Defending Yourself

[theophilus777]

I've also never seen the sprayer avoid contact with it himself...ever.

Hmmm, I know more than a few people who carry pepper spray. I should let them know about this.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's horrible! You need restraining orders.

That wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[Autumnleaf]

I trained to fight so that if I have to I can at least make it difficult for whoever wants to mess with me. Since I'm getting old I have 3 black belts trained to defend me and another few in training.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I trained to fight so that if I have to I can at least make it difficult for whoever wants to mess with me. Since I'm getting old I have 3 black belts trained to defend me and another few in training.

You have a ninja posse

 

[Skybringr]

If someone attacks me and a gun would do me any good, the gun would have to be in my hands or a holster, not in my purse or in my car.

There's a reason that police officers don't keep their guns in their bags or in their cars: the guns won't do any good there.

And this is assuming that having a gun on one's person is a good idea (i.e. setting asside all concerns about accidentally shooting oneself--especially if one keeps the gun in one's purse of all places--or the assailant getting a hold of the gun or of shooting someone whom you thought had bad intentions but did not in fact have bad intentions).

Being armed is being armed. You do with that armament as you feel fit.
We live in America; you are entitled to that freedom.

There's no point in discussing ~physics~. It is a vain argument.

 

[theophilus777]

Being armed is being armed. You do with that armament as you feel fit.
We live in America; you are entitled to that freedom.

There's no point in discussing ~physics~. It is a vain argument.

Devnet's point is more than valid: a weapon does no good at all if you can't get to it. A can of pepper spray you can get to does way more good than even the biggest caliber gun you can't get to. And a baseball bat is pretty useful if you find somebody as they come thru a door or window, it'll never jam or run out of ammo. But per the OP, a stun gun is unique in terms of stopping power combined with not just non-lethality but not really doing any damage. Which means there might be problems with the person coming after you again, either as you try to get away or right after you do.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

What are your feelings on self-defense?...

We can either spend scarce resources on how to defend ourselves against attackers or we can spend those resources on preventing attacks from ever happening in the first place.

I vote for the latter.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We can either spend scarce resources on how to defend ourselves against attackers or we can spend those resources on preventing attacks from ever happening in the first place.

I vote for the latter.

How would you do the latter?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

How would you do the latter?

In answering that question the surface can barely be scratched in one post in one thread at Christian Forums.

But a good start would be for people to reject the materialism and the need to consume more and more luxury goods that the system that dominates the globe, capitalism, requires. If you have almost no luxury goods in your possession then you are not going to be the target of an attacker with the motive or robbery. And resources that would be stolen to make those luxury goods would then be available for people to use to meet basic needs.

Of course, we have had it repeatedly pounded into our heads that without the perpetual economic growth that comes from producing and consuming more and more luxury goods the sky will fall and we will all be miserable, so people will have to find the courage to overcome that ideological dogma.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Because the only reason people are attacked is when their attackers want to steal valuables, right?

(Hint: wrong)

 

[quatona]

What are your feelings on self-defense?

Personally, I have never even spent a thought on it.
What are your feelings on the different methods of self-defense? How effective do you think they are? Do you think all are moral or are there certain limits?

If you had to arm yourself with a tool to defend yourself against a crime, what would you choose and why?

What do you mean - "had to"?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Because the only reason people are attacked is when their attackers want to steal valuables, right?

(Hint: wrong)

A straw man.

I could think of and write about ways to prevent all kinds of attacks motivated by all kinds of things, but then we would have a thread 7,000 pages long.

Nobody here has time for that, so I illustrated preventing attacks by talking about one kind of attack: attacks motivated by robbery.

Prevention is better than self-defense. Please respond to that actual argument, not to straw men.

 

[keith99]

Because the only reason people are attacked is when their attackers want to steal valuables, right?

(Hint: wrong)

Bingo.

When I was younger I walked through some pretty bad areas without any problems.

I dressed in the casual medium. So I did not look like either a big score or someone who would not be missed. I looked like a little score who did have family or friends who would want answers and push for a conviction.

Oh and I was between 190 and 205 lbs and not fat.

In short a poor target for financial gain. Being male rape related issues were absent.

BUT while I walked some bad places I never ventured into those bad places where the wrong ethnic origin would make me a target.

Still none of that protects against a random nut.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Still none of that protects against a random nut.

No behavior is random.

If any behavior were random then there would be no way to know how to be prepared to defend one's self and this thread would be pointless.

Prevent an attack from ever happening in the first place or prepare to defend one's self after the fact.

I vote for spending resources on the former.

 

[KitKatMatt]

No behavior is random.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M&feature=kp

 

[theophilus777]

Because the only reason people are attacked is when their attackers want to steal valuables, right?

(Hint: wrong)

Of course. "Preventing attacks before they ever happen in the first place" is where the term "equalizer" comes from. Which is why I think concealed carry is of limited value, and open carry should be the law.

Interesting that it used to be the law of the land that if you owned a gun and went to Church, you had to bring it with you. Of course, that was a long time ago.

 

[theophilus777]

If any behavior were random then there would be no way to know how to be prepared to defend one's self and this thread would be pointless.

Rather, any good self-defense prep includes the fact that you have NO IDEA how an attacker might function. Which is why I'm not so convinced of the practicality of a gun, for purposes of my own self-defense. And why I think the OP's situation warrants discussion.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Of course. "Preventing attacks before they ever happen in the first place" is where the term "equalizer" comes from. Which is why I think concealed carry is of limited value, and open carry should be the law.

Interesting that it used to be the law of the land that if you owned a gun and went to Church, you had to bring it with you. Of course, that was a long time ago.

Rather, any good self-defense prep includes the fact that you have NO IDEA how an attacker might function. Which is why I'm not so convinced of the practicality of a gun, for purposes of my own self-defense. And why I think the OP's situation warrants discussion.

You are talking about deterring. I am talking about preventing.

 

[theophilus777]

You are talking about deterring. I am talking about preventing.

I'm aware of the difference. Are you aware this thread is about defending yourself? Not even getting to the deterrence value so much? Did you read that the OP has had no success with prevention, nor deterrence? Incidentally, a restraining order is merely deterrence, and primarily works by speeding up the process of prosecution. But it seems we can rule out the possibility of filing for one in the OP's case, which raises the axiom "better to be judged by 12 than carried out by 6." Which is one reason I applaud her choice of weapon.

I think the kind of prevention you're after is part and parcel of establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth. I don't think we're quite there yet ... but don't be deterred from trying!

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I'm aware of the difference. Are you aware this thread is about defending yourself? Not even getting to the deterrence value so much? Did you read that the OP has had no success with prevention, nor deterrence? Incidentally, a restraining order is merely deterrence, and primarily works by speeding up the process of prosecution. But it seems we can rule out the possibility of filing for one in the OP's case, which raises the axiom "better to be judged by 12 than carried out by 6." Which is one reason I applaud her choice of weapon.

I think the kind of prevention you're after is part and parcel of establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth. I don't think we're quite there yet ... but don't be deterred from trying!

If I knew in advance that I was going to be attacked then I would have law enforcement set up a sting operation and intercept the would-be attacker in the act of attempting to make the attack. Why be "defended" after the fact that an attack is being carried when you can stop the attack before it is carried out and apprehend the would-be attacker?

But even more prudent than that would be to address the causes of attacks and prevent them from ever being conceived in the first place.