What to do when robbed?

[Gemstar]

I think stealing is over greed. You already have what you need yet you steal. Why would one steal to satisfy himself and being inconsiderate to others. But what happens if a thief steals from a thief? Is it allowed since he steals from others? It is only natural one would think so. If he steals then I guess he allows others to steal from him. For the bandits it is very hard to just sit and stay quiet with what they have and don't have. They cannot remain comfortable. I don't even know if there's a solution to people stealing or crime.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

An AK-47 is not an atom bomb. It is a rifle. Period.

The only reason that the AK-47 is celebrated is because it is simple, inexpensive to manufacture, and durable. It is not more deadly or destructive than other common rifles.

Rifles are somewhat lousy choices (ak-47 or otherwise) for home defense, especially in urban areas.
1) Hard to maneuver in tight places like hallways
2) Better suited as a club for close combat
3) All bullets have a nasty tendency to keep flying past the target whether they hit them or not. This is bad, especially for the people in the next apartment or house. A slower moving frangible bullet mitigates that problem since frangibles don't tend to fly through the first impact or two. Using a small pellet shotgun is an even better solution. At close range the pellet cloud might as well be a slug and farther out each pellet does less damage and drywall/wood more effectively retards the velocity.

Note that some pistols also have the same problems that a gunowner has to consider when pointing a weapon.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Rifles are somewhat lousy choices (ak-47 or otherwise) for home defense, especially in urban areas.
1) Hard to maneuver in tight places like hallways
2) Better suited as a club for close combat
3) All bullets have a nasty tendency to keep flying past the target whether they hit them or not. This is bad, especially for the people in the next apartment or house. A slower moving frangible bullet mitigates that problem since frangibles don't tend to fly through the first impact or two. Using a small pellet shotgun is an even better solution. At close range the pellet cloud might as well be a slug and farther out each pellet does less damage and drywall/wood more effectively retards the velocity.

Note that some pistols also have the same problems that a gunowner has to consider when pointing a weapon.

This is true. You'll note I never actually recommended a rifle.

If a firearm is a choice for home defense, absolutely, a shotgun is a better choice. Considering the potential for "pass through", if shooting a pistol, hollow points or frangible bullets in a lower-velocity round are best (where they're not outlawed by idiotic legislators). But regardless of what one is shooting, being aware of both the target and what's behind it is basic firearm safety, and if some one can't manage that, they shouldn't be shooting at all.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

But regardless of what one is shooting, being aware of both the target and what's behind it is basic firearm safety, and if some one can't manage that, they shouldn't be shooting at all.

Completely agree with that - I may be a supporter of my "right to bear arms" ... but I'm also really key on the idea that its also a citizen's *responsibility* to ensure they are trained in the use of arms (see - "regulated militia" phrase). If one isn't willing to commit to education, practice, and training - one is more dangerous than helpful.

.... kind of like driving a car. One should continually edu.... o wait :P

[MidnightViper88]

Instead of asking "What to do when robbed" you should ask "What to do to prevent being robbed"

My 4" serrated Smith & Wesson Homeland Security pocket knife does some nice tricks where my 6" Smith & Wesson Search & Rescue survival knife would be illegal for me to carry in public...

Concealed firearms also work wonders; The only reason why I don't have a license to pack is because I"m 20, and KY law forbids me from owning a pistol until I turn 21, though home defense is still in question with a semi-auto assault rifle...Damn, what I would give for an AR-15 Carbine and a 1911 if my financial status wasn't so bearish...Of course, firearms won't work if you don't know how to shoot, so if you don't know how to shoot, you should either join the US Armed Forces or don't draw too much attention...

...and if all else fails, become a monk, because no one steals from the already-poor...

[cloak_and_dagger]

Originally Posted by Gemstar

I think stealing is over greed. You already have what you need yet you steal. Why would one steal to satisfy himself and being inconsiderate to others. But what happens if a thief steals from a thief? Is it allowed since he steals from others? It is only natural one would think so. If he steals then I guess he allows others to steal from him. For the bandits it is very hard to just sit and stay quiet with what they have and don't have. They cannot remain comfortable. I don't even know if there's a solution to people stealing or crime.

There isn't. Ever heard the phrase "the day when the world is at piece is when it is in pieces"? As long as man exeists there will be crime and jealously and greed. It doesn't hurt to be optimistic, though. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished or anything either. Just being real.

[LastOrder]

My house was broken into while I wasn't home. My PS2 was stolen >: And on that same day, other houses were robbed too.

[Gemstar]

Then let is be just a phrase. Don't think that phrase it the ultimate truth. Create your own ultimate truth and doubt the previous one. Why can't there be peace without crime etc ? We create our own limits and boundaries within our mind, we can overcome these things. You don't have to take my word for it, you can try it out yourself. Not being bound by anything does not mean that you are being bounded by the statement from the person you heard it from. Once someone believes in something it is very hard to persuade them otherwise.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Sadly. But it's really to be expected. If more people valued human life, the world wouldn't be such a violent place.

I value human life but I don't like hearing that self-defense (including property defense), even at the expense of your aggressor's life, makes you bloodthirsty. If you're provoking others and then killing them with self defense as your justification, that's a different story. But for someone who comes to you with malicious intent?

I've always somewhat wondered what would happen if more people fought back. For your own safety, you're supposed to comply with a thief's demands. Your property isn't worth more than your life, and fighting over it may cost you that - that's the reasoning behind why you're supposed to comply, and then notify law enforcement. What message does that send to aggressors? If you look big and scary enough, you can walk up to people, simulate a gun/use a toy gun, and walk off with loads of property fairly easily. You risk getting caught and jail time, but based off of my university's crime reports it would seem that the criminals are caught far less often than crimes occur. Jail time is not much of a deterrant for many who have previous experience with it either, it would seem.

What if people did fight back? The "low hanging fruit" is suddenly much harder to find, because there's a greater chance that things won't go so easily. Wasn't there a study which showed that LoJack car alarms granted a beneficial "herd immunity" in terms of car theft? (For those who don't know, LoJack will alert police and track a car's location if it detects that it is stolen. LoJack doesn't make itself known, so a criminal has no way of knowing what car has LoJack equipped. If enough cars have LoJack, then criminals likely won't even want to try stealing any cars, so even cars without LoJack are relatively safe.) I don't like the idea that every person should take justice into their own hands (imagine a Bakuretsu Tenshi scenario, where everyone carries a firearm and society begins to crumble), but I'm also not thrilled with the idea of defaulting to standing by and complying with any and all commands from an aggressor.

[MidnightViper88]

Wow, am I seeing this right? A New Yorker arguing for the talking point of self-defense? Wow, I guess not all of you people are Clinton and Schumer types...

Of course I jest!

You're right though; There are some people that are probably too knee-deep into conflict-resolution that they probably don't understand the concept of self-defense in face of an imposing threat for fear that self-defense might cause aggression...Of course that doesn't make sense, since self-defense wouldn't come up in a situation without someone unreasonably attacking someone else...If someone were coming after my family with a weapon, you could bet your bananas I'm going to take a counter-initiative and fight back...

People just need to understand that a violent-free society is about as realistic as a no-place Utopia...You're always going to have a few delusional psychos who feel the need to commit atrocious crimes and hurt the innocent in the process, and logic isn't going to be good enough to reason with them...So you have to fight back force with an equal or greater force in order to survive...Stand back and recite the lines to "Kumbaya" instead and you'll get cut down...Vigilante justice doesn't work, but of course, that's an offensive counter-crime technique, not defensive...

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've always somewhat wondered what would happen if more people fought back. For your own safety, you're supposed to comply with a thief's demands. Your property isn't worth more than your life, and fighting over it may cost you that - that's the reasoning behind why you're supposed to comply, and then notify law enforcement. What message does that send to aggressors? If you look big and scary enough, you can walk up to people, simulate a gun/use a toy gun, and walk off with loads of property fairly easily. You risk getting caught and jail time, but based off of my university's crime reports it would seem that the criminals are caught far less often than crimes occur. Jail time is not much of a deterrant for many who have previous experience with it either, it would seem.

I would go so far as to say that defence against aggression is a social responsibility, for all of these reasons. For whatever reasons involved in a person's choice to pursue criminal activity, it comes down to seeing the profit (whether it be monetary or some other satisfaction) as worth the risk involved. For the most part, risk to a criminal is composed of whatever immediate risk or obstacles they might encounter, because they are generally not forward-thinking enough to consider the risk of incarceration, and immediate risk and obstacles to criminal activity are generally provided by the persons targetted by the activity (since law enforcement is almost always involved afterward, not during the crime).

In short, criminals almost only perpetrate crimes because they feel free to do so, and they feel free to do so because society allows it. I've posted a link to this essay in passing in a nearby thread about six months ago, but I think it's relevant here: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...f-defence.html

(For what it's worth, I never recommend compliance unless it is a matter of life or death and it is either the only available option or clear that the aggressor will be satisfied. After all, criminals who have no desire to enact violence generally make efforts to avoid confrontation.)

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't like the idea that every person should take justice into their own hands (imagine a Bakuretsu Tenshi scenario, where everyone carries a firearm and society begins to crumble), but I'm also not thrilled with the idea of defaulting to standing by and complying with any and all commands from an aggressor.

While I think society must always beware a trend of vigilante justice, I'm not so opposed to the general society being armed. If the good guys have weapons... It doesn't really bother me. Hey, they're the good guys. Speaking as some one who is licensed to be armed in public, I can guarantee that it's not difficult to avoid inappropriate weapon use.

I've also yet to meet a person who has actually had to deal with violence and crime in the capacity of law enforcement (where escalation of violence is a real risk) who is not a staunch advocate of self-defence. To me, that says a lot.

[Liddo-kun]

Originally Posted by -KarumA-

also keep recon with your countries laws, here it isn't allowed to beat someone up even if that person is robbing your house, they can sue you for it >.<
it is a rule that sucks very badly and even if I were to get robbed I would beat the crap out of this person if I were to see them doing it

That's one rotten law (pardon my choice of word), here where I live it's perfectly legal to beat up a thief. On television evening news, if a thief is caught - he would be shown at the police station face to face with the victim and then it's ok for the victim to punch/kick the offender. The police tolerate and sometimes even encourage it.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I value human life but I don't like hearing that self-defense (including property defense), even at the expense of your aggressor's life, makes you bloodthirsty. If you're provoking others and then killing them with self defense as your justification, that's a different story. But for someone who comes to you with malicious intent?

I fully agree including the part on property defense, some things in people's houses took hard work and possibly a very long time to acquire (like a personal computer, expensive cellphones, etc.). If someone barges into my house with the intent of stealing expensive things - I value my property more than their lives. Unfortunately, I only have a hard wooden stick and a cellphone (to dial for the police) if any robbery should occur. So I'd just probably be locking myself up in a safe part of the house and wait for the police to arrive.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

How about a Glock 19? It's quite concealable, and has full auto capabilities. Bandits beware!

[Vexx]

By that I assume you mean legal standard autoloading (rather than some "machinegun" capability")

To those unfamiliar with firearms: "automatic" does not equal "semi-automatic" or "autoloading".

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Vexx

By that I assume you mean legal standard autoloading (rather than some "machinegun" capability")

To those unfamiliar with firearms: "automatic" does not equal "semi-automatic" or "autoloading".

Um, sure... right.... that's what I meant.

[MidnightViper88]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

How about a Glock 19? It's quite concealable, and has full auto capabilities. Bandits beware!

BOO, Glocks

Horray, M1911!

[Kyuusai]

Quick terminology lesson:

"Automatic" refers to the loading process. In short, it's a non-revolving mechanism that loads a cartridge into the barrel automatically after firing.
A "fully automatic" weapon will fire, load, and fire continually while the trigger is pressed.
A "semi-automatic" weapon (which is most of them) will fire one shot per pull of the trigger.

So the next time you hear on the news that some one had an "automatic" firearm, you can be relatively sure that all that means is it was a semi-automatic, just like almost every other firearm out there. It's just sensationalism, like the term "assault" rifle (which means it's just like nearly every other rifle).

The Glock 19 is a compact version of the Glock 17 (the "classic" 9mm Glock), and is, as Vexx noted, a semi-automatic. The Glock 18, though, is a fully automatic pistol! You'll go broke shooting it, though...

Most fully automatic capable rifles today have a "burst mode", which will fire a small number of shots while the trigger is depressed, and then stop. This helps to avoid wild firing and really helps save money by reducing ammunition waste. Contrary to popular belief and the desire of idiots to glamorize the idea of indiscriminate shooting, the use of fully automatic weapons is not being able to do more killing--in fact, it's danged hard to hit anything that way (even the "firing into a crowd" scenario doesn't make much sense, as an unarmed crowd can't really do better against a non-fully-automatic firearm). Instead, the only use that makes sense is "suppressive fire".

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

BOO, Glocks

Horray, M1911!

Yes. Oh, yes.

[anime ronin]

try not to be too paranoid with self defence against robbers now. what may be someone robbing your house might actually be your family/friend coming home late or going through the window because they misplaced their keys. dad almost got shot by my mom that way. bullet went through like 2 walls...

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Furuno

I don't think this will be working on other country, but if I ever get robbed (I've robbed once, my cellphone is pickpocketed on a bus), these are the thing I will do :

If you are robbed / threatened on public place (not at your house) :[LIST][*]If a location is suitable for screaming or asking help, e.g. residential area, do it. I'm sure a lot of people want to help you.

I'm not. Most people want to avoid trouble. You'll be lucky if they go as far as calling the police. How many people hear women and children being beaten and do nothing?

[*]Always avoid confrontation unless you're really sure you're strength is superior. E.g. you're an army member or professional martial artists.

How sure is that? What if the robber is also a martial artist? Used to be in the special forces? Or heck, what if there's just two of them?


Thought experiment: what if you confront a robber with your weapon of choice, and he says "I can either go quietly, and you forget you ever saw me, or you can turn me in, I'll do a little jail time, and when I get out? I kill you and your family."

[MidnightViper88]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

How sure is that? What if the robber is also a martial artist? Used to be in the special forces? Or heck, what if there's just two of them?


Thought experiment: what if you confront a robber with your weapon of choice, and he says "I can either go quietly, and you forget you ever saw me, or you can turn me in, I'll do a little jail time, and when I get out? I kill you and your family."

Hmm...How often do you exercise that wild imagination of yours? I'm guessing probably not often, if you've got extremely far-fetched thoughts like that...




In either case, that "No confrontation without superior strength" is a bunch of BS...

In a more obvious light, a good guy with a pistol can out-gun a criminal with a rifle with some quick thinking and proper shooting...Non-lethal weapons like pepper spray and tasers are designed to incapacitate an enemy in order for the user to quickly gain the upper-hand...

In a less obvious light, there are self-defense programs that will teach an unarmed woman how to subdue a man twice her size and strength using a man's own size against him...Pick up any monthly gun magazine at a bookstore and they're constantly giving self-defense response and action techniques in various less-than-ideal situations where the criminal would seemingly have the upper hand...One article that stood out in my mind was one where it taught the reader how to respond to a criminal charging at various distances who's using various weapons...

More than half the time in self-defense situations, all it usually takes is a little preparedness and a focused mind to out-think the criminal...No one can actually expect the unexpected since we're not psychics, but everyone has the potential to properly respond when the unexpected happens...People don't have to go along with being the victim, while well-versed people also know not to take needless and stupid actions...Of course, taking on a criminal isn't even an option for most intended victims, but it also doesn't hurt when some are knowledgeable and are able to fight back...And even at the other end of the spectrum, even the most formidable of fighters can get easily taken down by a petty criminal just because the criminal had a burst of pathetic luck...

The only thing is that while some people may believe in conflict-resolution, most criminals do not, so it's best if someone knows how to face that in theory just in case the worst case scenario happens...