|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Feb 7, 2015 17:23:13 GMT -5
Six second mount.
Hear me out.
Lots of people advocate that your pistol 'fights' you to your rifle, in a ROL home defence scenario.
Assuming me & the fianceeeeee are alone, and as yet childless, I agree with this as a COA.
I put this to parents:
Handgun & ALG6SM + light + RMR/T1 etc IS your primary.
You've just woken up. You hear bumping/banging/whatever.
Your house is a similar 'linear' environment to a plane or a bus, that the kit is designed for.
How long does it take between you being 'combat' ready with your pistol (bedside table?) and getting your arse up, to a rifle, and at the doorway to you room with a 'primary'?
6 seconds?
How long does it take for A N Other to get from where you heard them, upstairs, to your childs bedroom?
Sure. A rifle is better for firepower. No argument there.
I return to a previous argument;
'A ford focus on time is better than a rolls royce late'.
Thoughts?
TL;DR - Handgun & speed is better'n a rifle in a box if you're defending family in a ROL home def scenario.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patriotic Sheepdog on Feb 7, 2015 19:34:40 GMT -5
For me its my G-23. Two ways into my main part of my home to where people are. Entry #1 would have the BG come right by my room, and entry #2 the BG could enter through, I have direct line of fire from concealment (door frame). My safe is right next to my bed, so quick access. The G-23, now that kids are young adults, is attached to the side of my safe by a magnetic mount during the night. If not there (I sometimes forget to put it out at night), my G-19 is next to my bed in my EDC bag. If I have time, the wife gets the 38spl revolver and stays in place.
I have determined by practicing in my home, I can maneuver better and stay better concealed with the handgun vs. long gun. Unless the BG makes it further and is heading towards the kids rooms, I'll have clear shots with my Glock with no people downrange. I feel like I don't need a weapon light as I leave a small light on in the house 24/7. It would backlight the BG if they come in from entry #2. If the power has been killed, I have a Streetlight handheld on the windowsill next to me. You ask about windows? Well I live in a pre-1900 home so my house is elevated on 4 concrete blocks, so anyone coming in the windows would need a ladder or something to get up to the window. One or more of us would prob hear them and be waiting on them.
Now, If I am really thinking something is happening outside, 911 will be called. Nothing outside I cannot replace, and I'm not going to leave my family to investigate a bump, crash noise that could be a raccoon in the garbage can or maybe walk into an ambush. In a WROL situation, things will change.
Dog will sound the alarm first though. My current dog is a little pooch that pretty much only barks at strange noise. When he barks (more of a yap), I investigate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erick on Feb 7, 2015 20:02:26 GMT -5
Panzer: Thanks for your careful analysis. A lot of folks just do sloganeering instead  As for me I'm not sure my rifle will take me much longer to get into action at all, as it's also close to the bed. However I never chamber a round in the apt in my rifle so I would still have to charge it (=noise). On the other hand, the kind of threats you will most likely encounter in a Pre-SHTF ROL urban crime setting, can be taken care of with my nightstand 357 Magnum quite readily. So I still consider this question not solved with an easy blanket answer for either tool. IMO it depends on an interplay of factors and nuances: -your location/most likely threat, -how your rifle and handgun respectively are configured -and your skill level w/ each weapons system - even the most likely light conditions at night in your house.. This will inform what your personal primary response kit is for the "bump in the night". |
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Feb 8, 2015 7:28:32 GMT -5
Yeah, to be honest it was a bit of a rant after I read someone saying some shit about how their handgun exists in the house solely to get them to the safe... Which potentially means backpedalling away from the threat to your family. Just seemed dumb. Also a lot of comments about the thing being 'shit' and no one will want it. I doubt ALG will care because they built it for a VERY specific customer who is no doubt over the moon. If/when there is a commercial version, I am sure they'll make some extra cash there too.
|
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Feb 8, 2015 11:25:44 GMT -5
In general, the pistol w/light is what I will use for self-defense in the home.
Now, in potentially worse situations (such as grid down from a hurricane -- a not unlikely scenario) where looters or such are more of a reality, then there will be a rifle w/ light next to the bed. The rifle will be charged.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Feb 12, 2015 0:01:16 GMT -5
I, for one, am not discharging an unsuppressed long gun, without subsonic ammo, indoors, unless I absolutely have too. The report will be actually deafening. The only reason I don't have a suppressor for my handgun, is simply because they are prohibitively expensive for me, right now. Though, I don't have a weapon mounted light either, yet, I do keep a good flashlight with my handgun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Feb 12, 2015 11:50:15 GMT -5
I've done it. Its not "pleasant" per se, but honestly, its not nearly as bad as you'd think.
|
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Feb 12, 2015 12:08:51 GMT -5
Let me also pose a terminology here:
"Home defense" being defending the home from an outside threat. Think drive-by.
"Personal defense" is inside the home. The home is breached, you are no longer defending it, you are defending the persons within it.
|
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Feb 12, 2015 12:33:12 GMT -5
See, for me, HOME defence is different to HOUSE defence. I would consider home defence extends outside the house to include the property as a whole - the 'home'. It's purpose is to protect inhabitants and guests from harm. Fuck property, they can have it. PEOPLE is what I'm defending, and it's the people that makes it home defence and not just house defence.
I get what you're saying, though, and it's important we're all coming from the same angle and comparing apples to apples, not to oranges.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Feb 13, 2015 1:39:06 GMT -5
In my area, HOME defence is PERSONAL and HOUSE defence. The laws offer protections to where, if an individual is breaking into a lawfully occupied dwelling, then its going to be assumed they have ill intent towards those lawful occupants. There is an assumed, direct threat being presented to those occupants, even if the individual(s) conducting the B&E are just there to steal. (Don't breaking into peoples' houses, assholes!) Additionally, the individual(s) may want to have some "fun" with the lawful occupants, upon discovering them inside, so, those lawful occupants don't have to wait and find out just what that "fun" entails. Not too dissimilar "stand-your-ground" laws, which don't require individuals to first attempt to flee from an attacker(s), before responding with force to lawful defend one's self.
I don't believe it would apply to trespassers on a larger property, I wouldn't assume as such either, unless there is a direct threat being presented by the trespassers to the lawful owner of the property, while they are on it, to justify an immediate lethal force response. Its more of a PERSONAL defence scenario at that point, rather than a HOME defence scenario.
*None of this is legal advice, simply my potentially inaccurate understanding of the local and state laws in my area.*
|
|
|
|
Post by hudson5969 on Feb 14, 2015 18:34:08 GMT -5
Yeah, in most states, it's illegal to shoot someone who is not a direct threat to a person.
If they are outside tagging my truck, all I can do is call the cops. If they are shooting into the house, I can shoot back.
|
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Feb 15, 2015 13:08:01 GMT -5
In my area, HOME defence is PERSONAL and HOUSE defence. The laws offer protections to where, if an individual is breaking into a lawfully occupied dwelling, then its going to be assumed they have ill intent towards those lawful occupants. There is an assumed, direct threat being presented to those occupants, even if the individual(s) conducting the B&E are just there to steal. (Don't breaking into peoples' houses, assholes!) Additionally, the individual(s) may want to have some "fun" with the lawful occupants, upon discovering them inside, so, those lawful occupants don't have to wait and find out just what that "fun" entails. Not too dissimilar "stand-your-ground" laws, which don't require individuals to first attempt to flee from an attacker(s), before responding with force to lawful defend one's self. I don't believe it would apply to trespassers on a larger property, I wouldn't assume as such either, unless there is a direct threat being presented by the trespassers to the lawful owner of the property, while they are on it, to justify an immediate lethal force response. Its more of a PERSONAL defence scenario at that point, rather than a HOME defence scenario. *None of this is legal advice, simply my potentially inaccurate understanding of the local and state laws in my area.* See, I get this, and the legal protection it provides is good. Still - There is no need to go downstairs if you know your family is safe upstairs. The first thing I'm doing is checking everyone in the family is safe. If that means going downstairs, regardless of state (regardless of COUNTRY, for the most part) if I then go downstairs and shoot someone I'm still covered - I went to go find and protect, not to find and kill. I completely agree that if you don't want to be shot don't break into someones house. What a lot of people never look at is the moral/psychological aspect. Fuck ever having to shoot anyone. The only time I'm shooting someone is when my other option leaves me scarred for the rest of my life thinking 'Well, if I'd have just shot that guy I could have saved XYZ....' I will defend the minimum space I have to in order to ensure the safety of me, my family and my friends in a home invasion scenario. Ideally, a room. Realistically, I'd probably want the whole of upstairs knowing there's 1 route in, 1 route out that I can watch. As far as I'm concerned, there essentially IS no home defence. Something someone said the other day; 'The only reason you should take a life is to save a life.' He's usually a bit of an arsehole, but on that one point I would agree with him. |
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Feb 15, 2015 13:38:34 GMT -5
See, I get this, and the legal protection it provides is good. Still - There is no need to go downstairs if you know your family is safe upstairs. The first thing I'm doing is checking everyone in the family is safe. If that means going downstairs, regardless of state (regardless of COUNTRY, for the most part) if I then go downstairs and shoot someone I'm still covered - I went to go find and protect, not to find and kill. I completely agree that if you don't want to be shot don't break into someones house. What a lot of people never look at is the moral/psychological aspect. Fuck ever having to shoot anyone. The only time I'm shooting someone is when my other option leaves me scarred for the rest of my life thinking 'Well, if I'd have just shot that guy I could have saved XYZ....' I will defend the minimum space I have to in order to ensure the safety of me, my family and my friends in a home invasion scenario. Ideally, a room. Realistically, I'd probably want the whole of upstairs knowing there's 1 route in, 1 route out that I can watch. As far as I'm concerned, there essentially IS no home defence. Something someone said the other day; 'The only reason you should take a life is to save a life.' He's usually a bit of an arsehole, but on that one point I would agree with him. Well, not everyone lives in a two-story home. They live in a small home, single-story home, or even a townhouse or some other kind of high-density housing. Sometimes, home invaders break-in through bedroom windows. Sometimes, families in homes sleep in rooms on other sides of the house from one another. Attempting to avoid an altercation may help in further justifying the shoot, if it comes to that, but I don't think it should be an initial course of action, unless individual circumstances allow for it. There are psychological stress which will occur in a self-defence shooting, for the defender, but that is what the mental preparation they should've been doing before hand, should mitigate. If someone is going to have moral problems with the potential results of having to discharge a firearm in self/loved one defence, then I don't think they should own one, until they get that straightened-out. When some home invader is moving towards your kid's room, that ain't the time to have an inner debate. 'The only reason you should take a life is to save a life.' I disagree with this notion, because I can think of several scenarios in which a lethal force response can be justified, but someone's life may not be in immediate danger. That quote comes across as chest-thumping moralizing. |
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Feb 15, 2015 14:03:17 GMT -5
I get that not everyone lives in a 2 story home. Same principle applies - defend your own. If shooting someone whilst getting to your own happens, it happens.
Soldiers, including myself and a fair number of friends, have suffered some for of PTSD varying from being jumpy for a while, right through to having outright nightmares (I seem to recall a soldier who went to a PTSD clinic in Iraq who ended up shooting everyone.) Everyone should have a problem with killing someone, whether it's for a good reason or not. If you can happily kill someone for no reason, then you're messed up upstairs.
What is a good reason to kill a man, assuming we're talking about 'defence' not for example a state/nation hanging/electrocuting someone?
|
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Feb 16, 2015 0:57:49 GMT -5
Well, yeah, if you're happy about killing people, you have problems. However, mentally training oneself to handle a justified shoot, isn't uncalled for. I don't really think "good" is proper term for the discussion. "Justifiable" is, in my opinion.
On that last point, I'm not for the death penalty. It wastes too much time and effort, when they're just going to sit in jail anyway. I'm much more of an advocate for life terms. I think the ultimate punishment for someone who commits such crimes, is to be locked in a room with their own thoughts.
|
|
