Home Invasions

[Darth F.Takeda]

It does sound chauvinistic - because, IMHO, it is. Many heads of household are female, while your statement assumes they are male. And by your own description, when your wife hears the "word", she takes preplanned action - and is therefore part of the plan. How would you feel if I said the same thing you did, but changed the one sentence to "if the male and or kids are not in on any preplanned action..."? Your post, as written, seems to assume that only adult males can be "in on any preplanned action", that all females and children can do is cower while the adult male takes care of the situation. What happens if you're not home? What do all of those households led by women do? I don't disagree that non-combatants need to stay out of the way - but I don't agree that only adult males should be in charge.

Well seeing as I'm the one who puts in anywhere from 8-14 hours training a week in martial arts, have combative firearms training, done a decent amount of hunting over the years,have been in few nasty situations and lived in absolute hole in my teens, compared with her no combative training, other than a few times I took her out shooting, has lived in this nice area all her life and is much weeker physically than I, in our situation I am in charge when it hits the fan.

Beleive me, she is a strong willed woman, I am not the Lord and Master of the manor, but she is also smart enough to compare herself to me.

Yes if something happens when I am not here, she has some SOPs and a weapons rich enviroment, and she knows her role is to protect our children at all cost (This is where women shine combativly, give them someone to protect, and little Miss Meek will go for broke.)But if I am here this house becomes far more dangerous to any would be invader.

BTW, in the far corner of a room behind a dresser, with the kids behined her, and she leveling a SOFMODed AR-15, loaded with hollowpoints at the door is not cowaring, unless you are an expeirenced room breacher or you have flashbang grenade, anyone through that door is dead. In a few years , the eldest boy will also be leveling something toward the door, as a teen he will take my role if I am not there.

Let's be real if there is a male and a female in the house and it hits the fan, GENERALLY (not every single case) the male is the better choice.

And I have seen females make street situations far worse, stepping up with attitude but zero combat power to back it up, it almost got a buddy of mine killed in front of me.

Then there is the female who tries to stop a fight and makes the situation worse for all parties.

I am not saying there are not some dangerous women out there, I have known a few.
If you fit that catagory, then your an asset, if not a deffensive role is best.

 

[tellner]

Actually, it's quite appropriate in this thread. This illustrates one of the ways that the burglary of an occupied dwelling type of home invasion happens. You got a guy using a ruse to ring the bell... No answer, and they go in. Answer... they move on. But... sometimes, there's no answer 'cause everyone's asleep or fail to notice the door bell.

That's one of the nice things about the doggies. Ring the bell, two large German Shepherds start barking and banging up against the door. Our house is probably marginally less attractive than the one down the street.

 

[Drac]

That's one of the nice things about the doggies. Ring the bell, two large German Shepherds start barking and banging up against the door.

That would make me take off in a hurry..

 

[LawDog]

I do not believe that violent crimes should be connected to our returning veterans. These men were probably violent before they entered the military and have acquired their advanced skills from the military.
Many violent people have been trained by,
*para miltary training groups,
*military/police type shoots that have been are/ being held by clubs,
*video training aids, anyone can purchse these.
Violent people were/are always there, they are just getting trained better.

 

[jks9199]

I do not believe that violent crimes should be connected to our returning veterans. These men were probably violent before they entered the military and have acquired their advanced skills from the military.
Many violent people have been trained by,
*para miltary training groups,
*military/police type shoots that have been are/ being held by clubs,
*video training aids, anyone can purchse these.
Violent people were/are always there, they are just getting trained better.

Absolutely.

Let me make this clear. MOST of our veterans are not bangers, are not going to come back and commit crimes, and are among our best citizens.

Unfortunately -- bangers and others with criminal tendencies are also getting into the service. Signing on the line, swearing an oath, and putting on a uniform doesn't change who the person is -- and if they're a banger, they're a banger whether they're in uniform or not. If you google "Hunter Glass", you'll find lots of links about this problem. In brief, the military for many reasons has turned a somewhat blind eye to the presence of bangers in the various armed services, unless the banger in question is quite visibly and deliberately causing a problem. This is changing -- but slowly. And, while I'm not opposed to giving someone a chance to change, we need to be careful about this. Military service isn't a magic way to make someone cease to be a banger; it's as ingrained in many of them as religion or ethnic heritage.

The big concern is not solely the training that some of these guys are getting; it's also the EXPERIENCE at urban warfare. That's what really scares me. We've got violent bangers coming back from a very violent place with real, practical experience facing gun battles. I've never been shot at on duty, nor have many other cops today. These crooks have... And I know that even the best simulation training is still not the same. It's just like fighting; all the drills, forms, one-steps, sparring matches and more still aren't the same as the first time someone REALLY tries to take your head off for real.

 

[tellner]

Lawdog, one of the most dangerous features of our descent into textbook-classic fascism is the near-religious reverence for the military and everyone in it. Hard on its heels is the reflexive condemnation of anyone and anything that isn't properly worshipful to The Troops and The Veterans.

Putting on a uniform doesn't make people into saints. All it does is guarantee that they are wearing the same clothes and can assemble an M-16. The ones who were bad people before are still bad people albeit capable of standing in straight lines and following orders. The ones who are good people are still good people. The mix of good and bad is no different among soldiers than it is among anyone else.

Not all or even a large fraction of soldiers and veterans is criminals much less violent ones. But there is a sizable number of all people who could be. If you add the economic troubles veterans are facing and the overall decline of American workers you'll get some who are willing to commit crime to make ends meet. It won't just be "gangbangers" which we can reasonably translate as "scary lawless Negroes who say 'Yo!' ". There will be plenty from all ethnicities. Some will be unorganized. Many will have learned and experienced in real life how to work together as coordinated small units. They will be more experienced, better prepared and quicker to kill than the police who will be facing them. Add in the long, repeated deployments and the well-established long-term organic effects they have on the physical structure of the brain and you've got a growing pool of potential criminals who are better prepared than in any generation I can think of.

jks, you say that the military is getting rid of the criminals and political extremists. I wish it were true, but the standards are actually declining. The proportion of recent inductees who scored in the lowest category of the military aptitude tests was at about 20% the last time I saw. That is up from the usual 2-4%. The new directives allowing neo-Nazis and people with serious drug and violent felony records are still in place. With the entire 82nd Airborne walking street patrols (?!?!) as of today's news the best the Army can hope for is that there's something left to scrape at the bottom of the barrel.

 

[shesulsa]

Well seeing as I'm the one who puts in anywhere from 8-14 hours training a week in martial arts, have combative firearms training, done a decent amount of hunting over the years,have been in few nasty situations and lived in absolute hole in my teens, compared with her no combative training, other than a few times I took her out shooting, has lived in this nice area all her life and is much weeker physically than I, in our situation I am in charge when it hits the fan.

Beleive me, she is a strong willed woman, I am not the Lord and Master of the manor, but she is also smart enough to compare herself to me.

Yes if something happens when I am not here, she has some SOPs and a weapons rich enviroment, and she knows her role is to protect our children at all cost (This is where women shine combativly, give them someone to protect, and little Miss Meek will go for broke.)But if I am here this house becomes far more dangerous to any would be invader.

BTW, in the far corner of a room behind a dresser, with the kids behined her, and she leveling a SOFMODed AR-15, loaded with hollowpoints at the door is not cowaring, unless you are an expeirenced room breacher or you have flashbang grenade, anyone through that door is dead. In a few years , the eldest boy will also be leveling something toward the door, as a teen he will take my role if I am not there.

Let's be real if there is a male and a female in the house and it hits the fan, GENERALLY (not every single case) the male is the better choice.

And I have seen females make street situations far worse, stepping up with attitude but zero combat power to back it up, it almost got a buddy of mine killed in front of me.

Then there is the female who tries to stop a fight and makes the situation worse for all parties.

I am not saying there are not some dangerous women out there, I have known a few.
If you fit that catagory, then your an asset, if not a deffensive role is best.

Perhaps it would be better stated that there are all kinds of people who make bad situations worse if they have no training or no idea what to do. The ignoramuses who do this kind of thing are not just female, nor are they mostly female.

I'm concerned, also, that you would have your teen boy 'take your role' should something happen to you - does he have the h2h combat and self-defense/home-defense and common sense to do such a thing?

I become further concerned when generalities are made between genders, especially in a situation such as this. I think it's better stated that the person best suited, best trained, most qualified to handle this kind of incident should do so.

My man is so strong he could snap my humorus by gripping it with one hand and jerking hard enough. His strategy skills, calmness in dire situations and stealth are superb. His position? Backup. He's relying on me to be the first line of defense and will follow my orders.

Just a balance post, tis all.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

Actually you can make genrealizations about groups, but it does fall apart when you go person to person. I allready stated there are dangerous females out there and yes sometimes they are better prepared then a man (but he really needs to look at himself and hope our society stays the same), but hypothetically put 100 women in a room and 100 men in a room and have them fight to the death, sure you might have 1 or 4 dead men, but you would'nt have a single woman left standing after wards. Do this on an individual bases and I am sure their would be some woman who would win, but overwellimingly the men would have more "wins" in their side.

The reason we have a more liberated society is that the ability to fight, at present, is not that high on the list of priorites and physical strength is not as important for daily life as it used to be, coupled with Laws that protect women. It has allowed our attitudes yto evolve. Go back 200 years and yes you might find a strong, independent woman here and there, but overwellmingly the man had final say in anything he wanted to have it in.

Point is when it hits the fan, your going into something that is ancient and animalistic and the modern ideas fall by the wayside.

On the issue of my Son, when he is a teen, adopting my role in when I am not there will be his responsability, and he might not have my level of training by then, but beleive me, he is not going to get the standard Gun safety and standing at the line target shooting training many think makes them able to fight with a gun, he will learn how to gunfight. As the #1 Son, it's will be his duty to protect his Mom and younger brother, as it should be. Part of having family SOPs for bad situations is having a clear chain of command and responsabilities.

Hey there is alot about our modern society I like and hope stays in place. My Lady is fairly independent, damn smart, and is in charge of a few things in the houshold, that I totaly deffer to her on, and that is a good thing, I want a partner, not a Slave, but elements of our " Cultural evolution" actually prove detramental when you end up in primal situations. Kids being told "Vilolence does not solve anything." and getting suspended from school for fighting back when attacked is a bad consequence of the "progressivness" of our society and helps contribute to making a larger number weak men, who will be nothing more than sheep if the "Night of the long knives." ever goes down. We saw that at VA Tech. and the shooting in Canada, where the males all left the room by the aggressors command,and stood in the hall as he killed women.

I will tell mine when they can understand thatViolence does not solve everthing, but with some things it's the only or best solution. Be peacfull, respectfull and kind in everyday life, be a good person, try to be diplomatic in confrontations, think "What Would Jesus Do?" and all that,but if things get or are turning ugly , counter attack with extreme and vile aggression, be evil itself, dont survive, conquer, or What Would Ceaser Do?

 

[jks9199]

jks, you say that the military is getting rid of the criminals and political extremists. I wish it were true, but the standards are actually declining. The proportion of recent inductees who scored in the lowest category of the military aptitude tests was at about 20% the last time I saw. That is up from the usual 2-4%. The new directives allowing neo-Nazis and people with serious drug and violent felony records are still in place. With the entire 82nd Airborne walking street patrols (?!?!) as of today's news the best the Army can hope for is that there's something left to scrape at the bottom of the barrel.

Note, please, what I actually wrote:

In brief, the military for many reasons has turned a somewhat blind eye to the presence of bangers in the various armed services, unless the banger in question is quite visibly and deliberately causing a problem. This is changing -- but slowly.

(emphasis added)

The military is slowly recognizing the extent and admitting the existence of gang members within the ranks, and responding to it as a problem. I didn't, and I'm not going to, address the extent of the problem, or the reasons behind it, or the reasons behind the tolerance of gang behavior. Hunter Glass does it much better than I do, and you can find it online quite easily.

Society as a whole is barely cognizant of the gang lifestyle, unless they are directly affected by it. And, in specifically discussing gang members, you'll note that I have not specified any ethnicity. Bangers come in all ethnicities -- and many gangs in the Northern VA area cross ethnic lines with total disregard for what might be seen elsewhere in the country. The banger lifestyle, and their attitude toward the rest of society is the problem, not their clothes, their skin or anything else. And that lifestyle goes with them when they put a military uniform on. I've heard reliable accounts of units in Basic that split rapidly along gang lines. But I'm moving far afield of the thread now...

 

[Tames D]

Actually you can make genrealizations about groups, but it does fall apart when you go person to person. I allready stated there are dangerous females out there and yes sometimes they are better prepared then a man (but he really needs to look at himself and hope our society stays the same), but hypothetically put 100 women in a room and 100 men in a room and have them fight to the death, sure you might have 1 or 4 dead men, but you would'nt have a single woman left standing after wards. Do this on an individual bases and I am sure their would be some woman who would win, but overwellimingly the men would have more "wins" in their side.

The reason we have a more liberated society is that the ability to fight, at present, is not that high on the list of priorites and physical strength is not as important for daily life as it used to be, coupled with Laws that protect women. It has allowed our attitudes yto evolve. Go back 200 years and yes you might find a strong, independent woman here and there, but overwellmingly the man had final say in anything he wanted to have it in.

Point is when it hits the fan, your going into something that is ancient and animalistic and the modern ideas fall by the wayside.

On the issue of my Son, when he is a teen, adopting my role in when I am not there will be his responsability, and he might not have my level of training by then, but beleive me, he is not going to get the standard Gun safety and standing at the line target shooting training many think makes them able to fight with a gun, he will learn how to gunfight. As the #1 Son, it's will be his duty to protect his Mom and younger brother, as it should be. Part of having family SOPs for bad situations is having a clear chain of command and responsabilities.

Hey there is alot about our modern society I like and hope stays in place. My Lady is fairly independent, damn smart, and is in charge of a few things in the houshold, that I totaly deffer to her on, and that is a good thing, I want a partner, not a Slave, but elements of our " Cultural evolution" actually prove detramental when you end up in primal situations. Kids being told "Vilolence does not solve anything." and getting suspended from school for fighting back when attacked is a bad consequence of the "progressivness" of our society and helps contribute to making a larger number weak men, who will be nothing more than sheep if the "Night of the long knives." ever goes down. We saw that at VA Tech. and the shooting in Canada, where the males all left the room by the aggressors command,and stood in the hall as he killed women.

I will tell mine when they can understand thatViolence does not solve everthing, but with some things it's the only or best solution. Be peacfull, respectfull and kind in everyday life, be a good person, try to be diplomatic in confrontations, think "What Would Jesus Do?" and all that,but if things get or are turning ugly , counter attack with extreme and vile aggression, be evil itself, dont survive, conquer, or What Would Ceaser Do?

I guess I missed something here. Not sure how your opinion of men being superior to women factors into this. Has there ever been a situation where 100 men and women fought each other to the end?
I guarantee that if you let me choose who the 100 men and women are, that the outcome will be different. If I missed something, let me know.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

The 100 men v 100 womnen was a hypothetical, but all through out history, when a villages defenders were defeated, the victorious would rape in plunder the village, you know the women , children and elderly left after the men were defeated (killed).

I dont feel that men are supeirior to women overall, but in violent situations they GENERALL, not always, do not measure up and they are Generally, not always, physically weaker ( stength is not everything, but it's a factor) and tend to be more emotion based in their thinking then Men, not good when you potentially are about to kill home invaders.

I know and have known some tough women who can handle themselves, but from what I have personally seen, they either get hurt or make a situation worse for their man when it is a fight with a man.

I am not a chavanist, I love and respect my mate very much, as I have said, I want a lover and a partner, not a Slave, but I am a realist.

As far as relavence to this thread, it has to do with what you do in a home invasion and the roles of your family members.

 

[stabpunch]

Here's a suggestion for you two arguing about men and women. Start a new thread.

Although how many systems train in a group defense? Why doesn't the big strong father figuer train the son and his partner? Rather than complain they are in the way.

Ok when some one smashes in our door i'll delay him you fetch the pepper spray and you call the police. Imagine a poor home invader facing two or more prepared defenders? This is what we do against a gun(comply until opportunity presents), this is what we do against two or three.

Just a thought.

Anyway how did this thread start there's the military gone bad and men are stronger than women?