 @ 4:55PM|#
Was the burglar armed or was it too dark for your roommate to
see?
The curiousity exposed by this question lends an answer that is
obvious if the burglar was armed (when guns are criminalized, only
criminals will have guns--which is an obvious statement and yet
pointedly circular), or if the burglar was or was not armed, would
an alarm system have awakened any of the roommates in time to: 1.
kick the shit out of the intruder; 2. get a gun; or 3. scare off
the intruder?
A gun is nice if you know that another is coming after you, you
catch the intruder off guard, or he shouts out "I will rob you at
gunpoint." Otherwise, a common alarm system with howls and sirens
works well.
I suggest both. And target practice.
-Richard
|9.28.04 @ 4:58PM|#
If you are arrested for defending yourself, Mr. Sanchez, I will contriube handsomely to your defense fund.
|9.28.04 @ 5:01PM|#
Just out of curiosity, what happens, in DC or elsewhere, when an otherwise law-abiding citizen uses an illegal gun to stop an intruder in his home (either by actually firing or just by threatening to use it)? Presumably this has happened before. Were the gun owners prosecuted? Was it acknowledged that they had a legitimate use and protection need for the gun that law enforcement was unable to fill? If there was a prosecution, was there bad publicity for the city?
|9.28.04 @ 5:07PM|#
"Why should he be (mad)? His landlord should be able to make
whatever rules he wants. It's his property!"
If the way my landlord ran his operation put my safety in danger,
I'd be pissed. Of course, this it would be very difficult to find
an apartment Julian would want to live in that would allow a large
dog, but I guess he's still "free" to be driven out of the city, or
move to a shithold in Anacostia (but I repeat myself,
thrice).
I just don't buy the idea that DC law would make it illegal to use
a shotgun to defend yourself. Protection of human life is a legal
defense. If it's a defense against murder, it's a defense agains
gun laws.
|9.28.04 @ 5:12PM|#
"I just don't buy the idea that DC law would make it illegal to
use a shotgun to defend yourself. Protection of human life is a
legal defense. If it's a defense against murder, it's a defense
agains gun laws."
But the crime (having the shotgun, not using it to defend yourself)
was already committed before self-defense even became an issue. I
agree that it wouldn't make sense to prosecute someone who
prevented a crime from taking place, protected his own self and
property, and didn't hurt anyone else (with the possible exception
of the criminal), but making sense isn't the best indicator of what
will get prosecuted. That's why I was interested in any actual
examples, and how they played out.
|9.28.04 @ 5:17PM|#
Glad nobody got seriously hurt.
The recipe for a 100% successful gun defense as dome by me, a few
years ago: wait until he is inside the broken window, then say
nothing, just jack a round of #4 birdshot into the chamber. As all
thugs speak '12-guage', he fled for his life, badly slashing
himself on the glass, falling all over the garbage cans in the back
and, if my ears did not fail me, bouncing off two walls in the
alley beyond. No cops, no paperwork, an best of all, no lawyers. It
was a bad neighborhood, but the word got around fast: rob somebody
else.
Note that the lack of discharge of the firearm and the subsequent
non-involvement of the police are central characteristics of over
90% of ALL successful gun defenses [totalling about 1,750,000/yr].
The odds are on your side: buy a pump-action shotgun and keep it
handy.
P.S. What exactly did you think the cops were TELLING you to
do?
"Go for the eyes, BOO, go for the eyes!"
|9.28.04 @ 5:20PM|#
As far as I know, I could get a dog if I wanted one, but I'm going with an alarm system instead. They're easier to clean up after. I'd like to have at least the *option* of a backup, but I guess that'll have to do for now.
Evan McElravy|9.28.04 @ 5:41PM|#
Give your attorney every advantage by selecting a gun that
does not look like you were hoping for intruders.
And on a similar note, use some unprepossessing hunting load and
not some custom shell filled with carpet tacks or else something
emotionally satisfying but suspicious looking.
An andiron sounds like a pretty reassuring accessory under the
anti-gun circumstances (plus, you would look very rakish and
dashing brandishing it); my own urban repression self-defense item
is an axe handle, although I like having a dog around too.
|9.28.04 @ 5:43PM|#
After a little research, it appears antique blackpowder pistols
are legal in D.C. and don't have to be registered.
One could get a 17th Century dueling pistol for emergencies, but
actually shooting someone with it might still run afoul of some
law.
It'd look nice on the wall, though.
|9.28.04 @ 5:47PM|#
No cops, no paperwork, an best of all, no
lawyers.
If you shoot, shovel, and shut up, you will probably achieve the
same result.
Wasn't it Carl Rowe (spelling?), a lefty DC reporter (am I
repeating myself?) who shot some kid for climing his fence and
using his pool--and got away with it?
Then, in England there is that farmer who shot and killed a hood in
his house and was sent to prison.
|9.28.04 @ 5:50PM|#
Julian,
You and your housemates have my sympathies. A friend of mine was
mugged a couple of years ago and her just telling the story rattled
me.
May I suggest learning martial arts? Though it won't help you if
Mr. B&E comes back next week, it does bypass all the
unpleasantness of gun laws and dog-hating landlords. And obviously
it's meant to be used at close quarters. There's a style for every
personality, from peacenik aikido to open-a-can-of-whoopass kempo.
Any style that involves grappling and locks will address disarming
someone possessing a gun or knife.
There are numerous historical examples of unarmed combat thriving
in cultures where weapons have been banned by the government...
|9.28.04 @ 6:01PM|#
Are there really 1,750,000 gun defenses a year? Just in the U.S.A.? That's a surprisingly high number.
|9.28.04 @ 6:06PM|#
The alarm makes the noise that wakes you up, just like the door
lock does. The firearm is what you grab when you wake up.
I'm infuriated and it didn't even happen to me. What on earth is
more fundamental than the right to protect yourself from an
intruder who wakes you in the middle of the night with threats? Why
isn't it obvious that what has been accomplished by this law is the
employment of the police to handcuff Julian and his housemates so
that they can be beaten or killed without resistance!? A civilian
employed similarly is called an ACCOMPLICE. DAMN IT!!
|9.28.04 @ 6:14PM|#
Julian, that sucks.
Home invasion is scary and problematic precisely because you don't
get any warning. Man, if I had a nickel for every time I've
hammered on my wife and kids to keep the door locked during the
day........
Emergency?
Dial .357
|9.28.04 @ 6:15PM|#
BTW: If you want a practical self defence system that will get
you effective reasonably fast, try Krav Maga. I speak from more
than a few years of experience in various martial arts.
You have a location in DC and several in VA to choose from.
http://kravmaga.com/Home/Training_Locator/washington_dc/washington_dc.html
Don't believe that it is anything in the same galaxy as a firearm,
though. Martial arts instructors have been pulling that kind of BS
for as long as there have been dojos. Krav will get you a better
than even shot at an unarmed attacker and a better than nothing
shot at an armed one, as long as he's pretty close.
|9.28.04 @ 6:56PM|#
Krav Maga is a good, short term training for self-defense. It
doesn't go for complexity so much as for efficiency. I've done a
little myself. I'm a black belt at tae kwon do but I still feel
better with a gun around...and my sticks and my knives...
a stick beats a fist...a knife beats a stick...a gun beats a
knife
-seeker
Stormy Dragon|9.28.04 @ 7:07PM|#
Jose Ortega y Gasset:
>Loaded with a light pellets (say #6)
OldFan:
>just jack a round of #4 birdshot into the chamber
Personally, I prefer 00 buckshot as a defensive round.
|9.28.04 @ 7:19PM|#
Are there really 1,750,000 gun defenses a year? Just in the
U.S.A.? That's a surprisingly high number.
I've heard some estimates as high as 2.5 million. These number are
based upon telephone surveys (polls). On the other hand, DOJ
statistics indicate over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year (at
least, the last time I looked it did). The DOJ stats are probably
an undercount. The > 1 million numbers may very well be
overcounts.
|9.28.04 @ 7:26PM|#
I keep an ice axe under my bed for protection, which is not as
good as gun, of course, but is considerably more menacing than any
fire poker, or marshall arts implement short of a katana.
Unless you had a gun, would you mess with a man brandishing
this?
http://www.altrec.com/shop/detail/12146/17/photo
|9.28.04 @ 7:36PM|#
There's probably no better self-defense than the sound of a shotgun being racked; and if a gunman is standing ten feet away from you, you're screwed; BUT, if I were to wake up one night with a menacing stranger lurking in my bedroom, I would trust my body and instincts better than a firearm. That's just me. I don't sleep with a pistol in my palm, nor am I an Old West quick-draw gunslinger.
|9.28.04 @ 7:40PM|#
My martial arts background: I spent quite a bit of time in
these, and even taught at a karate school. And my experience in
this is not resricted to one or several styles, although I don't
have any experience with the currently fashionable Israeli or
Brazilian martial arts.
My opinion on martial arts: I think they are great, but frankly
they fall short against, say, a guy armed with a knife. Now, I know
a number of people who used their martial arts training against
some dude with a knife with success, but I'm convinced that it
worked because the dude with the knife really had no intent to use
it to do serious damage. In all of my dojo sparring, the guy with
the rubber knife "slashed" the unarmed guy real good. And this
happened even when the unarmed guy was significantly more capable
of martial artist.
Specifically speaking of Akido, I wouldn't recommend it as a
defensive art. Sometimes the Akido moves work, but I have yet to
see someone employ Akido in a fluid sparring environment (Akido
does have a quasy-sparring method, but the "attackers" use
overcommitted attacks designed to be defeated by Akido
moves).
In my experience, it is best to cross-train using different styles,
a mix of punching, kicking, grappling, and floor techniques. It is
also best to study something "Americanized" ("Brazilianized"?),
which concentrates on results, as opposed to tradition.
On shotgun loads: any round that is effective within the room will
be able to punch through several layers of drywall and still be
effective. Some noted ballistics experts recommend nothing smaller
than #1 buck for defense. I opt for 00 or 000, using "tactical" or
"low recoil" loads, which pattern well. Also, those "nasty" 5.56 mm
"assault rifles" like the AR-15 are actually safer in urban
settings than shotguns loaded with buckshot or 9 mm or .45
handguns. Of course, AR-15s are no doubt verbotton in
DC.
|9.28.04 @ 8:15PM|#
There was an elderly, wheelchair bound, white woman in Chicago
who shot her 16 year old black male intruder dead with a .38 cal
revolver a couple of years ago.
The police declined to arrest or prosecute her.
When asked about her use of the handgun, Mayor Daley criticized her
for having an illegal handgun and recommended that she use a
shotgun instead.
|9.28.04 @ 8:24PM|#
I'm still going with a dog. A gun won't wake you up, a dog can
be left in its ready position without endangering the residents,
and the intimidation factor...well, I'd be more afraid of a
charging dog than of myself holding a gun. Also, you have to figure
that a professional criminal can probably kick your ass, and if
he's armed, he's probably more willing and able to use it that you
are.
The fact is, if you've got a gun that can be ready to go fast
enough to make a difference in a life or death situation, you're
putting yourself and your family in danger, especially if there are
kids around. And if it's adequately stored or hidden or unloaded,
it might not be ready in time. And, a gun in a drawer won't scare
the guy away as soon as he cuts your screen.
|9.28.04 @ 8:41PM|#
somewhat related, but not really:
there was a recent party crash in brooklyn, in which three
uninvited guests showed up at a house in greenpoint and were turned
away by the host at 4 in the morning. one of the uninvited took
unkindly to the rejection and fired a few 9mm rounds through the
door. the host, apparently cool under fire in the literal sense,
retrieved his katana and went after the gunman, nearly cutting off
his leg. the assailant died and the swordsman was not
charged.
an interesting exception.
judo or gracie give nice introductions to ground combat in their
own unique ways.
personally i practice smush fu, being a rather humungoid person.
plus there's no way to get into my apartment without going through
a minimum of three doors.
|9.28.04 @ 8:41PM|#
"The fact is, if you've got a gun that can be ready to go fast
enough to make a difference in a life or death situation..."
Depending on the circumstances, this wouldn't necessarily need to
be all that quick. Obviously if someone is coming directly into
your bedroom, the gun had better be nearby. But if you here
something downstairs, etc., there could easily be time to go to a
gun closet. At least that's the way it always works in sit-coms
(except with a tacky lamp instead of a gun).
And of course it also doesn't usually have to be loaded. As I
understand it, the vast majority of gun defenses don't involve
anything more than the gun being shown.
And I wouldn't assume that the criminal is more willing to use the
gun either. If you've got one and none of your potential victims
do, you don't have to be willing to use it for it to be
effective.
"I'd be more afraid of a charging dog than of myself holding a
gun."
I'd be more afraid of a dog than myself with a gun too, but
hopefully the intruder wouldn't have the benefit of knowing what a
candy-ass little turd I am.
"The police declined to arrest or prosecute her. When asked about
her use of the handgun, Mayor Daley criticized her for having an
illegal handgun and recommended that she use a shotgun
instead."
Wow. That's heartening, infuriating, and kind of surreal all at the
same time.
|9.28.04 @ 8:52PM|#
I�m surprised no one mentioned the Badnarik quote from the
libertarian/green debate. When asked his view of the death penalty
he responded (paraphrasing) �it is best carried out at the ATM when
they are attempting to mug you�. This man has my vote; the greens
in the audience were visibly mortified.
Joe makes an interesting point about a ready gun with children in
the house. An unloaded gun isn�t very useful when surprised. I have
a dog, a gun, and no kids. The last time my dog woke me up there
were two policemen in my backyard, one with a german shepard and
the other with a drawn gun. I figure the dog will be a good
distraction while I get my bearings and draw a bead.
|9.28.04 @ 9:11PM|#
I keep an ice axe under my bed for protection, which is not
as good as gun, of course, but is considerably more menacing than
any fire poker, or marshall arts implement short of a
katana.
JeSUS, JDM, sounds like a bad Sharon Stone movie!
joe actually has a good point. I have been a dog owner my entire
life and a gun owner for about 17 years. Never once had to feel
like I needed to grab the gun, except for when the rattle snakes
came wondering into the yard, does that count as home defense with
a gun? I had a good Rott who never bothered anyone unless they had
bad intentions, and the Rott knew this the moment the questionable
person laid eyes on the property. Although, he had it bad for the
Jahovahs, probably because I would piss and moan when seeing them
pull up. I also lived with a guy who had a couple of Mastiffs, they
will love you to death until you look at their master funny, and
honestly, they can take a few shots from some low caliber firearms
and still eat you where you stand and shit you the next day. But
even better, a long time neighbor had this little brown mutt who
wasn't much bigger than a Jack Russell. This little shit would
sneak up behind you and bite you in the ass, typically your back
pockets on your jeans. You could be on the lookout for that damn
thing and still turn around to find him lock jawed on your tush.
There was no escaping him, like freaking Freddy Krueger, he was
always there when you turned around, smiling devilishly and sizing
your ass up!
Though biased as I am as a dog lover, I would never live without
one. Grant you, you might still face legal action if your dog mauls
or kills someone who is looking to victimize you, but how scary is
that when getting taken out by a dog close to your size?!? We all
have seen Cujo!
Julian, you can always get that gun, shoot the next burlar, and beg
for a pardon from Bush. When you present it to him that way on
national TV, you would think he would take some heat from the base
if he turned your pardon request down!
|9.28.04 @ 9:18PM|#
Also, you have to figure that a professional criminal can
probably kick your ass, and if he's armed, he's probably more
willing and able to use it that you are.
Keeping in mind that a shotgun discharge will wake up everyone in
my house (and my neighbors'):
I shoot intruder --> paperwork, police hassles
He shoots me --> high probability of being caught, and doing
serious jail time
So who should be more willing to pull the trigger?
|9.28.04 @ 9:26PM|#
What do mean I "actually" have a good point?
I don't "actually" have good points. I just have good points.
"joe actually has a good point"
sheesh
;-)
|9.28.04 @ 9:32PM|#
The fact is, if you've got a gun that can be ready to go
fast enough to make a difference in a life or death
situation
So how fast is that? If I spot somebody prying open my window to
climb inside, I probably have a good thirty to sixty seconds before
he's in a position to directly threaten my life. That's plenty of
time to get a gun out of a gun safe.
you're putting yourself and your family in danger, especially
if there are kids around
If and only if there are kids around. The rate of non-juvenile
accidental home shootings is statistically insignificant.
|9.28.04 @ 9:39PM|#
"JeSUS, JDM, sounds like a bad Sharon Stone movie!"
That's ice "axe," not "pick."
|9.28.04 @ 9:44PM|#
The law is not a gun safety law, it is a criminal safety
law.
Demand that office holders not be allowed any more protection that
they allow the public. No armed guards outside their office, just a
phone to call 911.
|9.28.04 @ 9:47PM|#
Don: It's Carl Rowan, not Carl Rowe.
"Rowan, who had advocated strict handgun control, found himself in
the center of a gun controversy during the 1980s when he was
arrested and charged with using an unregistered weapon to wound a
teen-ager who intruded into his backyard.
"Rowan argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary
to protect himself and his family. The jury deadlocked and the
judge hearing the case declared a mistrial."
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/09/23/obit.rowan.ap
|9.28.04 @ 10:57PM|#
That's ice "axe," not "pick."
I know that. Normally, I have seen the ice axes either hanging in
the garage with the rest of the climbing equipment, in the closet,
or even hanging over the mantel. But this is the first
time that I heard it being under the bed for protection.
|9.28.04 @ 11:16PM|#
"You'd have to be out of your mind to pull an unloaded gun on an
intruder, J."
Why? Sure, it would be better to actually have a loaded gun, but if
circumstances don't allow that (because there's not time to load
it, for example), it can still be a pretty strong deterrent, as
long as you don't actually tell the intruder that it's not loaded.
As I mentioned above, I think that the vast majority of gun
defenses involve no shots being fired (I don't have any stats for
that, but I'm sure some folks here do).
Best-case scenario, the intruder isn't armed and you scare him off
or detain him for the cops - same as with a loaded gun, except for
folks who are just aching to cap the fucker. Of course if he does
have a gun the dynamics change a lot; but if you brandish any
weapon at an intruder with a gun there's a good chance he won't
react well. The chance is probably higher if he thinks you've got a
loaded gun as opposed to something less dangerous, but I'm not
convinced it's a lot higher. And you can always back down, as you
presumably would if he had a gun and you had a tacky lamp. If he's
trigger happy he won't give you a chance to back down; but I can't
imagine most armed intruders are at all inclined to actually use
their weapon if they can at all avoid it - it's a bluff like your
unloaded gun would be.
Upshot is a loaded gun is better, but I can certainly imagine an
unloaded gun also doing the trick in a lot of cases if that's the
situation you happen to be in. But maybe I'm just revealing the
fact that I would make a lousy burglar. Anyway, I keep my tiny
one-bedroom apartment safe through a combination of cockroaches and
disgusting odors. So far so good - no one's laid a finger on my
ultra-geeky evolution books or ultra-cool Tom Waits CD's. (New
album next week! He describes it as "cubist funk." Woohoo!)
|9.28.04 @ 11:44PM|#
Re: Kids in the house with a gun
We have an almost-3 year old.
My husband keeps the hunting guns locked in a gun safe that uses 2
keys and three keyholes and the key is tucked far away from the
safe.
We have a handgun that lives, loaded with the safety on, in a small
safe mounted under the bed on my husband's side; it's a
finger/handprint combination lock. A child's hand couldn't press
the sensors hard enough and if you press the wrong combination more
than three times it locks you out for 10 or 15 minutes. My daughter
is unaware that the safe is there and needless to say she'll never
know the combination.
Oddly enough, after living in Houston most all my life, I've never
had a home or apartment broken into and our neighborhood, which is
not in the suburbs, has very few breakins and almost none that
occur at night. My husband is a lifelong hunter and gun collector
and very responsible and we both agree that you don't shoot someone
a) through a closed door or b) even if they're in your room until
you're sure it's not a family member. If that means you miss the
chance to shoot an intruder, that's preferable to shooting your
child or spouse (there have been a number of tragedies like this in
Houston recently).
So I feel that the kid is pretty safe from the gun (we're still
vigilant about it, of course) and the gun is accessible if we need
it.
Problem is that I'm the one most likely to wake up if someone is
trying to break in, and even if I get to the gun I'm not sure I'd
remember how to shoot it. My husband, who can reach the gun in
seconds, sleeps like the dead.
When our daughter is a little bit older we're going to review the
gun safe placement.
Cletus Nelson|9.28.04 @ 11:52PM|#
Julian:
Sorry to hear about what happened and I can understand your
frustration about not even having the OPTION to defend
yourself.
Since we're sharing war stories...
The night I was robbed (and shot), I did EVERYTHING the gun
grabbers tell you to do: I obseqiously handed over my wallet to two
swaggering gang members and avoided any type of confrontational
posturing (although I wanted to smack the little fucker with the
gun)...
What did I get? The bastard started accusing me (a rather
generic-looking surfer dude) of being in a rival gang!
Next thing I know, he's leveling the gun at my face. The guys eyes
had the tell-tale thousand mile stare of a crack addict and his
hands were trembling. As he started screaming at the top of his
lungs, I knew I was seconds away from making the front page of the
"Metro" section.
Being the Nietzschean superman that I am, I ran like HELL!
Five shots rang out (it was a .22 semi-auto) and one of them
creased my shoulder and took out a small chunk of flesh.
Needless to say, my opposition to gun control laws (I'm in Los
Angeles) has become a bit more strident...
|9.28.04 @ 11:58PM|#
Nothing is more useless than an unloaded firearm. A loaded
nightstand gun is an unmitigated good idea for anyone with
training. In my house, that is everyone.
If you have kids, they make quick access safes that allow you to
store a loaded weapon you can get to if you need to.
http://www.gunvault.com/
Dogs bark at many things and eventually you ignore them. A noise
making security system to wake you and deter entry, a telephone in
your room, and a weapon that you can use to prevent entry into your
bedroom are the building blocks of home security. If you are
feeling frisky, add a high intensity flashlight to the picture. If
you've never had the privelidge, let your eyes get night adjusted
as a burglar's would be and shine a 60 lumen light in your face. It
is an unpleasant experience. Surefire and Insight make them that
mount right on your handgun or shotgun.
Stay in your room and control the doorway while you make the call.
Don't try to search the house unless you have to. If you think you
might have to, get some training beyond target practice and safety.
There are definitely dos and don'ts to clearing a house. Some of
the best training in the country is here:
http://www.tdiohio.com/
Brendan Perez|9.29.04 @ 6:13AM|#
AK-47s and most other semi-auto rifles is a no-no. As I
understand it, DC defines "machinegun" as any semi-auto weapon that
can hold more then 12 shots without reloading. I believe their
actual definition covers any rifle can accept a 12 round
magazine.
You have to be 21 to buy a rifle or shotgun unless your parents
sign something. As other posters have mentioned, ammo and gun must
be kept separate.
|9.29.04 @ 6:36AM|#
a stick beats a fist...a knife beats a stick
Actually, no, a good stout stick will beat a knife almost every
time. It's all about the reach. Unless the knife wielder is very
skilled and the stick wielder very unskilled, the stick wielder has
the advantage because of about 30" more reach. The best stick is by
far rattan, followed by a sawed off pool cue and axe handle. A golf
club is also good, irons & putters prefered over woods. An
actual axe or bat is too tip heavy and difficult to ready for a
follow-up if your first strike is ineffective or misses. With a
stout stick you can easily break the hand & fingers holding the
knife. Continue by beating the attacker about the head &
shoulders, paying particular attention to the temples. Pokes to the
face, eyes & throat and knee shots are also very effective, but
perhaps best left to more practiced stick weilders.
Sword does beat stick though.
|9.29.04 @ 8:14AM|#
For those of you looking at the shotgun option, check out these
babies to load it with:
http://www.polywad.com/qs12ga.html
|9.29.04 @ 8:50AM|#
"Dogs bark at many things and eventually you ignore them."
The sound and behavior of a dog when someone is breaking into your
house is completely different from when he sees a squirrel in the
yard or a kid on the sidewalk.
|9.29.04 @ 9:23AM|#
The sound and behavior of someone who sees my shotgun while breaking into my house is completely different from when he sees my dog.
Kevin Carson|9.29.04 @ 10:09AM|#
"Are you as angry about your landlord's pet policy as you are
about the city's gun laws?"
--joe
I can't answer for Julian, but as far as I'm concerned there's not
much difference between an absentee landlord and a government. The
person occupying a piece of land IS the owner. Any fee he has to
pay for the right is a kind of tax.
On the topic at hand, I subscribe to the UK Libertarian Alliance's
yahoogroup, and I hear horror stories like this all the time from
gun-free Britain. As it turns out, when the predators know their
prey are unarmed, they get a lot bolder. Who woulda guessed?
On self-defense trumping gun laws, such an argument might persuade
a jury to nullify the law. But any defense attorney who tried to
argue in court that the law was void in a particular case because
of an inalienable right to self-defense would probably be slapped
down for contempt so hard he'd need a window in his
belly-button.
|9.29.04 @ 10:18AM|#
Why on earth get a dog? They're dangerous, expensive, and
unreliable.
How many people do you know who have been shot? How many people do
you know who have been bitten by a dog?
Guns are cheap, reliable, and easy to use - with a simple "Point
and click" interface.
Besides, people tend to love their dogs more than guns. If someone
attacked, maimed, killed your dog it'd just add to the downer of
getting robbed.
If I were a robber, I'd turn tail at the sound of a shotgun shell
being chambred - but for dogs? Just bring some doggy treats and the
problem is solved.
Does DC ban "Hunting" shotguns? Might be a good choice for home
defense.
|9.29.04 @ 10:34AM|#
I can't answer for Julian, but as far as I'm concerned
there's not much difference between an absentee landlord and a
government. The person occupying a piece of land IS the owner. Any
fee he has to pay for the right is a kind of tax.
Not true. If it were, I could tear down the garage, which my
landlord uses to store his junk.
Garth|9.29.04 @ 10:36AM|#
Gotta go with Dog. I have a half German Shepard who never barks unless someone approaches the house. For whatever reason he inherited a pretty impressive noise machine which has proven sufficient in keeping people away.
|9.29.04 @ 10:39AM|#
"Why on earth get a dog? They're dangerous, expensive, and
unreliable."
Dogs are only dangerous when unsocialized. My dog was $80, and is
extremely reliable. A god dog for protection is an Australian
Cattle Dog (aka blue/red heeler). They are relatively small
(30-40lb) and can be very fierce. They are also wicked smart, as
all herding dogs tend to be, and as such are a good judge of
character. I would love to see you come in my house and try to get
past my dog with some dog treats, you would promptly be handed your
ass.
|9.29.04 @ 10:41AM|#
Two comments, a gun is never sufficiently "hidden" from
children. It should be unloaded and all ammunition secured.
The adult in charge of using the gun should carry a loaded magazine
or two with them, or some revolver speed-loaders. If you're going
to do that though, might as well just carry concealed.
Also, unloaded guns, look-alike guns, etc. all *sound* nice to
people who are waffling on the notions of guns being a useful and
safe deterrent. The fact is, pulling an un-loaded gun on someone is
a really good way to get shot.
Don't go to a gunfight without a (loaded) gun.
|9.29.04 @ 10:48AM|#
I grew up with loaded guns in my house. My father instructed me on their use and capabilities. He managed to instill respect for guns that remains unchanged to this day. It doesn't take much to get a kid to respect a 44, let him witness the destruction first hand. I learned never to pull out a gun until it was likely needed to kill, and only to shoot to kill. It seems to me a fake gun is asking for trouble, a very bold bluff indeed. My father is a police officer and has told me on repeated occasions, 'we are just here to clean up and do our best to stop the perp from doing it again'.
|9.29.04 @ 10:51AM|#
A dog and a gun go hand in hand for home defense. 1) The dog may be alert when you are not. 2) It will be much easier to cap they guy with your dog chewing on his ass. As an added bonus dogs are fun to have around.
|9.29.04 @ 11:13AM|#
Sorry about the attack, Julian.
Absurd gun laws, and now you're going to pay for a new Major League
baseball park in DC.
No reason to stay a DC resident anymore. Head for
Virginia/Maryland.
|9.29.04 @ 11:45AM|#
A dog... yep, Ol' Spock (cause he was pointy-eared and waaaaay
too smart) was a friendly cuss until someone looked at me
cross-eyed (which caused a problem as I was wrestling with a friend
in fun. Spock never liked him after that.)
His most effective warning came one night when he suddenly stopped
barking (I think I heard a yelp, but it's kinda blurry). At this
point I grabbed my Marlin 30-30 and jacked a round into the chamber
(I'd moved to the front door by this point).
A jealous ex-girlfriend of my neighbor's turned and ran back to her
car (he and I had nearly identical cars, and she'd drunkenly
mistaken mine for his) and fled. I have no idea what her intentions
were, but Spock had been clubbed with something. He recovered only
to be killed sometime the next year by that same neighbor's
'defense' dog (pit bull/heeler mix) who'd broken his chain and
entered my yard. Spock wasn't around for 'protection', he was my
li'l Border Collie buddy and I deeply regret that he'd become my
first line of defense. If and when I ever decide to adopt a new
friend, I'll keep the pup safe and rely on a proper alarm and a
shotgun. As for children, education trumps ignorance every
time.
|9.29.04 @ 12:18PM|#
Actually, no, a good stout stick will beat a knife almost
every time. It's all about the reach. Unless the knife wielder is
very skilled and the stick wielder very unskilled, the stick
wielder has the advantage because of about 30" more
reach.
In sparring, perhaps.
A real life fight is another matter. The key is that you don't try
to fight the stick at distance. You attack, accepting a
blow from the stick if you must, and then use the knife to
effect.
. . .The best stick is by far rattan, followed by a sawed off
pool cue and axe handle. A golf club is also good, irons &
putters prefered over woods. An actual axe or bat is too tip heavy
and difficult to ready for a follow-up if your first strike is
ineffective or misses.
Funny, the battle axe was the weapon of choice of Vikings and
others of the period. The key to using it is to fight with
aggression, not to to "spar" your opponent, allowing him to use
distance. The rattan stick moves well, but a single impact isn't
going to win a fight, and that's all you are going to get against
someone who is aggressive with a knife.
With a stout stick you can easily break the hand & fingers
holding the knife. Continue by beating the attacker about the head
& shoulders, paying particular attention to the temples. Pokes
to the face, eyes & throat and knee shots are also very
effective, but perhaps best left to more practiced stick
weilders.
Yes, if the guy with the knife is afraid of being hit and "spars"
from a distance. If he closes agressively, you get about one hit
with your stick (probably a glancing blow), then he goes to work
with the knife.
Sword does beat stick though.
Yes, and a sword will also beat a battle axe if the user tries to
"duel" or "spar". In actual combat, the battle axe dominated.
|9.29.04 @ 12:35PM|#
Also, you have to figure that a professional criminal can
probably kick your ass, and if he's armed, he's probably more
willing and able to use it that you are.
The criminal may be all pumped up from his time in prison, and he
may have polished his knife fighting skills in the pen. But his gun
handling skills are probably poor.
In gunfights with police, criminals score hits about 10% of the
time, and these fights occur at near contact distance. By contrast,
police score at about 25%. Police as moderatly trained, a good
civilian school like Gunsite turns out alumini with much better
skills than your typical police training. And if you are not
interested in training, you still probably won't do worse than your
typical criminal.
|9.29.04 @ 12:44PM|#
Oh, and to add: when I was in the martial arts, in an advanced
class, we studied a knife fighting book by an ex-con, who detailed
his knife fighting training conducted in prison and, previously, in
reform school.
Also, a skilled attacker won't just rush into a stick wielder, he
will draw a blow, then follow it in. With a rattan stick or similar
it will be real hard to do without being hit, but the hit will
probably not be full force. Once in the attacker will make full use
of the knife very quickly with considerable aggression.
|9.29.04 @ 12:59PM|#
All this talk about fighting with knives has made us aware of
the need to get started on our new crusade. Nobody can be permitted
to possess these dangerous weapons.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!
|9.29.04 @ 1:14PM|#
Bigger than Sanchez's landlord's policy regarding dogs, the
landlord of The District of Columbia has a policy which endangers
its residents. Handgun bans must fantastically increase the
confidence of a home invader, and similarly raise the potential for
harm. It is as if DC banned seatbelt use.
There are ample valid reasons an individual may choose not to keep
a weapon or a dog. Simply by keeping those options available to all
acts as a deterrent to crime, even if few actually use that
particular liberty. It seems an example of how a majority harms
itself by restricting behaviour because "there's no good reason/I
don't like it". So much better to hold harmers responsible and let
the rest live as they choose.
|9.29.04 @ 2:51PM|#
All this talk about fighting with knives has made us aware
of the need to get started on our new crusade. Nobody can be
permitted to possess these dangerous weapons.
I understand that Australia is banning swords, or at least
restricting them. And there are regulations on knives in England
and Japan.
Knives are deadly weapons, and ones which require a very agressive
application to be really effective. They are a weapon well suited
to criminals, particularly the most violent ones.
Firearms, by contrast, call for cooler heads and self control. Your
typical suburban homeowner will be at least as effective as a
typical criminal with a gun, probably more so if he/she has
training of some sort.
|9.29.04 @ 5:10PM|#
According to Mr Ayoob, if you can't/won't keep a gun beside the bed, the next best thing would be a 4-cell (or 3-cell for smaller people) Maglite. Pokers and pool cues are so long you can have trouble swinging them in close quarters and the Maglite has more heft so it'll do more damage if you connect. The light can dazzle a burglar in the dark, as mentioned above. And if you live somewhere that you justifiably fear prosecution for attacking a burglar, then a Maglite is not a weapon you had prepared yourself with but a common household item that you just happened to grab.
|9.29.04 @ 5:35PM|#
Pepe,
And if you are really going to go high output light (maglite is
heavy but not nearly the 60 lumens you'd want for dazzle), the fine
fine people at GG&G have created the Tactical Impact Device
that screws on those lights.
Imagine planting this on a burglar's head after you dazzle him:
http://www.gggaz.com/products/tid.php
|9.29.04 @ 6:24PM|#
Sorry that your friend got attacked.
"Armed combat beats unarmed combat any day"
Pepe is right: a 4-cell Maglite is great to have around the house.
You'll use it when the lights go out or you investigate. If you
have to hit someone, it was just there. A baseball bat has a good
feel and a longer reach, but if your worried about prosecution for
unfairly defending your life against a violent offender, the
flashlight is better.
Rifles should not be used as the bullets over- penetrate. (My local
indoor range allows shotguns but won't allow my AR-15: the .223
goes through the metal plate.) Rifles and shotguns are cumbersome.
They have long barrels that are easily grabbed from the side, and
you can't operate them effectively with one hand while, say,
dialing the phone. If handguns are not allowed, then a small
shotgun defending a fixed position isn't bad. A 20 guage has the
muzzle energy of a 44 magnum but won't go through as many
walls.
Take away the element of surprise: alarm systems are not that
expensive. (A small god is basically a fury alarm system.) If the
bad guy sets off an alarm while climbing in the window, he's got to
figure that you are calling 911. Statistically speaking, he has
plenty of time to hurt you and leave. However, he doesn't have time
to hurt you, take your valueables, and leave. And in any case, is
he really going to hang around to see how long it takes the cops to
get their?
Of course, at the earliest possible time I would move out of
Washington, D.C. Who wants to live in a place the values the lives
of felons over decent citizens?
|9.29.04 @ 7:59PM|#
The sound and behavior of a dog when someone is breaking
into your house is completely different from when he sees a
squirrel in the yard or a kid on the sidewalk
Um, ok. I've never had anyone break into my house, so I don't know
what special noise dogs make under those circumstances. But I do
know that the dog we had when I was a kid exhibited every range of
behavior from "occasional barking" to "howling itself hoarse and
tearing through the screen windows to get outside" over stuff as
simple as a cat on the lawn.
Dogs are marginally smarter than grapefruit. It's not a good move
to build your home defense plan around something that can easily be
outwitted by a five-year-old child.
|9.29.04 @ 8:05PM|#
Rifles should not be used as the bullets over- penetrate.
(My local indoor range allows shotguns but won't allow my AR-15:
the .223 goes through the metal plate.)
But houses aren't made of steel plate, are they? ;)
Actually, it has been proven that .223 penetrates fewer
layers of drywall than standard buckshot and slug loads, as well as
typical handgun bullets. The reason (as I understand it): the first
drywall sheet destabalizes the .223 bullet, leading to tumbling;
the tumbling bullet impacts more drywall sheets at high velocity,
breaking up into fragments; the fragments rapidly loose
velocity.
That's why the SWAT teams are replacing their H&K MP-5s (9mm)
with M-4s (.223).
Don't feel bad. Back around 1990, everyone "in the know" would have
agreed with you.
If you want more info, try www.ar15.com.
|9.29.04 @ 8:15PM|#
Oh, and there was that DC case from the 70s: several goblins
broke into a home, and one of the women in the home made several
calls to the police. The goblins rounded up all of the women in the
home. One policeman knocked at the door, then left when no one
answered. At the second call, a police cruiser drove around the
block.
The women were raped and tortured over something like a 14 hour
period, before they were released by the goblins.
The women filed a lawsuit against the police for failing to protect
them. The courts final response: you are responsible for your own
defense.
|9.29.04 @ 8:26PM|#
I should also add to my point on .223 penetration in drywall: this applies to .223 bullets that fragment: XM193, the Black Hills 68 gr, 75 gr, and 77 gr stuff, etc. I wouldn't expect it to apply to the stuff Wolf makes. Of course, since .223 depends upon bullet fragmentation to make it effective, you shouldn't use Wolf and other non-expanding stuff for defense in the first place.
|9.30.04 @ 7:55AM|#
Pepe: I worked as a cab driver in a college town for 2 years. It was neither legal nor particularly necessary for drivers to carry guns, (where your most likely threat was an unarmed drunk college kid) but we all carried mag lites. They were useful for spotlighting house numbers, and made an excellent close quarters weapon if necessary.
|9.30.04 @ 1:17PM|#
It brings to mind the old definition of a conservative, "a liberal who's been mugged".
Comment by: Yaron at September 28, 2004 04:18 PM
And a libertarian is a conservative who's been arrested.
JS Fan|9.30.04 @ 1:40PM|#
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=3&u=/washpost/20040930/ts_washpost/a60034_2004sep29
there may be hope
|9.30.04 @ 2:41PM|#
JS Fan
Don't get your hopes up. The bill is unlikely to be considered by
the Senate.
|9.30.04 @ 2:58PM|#
Damn, looks like the Republicans won't be able to run the plantation the way they'd like. Boo hoo.
|9.30.04 @ 4:59PM|#
Damn, looks like the Republicans won't be able to run the
plantation the way they'd like. Boo hoo.
Plantation owners were (a) Democrats, and (b) vehemently opposed to
allowing blacks or poor whites to arm themselves. Looks like not
much has changed.
|9.30.04 @ 5:49PM|#
Damn, looks like the Republicans won't be able to run the
plantation the way they'd like. Boo hoo.
And I thought the Democrats were turning over a new leaf with
respect to gun control. By defending extremist gun bans, the
Democrats are saying they really want to go about buisness as
usual.
|9.30.04 @ 6:18PM|#
Dan: Actually, most big plantation owners were Whigs.
Anyway, one can consistently believe that (a) the District's gun
laws go too far, but that (b) it should be the people of the
District, not Congress, who should repeal them. Let's not forget
that if Congress has the power to *prohibit* the District from
having anti-gun laws, it has the same power--limited only by the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is
not necessarily going to be the same as libertarians'
interpretation--to *impose* anti-gun laws on the District.
(Yes, I know that Congress does have the power under the
Constitution to legislate for the district. But whether it should
*exercise* that power or instead show some respect for home rule,
is a different question. I know perfectly well that the DC
government sucks. But I say it's up to the people of the District
to change that.)
|9.30.04 @ 7:33PM|#
I could agree with you on that, David. Here in AZ, we voted for
medical MJ and the congress tried to overturn it, saying the voters
were duped. That pissed off a lot of people, so when it came up for
a vote again, you better believe it passed again.
Unfortunately, people didn't make the jump that if they were duped
into voting for the medical MJ prop, they were probably duped into
voting for the fools in congress and get rid of them the next time
around, but 1 outta 2 ain't bad. :/
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245