Two excellent non-lethal Y2K defense weapons!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Two excellent non-lethal Y2K defense weapons!

#1. A low cost laser pointer which you can shine in the eyes of your attackers. It will blind them and they will value their eyes more than your food! It has a range of about 450 feet. You can buy them at Shopco for about $9. It fits on a key chain!

#2. One of those powerful water guns filled with water and a small amount of tabasco sauce, makes a very powerful, low cost pepper spray! It has a range of about 50 feet.

-- Freddie the Freeloader (freddie@aol.com), February 23, 1999

Answers

On the safe side, I would fill the water guns with a mixture of draino and bleach. If I hit them with the water gun, I won't need the laser pointer. However, I'm going to hit them with my SKS or my Mossberg 12 guage first, that way I know they won't be back to bug me.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), February 24, 1999.

Freddie,

Great Ideas ! Sound like workable items.

Err....but....Only one question remains.

I have seen this idea of non-lethal weapons propounded for years. I suppose in a normal civil-acting society with 911 working and lawyers waiting in the wings one could make a case for non-lethal weapons. Even in this mythical society one must seriously ask why you would use a weapon against someone else if you or your were not under immenant threat of loss of life or serious physical harm.

However, if you are talking about Y2K and the normally accepted conotations, why in the world would you want a NON lethal weapon. The allusion to Y2K brings to mind a scenario where the threat is of greatest magnitude. Anything less than a LETHAL weapon would seem to be one of the least usefull tools one might have.

One must of course make exception for and understand those among us to whom taking anothers life is more reprehensible that giving up their own. This quetion is not for those good souls. Their answer is in their beliefs. No condesention here. If you are one of these Freddie, then fine, I have my answer.

-- Greybear, puzzled still

- Got Spam?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 24, 1999.


Bardou and Greybear - you'll be happy to know this old git and Sweetie made a Remington pump-action and lots of shells their first Y2K purchases. Well, after the cat litter, anyway. Sweetie has military training and I took an NRA course at the VFW, by the way. Freddie, unless you live in the UK with no access to firearms (and not too many worries from heavily-armed predators), you need a serious weapon. If you haven't got much money, see your local pawnshop. Shotguns should range from $75-300 there and the one I was in Saturday offers a 30-day guarantee. We're after more weaponry next month. You have no idea how lacking in human feeling the bottom-feeders are; laser pointers and bleach will only make them angry.

-- Gunslingin' Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 24, 1999.

I think the laser-thingy is a great idea. Got one taped to the top of my cut-down 870 12 guage right now. And down here on the bayou, watering down your Tabasco sauce will truly get you shot.

Seriously, I know that I go against the grain here, but I think any scenario involving armed defense of my supplies is unacceptable for me. To be effective in a fire-fight you must be able to assume acceptable losses. The loss of even one of my children would be unacceptable for me, and the loss of me or my wife would devistate them. Don't get me wrong, I can handle firearms quite well and would not hesitate to do so if necessary. I'm just saying that my particular contingency plan for social chaos must be to become as INACCESSIBLE as possible.

I see a slim possibility that I would be fighting off armed urban gangs. And how many hungry children can you kill before you put the muzzle in your own mouth?

-- Lon Frank (postit@here.com), February 24, 1999.


And, since we're talking about guns here, and that's a subject where you're shure to catch Hell no matter what you say, I'll continue slapping the tar baby:

Freddie, I think your heart is in the right place, but the whole concept of non-lethal weapons is questionalble at best. If you are in a sudden fight-or-flight situation and just need time to make a rapid escape, maybe. But if you are defending a stronghold (house, car, whatever) or if you have multiple attackers, or if your attacker is lethaly armed, then you are only going to aggrevate the situation. The idea of all weaponry is to disable your opponant. If you burn his eyes, he will simply come back, smarter and madder. (And even a P.O.ed six-year-old with a .22 can kill you deadern a clam) If you wish to rely upon passivity, then do so strictly. But only a fool brings a pocket-knife to a gun fight. (Meaning, arm yourself for the situation.)

-- Lon Frank (postit@here.com), February 24, 1999.



Lon,

Roger the INACCESABLE. Best answer by far.

As to the H-A-R-D question you bring up. These are the soul killers. I have sworn on another thread not to start religios discussions so I won't go into my belief set. Suffice it to say that it a a large and *old* set of beliefs.

Consider, however, that Willam Bonny was crica 13 when he killed his first man. It seems we have a lot of Billy wanna-bes running around today. One part of the answer for me is: I ain't checking IDs (at lest til later) when *anyone* puts me or mine in dire danger.

Maybe I aught to rehearse the 3 conditions for using force here for those who may not have heard them before. This was part of my basic firearms training 30 yrs ago as a cop and have instructed many in same since.

The 3 THREAT conditions allowing use of deadly force. All 3 are required to be present. 1) must be REAL. Someone holding a knife (or say a club) in a threatning manner who is 20 ft away from you is not a REAL threat. They may become so momentarily but not at that time. Someone holding gun in a threatning manner is an altogether different condition.

2) must be IMMINENT. Someone saying "I'm gonna go home an get my gun and come back and kill you" is not a IMMINENT threat . At that moment. If he/she *does* come back that's a different matter.

3) must be LIFE THREATNING. Some one threatening to "whoop yer butt" is NOT a life threat. Someone stealing you property is not a threat to you life that also fills the other two conditions.

These 3 conditions are the "resonable man" type of test. The condition "I felt threatened" might be OK if you can buy enough justice in a court of law but it's pretty thin soup to nourish you soul.

The *real* problem today is the loss of basic civility and respect for others that manifestes itself in disregard of life. Maybe in a past time I might have felt like an "honest" thief would confront me, take my money and go. I personally don't have that confidence anymore and would be VERY reactive when placed in that position, once agin, regardless of the profile of the thief.

-- Greybear, whos heart is heavy thinking about this, but sincerely believe the thinking must be done ahead of time

- Got Hidden?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 24, 1999.


Dear Fred, Just WTF are you thinking about? In normal times these solutions might be marginal in the least. I hope you live where these non lethal solutions might have a chance of working.In a real bad after the fact situation you and your's will be dinner. Or worse. If you plan to be a pacifist, go for it. But based on what I've seen, just give it up and let Mr. badass take your stuff. If you are not willing to let that happen then you must have the means and will to stop him and his friends. Which comes back to the situation where you pull the weapon on him and say," One more step and you're dead." At which point he must make a career decision.That is why I love the US Second Ammendment.It gives the bad guys a moment to pause and think of other career choices. "Meat, it's what's for dinner".

-- nine (nine_fingers@hotmail.com), February 24, 1999.

Greybear,

I have related to many of your postings in the past, but nothing has hit me so personally as your comment about being heavy-hearted in just the contemplation of such ideas and times. I keep getting this wakeing nightmare of unending trick-or-treaters. Their costumes are tatters, and their faces are hungry. (this is too hard to go on with)

I know what you mean about Billy The Kid wannabes. I was in Jasper today. You know the "sleepy little East Texas sawmill town" where a couple of good ol' boys dragged a man to death behind their truck just for fun.

On a cloudy night I can see the lights of our new Fed prison that our estemed local politician "won" for our area. I wonder why he doesn't live anywhere near it? I don't have to tell you, this is my greatest concern about staying put, even in my very well prepared little haven.

Just one comment on your guidelines for use of lethal force. In a survival situation, someone stealing your supplies could very well represent a life-threatening situation.

Thanks for your always rational thoughts.

Lon

-- Lon Frank (postit@here.com), February 24, 1999.


Old Git: The bleach and Draino was a joke...if I'm in a position to do any firing, it will be a permanent thing, I don't want them coming back getting revenge, I only want to deal with someone once. I took my training from the Santa Rosa Sheriff's Dept., so I'm not afraid to do it, BTW, I just bought a Ruger Mini 30, a belated anniversary gift for my husband. I debated whether to purchase a couple gold coins or fire power.....haven't purchased any gold yet, priorities first.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), February 24, 1999.

Pissing people off in a post y2k environment with non-lethal weapons is a BAD idea. If your home is threatend, your responsibility is to defend it (assuming no 911/police response). If someone is stealing your firewood (heat), robbing your garden (food), raping your wife (family), you have an obligation to yourself and your family to defend those things. Will I shoot a 10 year old stealing carrots from the garden at noon? No. Will I shoot two men stealing firewood at midnight from my fenced storage area? Yes. Ask yourselves these important questions now, so when the time comes to take action you will not have to think about it. Rewatch the movie "Deliverance" where some important questions are raised about when to take a life, and how to live with your decision.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 24, 1999.


Hey, Bardou, happy to hear that! The guy at the pawnshop was telling me about a Derringer that fires shotgun shells--do you (or anyone?) know anything about it? Our friend, "The Hungarian," is too small in stature for even a short-barreled shotgun and not confident enough to hit anything with a pistol. This seems like a good alternative.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 24, 1999.

No way - if he's that small, he needs two hands on the wepon itself, and needs the levereage you get by bracing your arms and shoulders with your hands wide apart on the weapon - not a couple of fingers wrapped around each other on a light "toy". Yep, it's heavy to carry - that might mean he thinks twice about waving it around unneccesarily.

The recoil alone would prevent control for a second shot from an extrememly light weapon.

To the original question - how about a sign on the front and back door -

Warning - Do Not Enter - This House is Isolated to Prevent the Spread of Smallpox, TB and Anthrax - Warning, DO NOT ENTER.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.R@csaatl.com), February 24, 1999.


Robert, sorry I should have been more specific--The Hungarian is a five-foot, two-inch female, nearly 50, with a weak grasp! She really doesn't feel at all comfortable with a shotgun and when she's made up her mind, you can't shift her. Sweetie and me'll try, though.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 24, 1999.

Let's not forget the perfect weapon of choice - fruitcake - unless, that is, you eat it.

-- Rob Michaels (sonfodust@net.com), February 24, 1999.

Old Git,

I thought maybe you were reffering to a certain type of thing that is particullarly undesirable.

Here in Texas we would say "Man, I wouldn't touch that thing with an 11 ft Hungarian, much less a 10 ft Pole."

Seriously, I've seen, held, and shot these little .410 buggers. I have some small experience with VERY powerfull handguns (every waddie in Alaska thinks he not properly dressed without a .44 Mag or two). They are OK, but NOT for the uninitiated. NOT for the untrained, unaccustomed hand. If you think you need a small hand-held arm, go with something more conventional.

-- Gerybear

- Got Ear Plugs?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 24, 1999.



Greybear -- The 3 THREAT conditions allowing use of deadly force....

It seems this information is not available to the New York City Police Department. Four of its "officers" in plain clothes stop a guy with dark skin in the lobby of his apartment bldg.; he puts his hand in his pocket; the four goons start shooting. At the end of the "threat" 41 rounds have been fired from their four weapons, 19 of these have hit the other guy, with (what else?) fatal results. He had no weapon of any sort.

Schools ain't what they used to be. The Naval Academy has announced that it will no longer teach celestial navigation to its cadets.

This is like standing on a hill near the Interstate watching a multi-car crash in slow motion.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 24, 1999.


I just gotta join in one more time.

As for the little 410 handguns; BAD idea for someone who has a weak grasp anyway. However, most are only single-shot, so the recoil (and subsequent loss of control) that Robert mentioned may not affect her decision. Just realize, she probably won't get but one chance with the thing. Also, I think that if this desperate scenario truly comes to pass, you might not be worried about owning an otherwise illigal "cut-down" shotgun. Get a smaller guage, and learn how to alter it properly. Just don't do it untill necessary, or you may get some "inside" experience with our penal system. Also, the single most usefull thing you can do to any large gun is to add a carrying strap or sling. I have them even on shotguns, and have taught my folks how to use them to gain control when firing.

Robert, your idea about the sign is excellent, as always. I had a small cargo trailer once, that had to be left at remote job sites. I tryed everything for security, but what worked best was a very official-looking sign that said "BIOHAZARD Warning, do not enter without protective clothing ".

-- Lon Frank (postit@here.com), February 24, 1999.


Freddie - my honest initial reactions:

"everybody shoot at the guy with the laser first!" and Jeff Cooper's first rule of gunfighting - Bring a [real] Gun.

GB and company right arm!

Lon - yeah, and those biohazard signs aren't any more expensive than no trespassing signs! I Like it!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 24, 1999.


I was thinking an interesting prop would be a few of the police shooting target pieces of paper, laminated for waterproofness, stapled around the property.

Get ones where the cop was a good shot.

- Don't got guns? Nope.

-- Lisa (fake@em.out), February 24, 1999.


Good Lord, d'yall think there is *really* a market for silhouette targets with the "vitals" shot out?

I have had bunches of these around and had just trashed most of them. The few that my students wanted I happily gave to them. Most of them wanted to show the greusome looking things to their husbands or boyfriends.

-- Greybear, who recalls the INCOMPLETE slogan use around Texas to try to cut down on litter- it was: "Don't Mess With Texas". They left out the last and MOST important word Women!

ps, Old Git, a ruger 10-22 with folding stock might be just what the Dr. ordered, but those folding stock are getting harder to find.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 24, 1999.


Thanks, Greybear, I'll tell her. That is, I'll suggest--you can't tell her ANYthing. BTW, we found her a suitable pair of binoculars at the pawnshop for $20. Not James Bond quality, but adequate for her needs. Pawnshops are wondrous places. They have scanners too. . .

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 24, 1999.

Dear Greybear,

I think your three point justification for shooting someone is baloney written by the Warren Court. (No offense.)

If in a post-apocalyptic world a thug gives you warning that he is going to leave to obtain weapons to use against you, and will soon return to steal your food, a jury of your peers would not be offended by your shooting him then and there.

Jesus said, "If a man steals your coat, give him your shirt too." So I feel the pacifist approach is the way to go.

But if you reject pacificism, your three requirements for shooting a thug are not of the real world. Your preconditions allow the bad guy to set the agenda, to say "Olly olly oxen free".

Well, that's what I think anyway.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), February 24, 1999.


Don't shine a laser pointer in anyone's eyes unless it's ok with you if they have permanent brain damage! This has been the result in some cases already. Several articles about this in the Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel recently. Kids just fooling around found they had permanently brain-damaged their buddies.

-- Shivani Arjuna (odnsmall@aol.com), February 24, 1999.

GA,

No offense taken.

If you'll re-read the conditions you'll notice that NO where did I mention that the conditions were a LEGAL requirement. They are the MORAL test. Which sould ALWAYS come first.

And as to some goblin anouncing his intention of going away and coming back, you can bet you sweet assumptions that only a fool is not then on RED A-1 alert. If the goblin comes in sight...well I guess Darwinian logic takes over. He was a pretty strict teacher.

But the point is to have SOME set of conditions pre-defined in your mind so that you are not working entirely from emotion when things get a little "hot". The conditions sited above are the ones I've found to stand the test of dozens of discussions and thousands of hour of consideration.

-- Greybear, who never takes offense at someone else opinion. How they express that opinion is another issue.

- Got (your) Rules?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 24, 1999.


Jesus said, "If a man steals your coat, give him your shirt too." So I feel the pacifist approach is the way to go.

Would you let him take you're family's food? Would you let him rape your wife and daughter? Think, man! This is NOT what Jesus is referring to when he instructs us to "turn the other cheek", for example. A slap on the cheek is a personal affront, it is not the same as attempting to burn down your home.

GA, here's a few more scriptures for you to consider:

"But if any one does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." I Timothy 5:8

Are you to let a man take food from your family's mouth, according to Jesus? NO!

"And he said to them, 'But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one." Luke 22:36

Here's our Saviour instructing us to purchase a major weapon of the day - are you going to follow his commandment?

"...for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

How de we harmonize these two apparently conflicting scriptures? This way: A Christian is not to live by the sword, but neither is he to live without one. Live as peaceably as possible with all men, but don't let anyone crush you under their feet.

-- scooter (a@...), February 24, 1999.


HEY ALL YOU RAMBO'S OUT THERE! YOU GUYS SURE CAN TALK BIG! When we have Marshall Law, and you start shooting your guns, they will hear your gunfire and head your way. They will see a pile of bodies. They will not ask any questions. They will grab your gun out of your hands and haul you off to somewhere you wished you was not going. If they have too many prisoners, they will simply slit your throat and kill you when nobody is looking and throw your body in a dumpster!!! I would much rather have a quiet weapon like a bow and arrows!!! You Rabo's make me sick with your big talk! All talk and no action, is my guess!!!

-- NO RAMBO (NoRambo@nokill.com), February 24, 1999.

review this thread for Jeff Coopers Excelent adivise on Rule No 1

-- reminder (DoNotForget@Basic.Rule), February 24, 1999.

NoRambo, it's apparent that you're scared sh**less, and can't possibly envision anyone standing up for something they believe in.

-- sick (disgusted@this.idiot), February 24, 1999.

My fear is there will be no law, martial or otherwise, in my small town post y2k. That means you are on your own to defend your home and family. Serious looters will have weapons, so will I. I agree a bow or crossbow is a nice thing to have around, if for nothing else the time you run out of ammo. My intentions are to lay as low as possible. Work in my backyard on the garden, haul some water if needed, but mostly stay indoors for the first few months. Building a collection of games and books to pass the time. We will try to get news through the radio. Plan to sleep during part of the day, so I can stay up later at night.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), February 25, 1999.

Rambo,

In today's American cities there are frequently heard gunshots of all calibers. If TSHTF I think it's safe to say there'll be more than the usual amount. I seriously doubt anyone would notice a couple more. In any event, there's a recently-passed state law here in NC which says if you are in fear of your life, you may shoot someone who is on your property. The law's been upheld in the few cases since the its passage.

It's a pity the two guys who were shot in the stomach and forearm, respectively, last night, by a 13- or 14-year old on a bike in the course of an undefended armed robbery weren't on their own property with their own guns. Could I shoot a juvenile? If he or she were a genuine threat to my life, certainly. In this state, some 13-years old and up juveniles can be and have been tried as adults if the crime was violent or heinous in some way.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 25, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ