Understood and agree.

I think it depends on the situation. If I walk out of my house to find someone stealing my car I am certainly not going to shoot him. If I am in my car and he attempts to carjack me I am more likely to shoot him. For me it depends on the threat to me or my family vs. the threat of stolen property.

Granted that the best martial arts defense is for your attacker to take one look at you and decide to commit sepaku...and granted that a 'long arm' is better than 'close contact'. Nonetheless, bare hands is the only weapon form you will always have with you, and the ability to be capable in that context is not to be scorned.

Welcome back. I hope that whatever kept you away was pleasant and not dire. We have been chuffing along here without you, but it is good to hear from you again.

Jan

Did you think you actually had to 'tell' people this in order for them to know it? It has been clear all along.

If you did not understand the above message, let me hand the comm to my 3% Neanderthal and let it repeat it in your native tongue: Ug ur im habba habba Bwak! Mmmm.

...always nice to chat...

Ugh Jan

Totally agree, to a point. If the perp is willing to attempt to remove you forcibly from your property to steal it, the perp needs to be stopped before he kills or seriously injures someone. The perps don't actually care who is the way of what they want nor who gets hurt in the process.
From one vet to another, I understand your point of view, just don't totally agree with it.

Actually, jlc, I prefer not to get that close to anyone who is threatening. I prefer the distance method of defense, double tap style.
Sorry for the late reply, been out of "Gulch" country for a while.

Huzzah!
_Nicely_ put, XenokRoy.
A variation of what every teacher knows: act as if there is no question about whether students will do as you ask, and they will do as you ask. [It helps to have a rep for reasonability-]

RevJay - Do you run realistic scenarios with anyone? It's best not to run them with the significant other. We know of a range just outside Denver that runs what they call a "black site", a warehouse in which they set up scenarios and shoot AirSoft pistols. They will tailor your scenarios, and it would be very useful to run some in which the shooting is not the end to see what reactions you have, and to whom [and when!].
I really believe that practicing in conditions as real as possible is the best preparation.
I should have asked this question first: what part of the aftermath concerns you?

I can understand that point. There is more than one side to it. Personally I have a legal permit to carry a sidearm, and I carry one everyday. I have been in the military and I fully know what it is to pull a trigger. I could not take a life to protect anything I have that is replaceable. I am not disagreeing with you though, because that decision should be mine, and not made for me by the government, state or federal.

Bravo for your wife - and for you. One of the reasons I am not secretive about my age is to make a one-woman-lobby against pigeonholing oneself due to a social label. Many people have real health concerns, but these can strike at any time and should not be assumed unduly because an age milestone has been passed. So I brag about it...and hope that someone will say, "Well, if that 5'7" 61-year-old woman can do that...So can I!"

So go back to your karate class, RevJay!

Jan

Which perp?

The family of the perpetrator needs to be sued to recover the money to repair any damages to the car and pay for health bill of victims.

Winterwind, like you, I prefer to not get that close to a perp where I have to use my hands or feet to stop whatever the perp is attempting. Thus, I legally carry a firearm and know how to use it effectively. I just hope I never have to use it. I'm not sure how I would handle the aftermath.

Since when is 60 elderly? Hope ya had a good time fighting the 20 y,o. and the 60 y,o., too. My wife is your age and I have never crossed her path when she is totally ticked off. I know better. Her brother taught her to defend herself when she was a kid and she can still kick some booty.

It sucks to live in states like TN with the "imminent danger" thing. So the perp gets to live another day to continue his criminal ways on others.
The point is that the "imminent danger" of any violent criminal is not over with one act. Once they get away with one, it just encourage them to do more. TN needs to get that squared away so the perps can be eliminated by law-abiding citizens when necessary.

Ehh, not going there Hiraghm. Law should only be based on individual and natural rights, as laid out in the Declaration and the Constitution including the right of the people to act as a Militia for their own protection.

Hiraghm's video recommendation summarizes exactly what I think about this. The man on the video talks at a grade school pace. This should be required viewing for school children.
http://youtu.be/DioQooFIcgE

Those men and their actions had absolutely nothing to do with rule, nor was it democracy in action (mob rule). It was simply reactive force applied as self defense in a controlled and well thought out manner. As to rule of law being better than rule by people -- people write law, so I fail to see the distinction. It appears that you're more concerned about which people determine the law and it's application. As to a flawed criminal justice system being better than what I've gone to pains to describe to you in some detail -- a flawed criminal justice system is a flawed justice system for the individual and his natural rights.

It doesn't matter if they were urban or rural. A criminal justice system, even and flawed one, is better than the rule by knights and gangs. Rule of law is better than rule by people.

I hope the car is not damaged.

And there is no possibility of anyone else getting assaulted (or battered for you legal scholars) by this guy in the future.