Self-defense : if things are only bad for days or weeks : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

There was an interesting discussion in the TB2000 preparation discussion forum about non-gun based self-defense. Check it out:

Below are some of my more pertinent remarks from that thread. Let me preface my remarks with my saying that I am not against the use of firearms (or other other methods) for self defense.


"I think people need to think about these very personal things very carefully. Most importantly, know thyself. With such self-knowledge, you can make contingency plans that are appropriate for you. For example, I think Jeremiah makes some good points. If you have it in you to use deadly force on an aggressor who is threatening you or your family and you don't want a gun, I think you need to really explore why it is that you don't want to have a gun for self-defense. Are you being

If you fear the legal consequences, I believe that if you are going to be prosecuted for manslaughter, it may not make much of a difference whether you shot the aggressor, beat them with an aluminum baseball bat, or bashed their skull in with a big rock. Then, again, it might make a difference. Baseball bats, sticks, knives, cars, etc... these are often considered deadly weapons in normal times. And the force and determination it takes to physically kill an aggressor with such means... may be construed as problematic or excessive in a court of law.

For example, did you continue to bash in the skull of the aggressor when he was already subdued? Did you stab the aggressor thirty times? If you disabled an agressor and held them captive for 14 days in what might be construed as a cruel and unusual manner, what will judge and jury think? It seems to me that this may be evaluated much differently than three shots in the chest of an armed aggressor that was facing you when you shot them. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but you may want to consult a criminal defense attorney and find out how courts act in such cases.

Moreover, if you are going to disable aggressors, you will need to restrain them, and you may need to feed and water them as well. Have you prepared a brig of sorts with food, water, and medicine? If you tie them to a tree outside and they die of exposure, etc., and its not teotwawki, you may have to do some time for that... as well as your accomplices. Are you mentally and physically prepared to go to prison or a work camp for your actions? Or are you prepared to flee as soon as you can-- if you do something that may lead to an arrest and/or conviction?"


"Beyond concerns about arrest and conviction for man slaughter and/or premeditated murder (didn't you write that you were going to shoot a trespasser on the TB2000 forum? And here are your very words in the archive!), consider also the potential for civil actions for wounding a person (directly or indirectly). Wild Weasel's icing the road is clever, but if a neighbor saw you do it, will they be a witness against you if someone crashed their car and/or was injured as a result. If someone cuts themselves on your concertina or slips on your icy sidewalk, I hope they don't sue you for your house and gold (didn't you mention you had gold American Eagle coins on the TB2000 forum?).

The problem with coming short of teotwawki should be very obvious by now. We are constrained by laws in devising practical methods of self-defense. Don't expect a DGI or DWGI jury to have any sympathy for you, after all, a prosecutor may demonstrate that you were a whacko survivalist. So when you evaluate any of the various weapons that may be used for your self-defense, do seek legal counsel and understand the local laws and cases where the defendant claimed that they acted in self-defense. My purpose here is not to discourage you in thinking about and making contingency plans for self defense, but to explore all the ramifications of choosing a specific or a variety of tactics.

There are several non-violent measures that can be taken: strong doors (fiberglass or steel, for example) with good locks and, possible a 2 x 4 brace. Cover easily accesible windows with marine plywood or even something stronger. Of course, if you have lots of money to put into non-violent home defense, you can install fire doors on steel frames, shatter-resistant windows with steel shudders, etc. Build safe rooms. Work with your neighbors to get a 24 hour neighborhood watch going and equip them with CBs. Be sure to coordinate with local police and fire departments to use a channel for emergencies. If you take action as a neighborhood against outsiders, you stand a better chance of not being a target.

Running a 24 hour neighborhood watch team that is securing the whole neighborhood will be very difficult. Most people are likely to not pay enough attention to what is going on, fall asleep, etc. If they are armed, they probably don't have a license to be an armed guard (if your local area or state requires such). They might get in trouble. And you should be prepared to pay for their legal defense and to take care of their family for months to years-- whether or not you agree that they did the right thing (if it comes to that). Those who patrol the neighborhood with guard dogs might need the same kind of support if the dogs end up biting someone. On these matters, neighbors will be divided.

In fact, the neighborhood might want to hire a retired police officer to watch the neighborhood. If you do hire an armed security guard, treat them very well or they may just turn their back on you in a real crunch. Make sure someone brings your armed guard hot coffee through out the night and spends some time talking to him. Alternate homes that are open to him througout the day or night: he'll need to warm up, use the bathroom, get something to eat, etc. If you don't like or trust your armed guard enough to have him in your homes, you better find one that you can trust and have in your homes. You might also provide him with provisions for his family including food, water, kerosene heater, kerosene, blankets, etc."

Stan Faryna

Can't get a good price on something? Click here and check out the cooperative preps thread.

Got 14 days of preps? If not, get started now. Click here.

Click here and check out the TB2000 preparation forum.

-- Stan Faryna (, October 30, 1999


Thanks Stan, good information. Prudent. Thoughtful.

-- Gordon (, October 30, 1999.

The very fact that your minds dwell on this kind of stuff is disturbing.

-- (_@_.(*&.), October 30, 1999.

Stan: Your legal points are well taken for the scenario you have set up. Let us hope that a few days or a few weeks are all we'll be facing. A lot of what you are saying will have to be weighed against the locale and demeanor of the people coming at you. Also whether or not martial law has been declared will color one's actions.

-- Neil G.Lewis (, October 30, 1999.


What particularly is disturbing to you about conversations about self defense?

-- Stan Faryna (, October 30, 1999.


Thank you for your very informative post. I'm wondering if the "self- defense" clause will be extended to outside one's home, to include the entire property that looters might try to take. (Self defense might include defending one's livlihood (animals, grain, wellpump, etc...).


I see the cowardly trolls are back. Too bad they don't have enough guts to post intelligently. Must have had a sickening childhood to turn out the sad.

-- Deb (, October 30, 1999.

Stan, please don't engage this disruptive troll, "--@" in conversation. He's only here to make trouble. Ignore him and he'll go away sooner or later. He's been posting here since yesterday, hurling insults and trying to be cute. PLEASE ignore him!!!

-- Ohio Bob (, October 30, 1999.

"For example, did you continue to bash in the skull of the aggressor when he was already subdued? Did you stab the aggressor thirty times? If you disabled an agressor and held them captive for 14 days in what might be construed as a cruel and unusual manner, what will judge and jury think?"

Hmmm, yes, disturbing... very. Nothing disturbing about self defense... just the way (like I said) your minds dwell on the details. Bad karma baby.

-- (_@_.*&%*%%), October 30, 1999.

The biggest problem with firearms is that they are vastly more likely to kill an innocent person than less lethal weapons. Until recently, the decision between having or not having firearms in my home was, in my opinion, a no-brainer. Even in gun-obsessed America, during normal times, most people are safer, IMHO, without firearms. Only a breakdown in the social fabric, which admittedly already exists in some neighborhoods, or a period of increased uncertainty such as the one we are about to enter, makes it a more difficult decision for me.

-- Bill Byars (, October 30, 1999.

Deb: There's a guy named Massad Ayoob who's written a number of books on the use of deadly force. Generally speaking (he says), you can use deadly force only to protect your own or another's life, not to stop someone from stealing your property. Whether losing your generator would endanger your family's life would, unfortunately, be up for jury interpretation.....

-- ldeeds (, October 30, 1999.

Masad Ayyoob also is a writer for "Backwoods Home Magazine" you can also get it at your local bookstore or newsstand. They come out every 2 months.. it is a wonderful resource for all sorts of ideas.. kind of like the old Mother Earth News magazine, but I think better. They have wonderful books for sale @ decent prices & their customer service is the best I have ever seen. They sent me a free book just because I was ordering some of their anthologies & some other great books.. they even called my home to offer me the choice of my free book selection.. I was very impressed.

-- Backwoods home reader (, October 30, 1999.

Massad F. Ayoob has also written one of the best manuals on self- defense ever written, "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection". Excellent treatise on the psychology of self-defense, as well as tons of practical advice.

Boy Mr. Ayoob sure has thought a lot about self-defense, and in great detail. And forensic experts, homicide detectives, and defense and prosecution attorneys have thought an AWFUL lot about the details of self-defense v. murder.

-- preparing (, October 30, 1999.


Generally speaking (he says), you can use deadly force only to protect your own or another's life, not to stop someone from stealing your property. Whether losing your generator would endanger your family's life would, unfortunately, be up for jury interpretation..

Yes but you are also not required to stand aside and let them take your property. You cannot, for example, shoot the guy who's running away from your house with your VCR. You CAN attempt to prevent him from taking it, and if in doing so your life becomes endagered, you can defend yourself.


-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), October 30, 1999.

Details will be critical in a court of law. The consequences of our actions are best explored through such details that may capture an emotional situation where actions of self defense are later contended as actions of another kind. I imagine that a medical discussion of treating wounds (Y2K or everyday) and understanding the damage that is done by a variety of weapons would also be distrubing to some. However gory such details in such a context, I think it is bogus to make disparaging insinuations about those having such conversations.

In fact, I'm a little surprised that Red (Ken Decker) didn't bring up this subject, himself. Such an essay might have even rivaled his fixed position deconstruction.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, October 30, 1999.

Hey, Bill -- most people are safer without cars. Without knives. Without stairs. Without lawnmowers. Without power tools. Without *hand* tools.

Let's go for it, Daddy-O.

Remember, if it only saves *one* life!

-- Ron Schwarz (, October 30, 1999.

I've read Ayoob's book all the way through; it's very good, and I would recommend it to anyone considering firearm purchase with the possibility of using it for self-defense. On the general subject of self-defense using deadly force in 2000, I offer this piece: (it is from the article "Your Y2K Priorities" on my website)

"You CAN'T fight groups of uniformed looters (unless you judge they are about to kill you, in which case you might as well try; expect to die, though).

You CAN fight nonuniformed looters; in fact, sometimes you might not have a choice. I break down the possible scenarios as follows: 1) You are traveling, and happen upon a looting incident or obvious looters. A policy of armed neutrality is probably the wisest decision, especially if there is any risk to you and your group at all. Defend yourselves if attacked, but try not to bring on a confrontation. A minor bribe to avoid a fight may not be out of the question.

2) If your neighbor is under attack, you probably should try to help him. This is not an action you would be taking purely out of altruism. First, if looters are next door, they are likely to come after you next, so helping your neighbor now is enlightened self-defense. Second, if you have a mutual-aid agreement with your neighbor, and don't help him in time of attack, you will have proved yourself to be a knave. Honor becomes more important when times are hard, and guess how you will be known?

3) If a couple of people have just killed your dog, have climbed into your backyard, and are trying to break into your house, your course of action is pretty clear. Without any warning, you shoot them, aiming to kill, and continue shooting until they are dead (no prisoner-taking). You get the bodies off your property, hiding them the best that you practicably can, and never admit or divulge what happened to anyone. To those who (in an easy time of plenty) say that lives are more important than things, I retort that in a time of little or no food, robbing someone of their food is a crime belonging to the category of attempting murder, and the ancient law of self-defense (even higher than the Constitution, which I revere) applies to stopping that."

my website:

-- MinnesotaSmith (, October 30, 1999.

Until you and your family are threatened with violence or until you have actually shot a person who has threatened you with your life you cannot know the agony of what you will feel. If you do not feel guilt and remorse even though you are in the right by law you probably need a session with a psychiatrist. Am I saying not to defend? No! If you come to my house in a belligerent fashion, you will not leave the same way. What I am saying is a normal person will not take the life of another without it causing permanent repercussions - not debilitating but permanent.

-- Neil G.Lewis (, October 30, 1999.

Hello, Stan, interesting thread, because it touches on a problem that I and several others hereabouts have been kicking around for awhile. Namely: just what do we do with the aggressor that we have subdued?

My wife and I are in our 60s, so there's no way we're going to attempt to physically defend ourselves from the bad guys, nor are we going to let them get within tear gas spray gun range; that's simply too close for safety...guns are definitely the equalizer for us.

We live in a sparsely-settled rural area in SW Oregon. Our nearest neighbor is a mile distant, and the County Sheriff is 40 miles to the north. Even in good times, there are seldom more than four deputies available for patrol at any one time. So we're pretty much on our own out here in the woods. We have two large dogs that are good "early warning sensors". We have sufficient weapons, and the ability and willingness to use them to whatever degree necessary to protect ourselves and our property.

Here's the or more malicious bad guys(or perhaps just desperate daddies hoping to feed their kids) approach with the obvious intention of taking our food, fuel, generator, animals, whatever. (We don't have enough of anything to share with others.) We manage to subdue them and place them in restraints such as cable ties or duct tape. Now, just what do we do with them?

Let's assume that the phones are out, so we can't call the Sheriff for assistance. There are no other communications options here. Let's assume that it's unsafe for either of us to be driving around the area, and it's also quite unsafe to leave our property unattended. So the wife and I are stuck here at home with those bad guys. Neither of us is going to jump into the truck and drive all the way to the County Seat, leaving the other alone, and hoping to find a Deputy to come back with us and take these guys into custody. It's also winter, which means cold and wet. But we are certainly not going to take these bozos into our home.

I've posed this question to some retired LEOs, most of whom venture the opinion that if the bad guys are dead, they thus can't testify, and if there are no witnesses, most of the problem has already been solved. But if some of them unfortunately survived, then we really so have a problem. And they haven't yet come up with any really helpful suggestions, other than "take no prisoners".

The best I can think of is to confiscate their IDs, weapons, and vehicles, informing them of my intention to deliver those to the Sheriff at the first opportunity. Then I figure I'd remove their boots and pants, leave the restraints on, and tell them to hit the road. I figure a mile barefoot on a wet, rocky, dirt road will give them something other than me to think about, and the restraints and the lack of pants may embarrass them enough to distract them from me, as well, at least for awhile.

However, there remains the serious risk that they will eventually find their way back to their homes, obtain other weapons and vehicles, and re-visit us, this time with a few of their buddies along for support. Not an encouraging prospect.

There aren't enough residents hereabouts to establish an effective "Neighborhood Watch" type of patrol or mutual-protection arrangement, so that's out.

Anybody got any ideas on how to handle a dilemma like this??????

Aside for Bill Byars: try to hold your knee from jerking just for a moment, and consider this: the Bill of Rights tells our government that it is not to interfere with our right to be armed. That right to be armed allows us to defend ourselves against any and all threats, especially that from our government. That's the primary reason that the Bill of Rights was made a prerequisite to adoption of our keep government off our backs and out of our lives...and to prevent government from depriving us of the means to keep it under control. you can let your knee resume jerking.

-- Norm Harrold (, October 30, 1999.

I would very much prefer to not be put into the situation where the choice appears to come down to "kill or be killed". This is one of the reasons I tell anyone who will listen that they should IMO move to a rural area before Y2K hits -- to reduce the probability of ever being put into such a quandary. I also expect to suffer from grief and remorse for a long time if I ever do kill anyone, no matter how right the decision was. I have never attempted to kill another human being. My father has, however (defending our nation during time of war), and I have talked extensively with him about this subject whenever he has been inclined to discuss his experiences.

However, I do not see as likely feeling as much remorse if I were to kill a stranger who was intent upon committing evil against a beloved member of my family who was in the right. Besides, even if I knew that doing this would bring me emotional agony for the rest of my days, if someone was attempting deadly violence against my wife or one of my minor children, and I did not attempt to stop it by all means available, how could I not conclude that I had failed to have honor at the moment of truth? I believe that such a failure would dishonor me as a man for the rest of my days. Wouldn't you believe the same about yourself, if in that situation and you were unwilling to do what was necessary to try to stop it? Surely the answer is yes.

-- MinnesotaSmith (, October 30, 1999.

Yeah minnesota,

"This is one of the reasons I tell anyone who will listen that they should IMO move to a rural area before Y2K hits..."

But you forgot to add, " that they can buy all my stuff I sell on my website for living out in a rural area".

I hope nobody has bought your "preparation packages" after reading this silliness. Don't you know it's wrong to use FEAR to sell stuff?

-- (_@_._@_._@_), October 30, 1999.


-- (_@_._@_._@_.), October 30, 1999.

Any criminal defense attorneys or prosecutors out there with advice?

-- Stan Faryna (, October 30, 1999.

I think Minnesota Smith is right to point out that it is best to avoid any such situation. I assume that is what an attorney would recommend. If common law and order were to buckle in some places for days or weeks, before things normalized, Norm Harrold (for example) is less likely to need to use force in this time frame than say some of the others who live in a high population center or in the inner city. Still, it isn't a bad idea for even Norm and his wife to consider what he would do if he and his are threatened. For some, these profound considerations will become deeply entangled with ethical, moral, philosophical, religious, spiritual considerations and questions. For others, right or wrong may not matter much. I have a feeling that many questions won't be answered until a human face is spotted in the sights, a finger pulls the trigger, a baseball bat is cocked over the shoulder, or any moment before, during, and after the act of self defense is made. And, certainly, these questions extend beyond Y2K.

This is the middle ground that may prove more troublesome than we ever imagined.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, October 30, 1999.

@, you appear to be a troll, and a possible candidate one day for the wrong side of a Nuremberg-style trial once Y2K hits fully, but I will respond to you anyway. Yes, I sell information that is widely available for free. This is not necessarily a poor decision for people who wish to spend money rather than time. I tell people ON MY SITE where to go get it for free. If they choose instead to not spend hundreds of hours learning something I already know, and can tell them immediately with no effort on their part, that is their right. It is no more immoral for me to do this for newly-GI people than it is for a dentist or doctor to take money for giving information people could find out on their own in libraries. I sell fear no more than a dentist sells fear when he tells you to brush your teeth or they will fall out. Failure to prepare against the likely contingencies of Y2K is likely to have consequences, and highly negative ones at that. Lastly, I act as a broker helping people find stuff quickly and at the cheapest price; I do not at the present time sell any material item, and do not get any commission or profit if they choose to buy anything. However, as most days I do not lecture or assist a client, but people do hit my site daily (4000 hits since mid-September alone), mostly I give away information.

@, you do not have the slightest idea what I do. Perhaps you should move into another field you know more about, such as telling the molecular biologists sequencing the human genome how they are doing it all wrong, and how they should be doing it.

my site:

-- MinnesotaSmith (, October 30, 1999.



Read what you say:

"I would very much prefer to not be put into the situation where the choice appears to come down to "kill or be killed".

"However, I do not see as likely feeling as much remorse if I were to kill a stranger who was intent upon committing evil against a beloved member of my family who was in the right."

:...if someone was attempting deadly violence against my wife or one of my minor children, and I did not attempt to stop it by all means available, how could I not conclude that I had failed to have honor at the moment of truth?"

Three references to killing and dying. That sure as heck sounds like a guy who is subtly using fear to sell something. Sorry if you've become so numbed to it that you don't realize it anymore, I really am. And yes I realize that these things are available for free, that you sell. But don't sit here and tell me you do it on a no-profit basis out of the kindness of your heart. And don't tell me that it's a coincidence that your URL appears on every one of your posts like a damn Coca-Cola advertisment.

But if you are that darned generous than you can send me a thousand dollars and I'll use it to prepare for y2k, how'd that sound?

-- (_@_._@._), October 30, 1999.

Aaaaah, shut up, _@_@_@ or whatever the hell your name is.

We really don't give a flip about your whole thing you pounced on w/Minnesota. Good try at changing the subject, TROLL.

Now back to the subject at hand: I am quoting from Massad Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme. Norm, I HIGHLY recommend you get this book. (Stan you might find the following of interest, as well.) " When is lethal force applicable? The classic rule is that the right of self-defense begins when the deadly danger begins, ends when the danger ends, and revives when the danger returns. As we have seen, a killing that has taken place after the threat or the crime itself cannot be claimed as self-defense, if only because at that point no real challenge remains to defend against. At the other end, violent defense is not justified a moment before the attack is about to begin. An advance threat may be met with killing force only when that threat occurs immediately prior to what the slayer can reasonably anticipate will be a murderous or crippling assault against him. 'Do I have to wait for my attacker to fire the first shot?' This seems to be the most common self-defense question from both police and civilians.

The answer is no. If you have real reason to believe that the person is about to commence an assault, you are fully within your rights to strike the first blow. The pre-emptory first strike is a strategy as applicable to individual conflict as to military theory.

Just when is the assailant 'about to commence' his attack? The indications of the assault must take place *here and now*, immediately prior to your own active defense. Every court in the land has held that past threats do not constitute tangible jeopardy in the present. The threat must be immediate; even his actions a minute ago do not make your opponent legally subject to your deadly force.

It is time we defined the nature of the 'threat'. For our purposes, we are not talking only of verbal threats, but of grave and present danger that we have good reason to believe will be immediately translated into physical assault. Many courts have held that a cocked fist or a raised bludgeon does *not* constitute deadly force-- to be a killing power that calls for killing defense power, the blow must actually be swung, if not struck. Obviously, a criminal's gun need not be fired before you respond. It needn't even be drawn, so long as you have damn good proof that he had the weapon and was about to go for it." --pg 15, In The Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection

More later, my fingers are tired from typing. Need to get dinner started, the child and husband are getting restless!

-- preparing (, October 30, 1999.

Oh I AM sorry...

I didn't realize you were speaking for Minnesota today, I should have addressed the post to you.

-- (_@_._@_.), October 30, 1999.


it is interesting, please continue.

-- Stan Faryna (, October 30, 1999.

Thanks, Preparing. I first read Ayoob's books many years ago, and have most of them in my library. Like you, I recommend them often to folks concerned about the use of deadly force. I sure hope that I don't have to put my understanding of deadly force to the test in the next few months.

-- Norm Harrold (, October 30, 1999.

Double @, why don't you just crawl back under your rock?? A hell of a lot of people are wondering how they might react in a really bad situation and trying for input from others to try and decide if they may be over or under-reacting in their thoughts. These are decent people trying to get a handle on a possibly desperate problem which could VERY possibly occur. As ex military I have seen and done enough to pretty well believe I know how I would react to certian situations, but I am still NOT sure. But, anyone trying to do violent harm to my family, in ANY way, will likely be badly hurt, or worse. I will THEN worry about my conscience later Kentucky Bill

-- Bill Berge (, October 30, 1999.

Thanks Norm, I am glad to hear you have his books already. They are definitive. I hope I, too, do not have to use the knowledge of self- defense, but I am prepared to.

To continue: "When considering the oft-encountered legal rule that a punch or a kick does not warrant armed defense, the practical man will do well to realize that these laws have been formulated by judges and legislators who spend their lives in the security of courtrooms and hearing chambers. It is a rare lawmaker who has ever witnessed or undergone a brutal physical assault. Those Americans who have--and who may live with the prospect every day--realize just how much damage can be done with hands and feet. A seasoned street-fighter, or even an amateur in the grip of a savage, murderous impulse, can puncture your eyeballs, crush your testicles [note from preparing: I can hear the groans out there now], snap your windpipe, break your spine and cave in your skull in less time than it takes for the scream to choke in your throat.

So terrible an assault occasions a more powerful response from you than does the lesser force of simple assault and battery. The crippling and mutilating of a victim is also a greater legal degree of attack: defined as mayhem or maiming, it lies between aggravated assault and manslaughter in judicial terms of its seriousness. It will be cold comfort to the victim who has suffered paralysis, blindness, or loss of sexual powers [ug] that his assailant was convicted of mayhem and given a year's suspended sentence instead of the $25 assault fine for breaking his jaw.

Speaking practically, one cannot determine whether a punch is aimed for a jaw or eye socket, or the kick intended for shin or genitals until the blow has landed. The doctrine of 'no weapons against the weaponless' exists for the good reason that it may prevent gunmen from shooting down unarmed men on a pretext of a supposed assault by the latter. At the same time, the present standard is unrealistic, and is in need of alteration. Some states leave 'reasonable force' open to interpretation, and some of those who do proscribe the use of guns against fists waive the consideration when the assault is particularly savage--but here again, the intensity of the attack will seldom become apparent until potentially crippling damage has been done."

More to come...

-- preparing (, October 30, 1999.


Is this also from Massad Ayoob's book, In the Gravest Extreme?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (, October 30, 1999.


With all due respect, if people don't know how they are going to react in a high stress environment, with guns invloved, where a split second decision can end someone's life then it's safe to assume that they won't react well. And discussing on a public BBS is not going to help them make that spilt second decision.

However, a certified police training course would. Or maybe a USMC sponsored rifle/handgun basic intro course. I think if this forum really wanted to help anyone than they would list local places for people to access them.

I am totally anti-gun so I wil never advocate anyone learning how to feel and act like Dirty Harry. I am a scholar of the martial arts and to me projectile weapons are dishonorable.

(And no I will not crawl back under my rock, it's still dark out so I can safely travel outside without getting turned to

-- (_@_._@_._@), October 30, 1999.

_@_@$$hole So lets see, a gangbanger starts to rape your wife and you must make a split second problems ?

Thanks to idiots such as yourself, facilities and personell for public gun training are practically non-existant.

"I am totally anti-gun so I will never advocate anyone learning how to feel and act like Dirty Harry". Excuse me, I must have missed something here....what does learning how to feel and act like Dirty Harry have to do with anti-gun or pro-gun. Seems that people like you let thier minds DWELL on such illogical assumptions.

"I am a scholar of the martial arts and to me projectile weapons are dishonorable". So much the better for us, especially those of us who are not physically capable of becoming SCHOLARS of the martial arts. How insensitive and arrogant. I would not enjoy shooting your ass from my wheel chair, but there might be someone who would.

-- JRR (Shootyouwewill@yesssyesss.bang), October 31, 1999.

I can't help but think of the first Indiana Jones movie when he drops the bullwhip and pulls out the pistol against the bad guys with swords.

The first rule of gunfighting: Bring a gun. You don't know what type of weapon a would be burgler, rapist, etc... may have, therefore, it only makes sense that you should have a weapon to defend yourself. Two or three pieces of firewood snached from my woodpile would not cause me to shoot and kill someone, but a latenight break in to my home with the intention of harming my family will not be a good thing for their long term health. Remember the phrase to yell is "Stop, don't make me have to shoot you!" Don't go with "I'll blow your f---ing head off" or anything like that. When the police come after a shooting incident, keep your mouth shut. Ask to call your lawyer, say nothing no matter how much you want to talk. When you call 911 tell them "someone has been shot at (your address)" That is all you have to say to get police and ambulance to come to your address. Next call your lawyer, have them come to your house if possible. No matter how justified you were to shoot the attacker, police can turn on you in court if you say the wrong thing. This will be a high stress situation, so remember the basic responses.

-- Bill (, October 31, 1999.

Okay, if you guys can nitpick my last post you are beyond help.

It respectful, and yes I think there are honorable way to defnd yourself, and killing a man at three hundred yards without ever seeing his face is not my idea of honor. Call me old fashioned, but don't call me young dumb and full of ......

But anyway, like I said, the line by line attack on me is proof enough that at least one person just LOVES to fight.

(And I think I'd rather think and act like Bruce Lee over Dirty Harry any day).

-- (_@_._@_.), October 31, 1999.

Oh and to JRR,

You would never have to shoot me from your wheelchair because I would never give you a reason.

Funny how your mind seemed to dwell on that possibility.

-- (_@_._@_._@), October 31, 1999.

And should I even mention to you bozos that the study of martial arts is to learn how not to fight. So yes JRR, even someone in a wheelchair could learn.

Ahh just forget it, I'm sorry I even tried to be civil. Goodbye.

-- (_@_._@_._@), October 31, 1999.

It is obvious that _@_@_@ just wants a fight. Look at how happy he was that someone engaged him. He OBVIOUSLY is not reading the passages from Ayoob's book "In the Gravest Extreme" b/c @ said "there is nothing honorable about shooting someone from 300 yards without even seeing their face" HEY guess what? I don't think ANYONE on this forum would disagree with that! What the hell? WHY would anyone shoot someone from that far away? Go back, my dear, and re-read what I have typed from the book. THERE HAS TO BE A CLEAR AND IMMINENT THREAT AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY DAMN SURE THE THREAT IS REAL AND ABOUT TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!!

That's it.....everyone on this thread, herewith, will summarily ignore _@_@_@'s ignorant and disruptive comments.

Got it?

Now, to go on with Ayoob:

"One glaring omission in the court precedents is an indicated response for knife attack. The men who make the precedents are lawyers and judges; the men who live by them are the cops and armed citizens who are likely to face deadly weapons, and one of their most frequent questions is 'How close do I have to let a guy get with a knife before I can pull the trigger?'

The courts do not seem to have considered the nearness of the knife wielder required to bring his blade into deadly affect. Most decisions appear to have lumped weapon with lethal weapon, and have granted the defendant with a gun the right to shoot the attacker with a knife, period. Obviously, if the blade-man fell 25 yards from the gun muzzle, he could not be considered close enough to realistically threaten the defender's life. Perhaps because most instances of civilian self-defense occur at point-blank range, there has never been a major test to flatly resolve this question. If it were to come up in a contemporary court, it would probably be decided in accordance with this basic self-defense doctrine: THE ATTACKER MUST NOT MERELY HAVE MADE THE THREAT TO ATTACK, BUT MUST BE IN A POSITION WHERE HE IS OBVIOUSLY AND IMMEDIATELY CAPABLE OF CARRYING OUT THAT THREAT." pg. 16 - 17

More later

-- preparing (, October 31, 1999.

"That's it.....everyone on this thread, herewith, will summarily ignore _@_@_@'s ignorant and disruptive comments."

Ignorant? Disruptive?

Preparing, you are really a cold woman. And it's obvious that you aren't reading my posts, just skimming them and turing your nose up without any consideration at all. I would not have said anything at all to you, but you are going out of your way to make it look like I'm a bad guy because (surprise-surprise) you don't agree with me, and I want to defend myself because obviously no one else will.

-- (_@_._@_._@), October 31, 1999.

"there is nothing honorable about shooting someone from 300 yards without even seeing their face" HEY guess what? I don't think ANYONE on this forum would disagree with that!"

Paul Milne would, just ask him. He has on several occasions said that anyone within 500 YARDS of his house would get sniped. And I do recall that Mr. Milne is a regular contributor of this forum. Even an idol to some around here.

-- (_@_._@_._@), October 31, 1999.


Maybe you have a very special talent for determining who may or may not be a threat to you, but I cannot assume that a martial arts scholar such as yourself would not be a threat. Since you seem to be scared to death that someone is going to "snipe" you at 300 yards, how could it be that you do not understand that I might be concerned that someone might want to rob me in a wheel chair ? By any statistical measure, but certainly by the FBI's statistics, violent situations are defused without injury more than a million times each year by civilians who are armed. Showing an unexpected pistol to a bad guy stops the debate instantly, and prevents injury and further conflict. So, learning how to use a firearm has exactly the same effect... teaching people not to fight, with the exception that use of firearms is statistically significant. If you think that a bad guy is going to stop in front of you, bow, and make gestures which invite an honorable engagement in the martial arts, you have been watching too many movies. God help you if you are ever attacked. Bozos ? Civil ? You use these words in the same paragraph, the first referring to me, the second referring to yourself. Funny how you DWELL on your superiority. No one will defend you because you are insensitive, ignorant, and arrogant.

By the way, concerning the second characteristic, you should try to find someone who will take the time to teach you how to shoot a rifle. And then try to hit something at 300 yards.

Ignorance makes for interesting arguments.

-- JRR (Shootyouwewill@yesssyesss.bang), October 31, 1999.


Learning how not to fight is not the same as not fighting. I'm surprised that someone as venerable as you would not know the difference.

-- (_@_._@_._@), October 31, 1999.

Why should I risk receiving even a scratch because some fool has decided to break down my door? I'll order him back out the door if circumstances permit, if not then I'll shoot to stop him.

What does "honor" have to do with defense?

-- Cherokee (, October 31, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ