Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rosemary Sims's picture
Rosemary Sims
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 81
Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Ok, this is a bleeding capillary from a thread where guns came up once again as the primary way to protect oneself and ones family when shtf.  I am truly shocked that little has been said in this most erudite forum about other means of doing that other than shooting a gun at somebody.  So I think it is time to talk about the wily ways  human beings have of protecting themselves, their families and their properties in the midst of the possible chaos that confronts us today.

I can remember the first time I read that UK police do not carry guns.  I was shocked, really shocked because at that time I was a "baby snatcher" (read social worker who removes children because of severe abuse or neglect which may result in their deaths) and I always prayed before I went out on such a call for a cop (who never appeared) to accompany me and protect me and the child/ren in the darkest corners of New Orleans, often in the middle of the night. I wanted to hear the clink of that laden police belt beside me as I walked to the front door hearing the drunken shouts of parents and screams of children and babies and sometimes gun shots. ( Later that changed but not while I was doing it,)

Now, UK is a pretty civilized country, most would agree.  There may be just as much crime as any other country, but the fact remains that the cops in UK do not carry guns at any level of law enforcement, and protect themselves and others by non-gun means.  I do not know what those means are fully, but I bet there are people here who do, and I hope you post.

That being said, the very inefficiency and uselessness of using guns as a primary defense had been brought home to me earlier in life.  In the late 60's  I happened to be the first white teacher introduced into a formerly all black high school in my native parish in LA as part of our racial integration efforts.   The State Police bought me a Hi Standard 22 derringer (beautiful gun!) which they in those days carried as a secondary in boot or whatever, took me to their range to practice using and maintaining the gun and told me in no uncertain terms that the purpose of the gun was solely to stop an attack.  They insisted that I use 22 shorts as opposed to long, hollow points, a most lethal thing.  But my head was filled with images of shooting it at students and I was resisting, so the chief of them took me for a drink and told me that it was not the blacks I had to fear but the KKK.  And all I had to do was stop them.  "You don't want to kill them" he said.  "All you have to do is stop them from hurting you and your students."  I can remember asking him, in his tight beige uniform and lizard skin boots, if there were something else I could use to do that.  And of course there wasn't at that time.  The Klan indeed rode over my being there, and actually burned a cross on my parents' front lawn.  They also rode "backa town" and shot high caliber bullets through shotgun houses killing the relatives of, but not my students, where they ate their supper. I never had to use that gun for its intended purpose but have always, in spite of having at one time been a hunter, wondered what alternatives to "stopping an attack" have been developed since then.

I have heard of some - pepper spray, stun guns and here, I learned about flare guns (although they seem to have been removed from most internet sales sites).  

I'll appreciate any and all thinking.

Rosemary

 

 

capesurvivor's picture
capesurvivor
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2008
Posts: 963
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Rosemary,

A scary-sounding setting; I would not want to have been there.You are a tough cookie.

An anecdote from my past. When I was a college student in Ohio in the 60's, a college friend went Down South to help blacks register to vote. They were staying in a small cabin outside town when at night a pickup truck came by and starting spraying the cabin with bullets. My friend grabbed a rifle that the local (apparently non nonviolent blacks) had stored there and fired a few shots in the direction of the truck. It screeched away into the night. Disaster averted. The real role of a firearm is to stop someone, not kill someone, though one can never tell how far one has to go to prevent harm to the good guys.

I worked in counterterrorism (analysis, not operations)  for a while after getting my clinical psych doctorate. This was Texas so I became aware of the "gun culture" and got familiar with firearms. I don't consider myself a "gun nut" but my own observations of distant and recent history, as well as my family's experience in Europe during WWII, suggest to me that one always wants to have at hand contemporary weapons as a last resort. Even if you don't make it, you won't die a sheep. It is a truism that those with the guns make the rules.

Your question has both moral and practical  implications. The moral ones you will have to ponder on your own or with friends. The practical ones depend upon whether you are asking about  short-range defense or further out. Truthfully,I would doubt that a non-firearm would be very helpful in a real SHTF scenario. Reports from Argentina in 2002 suggest that even an armed populace had a tough time with anarchy.

I would be happy to dialogue here and I know there are other folks with stronger background than I in this area who will undoubtedly noitce your thread.

GLTA.

 

SG

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 837
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Rosemary,  out of curiosity, what is your stated fear or dislike of using defensive firearms.

You said, "...the very inefficiency and uselessness of using guns as a primary defense had been brought home to me earlier in life."  The story you relate sounds like a drive-by shooting and one that there was likely no defense for.  I hope you can picture situations where the only defense would be a firearm.

That being said, any self defense method depends on the situation.  It might be pepper spray, stun gun, martial arts, asp, knife, etc.  Different tools for different jobs.  The situation should be assessed and the appropriate defensive force applied.  ANY method (tool) requires plenty of practice to be effective. No matter how much I work with my wife, I guarantee she would likely not be able to dig her pepper spray (the only "tool" she is interested in) out of her purse.  One issue for females is that, in close quarter situations, your superior skill with a particular tool might be overcome by your attacker's greater strength. 

I live in a suburb and feel that a person here should always be in "condition yellow" regarding their surroundings.  Your area may be different.

http://www.keepshooting.com/militarysurplus/collectibles/flare_gun_german.htm

http://www.defensedevices.com/aspbaton16inch.html

http://www.defenseproducts101.com/tasers_introduction.html?gclid=CPnTs76xv5gCFQIwxwodZ0udbQ

 

 

stpaulmercantile's picture
stpaulmercantile
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 19 2008
Posts: 87
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

 

Rosemary,

Banning guns does not reduce violence, it increases violence.  London banned guns in 1997 and the incidence of violent crimes went up.  Gun crimes, in particular, went up dramatically.  The obvious reason is that when you ban guns, only law-abiding people give them up.  So then only the bad guys have the guns, and they take advantage of that fact.

A good measure of this is the statistics on burglaries in various countries.  In the US, only 13% of burglaries occur when someone is at home (this is called a "hot burglary").  In England, the rate of hot burglaries has increased to 45% and has even become a "sport" for some burglars, who think it is fun to slap the family around, rape the women, etc.  This is what happens when burglars know that their prey will be unarmed.  In the US, more than half of the homes are armed, and the result is that burglars target homes that are empty.

Guns, in the hands of good people, are a good thing.  Concealed weapons, carried by trained and licensed citizens, are a good thing.  If you were going to rob a bank during the day and there were 20 people in the lobby, and you knew that on average, 10% of the population carried concealed weapons, you'd think twice about robbing the bank.  You'd be more bold if you were 99% sure that nobody had a gun.  To my knowledge, the number of murders committed by licensed gun owners in the USA (people with concealed carry permits) is zero.  That statistic is about 10 years old, but the point is that the number is extremely low. 

I plan to stay armed and ready.  I have no desire to shoot anyone and I have never had to even brandish a gun to get someone to run away.  And if a neighbor comes to my home, hungry, I'll feed them a bowl of soup.  But if someone breaks into my home and threatens my family, I have a glock .45ACP in my gun safe, ready to shoot, that i can open in 3 seconds. 

Your point was to consider non-lethal weapons.  I also have a taser that I sometimes carry with me on my belt.  Most altercations do not require deadly force.  But when TSHTF, the liklihood of running into a situation where deadly force will be required will increase a thousand-fold. 

Chris recommends forming community alliances - before TSHTF - so you know who your neighbors are and you've formed bonds and relationships so you can help each other out.  This is better protection than a gun, because if you're all in it together, you'll watch each other's backs. 

Bottom line - carry your taser, keep the gun locked and loaded.

 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Rosemary,

You said:

Quote:

  I am truly shocked that little has been said in this most erudite forum about other means of doing that other than shooting a gun at somebody. 

I don't mean to sound rude, but maybe you should consider why that is generally regarded as the most practical and efficient method of defending ones' home, family and livelihood by intelligent members of an intelligent forum.

There are many other points to address in your original post, but in the interest of staying "on topic", here some of my opinions;

We cannot view defense in a "collapsed" USA as we do in a "civil" USA;

In a Post-Collapse world, we may be faced with multiple, armed assailants, where as in civil America, most violent crimes occur between an aggressor and victim (outside of Gang-Related violence).
Police will not be a "service", and will not largely be available.

When we start discussing "non-lethal" methods of self defense, we've officially changed topics from "defense" to "subjegation", and it should be recognized that these two types of tools are catagorically different and designed with different intentions.

Non-Lethal weapons are made to subdue an assailant or suspect who is violent for incarceration.
The effects are not long lasting, and the weapons are not designed to be "rapidly reusable". Nor are they intended to be used outside conversational distances. Most "present" altercations take place at close range, and "Post Collaspse" - It's my belief that they will still occur at close range (0-21') in most cases.

Because of this, weapons designed to "deter" attackers that may (or may not, and often do not) have an effect on a single attacker will not have an effect on a "group" of foes, whereas lethal force may be necessary and warranted.
Firearms are easily recognizable, and more often than not serve as a deterrant upon presentation.

Furthermore, if you do decide to use Non-Lethal Force, you need to be ready to detain and imprison the offending party if there is no police response which was common place in Argentina after their collapse - this means feeding, maintaining, securing and mitigating further threats from that person. The option is that, or abandon them and run.

Is anyone here ready to take on that responsibility after a collapse?
How about a gang? How can a self-sufficient community deter a gang with less than lethal means?
How can it be morally justified, consider that gang will find others to victimize?

Mind anyone reading - I'm not saying shooting people should be a "first" and "final" solution.
I'm not advocating "shooting first and letting God sort 'em out", or any of that nonsense.
I'm not encouraging anyone to "stockpile" weapons and ammunition. Buy enough to last, but get out and train!
I am advocating comprehension of the possibility that the next twenty years might be completely unlike the last 20 years - and crime will change as society changes.

Lastly, we can't, and shouldn't view any weapon as a "magic bullet".
This is a matter of skill and mindset more than "owning weapons".

If you can defend yourself with physical strength, that is an option, but in my opinion, Less than Lethal methods; Tasers and Stun Guns are poor choices unless you're dealing with local beligerants.

ASP Batons are a good choice, but without training, the line between "Less than" and "Lethal" blurs quickly.

Cheers!
Aaron

mainecooncat's picture
mainecooncat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2008
Posts: 488
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Ha!

When I saw the title of this forum a few minutes ago I said Aaron must be busy on that one.

Speak of the devil...Laughing

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Haha!

I guess I'm easy to lure.
In all seriousness, I view it more of a matter of safety than advocacy. It's just one of the few topics I feel I can speak on with a measure of authority. We can talk weather if you prefer =)

Cheers!

Aaron

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America
capesurvivor wrote:

They were staying in a small cabin outside town when at night a pickup truck came by and starting spraying the cabin with bullets. My friend grabbed a rifle that the local (apparently non nonviolent blacks) had stored there and fired a few shots in the direction of the truck. It screeched away into the night. Disaster averted. The real role of a firearm is to stop someone, not kill someone, though one can never tell how far one has to go to prevent harm to the good guys.

SG - I couldn't disagree more.  When I point a firearm at someone it is because in my estimation the situation has deteriorated to the point where I feel that my life or the lives of my family members is/are threatened.  And should that situation ever occur, I will pull the trigger and put 2-3 rounds center of mass.  If you are still moving, I can only conclude that you are wearing body armor and the next two rounds are going into your head.

If the scenario you discuss above had played out in Virginia, your friend would have been arrested for brandishing a firearm and unsafe discharge of a firearm.

The role of a firearm is to take the life of someone who is threatening your or your family.  Not to threaten and not to deter - because deterrence without the accompanying will to employ force is hollow and all you are truly relying on is hope and good luck that you never get caught in that situation.

Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

My view:

Most people are far too "nice".  They are so genuinely "lovely" that they cannot comprehend how horrific other people can get.  And with it they just can't get just how awful anybody could be when they are crazed through starvation and fear.

It is not just the bad guys and criminals.  Joe Blogs who is watching his kids starve, will be an angry and scary man to come across if he thinks you can help alleviate that.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.  I know I am going to get slammed by subsequent posters.  But I just want to take the chance to get everyone to maybe think about IF TSHTF badly - just how desparate "normal" people could be. 

I am not a "religous" person.  But I try to take on the principles.  Right now, I am guessing Jesus would be writing a post here saying  "do not have guns and share your food with any of your brothers that come knocking - the food you have is not yours, it is everyones to share"

You can't feed a whole city so guess what, you all die.  But that is what I think he would say.  I am going to get totally shot down in flames here, but there you go ! 

To those of you who do not have guns and no other truely effective protection, but are still aware how bad it can get, I think you are truely enlightened saints and I take my hat off to you. 

Denny Johnson's picture
Denny Johnson
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 13 2008
Posts: 348
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

The role of a firearm is to take the life of someone who is threatening your or your family.  Not to threaten and not to deter - because deterrence without the accompanying will to employ force is hollow and all you are truly relying on is hope and good luck that you never get caught in that situation.

The first role of a firearm can be to threaten and deter........that does not preclude the will to employ force if deemed necessary.

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Here's my take. In which economic collapse situation does one have the best chance of survival?

1) one where most everyone has guns and looks out for themselves

2)  one where most everyone has guns but form self supporting communities

3)  one where very few people have guns apart from some law enforcement and a few crims, and where most people look out for themselves

4)  one where very few people have guns apart from some law
enforcement and a few crims, and where people form self supporting communities.

In order: 4 (best), 2, 3, 1(worst)

In the UK, we will have situation 4 or 3. In the US, you get  1 or 2. The only means of collective survival in the US will be ensuring that situation 2 comes to pass. The vast majority of people, when hungry and alone, will pick 2 rather than 1. It is human nature to do so. 

To those who are thinking along the lines of tooling up, holing up and 'protecting your family', (probably at the expense of other families is the vibe I am getting here), I suggest this approach is doomed. It is a classic prisoners dilemma.

Possession of guns tends to foster social contention and will work against generating situation #2, since arguments can get resolved by pulling a trigger rather than by agreeing on compromise. People have visions of being holed up while  hordes of proletarian zombies throw themselves against the windows and cruise up and down raping and pillaging. This is not borne out by past economic and social collapses.

See here:

http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/5013#more 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Hi Aaron,

Have you heard of or have any experience with Sonic and ultrasonic weapons?  The U.S. DOD has demonstrated phased arrays of infrasonic emitters. The weapon usually consists of a device that generates sound
at about 7 Hz. The output from the device is routed (by pipes) to an
array of open emitters. At this frequency, armor and concrete walls and
other common building materials allow sound waves to pass through,
providing little defense.  Extremely high-power sound waves can break the eardrums of a target and cause severe pain or disorientation. This is usually sufficient to incapacitate a person.  I have read that the US Navy uses these before boarding a hostile ship.

It seems like this might be a good home defense weapon if one was adverse to killing, or using bullets as deterent in the first stage of an incident.  I have not read of any defense for this kind of weapon.

capesurvivor's picture
capesurvivor
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2008
Posts: 963
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Dogs, 

The double tap to center of mass is the idea if you're in a one-to-one sertting requiring deadly force. You are wrong, though, IMHO, in your perception in the use of weapons for individual defense. The principle of appropriate force is the legal, as well as ethical, guide. Weapons are used to stop bad folks. Handgun rounds are usually discussed in terms of stopping power, not killing power.  

My friend's action was the minimal and sensible way of deterring violence. Trying to kill a bunch of unknown assailants in the middle of the night is a route to moral and legal calamity, IMHO, if another option exists. 

SG

gregroberts's picture
gregroberts
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 6 2008
Posts: 1024
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

"Most people are far too "nice".  They are so genuinely "lovely" that
they cannot comprehend how horrific other people can get.  And with it
they just can't get just how awful anybody could be when they are
crazed through starvation and fear."

 Greed is another example of how horrific people can be to each other.

The fighting along the border has intensified.
The brutality and gruesome nature of the murders is a sign of the
viciousness of the fight with the bodies being decapitated and showing
signs of torture and abuse.

 Warning- extremely  graphic pictures on this link, heads cutoff etc.

  http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/10869/

My opinion is if you make the decision to enter my house without my permission you are taking your life in your own hands, I would not bother you otherwise.

Aaron you make your usual good points, essentually don't bring a knife to a gunfight .

Greg

WhoKnew's picture
WhoKnew
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 11 2008
Posts: 41
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

I wish I had documented my transition from anti gun to totally pro gun as I would be able to compare notes with those who still seek to disarm the nation and those who try to uphold the right to protect themselves. Alas I didn’t keep a record and can recall little of the process of transition but for some basics.

1) Protection as the law doesn’t always arrive in time. I have a chance to protect my children against most common threats of violence we may encounter.

2) A sense of security which leads to a better quality of life, I sleep better knowing I have a chance if my home is invaded, this comes not only from the firearms I keep but the alarm system too.

3) The right, if I feel the need to stand up to oppression, fascism etc etc - Evil triumphs when good men and women do nothing.

There are of course many other reasons but suffice to say I respect those who still oppose gun ownership and the utopia it represents, I too still dream of such a world, as long as they in turn respect my right to own weapons while we wait for such a world.

 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Scepticus,

I'm sorry, but every situation you highlighted is "wrong". Plain and simply, they're your hypothetical scenarios and they make assumptions far too broad to be correct.

First - to say (loosely quoted):
"here's what would happen in the US and here is what would happen in the UK" is absolute madness.
The main reason being the US is not a uniform surface in which every town, city and countryside behave in identical manners.

The fact that New England alone is bigger than Old England with Scotland and Ireland should tell you something about your comparison. I will tell you, as a man from the PNW, people in New England have drastically different mindsets than I do, as do people in the desert southwest, and the ever polite south.

Second, you fail to observe another key human characteristic - fear. People don't want to die, and while they may as Amanda said, get very scary, may be the thing that keeps the scary people civil.

Think of it this way:

1. In a society in which no one has guns, a group of men with a long list of felonies see your permaculture garden, watches you and your wife work it while your sons collect water and tend animals. No weapons are present...

2. In a society in which guns are allowed, a group of armed men with a long list of felonies see your permaculture garden, watches you and your wife work it while your sons collect water and tend animals. Each member of the family has a pistol on their belt, and occasionally a rifle close at hand.

Which do you think is more likely to be attacked, and why?
This isn't a rhetorical question, and I'd like to see people actually think, and then respond.
Think outside the box, inside the box, around the box, and on other shelves which contain other boxes to be thought about.

This is a very important and potentially life saving exercize.

PS - Our "second" group of hypothetical survivors are not an armed encampment. I've heard that term thrown around here before and let me be very direct about it; it's hyperbolic and absolutely does not fit the description above, which is a well defended farm. An "armed encampment" is, by defininition a transitory, nomadic group of non-agriculturalists with weapons. Beyond that, we can say nothing about them.

Cheers!

Aaron

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Amanda,

I, like you am not a "religious" person. I'm spiritual, and find wisdom in nearly all relgious texts. Here are some from the bible on this topic:


He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. – Luke 22:36. 

And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck. - Gen 27:40

When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace Luke 11:21

David,

I've seen the ultra-sonic weapons - though not first hand and I was not selected to test them.
Personally, I believe they'll "wither" away with budget cuts before they ever really reach fuition. Water cannons work well enough, and there have been some incidences with irreversible physical harm with some of those weapons, which violates a number of bylaws in the Geneva Conventions - from what I've heard!

Again, I have no first hand knowledge, but they're far more likely to be "reinvented" here by civilian weapons contractors for domestic deployment than by the military for "policing actions" abroad. I would not expect them to be for sale on the open market... department letterhead type of sales.

Cheers!
Aaron

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

SG -

I guess we'll agree to disagree.  The average home invasion scenario in Virginia is 3-4 intruders in a massed single entry.  That's close enough to a one on one for me and even in that scenario I like my odds.

But in this, make no mistake.  My "perception" of the use of weapons in self defense is not a perception at all.  It is the reality that I live in every day.  It is the reality that surround myself with when I train in the use of my firearms.  It is a reality that was hammered in to me every single day of the 24 years I was on active duty.  Not to mention the training to make an immediate decision based on the information at hand - with no deliberation or second guessing.  The lives of my shipmates depended on my ability to do that and my life depended on their ability to do the same.

Appropriate force is not a sliding scale - as Greg discussed in his post #13 above, if someone decides to enter my house without my permission and in my judgement do so in a manner that causes me to think that I am threatened or my family is threatened, then they have made the choice to place themselves at risk.  And they will likely come up on the losing end of the consequence of their poor choice.  That is the legal basis for personal defense in Virginia and I would have absolutely no ethical issues with my choice to employ deadly force.

And your differentiation between stopping and killing power is semantics IMO.  Black Talon rounds and Hydra Shok rounds do both.  And arguing the difference between a 9mm with that ammo or a .45 with that ammo is like arguing how to pick up a dog turd by the clean end.

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America
DavidLachman wrote:

Have you heard of or have any experience with Sonic and ultrasonic weapons?  The U.S. DOD has demonstrated phased arrays of infrasonic emitters. The weapon usually consists of a device that generates sound at about 7 Hz. The output from the device is routed (by pipes) to an array of open emitters. At this frequency, armor and concrete walls and other common building materials allow sound waves to pass through, providing little defense.  Extremely high-power sound waves can break the eardrums of a target and cause severe pain or disorientation. This is usually sufficient to incapacitate a person.  I have read that the US Navy uses these before boarding a hostile ship.

David,

The LRAD - Long Range Acoustic Device - is in use on commercial ships and has been used against pirates on the Somali coast.  The effectiveness is a point of debate since the skipper also turned to sea and pushed the ship to flank speed while using the device.  The frequency is comparable to that of a smoke alarm, but is 150-200 dB.  The standard smoke alarm is 80-90 dB. Every 3 dB represents a doubling of power - which translates to range so you can look at it from several angles.  Up close it can be physically debilitating while at the same time having a long effective employment range.  I read reports on the Somali attack that the LRAD was used out to around 400 yards.

The Navy does not currently use acoustic weapons for hostile boarding - they use SEALs.  'Nuff said.

The theoretical stuff is pretty slick - especially the LFA (Low Frequency Active) similar to the infrasonic weapon you refer to except in the water and at a slightly higher frequency 200-300 Hz.  Propagation ranges of several hundred miles are common and have been in use by the former Soviet Union and US Navies for years.  There is ongoing debate about the impact of LFA on marine mammals without much agreement.  What is not at issue is the impact of mid-freq sonars - they do adversely affect marine mammals.

Certain ping modes and waveforms of US Navy submarine active pulses actually cause localized boiling at the hydrophone projector face.  We had strict limits on power levels and ping cycles to prevent the projectors from getting damaged.  If you stood topside on a 688 class submarine while we were testing the active sonar the pulses were audible and on the threshold of painful.  Pretty impressive given you are getting a lot of transmission loss with the medium density change going from water to air.  Extending the theory - construct a very robust projector, throw a ton of acoustic power behind a CW pulse or an FM slide and you have a lethal anti-swimmer system.

I think the home defense sonic emitter is still more on the sci-fi side of things - but if they ever develop one I want it.

Hope this helped.

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Hi DogsIAP,

Thanks for the info.  I was wondering how far this technology had come.  It would be nice if there were a technology that could be nonlethal but effective at subduing interlopers at a distance, especailly in parts of the country where shooting first and asking questions later is looked down upon.  Looks like this option might be a ways off for home use.  I certainly would want anyone pulling up to my home with one.....

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Hi DogsIAP,

Thanks for the info.  I was wondering how far this technology had come.  It would be nice if there were a technology that could be nonlethal but effective at subduing interlopers at a distance, especailly in parts of the country where shooting first and asking questions later is looked down upon.  Looks like this option might be a ways off for home use.  I certainly would want anyone pulling up to my home with one.....

capesurvivor's picture
capesurvivor
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2008
Posts: 963
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

I have no quarrels with the home entry scenario you suggest; any reasonable person would do as you would.

Still, you might find "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob helpful. He is a working cop, martial arts teacher, testifies (usually for cops) as an expert witness, and runs Lethal Force Institute in NH.  He has carried a small roll of bills with him as a civvie to toss to potentially menacing street folks, saying "guys, go have a beer on me" (while armed) knowing, as he says that the second worst thing to being shot is to shoot someone. Even in self defense situations, you may be sued by relatives, hassled by DA's, and generally suffer bad times even when you were "right." While he is certainly a proponent of armed self defense, he is also committed to avoiding confrontation whenever possible.

In my friend's scenario, picture what you would have said to a DA if the crackers in the car had had a few minors or an infant in the car with them and he had fired directly into the car and killed them. The first rule of firearms is don't shoot at what you don't see. Folks up in NE get killed by hunters every year, once for wearing white mittens ("thought it was a deer)" in their backyard while hanging up clothes.

The law still says use the force necessary to meet the threat.

Maybe we should tackle an easier topic here..how about abortion?

Well, Rosemary, you probably got more than you asked for.

 

SG

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

SG -

Again - we are in violent agreement. 

But to answer your question, given your scenario in Virginia the answer to the DA would have been along the lines of "I felt threatened to the point where I thought deadly force as a means of self defense was necessary."  And in all likelihood the jury would have found you not guilty.

There is an ongoing case right now where the police conducted a raid on a home.  The homeowner was asleep and awoke to people beating his door down.  His home had been burgled within the past few weeks and he had a gun with him.  He fired some number of rounds and hit one of the officers in the throat just above his body armor (no doubt a random stike as opposed to where he was aiming).  The officer died and the homeowner was charged with Murder 1.  The case should go to jury in the next few days - I would not be surprised if he was found not guilty.  The issue that the case hangs on is whether or not the police did enough to identiify themselves as peace officers.  I had to laugh at the lead prosecutor when he argued that the raid was planned picture perfect textbook.  The dead officer on the front lawn is evidence to the contrary.  I'll let you know how that one turns out.

And please keep in mind that my argument was based on the home invasion scenario.  When I carry concealed I am acutely aware of my surroundings and have a pretty good sense of when things are starting to get dicey.  I immediately remove myself from the situation - and have been able to do so without any confrontation in every instance I have run into, while armed.  I too am a martial arts practitioner and former instructor so I understand and embrace the avoidance approach.  We used to tell and instruct our students that the best thing to do is to recognize and avoid getting into a crappy situation.  But in the event they screwed that part up, that's what the techniques of the specific arts were for. 

Avoiding confrontation through active and focused effort on your part is paramount - wholehearted agreement.  It is when confrontation decides to seek you out no matter what you do that you must be ready to respond decisively and without hesitation.  And for me, if I ever get into that predicament, I will seek to terminate the encounter on my terms - not the bad guy's.  Pesky DAs and misguided family members aside.

Now that the dead horse has been beaten into veal I agree we should switch topics.  Abortion is too touchy. 

I propose arguing why a vacuum cleaner for an anniversary present is okay.

http://bewareofthedoghouse.com/video.aspx

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Hey Gents,

Not to be a wet blanket, but the current discourse isn't likely to help any of the "non-believers" realize how important their safety is, and how that's related to responsible, competant gun ownership.

Since we're "preachin' to the choir", we should try and extend an olive branch to some of those who have concerns about owning guns and their role in society, and try and get them in on the conversation.

What say you?
Cheers!

Aaron

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

LOL Aaron -

Nice redirect Counselor.  I guess that's why you are a Silver Member.

I'm all for it.  I'd be particularly interested in the viewpoint of those who recognize that in a SHTF scenario, society will likely regress and become more violent, yet choose for whatever reason to not consider owning a firearm solely for personal defense.  Is it a religious constraint?  Ethical, moral?  Some combination of these or is it rooted in a sense (hope) that SHTF won't happen so I don't need one yet?

Serve, Aaron's pass, my set, spike to........................?

Mike Pilat's picture
Mike Pilat
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 929
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

I knew that I could count on Aaron and Dogs to bring us a good discussion! Too bad I've been too busy the past few days to keep up.

Ditto on Aaron's last comment, though. I suppose finding a non-firearm as a fully effective defense weapon is far less obvious and I'm trying to think of other things. I suppose mace or a taser is a decent idea, but each has its own shortcomings. More later.

Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Bear in mind that this forum was started by Rosemary to find alternatives to guns - not necssarily just to help any of the "non-believers" realize how important their safety is, and how that's related to responsible, competant gun ownership.

However, my personal opinion is that I am on the fence, and can't decide.  So maybe I am a good person to "help"

My main issue is moral.  Really should human beings be keeping guns when we strive to be a peaceful race.  Should we not walk the walk.   I talk a lot about all people being peaceful and keeping guns goes directly against that.

Aaron - loved your quotes from the bible as I didn't know they were there, so thanks for that.  They will certainly be reflected upon.  I always find your comments really insightful and thought provoking.  Always look forward to reading a post from you!

But take Ghandi for instance.  He won his cause with no guns.  Should we  not be looking at the bigger picture and just do what is peaceful to mankind regardless? 

Cripes, do you stick to peaceful morals and possibly get pillaged - or do you take precautions and support weapons ?

It is such a hard one.  Maybe we should skip discussing abortion, but go for religion instead !!!! LOL

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Amanda -

Do you not have a moral obligation to protect your family?  Your children?

Consider this - if everyone thought like you we would not be having this conversation.  You must recognize that there is evil in this world as history has clearly demonstrated.  At some point, it is likely that that evil is going to cross your path.  That evil does not care for your idealogy nor does it sail by the same moral compass you do.  I don't fully agree with you that we are all striving to be a peaceful race.  We should be, but we aren't.  African genocide, Radical Islam, the treatment of Native Americans and Australian aborigines, etc. paint a picture that the world is not quite as rosy as we would like it to be.  

Just my opinion, but owning a gun for the sole purpose of personal defense is resonable and can pass even the most stringent definition of moral behvior.  No one who carries a weapon for self defense goes out looking to put themselves in a situation where the "get to use it".

Look at it as an insurance policy - no one buys insurance and hopes to get into an accident.  Insurance exists in case you do.  Carrying or having a weapon at home for PD is an insurance policy for a scenario you hope and pray never comes to pass.

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Amanda,

You said:

Quote:

Cripes, do you stick to peaceful morals and possibly get pillaged - or do you take precautions and support weapons ?

I believe that it is moral to place greater importance on the lives of productive citizens than the lives of deviant citizens who would use violence against others. Here it is, said by my main man Herbert Wechsler.

Quote:

Criminal law scholar Herbert Weschler observed, the right of crime victims to use deadly force is based on what Weschler called the "universal judgement that there is no social interest in preserving the lives of the aggressors at the cost of those of their victims." -- Herbert Wechsler, "A Rationale of the Law of Homicide," 27 Columbia Law Review 701, 736 (1937)

To truly understand the "disarmament" mentality, we have to take a deeper look into our societies at large, into a notion that came into being Last century. This is the concept of "Corrections" as a part of the judicial process as opposed to "Punishment". This coincided nicely with the baby-boomers, and their "culture of non-violence" - which a terrific goal, but not terribly practical, because as my man John Locke said:

Quote:

"Not all men are reasonable or rational"

There will always be predatory humans.

The flawed logic of a "corrections" society is that punishment isn't necessary - confinement and education should be enough to rehabilitate an offender, and deter them from making further criminals of themselves.

This is a failing supposition for several reasons:
1. It fails to take into account human desperation; either in the form of mania, substance abuse, exestential pressure or poverty. These conditions often can't be "rehabilitated" because their nature is not "systemic", but rather influential. Some outside source is "causing" the action, which is more motivating (or scary) than the law.

2. It fails to adaquetely educate inmates

3. It creates an environment where penalties are viewed as trivial and no crimes are taken "seriously" (evidenced in our "parole" system in which severity of crime is not weighed between the incoming and outgoing inmates - for example paroling a child molester to make room for a guy caught with a bag of weed... not intelligent.)

4. It creates huge monetary loss at the expense of the state and taxpayer.

Because society views "criminals" as individuals who are mal-adjusted instead of (as is the case most of the time) simply not interested in being productive members of society, they've gone through great lengths to try and convince the population that it's immoral and outlandish to defend yourself with lethal force.
Nothing could be further from the truth, and if you look at the "nature" of most criminals, their line of thinking is akin to some basic math:

$80/Oxycotin x 20 Oxycontin = $1600. Due to the nature of the addiction, there will be an increasing demand, and the pills can be stolen from users easily because of the mental state in inflicts.

$8/Hour x 8 hours = $72/day flipping burgers, which requires a schedule be kept and standards be conformed to.

This is a simple example using a very common scenario, but robbing, burglery, and even predatory crimes like rape or murder follow a similar pathology. It's easier to reject society and do what you want, more often than not for a much higher profit margin. What a bunch of capitalists, eh Mike? 

All joking aside, if what YOU have, is what THEY want, and the "math" works out - they'll be taking it, thank you very much.

Most people either "fall" into jobs or crime arbitrarially and through little actual leg work on their own part.
Put plainly, Appathy is "easy", and humans, like electricity take the path of least resistance.

Oddly enough, that same principle applies to people defending themselves. Guns are dangerous, scary, emit loud noises (one of humans two innate fears) and are villified as "immoral" or evil or useless. Because it takes effort, time and money to educate yourself, train to proficiency and become competant, most people choose the path of least resistance and decide it's "not worth it."

Less than lethal options solve a narrow band of problems, but are geared towards "enforcement" personel - and are not effective for a person defending themselves or their family.

Earlier, I made a hypothetical situation, and I'd like to re-propose it for the sake of discussion, thinking about this, and about how times "may" change in the future:

1. In a society in which no one has guns, a group of men with a long list of felonies see your permaculture garden, watches you and your signifcant other work it while your children collect water and tend animals. No weapons are present...

2. In a society in which guns are allowed, a group of armed men with a long list of felonies see your permaculture garden, watches you and your significant other work it while your children collect water and tend animals. Each member of the family has a pistol on their belt, and occasionally a rifle close at hand.

Which do you think is more likely to be attacked, and why?

Cheers, and thank you for the high compliment and kind words.
Dogs, your post cracked me up! Always glad to see your posts brother!

Aaron

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

About the only thing I can add to this thread is how glad I am that I don't live in America......

WTSHTF, there'll be blood flowing in the streets.

Mike 

A. M.'s picture
A. M.
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2367
Re: Alternatives to a Gun Arsenal in Post Peak America

Mike,

Quantify your statement or stop posting on this thread.

If your mind is made up, you have nothing to gain by following this discussion. Youv'e demonstrated time and time again that you cannot offer your own thoughts on topics, instead choosing to cut and paste articles written by others, and your degrading and insulting when everyone else is civil.

If you cannot explain why there will be absolutely no blood running in Aussie Streets, but American Streets will be drenched, perhaps you should think more, and type less.
Obviously, our current proportions of crime empirically disprove your supposition, but you're not much for listening to reason.

Don't take this as a personal insult - your conduct is what brought these comments.

Aaron

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments