Women and self defense?

[1inICXC]

Uhh…or you could just shoot him. Seriously I think this “You only need self-defense or pepper spray” is the dumbest thing…what if it’s a gang of rapists and not one? .

If it’s a gang of rapists you’d need a bomb not a gun. 5 men jump you, one bullet’s not gonna do a thing.

 

[mary_bobo]

In my opinion, the right to bear arms, is the stupidest thing that ever came out of America.
actually, fortunately, it stayed there as the rest of the world is smarter in that regard.

Hi, the rapist, on the same token, probably has his own gun.

Makes me sad to see Catholics buy into this

And just to add to the self defense techniques, don’t just run, SCREEAAAAMMMMM, scream your head off. Unless you are literally in the middle of nowhere, in which case I have no idea where you’d be running to, there’s a great chance that someone will hear you. Not to mention, it makes the assailant rather nervous to know attention is being drawn.

And you know what, we women know, and men know, that they can overpower us no problem but psychologically, in these kind of situations, none are really rationalizing so use that, the more assertive the woman is, the more he will hesitate.

P.s. Runwaymodel, heels make for good weapons when you run them into his leg scraping down.

With all due respect to differing opinions, this is a very naive solution to the problem. Some of these ideas might POSSIBLY work if you are twenty years old in an area crowded with people. Some of us are no longer twenty and can’t run fast. Do you just throw us to the wolves?

 

[austenbosten]

If it’s a gang of rapists you’d need a bomb not a gun. 5 men jump you, one bullet’s not gonna do a thing.

Ahahaha

What is this Colonial Times and we’re still using muskets? a Kel-Tec P-32 pistol can easily take out 5 guys, besides rapists are cowards…blast one away and the others will scatter like cockroaches.

 

[searching04]

In my opinion, the right to bear arms, is the stupidest thing that ever came out of America.
actually, fortunately, it stayed there as the rest of the world is smarter in that regard.

Hi, the rapist, on the same token, probably has his own gun.

Makes me sad to see Catholics buy into this

And just to add to the self defense techniques, don’t just run, SCREEAAAAMMMMM, scream your head off. Unless you are literally in the middle of nowhere, in which case I have no idea where you’d be running to, there’s a great chance that someone will hear you. Not to mention, it makes the assailant rather nervous to know attention is being drawn.

And you know what, we women know, and men know, that they can overpower us no problem but psychologically, in these kind of situations, none are really rationalizing so use that, the more assertive the woman is, the more he will hesitate.

P.s. Runwaymodel, heels make for good weapons when you run them into his leg scraping down.

You are either ridiculously naive or wishful, it seems. Especially in that last sentence.

So, the right to keep and arms to defend oneself is stupid? How about the rest of the first Ten Amendments? Freedom of speech and religion? Search and seizure? It all goes hand in hand. How do you think we formed our nation - talking the Brits to death? We did so by bearing arms. How do you think China, Iran, Russia, and other brutal countries keep their citizens in check? No right to bear arms. Get real, learn some history, or at least look at facts.

Being Catholic has nothing to do with buying into anything. That logic would mean those of us who believe in the Constitution also just “bought into” somehting.

 

[searching04]

If it’s a gang of rapists you’d need a bomb not a gun. 5 men jump you, one bullet’s not gonna do a thing.

That’s why a pistol that is 13+1 is a beautiful thing.

 

[runwaymodel]

If it’s a gang of rapists you’d need a bomb not a gun. 5 men jump you, one bullet’s not gonna do a thing.

Agreed. Unless you have a very fast reaction time and can shoot all 5 quickly, I’m pretty sure one if not the remaining 4 of those rapists (since we all can carry guns freely according to some people) will whip out a gun of their own and then we have a shotout. 5 vs 1, everyone with their own personal gun. I don’t have to speculate which side would win, unfortunately.

 

[searching04]

Agreed. Unless you have a very fast reaction time and can shoot all 5 quickly, I’m pretty sure one if not the remaining 4 of those rapists (since we all can carry guns freely according to some people) will whip out a gun of their own and then we have a shotout. 5 vs 1, everyone with their own personal gun. I don’t have to speculate which side would win, unfortunately.

Well, you can go out fighting or just go out the way they want. It is no reason NOT to arm or defend yourself.

 

[GracedUpon]

Agreed. Unless you have a very fast reaction time and can shoot all 5 quickly, I’m pretty sure one if not the remaining 4 of those rapists (since we all can carry guns freely according to some people) will whip out a gun of their own and then we have a shotout. 5 vs 1, everyone with their own personal gun. I don’t have to speculate which side would win, unfortunately.

Actually, many violent crimes are committed without guns. I’ve read many stories of people who were being attacked by someone with a knife, or just by someone who was much larger. I don’t think too many rapes are committed with guns (although I could be wrong, since this is just speculation on my part).

You’re right, though, that if you’re being attacked by 5 men with guns, then you’ll probably end up dead, whether you have one or not. If you’re bring attacked by 5 men and none of you have guns, then you still may end up dead, and at the very least severely brutalized. However, if you’re being attacked by 5 men without guns, and you shoot one of them, then the others will probably run off. Or, if you’re lucky, they’ll all run off before you pull the trigger.

Once I read a story of a woman who was accosted by a man in a dark alley. She drew her weapon, pointed it at him, and shouted that he’d better leave her alone or she’d blow his head off. When he saw the red dot pointed at him, he knew she meant business and left her alone. The weapon? A laser pointer. My point here is that some attackers will vacate as soon as they see that you’re not an easy victim, or that you can seriously hurt them.

There are, of course, an infinite number of potential scenarios involving an attacker, and even more potential outcomes depending on what methods you employ for self-defense. Yes, some scenarios can end up worse if you bring a gun into the picture, but in most cases you’ll have more of an advantage if you have one.

IMO, it’s better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

 

[styrgwillidar]

If it’s a gang of rapists you’d need a bomb not a gun. 5 men jump you, one bullet’s not gonna do a thing.

Well, you need to know the laws in your jurisdiction,. In some, rape or threat of rape is not considered legal justification for use of lethal force in self-defense- you wouldn’t be justified in using a knife, much less a gun or bomb.

You will need to say it was because you were in fear of death. Which should be true, you can’t read minds and will have no idea what your attacker will ultimately do to you.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Once I read a story of a woman who was accosted by a man in a dark alley. She drew her weapon, pointed it at him, and shouted that he’d better leave her alone or she’d blow his head off. When he saw the red dot pointed at him, he knew she meant business and left her alone. The weapon? A laser pointer. My point here is that some attackers will vacate as soon as they see that you’re not an easy victim, or that you can seriously hurt them.

Which ironically, if he were armed, he could have cited for drawing and firing his own weapon in self-defense due to the belief that she was brandishing a weapon and his life was in immediate danger.

Yeah scenarios are endless and we don’t know what all ‘accosted’ entailed. However, I avoid dark alleys as a rule. To paraphrase what I said before, in any fight -You Can Lose. Don’t engage in combat you can avoid if it’s not worth your life. Guns jam, people miss, there are more folks than you thought, etc. etc. etc. Murphy has never been my friend.

 

[GracedUpon]

Which ironically, if he were armed, he could have cited for drawing and firing his own weapon in self-defense due to the belief that she was brandishing a weapon and his life was in immediate danger.

Yeah scenarios are endless and we don’t know what all ‘accosted’ entailed. However, I avoid dark alleys as a rule. To paraphrase what I said before, in any fight -You Can Lose. Don’t engage in combat you can avoid if it’s not worth your life. Guns jam, people miss, there are more folks than you thought, etc. etc. etc. Murphy has never been my friend.

I don’t remember the exact details of the story, but he definitely had bad intentions (rape, rob, kill; I don’t remember). He wasn’t just asking her for some spare change.

I do agree, though, that if you can get out of a situation without further escalating things, then that’s the best way to go.

 

[Rascalking]

I’ve taught womens self defense courses for several years. As mentioned before, the best rule possible is to be aware of your surroundings and not be stupid. Have common sense. In the rare case something does happen, be armed. No matter how well trained you are in self defense, it doesn’t mean a thing if the other guy is high on PCP/super strong/really determined. I’ve seen people who are highly skilled in martial arts freeze up and panic in training rings, much less in the real world.

 

[runwaymodel]

Look, I am not against guns, I simply think women should also be trained in self defense because there can be times where you will be without that gun, and then what? Self defense gives women awareness, skills, and techniques to make them less fearful when dealing with bad guy.

If some robber was trying to step foot in my house to harm my little dogs, and take my things I wouldn’t even give a warning shot, I would aim for the head.(I am very territorial ) What does worry me is guns at the hands of unstable people The thought of everyone walking around with a concealed weapon in their purse or pocket is scary to me. We should have the right to bear arms, but I think our screening process seriously needs to be updated and stricter.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Look, I am not against guns, I simply think women should also be trained in self defense because there can be times where you will be without that gun, and then what? Self defense gives women awareness, skills, and techniques to make them less fearful when dealing with bad guy.

If some robber was trying to step foot in my house to harm my little dogs, and take my things I wouldn’t even give a warning shot, I would aim for the head.(I am very territorial ) What does worry me is guns at the hands of unstable people The thought of everyone walking around with a concealed weapon in their purse or pocket is scary to me. We should have the right to bear arms, but I think our screening process seriously needs to be updated and stricter.

1. Agree with self-defense training being an asset. But to gain separation so you can perform the ‘GOOD’ maneuver. Get Out Of Dodge.
2. You need to know the laws in your jurisdiction. CA prohibits the use of lethal force in defense of property. If you want to be able to defend your property, move to TX. If it’s a robber in CA, smile as he walks out the door with your stuff. Shooting him basically hands him or his estate everything you own due to at a minum, it being manslaughter. And in cases of manslaughter you are now responsible, just as in a car accident, to compensate them/their estate for the damages.
3. The states with ‘shall issue’ concealed carry permits have lower rates of homicides with permit holders being involved in significantly fewer crimes than the general population than states with “no issue” or “discretionary issue” systems. CA is discretionary with the county sheriff/police deciding arbitrarily who gets them.
4. Your county (LA) is basically no issue. Even women who’ve been raped/attacked with a restraining order in place and the attacker still threatening to kill them can’t get permits. So you don’t have to worry about the law-abiding people carrying. Just the criminals or those rich/connected enough to contribute sufficiently to the sheriff’s re-election to demonstrate their wisdom and trustworthiness to carry concealed.

BTW, the Dangerous Weapon Control Law is posted as a link on the State Attorney Generals website.
ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/
Also, the Firearms Booklet which has a section on lethal force in self defense with references to the applicable sections of the penal code
ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf
Used to update annually, so check the actual law vice the booklet.

Also, on the advice of a lawyer I pulled down the CA instructions to jurors for cases involving Self Defense as a defense against Homicide. It’s how your peers will be told to assess your actions. Sorry, I don’t have the link, I’ll try and find it if you’re interested.

 

[austenbosten]

Look, I am not against guns, I simply think women should also be trained in self defense because there can be times where you will be without that gun, and then what? Self defense gives women awareness, skills, and techniques to make them less fearful when dealing with bad guy.

If some robber was trying to step foot in my house to harm my little dogs, and take my things I wouldn’t even give a warning shot, I would aim for the head.(I am very territorial ) What does worry me is guns at the hands of unstable people The thought of everyone walking around with a concealed weapon in their purse or pocket is scary to me. We should have the right to bear arms, but I think our screening process seriously needs to be updated and stricter.

Everyone is afraid of guns being in the hands of unstable people, but you know unstable people are going to kill no matter what. You can make a bomb out of fertilizer and an unstable person will blow up a building. That’s not the point, you’ll find gun enthusiasts like me believe strongly in firearm training, the same way car and motorcycle enthusiasts believe in training as well because both are extremely dangerous in the hands of inexperienced people.

However a gun is wonderful because no matter what it evens the playing field, it’s like giving David super gigantic muscles and power to fight Goliath, if David happened to have not been a powerful warrior. I’m not against women learning self-defense training, and you know what? not all women are comfortable with guns…that’s okay too…but we want all options open to women in defending themselves from these creeps.

I’m all for a woman taking self-defense and CCW…all the more all the better. To me it’s the equivalent of taking drivers ed and wearing a seat belt. SD makes women more aware of their surroundings (just like DE makes drivers more aware) and CCW is there if the kpeople: hits the fan, just like seatbelts.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I wouldn’t even give a warning shot, I would aim for the head

Good. If you believe you have the time, ability to fire a warning shot than you call into question that you were in fear of imminent threat to your life, or great bodily harm.

Second. You’re responsible for every round you fire that comes out of your weapon. Any round with sufficient penetration (as defined by the FBI) will go through most dwellings walls and therefore a threat to those on the other side.

Third. The person you’re trying to warn can consider themselves to be in fear of imminent threat to their lives. Even a burglar has a right to self-defense, i.e. if he’s just grabbing your stuff and not a threat to you, you don’t have the right to use lethal force and he now has the right to defend against your attack.

Fourth. Unless you’re well trained, the head is a difficult target. Get some training, you fire at center of mass until you assess the threat has stopped.

Fifth. Good site to understand timing, how quicly things happen. Materials from these sites are used in assessing whether police shootings are justified at boards of inquiry. It can also help you understand that action beats reaction. Compare officer motions to subject motions and interactions.
forcescience.org/demos.html

 

[runwaymodel]

Good. If you believe you have the time, ability to fire a warning shot than you call into question that you were in fear of imminent threat to your life, or great bodily harm.

Second. You’re responsible for every round you fire that comes out of your weapon. Any round with sufficient penetration (as defined by the FBI) will go through most dwellings walls and therefore a threat to those on the other side.

Third. The person you’re trying to warn can consider themselves to be in fear of imminent threat to their lives. Even a burglar has a right to self-defense, i.e. if he’s just grabbing your stuff and not a threat to you, you don’t have the right to use lethal force and he now has the right to defend against your attack.

Fourth. Unless you’re well trained, the head is a difficult target. Get some training, you fire at center of mass until you assess the threat has stopped.

Fifth. Good site to understand timing, how quicly things happen. Materials from these sites are used in assessing whether police shootings are justified at boards of inquiry. It can also help you understand that action beats reaction. Compare officer motions to subject motions and interactions.
forcescience.org/demos.html

If a stranger is in my house taking my things I will absolutely consider this as a threat and shot him. I think my chances in court will be in my favor, so I don’t really have any regard to this burgular’s rights when he broke into my home. Luckily I live in a very secure area in Los Angeles.
But yes, you do have some valid points. Thank you for your resourceful posts.

 

[styrgwillidar]

If a stranger is in my house taking my things I will absolutely consider this as a threat and shot him. I think my chances in court will be in my favor, so I don’t really have any regard to this burgular’s rights when he broke into my home. Luckily I live in a very secure area in Los Angeles.
But yes, you do have some valid points. Thank you for your resourceful posts.

California does have a fairly strong ‘Castle Doctrine’ law, as summarized in the firearms booklet. Unlike some states, there is no duty to retreat and CA law classifies rape as a life threatening crime. Additionally:

"Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred. Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. (Penal Code § 198.5.)

NOTE: If the presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence, the occupant may be criminally
liable for an unlawful assault or homicide.

And that contrary evidence could be you stating you would shoot someone for taking your things vice being in fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury. Never talk to the police without your lawyer present, even if you are absolutely convinced you were in the right and in compliance with the laws.
youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc