# Lady faced 14 year jail sentence in Australia for having pepper spray.



## iluvmycam (Feb 24, 2018)

Just like the title says...

Lady went through metal detector, was searched and arrested for carrying pepper.

I faced a 14-year jail sentence for carrying pepper spray

I guess I would have got the death penalty, I don't carry around the little pink sprays...I carry 4 oz pepper.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 24, 2018)

Well if she's silly enough to carry a weapon without checking the laws then its her fault


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2018)

The stupidity is strong in this one. she gets a strop on because a security guard dared to search, who did he think he was eh? She chooses to insult and belittle him in her mind and then is outraged when she's discovered with pepper spray and a penknife going into court. An arrogant drama queen making money writing articles to wind people up. 
And as for feeling invincible because she carried it, dream on sweetheart.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 24, 2018)

wow.  The weapon laws are strong there.  What was the reason for Pepper Spray to be illegal?  Was it often used in a crime?  Or where these weapons just illegal because she was at judicial building.  In the U.S. those items are illegal as well in judicial buildings, but not outside.  



Tez3 said:


> And as for feeling invincible because she carried it


I really don't like when people only feel safe with a weapon.  Weapons should be used to help keep you safe, not make you feel safe.  Having a weapon doesn't guarantee safety.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> The weapon laws are strong there.



It's illegal here too.

In fact, if it can be shown that you're carrying anything (say a pen, or a credit card) with the intent to use it as a weapon, then it's classed as an illegal weapon.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2018)

iluvmycam said:


> Just like the title says...
> 
> Lady went through metal detector, was searched and arrested for carrying pepper.
> 
> ...



Was she ever arrested? I didn't see that in the article. If the judge dismissed her case what is she complaining about? What she did was against the law, but her horrible attitude didn't help the situation.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 24, 2018)

I believe 14 years is probably to much in that situation but I do believe she should be punished for it. Laws are there for a reason you follow them or you get punished its as simple as that in my eyes. No matter how stupid the law or whatever it is. It's the law you follow it or face the consequences it's your choice


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 24, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> wow.  The weapon laws are strong there.  What was the reason for Pepper Spray to be illegal?  Was it often used in a crime?  Or where these weapons just illegal because she was at judicial building.  In the U.S. those items are illegal as well in judicial buildings, but not outside.
> 
> I really don't like when people only feel safe with a weapon.  Weapons should be used to help keep you safe, not make you feel safe.  Having a weapon doesn't guarantee safety.


In my opinion carrying a weapon is even more dangerous for yourself. You pull out a weapon to deal with an attacker the attacker ups his attack because there's even more of a threat now they see a weapon and weapons can fail, they can break and they can be taken from you. Not worth the risk in my opinion.


----------



## Buka (Feb 24, 2018)

A reporter with an attitude, a scoff law in general, and how the hell is she supposed to know what she's carrying....into a courtroom of all places.

Reading her article, that is one unlikeable person. 

God, I so hate members of the press.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 24, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> wow.  The weapon laws are strong there.  What was the reason for Pepper Spray to be illegal?  Was it often used in a crime?  Or where these weapons just illegal because she was at judicial building.  In the U.S. those items are illegal as well in judicial buildings, but not outside.
> 
> I really don't like when people only feel safe with a weapon.  Weapons should be used to help keep you safe, not make you feel safe.  Having a weapon doesn't guarantee safety.



It is used in crime. I had a guy come in to where I work who was mugged by a group who just snuck up and pepper sprayed him.

The 14 years is a bit hyperbolic. We have illegal weapons which pepper spray is. But a bazooka is also illegal. But you don't get the same sentence.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> In my opinion carrying a weapon is even more dangerous for yourself.


It depends on the weapon carrier. I agree some people don't have a great temperament for carrying weapons. There are those that overact and haven't been trained in situational awareness and de-escalation. However; there are those that have.  





Headhunter said:


> You pull out a weapon to deal with an attacker the attacker ups his attack because there's even more of a threat now they see a weapon


Well the lethality of the weapon *should *always be appropriate for the situation. Meaning if someone draws a less than lethal weapon I draw a less than lethal weapon, they draw a lethal weapon, I draw a lethal weapon. Your scenario only applies if the weapon's lethality I draw isn't justified for the current situational parameters.  


Headhunter said:


> weapons can fail, they can break and they can be taken from you. Not worth the risk in my opinion.


Most of this has to do with weapon training. Weapon retention and weapon failures are something than any weapon carrier should be well versed in.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2018)

Buka said:


> A reporter with an attitude, a scoff law in general, and how the hell is she supposed to know what she's carrying....into a courtroom of all places.
> 
> Reading her article, that is one unlikeable person.
> 
> God, I so hate members of the press.


Wow, I was going to reply "they're not all like that". However; when I said it I realized in my heart I knew I was lying to myself.

LOL


----------



## skribs (Feb 24, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> In my opinion carrying a weapon is even more dangerous for yourself. You pull out a weapon to deal with an attacker the attacker ups his attack because there's even more of a threat now they see a weapon and weapons can fail, they can break and they can be taken from you. Not worth the risk in my opinion.



Athletic college guy tries to abduct petite college girl.  If the girl has a gun, she's much more likely to scare the guy off or shoot him in self defense than he is to escalate the attack and make it worse.

If she doesn't have a gun she's completely at his mercy.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

skribs said:


> Athletic college guy tries to abduct petite college girl.  If the girl has a gun, she's much more likely to scare the guy off or shoot him in self defense than he is to escalate the attack and make it worse.
> 
> If she doesn't have a gun she's completely at his mercy.



Well, only if she's confident with producing it and being prepared (technically and emotionally) to use it.

And what's the chances she'd actually get to it in an abduction scenario anyway? 

More likely the attacker would have a victim and a bonus free gun.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well, only if she's confident with producing it and being prepared (technically and emotionally) to use it.
> 
> And what's the chances she'd actually get to it in an abduction scenario anyway?
> 
> More likely the attacker would have a victim and a bonus free gun.



The only way your scenario plays out that way is if she lacks proficiency with the weapon she's carrying. I could use the same argument if she was poorly trained in martial arts thus her skills/training were insufficient. The martial arts style itself didn't fail her, her training did. Rape and assault/battery are other scenarios she could find herself in.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

Anarax said:


> The only way your scenario plays out that way is if she lacks proficiency with the weapon she's carrying. I could use the same argument if she was poorly trained in martial arts thus her skills/training were insufficient. The martial arts style itself didn't fail her, her training did. Rape and assault/battery are other scenarios she could find herself in.



To make the gun effective is more than proficiency in it's use.

There's being able to make use of said proficiency under extreme stress for a start.

Then there's being able to identify a threat of sufficient magnitude in time to find the gun in her bag, try to remember where the safety is while she's panicked, then being able to actually retain her weapon.

Enough police officers are shot with their own gun for me to surmise that a teenager (male or female) is unlikely to have the wherewithal to be effective.

Here's a scenario, petite girl is grabbed from behind, both arms pinned to her side and carried away - how does having a gun help her?

Another scenario - the athletic college guy is walking quickly directly toward the petite college girl, there's a look of anger and intent on his face and he's clenching fists, so she shoots him. Later it emerges he'd just found out his girlfriend was cheating on him and he was stress walking it off...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 24, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> In my opinion carrying a weapon is even more dangerous for yourself. You pull out a weapon to deal with an attacker the attacker ups his attack because there's even more of a threat now they see a weapon and weapons can fail, they can break and they can be taken from you. Not worth the risk in my opinion.


I feel the same way too.  Sometimes having a weapon makes people stand their ground when they should be leaving to avoid the conflict.   Weapons don't stop violent attackers from attacking.  It just makes them up their aggression and the tools they use to deliver it.  In the U.S. police complained about being "out gunned."  Policemen with guns didn't make criminals less likely to attack.  It just made the criminals more likely to attack with bigger guns and ambushes.   When I see people walk with guns and I'm standing behind them.  I always think "How would I attack this guy so that he wouldn't be able to use his gun to protect himself."  My answer is always a brutal one, because as an attacker I can't afford for my victim to use their gun on me. My attack must be brutal and fast enough so that he doesn't have a chance.   

All of my scenario attacks also involved me blindsiding the person with the gun which would give me the advantage.  I'm not saying that I would ever commit a criminal action like that, but it helps me to put things into perspective of how a victim may be seen.  Criminals don't always pick the easiest target.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 24, 2018)

skribs said:


> If the girl has a gun, she's much more likely to scare the guy off or shoot him in self defense than he is to escalate the attack and make it worse.


This only happens when the criminal doesn't know that she has a gun.  Go through the scenario of being an attacker.   How would you attack a woman if you thought she had a gun?    Police Officer's weapon stolen after assault.  here's another case same thing.  It also happens to males. Man steals gun from man.

People do not have the fear of guns that many assume.  For me myself.  I'm not afraid of guns.  If I was going to attack someone who I thought had a weapon.  I would be sure to get the jump on you.  A gun will only save you, if you can reach it and use it.   If I can stop that from happening then there's little risk that my victim will shoot me.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> To make the gun effective is more than proficiency in it's use.
> 
> There's being able to make use of said proficiency under extreme stress for a start.
> 
> ...


Both are valid scenarios.  People will often depend so much on a gun to protect them, that they will neglect other important factors related to self-defense.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> To make the gun effective is more than proficiency in it's use.


Proficiency includes the facets of using guns in a self defense scenario, it's much more than being a good shot


pdg said:


> There's being able to make use of said proficiency under extreme stress for a start.


There are firearms training courses that cover that


pdg said:


> Then there's being able to identify a threat of sufficient magnitude in time to find the gun in her bag, try to remember where the safety is while she's panicked, then being able to actually retain her weapon.


You're creating a scenario so there are more steps involved so she has the worst odds, but that doesn't mean she won't be able to get to her firearm. Again it comes down to training. I can just as easily have a scenario that she has a quick access concealed holster and has taken sufficient training(drawing, retention, situational awareness, etc). FYI, many concealed carry firearms don't have external safeties. One major concept of concealed carry weapons is decreasing the steps involved in getting to your weapons(firearms, knives, etc)


pdg said:


> Enough police officers are shot with their own gun for me to surmise that a teenager (male or female) is unlikely to have the wherewithal to be effective.


What about all the police officers that were able to get to their firearms? Or those that used their firearms successfully in self-defense scenarios? Don't only focus on the fallen officers who were shot with their own firearms. May they rest in peace


pdg said:


> Here's a scenario, petite girl is grabbed from behind, both arms pinned to her side and carried away - how does having a gun help her?


Many self-defense firearm courses incorporate anti-grappling techniques and escapes to both access and retain your firearm. There's another thread that covers it


pdg said:


> Another scenario - the athletic college guy is walking quickly directly toward the petite college girl, there's a look of anger and intent on his face and he's clenching fists, so she shoots him. Later it emerges he'd just found out his girlfriend was cheating on him and he was stress walking it off...


Situational awareness is a part of firearms training. You can just as easily make her a black belt in your scenario and she has the same poor judgement and she kicks the guy in the head and knocks him out. It's not a failing of the tools(firearms, martial arts, knives, etc), it was a failure of training.

Note: I'm not saying firearms give you 100% percent immunity from harm, nothing does. But there is much more to firearms training than shooting at a paper target.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

@Anarax 

I think if you're wanting to use a handgun for effective self defence it has to be under the same process as a martial art - ongoing and expanding.

My point about the police having their weapons turned on them was that while it's a tiny percentage, it can happen to people who are trained in and used to violent altercations. The chances must be much higher for an inexperienced person with limited training.

It looks a bit like you're saying a short term firearms course prepares you sufficiently - if so, I entirely disagree. Compare to a 'normal' self defence course, whatever those ads say you can't learn to "end any fight in 3-5 seconds" by doing a weekend course, but at least a misplaced punch isn't going to be taken away from you and used against you...

And yes, there should be more to firearms training than shooting a paper target - real life situations are orders of magnitude more difficult. Being able to hit anything in a stress situation with a snub nose handgun? One shot one kill is highly unlikely even if you're quite well trained, even five shots one stop is probably pushing it when the gun toting self defending teen is under pressure in the dark.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> I think if you're wanting to use a handgun for effective self defence it has to be under the same process as a martial art - ongoing and expanding.


That's what I'm saying, firearms training is more complex than what most people think.



pdg said:


> My point about the police having their weapons turned on them was that while it's a tiny percentage, it can happen to people who are trained in and used to violent altercations.


I understand, my point was don't only look to the worst examples.



pdg said:


> The chances must be much higher for an inexperienced person with limited training.


The limitation is solely on the individual. There are varying courses that cover different concepts of firearms. The limitation is only on how much training the individual wants.



pdg said:


> It looks a bit like you're saying a short term firearms course prepares you sufficiently


No, I'm saying the opposite. Firearms training is more involved than most people think. There are many different types of firearms courses that cover an entire spectrum of concepts, techniques and scenarios.  



pdg said:


> Being able to hit anything in a stress situation with a snub nose handgun? One shot one kill is highly unlikely even if you're quite well trained, even five shots one stop is probably pushing it when the gun toting self defending teen is under pressure in the dark.


All of that has to do with the firearm being used and the training of the individual. FYI, "One Shot One Kill" is part of the Marine Corps Sniper motto.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

Anarax said:


> That's what I'm saying, firearms training is more complex than what most people think.
> 
> 
> I understand, my point was don't only look to the worst examples.
> ...



From that post it seems like we're almost on the same page with the majority of it - that in the right hands a gun is a very effective self defence tool.

Your initial posts read as if your suggestion was something along the lines of putting a gun into every college girl's bag...

Would you agree though that in the wrong hands (i.e. under trained and under prepared) it's just as likely to be a liability?

My use of "one shot one kill" was because quite a large number of people think being shot means dying - the fact it's part of the sniper ethos just reinforces the point that it's extremely hard to achieve.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> Your initial posts read as if your suggestion was something along the lines of putting a gun into every college girl's bag


No, I didn't come up with that scenario, but I don't disagree with it. If the college girl wants to lawfully carry a gun that's her decision. However; I want her to get the proper training so she can use it safely and effectively.


pdg said:


> Would you agree though that in the wrong hands (i.e. under trained and under prepared) it's just as likely to be a liability?


Anyone who feels safe because they carry a weapon that they're not proficient with has a false sense of security. When one is well trained in anything(martial arts, knives, firearms), they're a danger to their attacker. When someone is untrained in any weaponry they carry, they're a danger to everyone else including themselves.


pdg said:


> My use of "one shot one kill" was because quite a large number of people think being shot means dying - the fact it's part of the sniper ethos just reinforces the point that it's extremely hard to achieve.


My point was anyone(concealed carriers, Police, Security) that has an understanding of firearms knows that the one shot one kill mentality rarely applies to pistols. I wanted you to know where the motto came from as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> @Anarax
> 
> I think if you're wanting to use a handgun for effective self defence it has to be under the same process as a martial art - ongoing and expanding.
> 
> ...


In your prior post, you set up worst case scenarios and predictable mistakes.In some of them (being grabbed and carried off with arms pinned), while the gun didn't help, it also didn't hurt, so the issue is the scenario not the weapon.

You're operating on suppositions about the incidence of guns being taken away. I don't recall any specific statistics, but I seem to recall that being actually pretty rare. There's a couple of differences in the situation between cops and civilians. Firstly, the cops aren't usually trying to leave, so can easily get caught up in stuff I'd bug out on. Secondly, their weapon is obvious and known. Grappling for that weapon can (and sometimes does) start before the weapon is even drawn. That's unlikely with a concealed weapon.

Like any physical skill, retaining a weapon and using it in complex situations will require more training. Deploying it takes less training. Deploying and firing, not much more than just deploying. Actually hitting a target under stress requires a good bit more, but there's pretty good evidence that hitting a target isn't often a deciding factor in ending a threat when a gun is presented (others here can cite the statistics on that, but in the majority of cases firing the gun isn't even necessary).


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> It's illegal here too.
> 
> In fact, if it can be shown that you're carrying anything (say a pen, or a credit card) with the intent to use it as a weapon, then it's classed as an illegal weapon.


if here is the UK, then yes your are quite correct, a spray is classed as a,fire arm, and owning one is ( i think) a,ten year max sentence, the difference with other weapons being ,that having it in a,draw at home will still get you convicted, where as most,weapons ( except fire arms and flame throwers etc)can be owned but not carried in public with out a dam good excuse.

there are sprays for dog attacks, that however, for reasons I'm not completely sure of, drop out of the fire arms classification that can be carried.as long load your not " intending" to use it on anything but an attacking dog

nb a pen isn't classified as an illegal,weapon, just a,weapon, all weapons,are illegal


----------



## pdg (Feb 25, 2018)

Anarax said:


> I wanted you to know where the motto came from as well



I already knew they used it, but I don't think they invented it. 



gpseymour said:


> you set up worst case scenarios and predictable mistakes



Well, here's another (mis)quote - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

If you don't train with the mindset of "everything could go wrong" then really you might as well work on your qi ball 



jobo said:


> if here is the UK, then yes your are quite correct, a spray is classed as a,fire arm, and owning one is ( i think) a,ten year max sentence, the difference with other weapons being ,that having it in a,draw at home will still get you convicted, where as most,weapons ( except fire arms and flame throwers etc)can be owned but not carried in public with out a dam good excuse



Yes, here is the UK.

I don't think there is a minimum or maximum sentence - I might be wrong but I believe it's subject to context (if it looks like it's been sat in a drawer for 10 years you're unlikely to face the same penalty as if it's in your pocket). Unlicensed firearms, quite a few categories of bladed weapon - different matter.

I badly phrased "illegal weapon", I should have said something more like "illegal item". Again depending on context, absolutely anything could be legally construed as a weapon and lead to prosecution.

Anything over and above saying "please don't hurt me" in self defence is theoretically illegal anyway - and that extends to animals as well... For example, if someone comes into my garden and kicks my dog then gets bitten, my dog gets the death penalty and I get prosecuted for not keeping it under control (under the latest amendments to the dangerous dogs act.)


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> I already knew they used it, but I don't think they invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it is an unlicenced fire arm.

no your completely misunderstanding your rights to self defence, you can use the force that is reasonable to protect yourself, your family, members if the public and your propery including your dog, including using your dog as a,weapon to defend your propery including your,dog

if it decided to eat a,12 yo that's come to get his ball back you have problems


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> I already knew they used it, but I don't think they invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your also miss understanding the weapons thing, anything that is obviously a,weapon is,illegal anything that has been modified to make it more,dangerous is illegal.

anything that is carried with the intent of being used as a,weapon is illegal, however you can carry absolutely anything not included above, and the prosecution have to prove beyond reasonable,doubt what your intention was in carrying it. That is more or less impossible unless you admit it or you have been waving it about threatening people, I've had this debate with the police over pool cues and baseball bats,amongst other things


----------



## pdg (Feb 25, 2018)

Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.

If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.

The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.
> 
> If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.
> 
> The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...


no that's just not true, reasonable force is a,stone wall defence to any any charge. And is a well established right.

further the force has only to be reasonable in regard to what you believed the threat was, ,not what it,actually was, so its,a personal judgement


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.
> 
> If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.
> 
> The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...




yes reasonable force is allowed even with a weapon.

Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service
Look up 'Reasonable Force'


----------



## pdg (Feb 25, 2018)

I have looked up reasonable force, and it's very fluid. What I might deem reasonable in some circumstances could lead to me being prosecuted if someone else "with more power" decides it was excessive.

I like outlandish hypothetical situations, so here's another:

I'm in my kitchen making a cup of tea, a person with a knife comes in the front door so I react by throwing the kettle of boiling water at them, which slows them down enough for me to hit them over the head with a chair and they die.

Given there's a door to the garden 5 feet away from me, at what point does my use of force become unreasonable?

I could have avoided the entire situation by locking the front door, so any of it is unreasonable because I didn't take adequate precautions. But I left it unlocked because my wife is due home any minute with the kids so would it be unreasonable to want to dispose of the threat entirely before they get home instead of running away and potentially leaving that situation for them to walk into? Or is it still excessive given they weren't in imminent danger and I could possibly have run away and intercepted my family before they walked in? 

It's far from black and white and given that any of my hypothetical actions could be construed as excessive I stand by my interpretation that any force in self defence is illegal (but may or may not be prosecuted).


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> I have looked up reasonable force, and it's very fluid. What I might deem reasonable in some circumstances could lead to me being prosecuted if someone else "with more power" decides it was excessive.
> 
> I like outlandish hypothetical situations, so here's another:
> 
> ...




Do you suffer from anxiety? You are really overthinking things a lot here. The fact that someone walks into your house armed with a knife means you are in the right to do whatever you have to at the time to defend yourself. The test for reasonable defence is what you thought to be reasonable at the time even in the cold light of day it may not seem like it to someone who wasn't there and the legal ruling goes with that. You may think it's not clear but it is.

What wouldn't be reasonable is you throwing the kettle at him, him running out of the house with you chasing him up the street and beating the hell out of him.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> Actually, you're not "allowed" to use reasonable force - the use of any force whatsoever is illegal.
> 
> If you do use force and it's decided that an average person would deem it reasonable, then it's unlikely a prosecution would be pursued.
> 
> The problem comes that what I deem reasonable, what you do and what Cyril from no.36 does are probably 3 different things...


Rubbish


----------



## pdg (Feb 25, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> Rubbish



Well, as you make such a well thought out and eloquently worded response to my ideas I feel I have no place to make a reasoned argument.

Now that every one of my points has been proved wrong with your single post I shall bow out of the discussion.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well, as you make such a well thought out and eloquently worded response to my ideas I feel I have no place to make a reasoned argument.
> 
> Now that every one of my points has been proved wrong with your single post I shall bow out of the discussion.


There's nothing to say. You're talking rubbish plain and simple.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> I have looked up reasonable force, and it's very fluid. What I might deem reasonable in some circumstances could lead to me being prosecuted if someone else "with more power" decides it was excessive.
> 
> I like outlandish hypothetical situations, so here's another:
> 
> ...


yes there are shades of grey,but that situation isn't one of them, there no requirement to take precautions to prevent an attack, you don't need to run away and you don't need to wait for them to attack you, nor do you need a wife and kids to defend yourself,

throwing the water is fine, as is, hitting them over the head if you still believe them a threat, hitting them repeatedly after they have past out might be a problem.

someone has obviously given you some very dodgy advice


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> And what's the chances she'd actually get to it in an abduction scenario anyway?
> 
> More likely the attacker would have a victim and a bonus free gun.



Depends on her.

I know of a female that was abducted from a gas station.....at a stop sign she was able to draw her handgun, shoot her abductor in the leg, jump out of the car, and escape.  Who knows what would have happened had she not been armed.

Whereas, one of my wife's friend from highschool(who was unarmed) was abducted twenty years ago, raped, murdered, and body dumped in the woods....who knows what would have happened had she been armed.

My first homicide investigation as the primary case agent was a home invasion in which an elderly unarmed female was beaten to death...again who knows what would have happened had she been armed.

When I was a teenager I had a cousin who was home with her 6 month old son....a man broke into her home by breaking a window and climbing through.  The man was between my cousin (who was in the front of the house) and her sleeping baby (in the baby's room).  Being armed, she was able to shoot the intruder, get to her baby, then flee the house.  The intruder fled to the bathroom, locked himself in the bathroom, and bled out.  Again who knows what would have happened had she not been armed.



With 18 years experience in L.E., of which 6 years was as a violent crime detective, and the last 7 years as a narcotics agent, I very much advocate having and carrying firearms/weapons.   Better to have and never need it than need it and never had it.

Baton Rouge police: Man shot, killed by homeowner after entering home on Canyonland Drive

Armed Robber shot by store Clerks---- 


Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


"We rely upon the good will of our fellow man and the forbearance of reptiles.".....is not a great strategy, IMHO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well, here's another (mis)quote - hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
> 
> If you don't train with the mindset of "everything could go wrong" then really you might as well work on your qi ball


If you assume everything will go wrong, no training is effective. We can't evaluate options against the worst possible scenarios. If someone has me on the ground with a gun to my chest and a knife at my throat, with five of his most deadly friends standing around, I'm screwed. That's an absurd situation, but not much more so than saying a gun is useless if someone is grabbed with their arms pinned and carried off by a much larger attacker. Once you get to that point, so very much has gone wrong that not much is likely to save you.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> In your prior post, you set up worst case scenarios and predictable mistakes.In some of them (being grabbed and carried off with arms pinned), while the gun didn't help, it also didn't hurt, so the issue is the scenario not the weapon.
> 
> You're operating on suppositions about the incidence of guns being taken away. I don't recall any specific statistics, but I seem to recall that being actually pretty rare. There's a couple of differences in the situation between cops and civilians. Firstly, the cops aren't usually trying to leave, so can easily get caught up in stuff I'd bug out on. Secondly, their weapon is obvious and known. Grappling for that weapon can (and sometimes does) start before the weapon is even drawn. That's unlikely with a concealed weapon.
> 
> Like any physical skill, retaining a weapon and using it in complex situations will require more training. Deploying it takes less training. Deploying and firing, not much more than just deploying. Actually hitting a target under stress requires a good bit more, but there's pretty good evidence that hitting a target isn't often a deciding factor in ending a threat when a gun is presented (others here can cite the statistics on that, but in the majority of cases firing the gun isn't even necessary).



It is a terrible way to approach self defence though.

If you are going to carry a gun you need to be set up in a manner that you are prepared to shoot and kill someone.

Which means you are prepared for the sort of violent confrontation that requires you to shoot and kill someone.

Otherwise the attitude to gun carry becomes irresponsible and dangerous.

And god forbid you shoot miss and kill someone else.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Depends on her.
> 
> I know of a female that was abducted from a gas station.....at a stop sign she was able to draw her handgun, shoot her abductor in the leg, jump out of the car, and escape.  Who knows what would have happened had she not been armed.
> 
> ...



And a video that really shows the comedy of errors that occur when nobody has a real clue what they are doing.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 25, 2018)

drop bear said:


> And a video that really shows the comedy of errors that occur when nobody has a real clue what they are doing.



Say what you want but that comedy of errors stopped the robbery and apprehended a criminal that had already committed 10 armed robberies in that area.

Its easy to Monday Morning QB when the shotgun isn't in your face.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 25, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Say what you want but that comedy of errors stopped the robbery and apprehended a criminal that had already committed 10 armed robberies in that area.
> 
> Its easy to Monday Morning QB when the shotgun isn't in your face.



But it is alright when you use it to make a point though?


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 25, 2018)

drop bear said:


> But it is alright when you use it to make a point though?





I'm not judging them.  Just using the video to point out that they had the option of defending themselves and they chose that option.

They made their decision they thought was best for them and did what they thought they needed to do to protect themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 25, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It is a terrible way to approach self defence though.
> 
> If you are going to carry a gun you need to be set up in a manner that you are prepared to shoot and kill someone.
> 
> ...


Oh, I definitely agree with that concept, DB.


----------



## Marie_Flowers88 (Mar 1, 2018)

iluvmycam said:


> Just like the title says...
> 
> Lady went through metal detector, was searched and arrested for carrying pepper.
> 
> ...



Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. She should be punished for that. She was a writer and she must know that weapons are illegal


----------



## jobo (Mar 1, 2018)

Marie_Flowers88 said:


> Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. She should be punished for that. She was a writer and she must know that weapons are illegal


why does being a writer mean she MUST know the law?

do writer have to sit a law exam to become writers?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 1, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I'm not judging them.  Just using the video to point out that they had the option of defending themselves and they chose that option.
> 
> They made their decision they thought was best for them and did what they thought they needed to do to protect themselves.



They locked him in with them. 

I mean we can use that video to point out that they could have just let the guy go.


----------



## Marie_Flowers88 (Mar 2, 2018)

jobo said:


> why does being a writer mean she MUST know the law?
> 
> do writer have to sit a law exam to become writers?



As what she said, she was a writer in the court. This means that this isn't her first time going to the court. 
Not just in court, in every establishment, weapons are not allowed.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 2, 2018)

Marie_Flowers88 said:


> As what she said, she was a writer in the court. This means that this isn't her first time going to the court.
> Not just in court, in every establishment, weapons are not allowed.




She's a journalist so I was wondering how much she exaggerated her story for effect, it depends who she is employed by too, her editor might have wanted a certain type of political leaning to her story as well.


----------



## Marie_Flowers88 (Mar 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> She's a journalist so I was wondering how much she exaggerated her story for effect, it depends who she is employed by too, her editor might have wanted a certain type of political leaning to her story as well.



I agree It is really possible that they want to make publicity out of it. Which I can say that she is stupid.


----------

