So Saskatchewan Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski was embroiled over some controversy in the past week over some comments that he made on videotape 16 years ago, comments that were considered by the press as "anti-gay". Lukiwski made an impassioned apology this past week for his comments, citing that he was not then, nor is he now homophobic (a laughable term, at best). Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since stated that the case is closed, and he will not be seeking Lukiwski's resignation.
I shook my head upon hearing the news reports, followed by Lukiwski's very public apology. I don't get it - why does he have to apologize for something he said 16 years ago? Sure, some have mentioned to me that well, he is an MP, and as an MP, he has a responsibility to represent his constituents, some of which may be gay. OK, but all that being said, he wasn't an MP 16 years ago. And unless he has said something recently along the lines of his "faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases", I don't see the need for him to apologize, unless he has caved in to pressure from special interest groups. He said that he was not anti-gay then and he is not now.
Why does he need to apologize? Even if he has such opinions, he is entitled to have them, living in the free society as do - I suppose if in the course of his public duties as member of parliament for his riding, if he were to espouse such views, it may cause him trouble with his gay constituents (if he has any). Besides, it was 16 years ago... I certainly don't feel the need to apologize for anything I said 16 years ago, even if I did say some pretty stupid things. And honestly, even if he is not pro-gay, he should be entitled to his opinions, as not everyone will agree with one's personal convictions. I am sure I have lost a few acquaintances or so over the years due to the fact that I refuse to accept or embrace homosexuality as being normal. I don't and while people are free to disagree with me, I'm not going to bow to pressure simply because the fashionable thing to do these days is to spout the word "tolerance", just like it is fashionable to be a tree hugger and be on the anti-global warming bandwagon (which is quite a questionable ride to begin with).
In my view, it would have been better for Lukiwski to simply acknowledge that he made such remarks in the past, but suggest that unless he is not serving his constituents properly in his current role, his past (or even present) personal opinions shouldn't be scrutinized to the point where people are asking for his resignation. It's no different than me working with a admitted racist or bigot. As long as his personal views are not causing problems in his/her work, what business do I have asking them to be terminated from their job, upon learning their affiliation with a racist organization outside the workplace? If it doesn't affect their working relationship with their colleagues job-wise, he/she should be left alone, no matter how abhorrent we may find their views.
I practice this principle in my daily life. I have worked with gays before in my job, and while I am vehemently opposed to their lifestyle and such, I still am required to work with them and show them the same workplace courtesy as everyone else. As long as they are not pushing for special treatment or flaunting gay sexuality at work, I have no reason to ask them to resign, even though I may have personal philosophical and moral differences with them. In this case, people should just leave Lukiwski alone. The past is the past. And if he still harbours the same views, who cares? It's not impacting his job.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Have You Considered Your Home Defence Options?
Well, my son is still battling a fever tonight, and I've been up several times, so there is not much use in trying to go back to sleep (I'm sure you know the feeling - you get into deep sleep for 30 minutes or so and then get woken up, only to feel more gross than you would feel had you simply stayed up - that's sort of where I am right now). Besides, with new daughter in tow, I've been meaning to write about a topic that I've been thinking about for several years now.
Back in the summer of 2005 or 2006 (thankfully, it was long enough ago that I am starting to forget the incident), we had a rather scary situation where a agitated woman showed up on our doorstep (literally) at around 10:30AM on a Saturday night and tried to kick our front door down. My son was considerably younger back then, so we originally thought that it was him crying, but it turns out it was a lady in her 20s who was extremely irritated. She was shouting at the top of our lungs for us to open the door and started to kick at our door. She sounded like she was in great anguish, and an error my wife and I made that night was to open the front door to investigate.
Turns out that she had thought that someone in our household had kidnapped a child of hers, or at least the child in a photo that she was carrying in her wallet. So here I was in the doorway of the house, with my wife behind me (and my son soundly sleeping upstairs), and this lady is demanding to get into my house. Realizing that she wasn't kidding, I had to be firm in insisting that there was no way that she would get by me, since we do not know here nor did we kidnap that child. I suspected that she was inebriated or on some sort of illegal narcotics, but regardless, it was the first time I actually felt a bit frightened in my house. Now, this lady wouldn't relent and I thought I was about to get into a fistfight with her (something I didn't really want to do, since it's been 20+ years since I got into a physical confrontation with someone and I'd rather it stay that long). My wife wisely decided to call the cops, which we should have done once we realized she was trying to kick the door down. In the meantime, several neighbours had gathered outside our house, and were witnessing the whole thing. The lady (and I use that term loosely), upon realizing that I was not about to afford her entry, then started a profanity-filled, racially-charged barrage of racial epithets, most of which I have not heard in many years. I tell you, I was tempted to slug her one, but that is hardly a good example to my family, since I didn't exactly fear for my life by her name-calling. Anyhow, once I told her that we called the cops, she immediately rolled into her minivan and backed out of our driveway, but not before we recorded her licence plate number and before she crashed into lamp post in front of our house, causing all manner of external car parts to be strewn at the end of our driveway.
Cops showed up - this big, big dude named Police Constable Nigel showed up - I was admiring his muscles throughout our conversation, but I am glad my tax dollars pay for beefy cops like him. He ran her plates and proceeded to tell us that she was a known schitzophrenic who happened to have trashed a Tim Horton's the night before. He indicated that she was likely off her medication and was driving around aimlessly and happened upon our house, which was fairly visible on the street. He said that chances are, by the next day she would not even remember the incident, but they'd pay her a visit anyway to check up on her. They would be sending one of their cops who she thinks she is married to...I wasn't interested in hearing more of the soap opera, so I thanked him for looking into it and his assurances that it was probably a bad coincidence that she showed up at our door. We haven't heard from her since and have not had any such incident since, of which we were aware.
Now, some advice from the officer, and this was well received. It is not paranoia-based chain-mail B.S. that you get in your inbox that you are to circulate to all your friends. This came from the mouth of a police officer with whom I spoke. The first thing he said was that we made several tactical errors that night in assessing the situation. I don't disagree with him. The first was that we didn't call the police right away when we determined someone was kicking at our door. The second was that we opened our door. And the third, while the officer did not necessarily suggest this - when I suggested whether it would have been good if I was somehow armed with something at the door (and I don't mean a firearm, but anything that can more or less be used in self-defence like a baseball bat, a knife, or whatever) - he said that it wouldn't hurt, but obviously much care is needed, since citizens have been known to be disarmed of baseball bats and other forms of self-defence objects by perpetrators, and worse, these objects have been turned on the homeowners. I doubt that the police are at liberty to suggest homeowners arm themselves, like they seem to do more of in the States than in Canada, but it was interesting that he did not dismiss the option.
All that being said, I have had at least a couple of years (I believe it was 2005, so I had a few years) to think about what happened, and I can tell you that it is worthwhile for every homeowner to at least have a game plan in place in the event something as distressing as this happens. Now, I realize we're not in the wild-west mentality of the U.S., but let's face it - suberbs like where I live are not immune to crime. In fact, just down the street from me a few years back, a Marijuana grow-up was busted. About 5 minutes north of me, there was a major methanphetamine lab that was broken up - the cops who did that case reported in the news that they were surprised that the residence did not explode, due to the amount of volatile chemicals found in the house. And that was in a house that was valued at $525,000 Cdn., so it wasn't like we are talking in the housing projects here. About 15 minutes northeast of me, a double-murder took place in a home very close to where our good friends live. And despite our area's generally low crime rate, home invasions do happen - our youth pastor witnessed a police take-down of carjackers, which resulted in police drawing and using their weapons - this was less than five minutes away from where I live, and it only happened late last year. My former colleague at work, who has four kids of his own, has told me of problem neighbours that he has had that forced him to build his own home security camera system which feeds video into his computer.
OK, maybe these are all isolated incidents, but can you really afford to dismiss them as something that will never happen to you? I've learned only in the past few years never to assume that something will not happen to you. Anything can happen to anyone, so I feel it is prudent for the homeowner to at least consider what they would do (it may turn out to be nothing, but at least think about it) if they were a victim of a home invasion. As for me, I have a plan in place, which I don't advertise, and I have actually ran through the plan several times to test timing, etc. That being said, I still make tactical errors, which I have been correcting over time (ie. most recently, the house alarm was set off by a loose window and I bolted downstairs to turn off the alarm without carrying adequate protection with me (by protection I mean a home defence object, not a condom). Now, maybe it's because we just got home from the hospital with our newborn and I didn't want the kids awakened by a rather shrill and very boisterous sounding house alarm in the middle of the night. But still, in the heat of the moment, I should have assessed things properly and at least carried something with me downstairs, analyzing the situation in the process. One thing I have been thinking of doing for these sitautions is to put a corresponding alarm panel upstairs, so that I can arm the house from upstairs or contact the police/fire department from upstairs, rather than rely on the panel downstairs near the front door. At the very least, I can accurately assess what triggered the alarm and whether it was legit or false. In this case, I would have known it was a false alarm as we were in the room where the window's inside sensors had moved (we have older windows that shift a bit after a windy night). Installing a supplementary panel upstairs, while it would involve extra costs, is still something that is considered more of a passive option than an active one.
Now, if you are considering active options of defending your home (which is your right since it's your property), you should think through the consequences. Very easy for someone to carry a baseball bat or golf club or a kitchen knife to confront a burglar or a home invader, but the question you need to ask yourself is...are you prepared to use it? I am willing most people don't even know where to properly strike an attacker with a knife or bat to neutralize the threat, if they are even willing to do so in the first place. If you have a firearm, you need to consider that you may be using lethal force to stop someone, and there are certainly moral and legal issues that will arise as a result. Personally, I would never consider killing someone over theft of property - as long as our family is not threatened, they can have what they want for all I care. If you threaten my family, then all bets are off and you just authorized me to use lethal means if necessary. However, even then you need to think things through - a court of law would not look favourably on a person who shoots and attacker in the back or fires on a fleeing suspect. And of course, you have no doubt heard about the warped courts who find in favour of the felon or perpetrator who managed to successfully sue the homeowner for damages or injury. That being said, I still don't believe that we should develop the "shoot to kill" mentality. Lawyers will eat you for breakfast, painting you as a cold-blooded pre-meditated killing machine, even if you killed in self-defence. Most of the home defence experts will suggest that your mentality should be "shooting to stop"; that is, stop the attack on yourself or your loved ones. And while I am not entirely comfortable subscribing to the mindset that it's probably better to make sure that you kill the attacker so that they don't get a chance to finnegle the legal system to sue you later, I still place enough value on life to suggest that lethal force should always be the final option, unless your life is being immediately threatened at the time. Again, I know it's hard to hypothetically go through scenario after scenario, but the thought process is good to work through what you may do (and even then, I accept that people may do something totally different when confronted with that situation).
So, let's look at home defence options. Again, I am not going to reveal what my plan or options are, but I can tell you that in researching this topic, like everything else, different things work for different people. But one thing I can say for sure - forget the TV-and-movie based approach where people grab baseball bats and tennis racquets or fireplace prodding sticks or other such things. Unless you have training in hand-to-hand or close quarters combat, this is a complete waste of your time and the likelihood of a stronger attacker disarming you is very high. Not to mention, if it is an armed home invasion or an armed rape or kidnapping attempt (for the women who live by themselves or whose husbands are not home), taking out a tennis racquet will, I am sure, not neutralize the threat. A kitchen knife is a waste of time and even if you had a cold weapon like a hunting knife, Buck knife or a fillet knife - are you prepared to stab someone with it should the need arise? Do you know where to stab to stop the attack? Inflicting a superficial wound would no doubt piss off the attacker and you will likely have the object turned on you.
Now, I will address something quickly that I have heard people mention to me, who are avid airgun or air pistol shooting enthusiasts. I don't care what anyone says, airguns and air pistols (even PAL rated firearms-grade ones) do not have enough stopping power to put down an attacker. While it has not be conclusively proven, sub-500FPS velocity airguns are within legal limits for a reason - I have heard that any sub 500 FPS airgun projectile - whether the standard .177 or .22, will not break skin and the only way you can use it to protect your life is to shoot the perpetrator in the eye. In the dark, and in distress, I doubt many can make such a good shot. The firearms-grade airguns are mostly single shots and even then, are mostly .177, which is fine on a squirrel, but stopping a two-legged predator requires significantly more stopping power. So let's end that discussion right now. Air guns are used for target shooting and casual plinking, nothing more (OK, the occasional small game hunting or pest control).
There are some who argue that firearms are the answer. This is partially true. But even here, there are some issues. One is that, unless you live in a rural area, the chance of you having neighbours is very high. In many suberbs, the houses are built fairly close together. The last thing you want is using a firearm that shoots through walls and kills an innocent bystander on the street, in another room or even in another house. As such, I am not in favour of using centerfire or high powered handguns for home invasion. Again, in both cases in the dark and being a bit drowsy likely at night, what are the chances of you hitting your target? Handguns are also easily disarmable, especially if the owner does not know how to use it. I am not a fan of handguns at all, so that would not be an option. Centerfire weapons increase the risk of collateral injury/death, and are not really an option in the city. Another option is rimfire - .22 caliber - but studies and police reports have shown that it may not necessarily disarm your attacker - no one wants to get shot with a rimfire rifle, but there have been reports of bad guys who are strung out on drugs who simply ignore the small caliber bullet wounds. Of course if you get a large capacity mag and fire like crazy, you may get somewhere, but that doesn't look good in a court of law. If you must use firearms, then I would strongly recommend a shotgun - good for short range, and you really don't need to aim it per se - since the shot covers a wide area. Even then, the shotgun is only as good as the shotshells you use - I have read that using a shotgun with birdshot is a very poor choice - it will leave a grievous wound on the attacker, but it may not stop them on the spot. What I'd recommend is using 00 or 000 buckshot, but even then that may be overkill. I read that #3 or #4 buck is sufficent. A 20-gauge is probably preferrable to a 12-gauge, due to recoil issues (remember, you're sleepy at night), as well as the less likelihood of collateral damage. From what I read, if shotguns are used for home defence, there are really only two models to consider - the Remington 870 and the Mossberg 500 - they're essentially the two big models competing against one another. If you ask me my opinion, I'd go with the Remington, since cops use the 870, so what's that tell ya? The Remington comes in various models, and has lots of mods (like interchageable short barrels, which is a must for a home defence gun). I've handled both and the Remington has a much more solid feel to it. There's nothing like the sound of racking the 870 to cause your bad guy to think twice. That being said, the chance of inflicting a lethal wound with a shotgun with buckshot is tremendously great, and if you use this method, you really will need to explain your actions in a court of law, not to mention deal with the mental consequences of taking another life. In this regard, someone once remarked, "better to be tried by twelve, than to be carried by six."
I can't speak on whether a 28-gauge or a .410 caliber shotgun would be effective or not (the .410 probably not, though some have argued otherwise - my guess is that it's probably as effective as a .22 rimfire) - I don't know enough about either to make a definitive statement. Stick with the 20 gauge - it's a great all purpose gun - you can use it to hunt, shoot skeet/clays/trap, and of course, for home defence. I also believe Stoeger makes a short-barreled coach gun (it's pretty ugly but I read that it can be suited for home defence). But there are still also other options...
A crossbow is pretty intimidating and as I've seen people use it to take down rather large animals, it is an option, though I suspect with a two-legged pest, its stopping power may be negligible. You'd have to fire many arrows in succession, or coat the razor-sharp arrowheads with some sort of incapacitant in order to stop the intruder in his/her tracks. Of course, you better be able to load the arrow quick and aim well. Tasers and stun guns are both wonderful short-to-medium range options which allow you to incapacitate an intruder, albeit doing it without resorting to lethal force. This would be on my recommended list, but last I heard, tasers and stun guns are illegal in Canada. Besides, you have likely heard of some very public incidents of tasering by security or law enforcement folks, which have gone horribly wrong, in some cases causing death. A downside to the taser and stun guns, aside from their illegality, is the fact that you still have to more or less aim it and in a tense situation where your hands are likely shaking and you're crapping your pants, your aiming technique may not be at its best. As a result, I'd have to apply the same logic to using stuff like bear spray or pepper spray - of course, both of these also carry much higher risks of being turned on you if you are not careful.
One option that is a generally good one is learning close-combat self-defence techniques - it could be martial arts or something like krav maga, which I am signing up for this summer. This training, however, should only be used to complement an existing home defence strategy - I don't recommend it to be used standalone and the reasons are obvious (if the attacker has a gun or something, unless you can confidently disarm him, you're up the creek).
Of course, no home defence discussion is complete unless the topic of guard dogs is brought up. This is an extremely attractive option for people, as dogs are alerted to the slightest noise, generally their bark scares the crap out of potential burglars, and assuming that the dog is a fairly large dog, it can pounce on an attacker like white on rice, and render the intruder useless until the owner or the cops decide otherwise. However, a knock against dogs is that they're only good if the intruder does not come armed. For me, dogs are not an option, since I am not fond of them (anything that sniffs and licks its ass and then proceeds to try to lick my face...no thanks - I've never understood people who enjoy playfully French-kissing their dogs, knowing where the dog's mouth has been - freaking gross, if you ask me). I also don't like the smell of dogs (or cats or hamsters) Also, I couldn't be bothered with all the maintenance that goes with a dog. I also have young kids, and while they may like dogs, I can't guarantee that the dog will always like them. But I can see the advantage of having a guard dog - the result of a dog attack is generally less lethal than having a firearm fired on you within close range. But just the presence of a guard dog is likely enough incentive for would-be home intruders to select another residence.
Finally, I want to discuss the option of passivity and non-resistance. I know a lot of people who would likely resort to this option and it's not a wrong choice, by any means. It certainly has its place, and it is part of my plan depending on the scenario (ie. it's probably not a first option in the case of sexual assault, though I have read of women who employ this in order to stay alive). However, if you are doing it because you believe in a Biblical ethic that teaches to "turn the other cheek" and not retaliate, I suggest you re-look your Bible and study the passages in question contextually. I don't believe the Bible preaches passivity and pacifism. The turning the other cheek and non-retaliatory ethic is understood in the spirit of not succumbing to one's pride - ie. you wrong me - out of spite or having my pride hurt, I lash back at you - that is sinful. Self-defence is not. I really resent how these liberal pacifists have turned the Bible into their reasoning behind just letting someone beat the crap out of you. Sure, people cite Jesus not striking back when he had was flogged and had to carry the cross with people spitting, kicking and throwing all manner of stuff at him - but remember, Jesus had a wider purpose in mind in accepting the fact that He will be dying for humanity and the abuse came with it. I can understand that people may read into this , with their "What Would Jesus Do" mentality and say that one should just sit back and not fend off attackers. How many of you (men) who advocate this position, would sit idly by while someone came into your house and helped themselves to your wife? Would you argue it is Biblical to simply let an intruder rape your wife while you watched and cited Bible verses at them? What about if they broke into your house and started attacking you with a knife? Would you simply sit back and let them stab you? Why or why not?
There is a place for non-resistance. There is a place for negotiation and mediation. And I agree, material things are not worth killing over. But when your life is threatened, I can't think of too many people who I know will stand idly by and let their life or their loved ones' lives be taken from them, without a fight.
Back in the summer of 2005 or 2006 (thankfully, it was long enough ago that I am starting to forget the incident), we had a rather scary situation where a agitated woman showed up on our doorstep (literally) at around 10:30AM on a Saturday night and tried to kick our front door down. My son was considerably younger back then, so we originally thought that it was him crying, but it turns out it was a lady in her 20s who was extremely irritated. She was shouting at the top of our lungs for us to open the door and started to kick at our door. She sounded like she was in great anguish, and an error my wife and I made that night was to open the front door to investigate.
Turns out that she had thought that someone in our household had kidnapped a child of hers, or at least the child in a photo that she was carrying in her wallet. So here I was in the doorway of the house, with my wife behind me (and my son soundly sleeping upstairs), and this lady is demanding to get into my house. Realizing that she wasn't kidding, I had to be firm in insisting that there was no way that she would get by me, since we do not know here nor did we kidnap that child. I suspected that she was inebriated or on some sort of illegal narcotics, but regardless, it was the first time I actually felt a bit frightened in my house. Now, this lady wouldn't relent and I thought I was about to get into a fistfight with her (something I didn't really want to do, since it's been 20+ years since I got into a physical confrontation with someone and I'd rather it stay that long). My wife wisely decided to call the cops, which we should have done once we realized she was trying to kick the door down. In the meantime, several neighbours had gathered outside our house, and were witnessing the whole thing. The lady (and I use that term loosely), upon realizing that I was not about to afford her entry, then started a profanity-filled, racially-charged barrage of racial epithets, most of which I have not heard in many years. I tell you, I was tempted to slug her one, but that is hardly a good example to my family, since I didn't exactly fear for my life by her name-calling. Anyhow, once I told her that we called the cops, she immediately rolled into her minivan and backed out of our driveway, but not before we recorded her licence plate number and before she crashed into lamp post in front of our house, causing all manner of external car parts to be strewn at the end of our driveway.
Cops showed up - this big, big dude named Police Constable Nigel showed up - I was admiring his muscles throughout our conversation, but I am glad my tax dollars pay for beefy cops like him. He ran her plates and proceeded to tell us that she was a known schitzophrenic who happened to have trashed a Tim Horton's the night before. He indicated that she was likely off her medication and was driving around aimlessly and happened upon our house, which was fairly visible on the street. He said that chances are, by the next day she would not even remember the incident, but they'd pay her a visit anyway to check up on her. They would be sending one of their cops who she thinks she is married to...I wasn't interested in hearing more of the soap opera, so I thanked him for looking into it and his assurances that it was probably a bad coincidence that she showed up at our door. We haven't heard from her since and have not had any such incident since, of which we were aware.
Now, some advice from the officer, and this was well received. It is not paranoia-based chain-mail B.S. that you get in your inbox that you are to circulate to all your friends. This came from the mouth of a police officer with whom I spoke. The first thing he said was that we made several tactical errors that night in assessing the situation. I don't disagree with him. The first was that we didn't call the police right away when we determined someone was kicking at our door. The second was that we opened our door. And the third, while the officer did not necessarily suggest this - when I suggested whether it would have been good if I was somehow armed with something at the door (and I don't mean a firearm, but anything that can more or less be used in self-defence like a baseball bat, a knife, or whatever) - he said that it wouldn't hurt, but obviously much care is needed, since citizens have been known to be disarmed of baseball bats and other forms of self-defence objects by perpetrators, and worse, these objects have been turned on the homeowners. I doubt that the police are at liberty to suggest homeowners arm themselves, like they seem to do more of in the States than in Canada, but it was interesting that he did not dismiss the option.
All that being said, I have had at least a couple of years (I believe it was 2005, so I had a few years) to think about what happened, and I can tell you that it is worthwhile for every homeowner to at least have a game plan in place in the event something as distressing as this happens. Now, I realize we're not in the wild-west mentality of the U.S., but let's face it - suberbs like where I live are not immune to crime. In fact, just down the street from me a few years back, a Marijuana grow-up was busted. About 5 minutes north of me, there was a major methanphetamine lab that was broken up - the cops who did that case reported in the news that they were surprised that the residence did not explode, due to the amount of volatile chemicals found in the house. And that was in a house that was valued at $525,000 Cdn., so it wasn't like we are talking in the housing projects here. About 15 minutes northeast of me, a double-murder took place in a home very close to where our good friends live. And despite our area's generally low crime rate, home invasions do happen - our youth pastor witnessed a police take-down of carjackers, which resulted in police drawing and using their weapons - this was less than five minutes away from where I live, and it only happened late last year. My former colleague at work, who has four kids of his own, has told me of problem neighbours that he has had that forced him to build his own home security camera system which feeds video into his computer.
OK, maybe these are all isolated incidents, but can you really afford to dismiss them as something that will never happen to you? I've learned only in the past few years never to assume that something will not happen to you. Anything can happen to anyone, so I feel it is prudent for the homeowner to at least consider what they would do (it may turn out to be nothing, but at least think about it) if they were a victim of a home invasion. As for me, I have a plan in place, which I don't advertise, and I have actually ran through the plan several times to test timing, etc. That being said, I still make tactical errors, which I have been correcting over time (ie. most recently, the house alarm was set off by a loose window and I bolted downstairs to turn off the alarm without carrying adequate protection with me (by protection I mean a home defence object, not a condom). Now, maybe it's because we just got home from the hospital with our newborn and I didn't want the kids awakened by a rather shrill and very boisterous sounding house alarm in the middle of the night. But still, in the heat of the moment, I should have assessed things properly and at least carried something with me downstairs, analyzing the situation in the process. One thing I have been thinking of doing for these sitautions is to put a corresponding alarm panel upstairs, so that I can arm the house from upstairs or contact the police/fire department from upstairs, rather than rely on the panel downstairs near the front door. At the very least, I can accurately assess what triggered the alarm and whether it was legit or false. In this case, I would have known it was a false alarm as we were in the room where the window's inside sensors had moved (we have older windows that shift a bit after a windy night). Installing a supplementary panel upstairs, while it would involve extra costs, is still something that is considered more of a passive option than an active one.
Now, if you are considering active options of defending your home (which is your right since it's your property), you should think through the consequences. Very easy for someone to carry a baseball bat or golf club or a kitchen knife to confront a burglar or a home invader, but the question you need to ask yourself is...are you prepared to use it? I am willing most people don't even know where to properly strike an attacker with a knife or bat to neutralize the threat, if they are even willing to do so in the first place. If you have a firearm, you need to consider that you may be using lethal force to stop someone, and there are certainly moral and legal issues that will arise as a result. Personally, I would never consider killing someone over theft of property - as long as our family is not threatened, they can have what they want for all I care. If you threaten my family, then all bets are off and you just authorized me to use lethal means if necessary. However, even then you need to think things through - a court of law would not look favourably on a person who shoots and attacker in the back or fires on a fleeing suspect. And of course, you have no doubt heard about the warped courts who find in favour of the felon or perpetrator who managed to successfully sue the homeowner for damages or injury. That being said, I still don't believe that we should develop the "shoot to kill" mentality. Lawyers will eat you for breakfast, painting you as a cold-blooded pre-meditated killing machine, even if you killed in self-defence. Most of the home defence experts will suggest that your mentality should be "shooting to stop"; that is, stop the attack on yourself or your loved ones. And while I am not entirely comfortable subscribing to the mindset that it's probably better to make sure that you kill the attacker so that they don't get a chance to finnegle the legal system to sue you later, I still place enough value on life to suggest that lethal force should always be the final option, unless your life is being immediately threatened at the time. Again, I know it's hard to hypothetically go through scenario after scenario, but the thought process is good to work through what you may do (and even then, I accept that people may do something totally different when confronted with that situation).
So, let's look at home defence options. Again, I am not going to reveal what my plan or options are, but I can tell you that in researching this topic, like everything else, different things work for different people. But one thing I can say for sure - forget the TV-and-movie based approach where people grab baseball bats and tennis racquets or fireplace prodding sticks or other such things. Unless you have training in hand-to-hand or close quarters combat, this is a complete waste of your time and the likelihood of a stronger attacker disarming you is very high. Not to mention, if it is an armed home invasion or an armed rape or kidnapping attempt (for the women who live by themselves or whose husbands are not home), taking out a tennis racquet will, I am sure, not neutralize the threat. A kitchen knife is a waste of time and even if you had a cold weapon like a hunting knife, Buck knife or a fillet knife - are you prepared to stab someone with it should the need arise? Do you know where to stab to stop the attack? Inflicting a superficial wound would no doubt piss off the attacker and you will likely have the object turned on you.
Now, I will address something quickly that I have heard people mention to me, who are avid airgun or air pistol shooting enthusiasts. I don't care what anyone says, airguns and air pistols (even PAL rated firearms-grade ones) do not have enough stopping power to put down an attacker. While it has not be conclusively proven, sub-500FPS velocity airguns are within legal limits for a reason - I have heard that any sub 500 FPS airgun projectile - whether the standard .177 or .22, will not break skin and the only way you can use it to protect your life is to shoot the perpetrator in the eye. In the dark, and in distress, I doubt many can make such a good shot. The firearms-grade airguns are mostly single shots and even then, are mostly .177, which is fine on a squirrel, but stopping a two-legged predator requires significantly more stopping power. So let's end that discussion right now. Air guns are used for target shooting and casual plinking, nothing more (OK, the occasional small game hunting or pest control).
There are some who argue that firearms are the answer. This is partially true. But even here, there are some issues. One is that, unless you live in a rural area, the chance of you having neighbours is very high. In many suberbs, the houses are built fairly close together. The last thing you want is using a firearm that shoots through walls and kills an innocent bystander on the street, in another room or even in another house. As such, I am not in favour of using centerfire or high powered handguns for home invasion. Again, in both cases in the dark and being a bit drowsy likely at night, what are the chances of you hitting your target? Handguns are also easily disarmable, especially if the owner does not know how to use it. I am not a fan of handguns at all, so that would not be an option. Centerfire weapons increase the risk of collateral injury/death, and are not really an option in the city. Another option is rimfire - .22 caliber - but studies and police reports have shown that it may not necessarily disarm your attacker - no one wants to get shot with a rimfire rifle, but there have been reports of bad guys who are strung out on drugs who simply ignore the small caliber bullet wounds. Of course if you get a large capacity mag and fire like crazy, you may get somewhere, but that doesn't look good in a court of law. If you must use firearms, then I would strongly recommend a shotgun - good for short range, and you really don't need to aim it per se - since the shot covers a wide area. Even then, the shotgun is only as good as the shotshells you use - I have read that using a shotgun with birdshot is a very poor choice - it will leave a grievous wound on the attacker, but it may not stop them on the spot. What I'd recommend is using 00 or 000 buckshot, but even then that may be overkill. I read that #3 or #4 buck is sufficent. A 20-gauge is probably preferrable to a 12-gauge, due to recoil issues (remember, you're sleepy at night), as well as the less likelihood of collateral damage. From what I read, if shotguns are used for home defence, there are really only two models to consider - the Remington 870 and the Mossberg 500 - they're essentially the two big models competing against one another. If you ask me my opinion, I'd go with the Remington, since cops use the 870, so what's that tell ya? The Remington comes in various models, and has lots of mods (like interchageable short barrels, which is a must for a home defence gun). I've handled both and the Remington has a much more solid feel to it. There's nothing like the sound of racking the 870 to cause your bad guy to think twice. That being said, the chance of inflicting a lethal wound with a shotgun with buckshot is tremendously great, and if you use this method, you really will need to explain your actions in a court of law, not to mention deal with the mental consequences of taking another life. In this regard, someone once remarked, "better to be tried by twelve, than to be carried by six."
I can't speak on whether a 28-gauge or a .410 caliber shotgun would be effective or not (the .410 probably not, though some have argued otherwise - my guess is that it's probably as effective as a .22 rimfire) - I don't know enough about either to make a definitive statement. Stick with the 20 gauge - it's a great all purpose gun - you can use it to hunt, shoot skeet/clays/trap, and of course, for home defence. I also believe Stoeger makes a short-barreled coach gun (it's pretty ugly but I read that it can be suited for home defence). But there are still also other options...
A crossbow is pretty intimidating and as I've seen people use it to take down rather large animals, it is an option, though I suspect with a two-legged pest, its stopping power may be negligible. You'd have to fire many arrows in succession, or coat the razor-sharp arrowheads with some sort of incapacitant in order to stop the intruder in his/her tracks. Of course, you better be able to load the arrow quick and aim well. Tasers and stun guns are both wonderful short-to-medium range options which allow you to incapacitate an intruder, albeit doing it without resorting to lethal force. This would be on my recommended list, but last I heard, tasers and stun guns are illegal in Canada. Besides, you have likely heard of some very public incidents of tasering by security or law enforcement folks, which have gone horribly wrong, in some cases causing death. A downside to the taser and stun guns, aside from their illegality, is the fact that you still have to more or less aim it and in a tense situation where your hands are likely shaking and you're crapping your pants, your aiming technique may not be at its best. As a result, I'd have to apply the same logic to using stuff like bear spray or pepper spray - of course, both of these also carry much higher risks of being turned on you if you are not careful.
One option that is a generally good one is learning close-combat self-defence techniques - it could be martial arts or something like krav maga, which I am signing up for this summer. This training, however, should only be used to complement an existing home defence strategy - I don't recommend it to be used standalone and the reasons are obvious (if the attacker has a gun or something, unless you can confidently disarm him, you're up the creek).
Of course, no home defence discussion is complete unless the topic of guard dogs is brought up. This is an extremely attractive option for people, as dogs are alerted to the slightest noise, generally their bark scares the crap out of potential burglars, and assuming that the dog is a fairly large dog, it can pounce on an attacker like white on rice, and render the intruder useless until the owner or the cops decide otherwise. However, a knock against dogs is that they're only good if the intruder does not come armed. For me, dogs are not an option, since I am not fond of them (anything that sniffs and licks its ass and then proceeds to try to lick my face...no thanks - I've never understood people who enjoy playfully French-kissing their dogs, knowing where the dog's mouth has been - freaking gross, if you ask me). I also don't like the smell of dogs (or cats or hamsters) Also, I couldn't be bothered with all the maintenance that goes with a dog. I also have young kids, and while they may like dogs, I can't guarantee that the dog will always like them. But I can see the advantage of having a guard dog - the result of a dog attack is generally less lethal than having a firearm fired on you within close range. But just the presence of a guard dog is likely enough incentive for would-be home intruders to select another residence.
Finally, I want to discuss the option of passivity and non-resistance. I know a lot of people who would likely resort to this option and it's not a wrong choice, by any means. It certainly has its place, and it is part of my plan depending on the scenario (ie. it's probably not a first option in the case of sexual assault, though I have read of women who employ this in order to stay alive). However, if you are doing it because you believe in a Biblical ethic that teaches to "turn the other cheek" and not retaliate, I suggest you re-look your Bible and study the passages in question contextually. I don't believe the Bible preaches passivity and pacifism. The turning the other cheek and non-retaliatory ethic is understood in the spirit of not succumbing to one's pride - ie. you wrong me - out of spite or having my pride hurt, I lash back at you - that is sinful. Self-defence is not. I really resent how these liberal pacifists have turned the Bible into their reasoning behind just letting someone beat the crap out of you. Sure, people cite Jesus not striking back when he had was flogged and had to carry the cross with people spitting, kicking and throwing all manner of stuff at him - but remember, Jesus had a wider purpose in mind in accepting the fact that He will be dying for humanity and the abuse came with it. I can understand that people may read into this , with their "What Would Jesus Do" mentality and say that one should just sit back and not fend off attackers. How many of you (men) who advocate this position, would sit idly by while someone came into your house and helped themselves to your wife? Would you argue it is Biblical to simply let an intruder rape your wife while you watched and cited Bible verses at them? What about if they broke into your house and started attacking you with a knife? Would you simply sit back and let them stab you? Why or why not?
There is a place for non-resistance. There is a place for negotiation and mediation. And I agree, material things are not worth killing over. But when your life is threatened, I can't think of too many people who I know will stand idly by and let their life or their loved ones' lives be taken from them, without a fight.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Fatherhood, Part II
A few weeks ago, my wife and I welcomed into our family a brand new baby girl. We couldn't be more delighted, especially after experiencing a miscarriage in 2006 (which, for those who have experienced one, you will know that it really sucks, and for those who haven't, take my word for it that it really sucks). We eagerly anticipated the arrival of our new little one, and I for one could not have been more happy. My wife knew it was a girl during one of her previous ultrasounds, but me, being more of a traditionalist, didn't want to know until the doctor announced it officially. People have asked me in the past few months whether I looked more forward to a boy or a girl. It really didn't matter to me - the fact that I was going to be a Dad again was enough satisfaction. My wife was indicating that all she wants was for the baby to have ten fingers and ten toes, but you know, for me, I didn't even care about that. I was truly prepared for as much as I could be prepared for - had the baby come out with a deformity or a developmental condition or some other health issue, it wouldn't be cause for celebration, but I was at peace knowing that however our baby ended up turning out, God would give us the strength to continue to love him/her to the best of our ability. I'm not just saying that - I really honestly mean it.
So when our little girl popped out (well, she was delivered by c-section, but that's another story for another time), and it was announced that she was a girl, I was a bit surprised. Not because I didn't want a girl (far from it), but that I was so sure that it was a boy, based on a speaking error that the first ultrasound technician made - a definite slip of the tongue, that I bet my wife $500.00 that it was a boy - I was so sure of it (and I'm not a guy who bets at all). Well, either the technician and my wife knowingly played out a convincing subterfuge, or I simply learned a lesson to not be so sure of my ability to deduce subtle speaking errors. Either way, I am out five hundred bones.
It has been over two weeks since my daughter was born, and have to say, I am very glad that I have a girl. In retrospect, I think that it didn't have to take two weeks for me to realize this - I remember when she was born, I felt this immense pride and started crying in the operating room, though I limited my display since my wife probably didn't need to see me crying as she was being cut open.
Sure, babies are babies and you don't see the male/female differences coming out en masse, but there is just something special, something magical (I hate using that word, but I'll use it now) about a father holding onto his little girl. Sure, cliches abound, with "Daddy's Girl" and other monikers being tossed around, but you know, it feels different with a girl in tow. For me, it's as if I feel that I need to achieve a new level of protectionism for my child. I guess with boys, my inkling is that as they get older, they generally can learn to defend oneself and boys are generally a bit on the aggressive side anyway. Girls, on the other hand - call me old fashioned, but Trish Stratus aside, my way of thinking just does not include girls fighting off others using their fists, and such. And let's face it, and it's not paranoia - girls are more likely to be attacked by predators throughout their life. It is my job to protect my little girl, and I welcome the opportunity to be able to fulfill this role (this is by no means indicating that I look forward to kicking some as-of-yet-unknown male's ass in the future, but you know what I mean.
I also think about my wife and how she has probably had her fair share of my son and his Transformers fetish, following in the footsteps of his Dad. My son, praise God, will never be confused with a borderline (or even close) effeminate male. Of course, my wife, being a woman, probably has a harder time relating to him than a girl offspring - I mean, today my son was sick with a fever and in the late afternoon, I thought it would be relaxing if he and I took a bath together, but with squirt guns and super soakers in hand, shooting animal targets on the shower tap, and yelling in delight when we knocked the zebra or bear figurine into the water. I'm pretty sure this is not behaviour my wife would likely exhibit, so I am glad that we now have a girl that she will be able to relate to in due time, teach her how to become a woman, just like I am teaching my son how to become a man.
I also think - one day, she may decide to get married and have children of her own. I would be the one who would traditionally walk her down the aisle and hand her over to some guy who will obviously be taking my place as her future protector (or he better be, otherwise, he'll be the hypothetical aforementioned male who gets his ass kicked by yours truly).
In talking with my wife on this one, the second has definitely been easier, in most respects. I guess like anything else, we know what to expect, though obviously a lot can change quickly. We also leverage our son heavily, eliciting his help whenever necessary, to care for his new baby sister. He has, without question, been more than up to the task. Which I was reminded at church a couple of days ago by another parent, is something that we may have taken for granted - battling sibling jealously is something that just adds an extra layer of stress to an expanding family. Thankfully, we haven't had to deal with any of that, so yes, we are fortunate. Sure, our sleep patterns are no longer what they once were, once our son got accustomed to a regular bedtime and slept through the night and we can stay up and watch movies or whatever. On a day like today, where both kids are home and one is sick and the other is a bit fussy - well, I was telling my wife, it's hardly anything that I should complain about. The lack of sleep is not great, but that too, passes, as quickly as a toddler fart. I don't get those parents who want to have children badly, Very soon, our daughter will be sleeping through the night (hopefully sooner rather than later) and then she'll be talking and toilet training and then going to school, just like my little boy.
So when our little girl popped out (well, she was delivered by c-section, but that's another story for another time), and it was announced that she was a girl, I was a bit surprised. Not because I didn't want a girl (far from it), but that I was so sure that it was a boy, based on a speaking error that the first ultrasound technician made - a definite slip of the tongue, that I bet my wife $500.00 that it was a boy - I was so sure of it (and I'm not a guy who bets at all). Well, either the technician and my wife knowingly played out a convincing subterfuge, or I simply learned a lesson to not be so sure of my ability to deduce subtle speaking errors. Either way, I am out five hundred bones.
It has been over two weeks since my daughter was born, and have to say, I am very glad that I have a girl. In retrospect, I think that it didn't have to take two weeks for me to realize this - I remember when she was born, I felt this immense pride and started crying in the operating room, though I limited my display since my wife probably didn't need to see me crying as she was being cut open.
Sure, babies are babies and you don't see the male/female differences coming out en masse, but there is just something special, something magical (I hate using that word, but I'll use it now) about a father holding onto his little girl. Sure, cliches abound, with "Daddy's Girl" and other monikers being tossed around, but you know, it feels different with a girl in tow. For me, it's as if I feel that I need to achieve a new level of protectionism for my child. I guess with boys, my inkling is that as they get older, they generally can learn to defend oneself and boys are generally a bit on the aggressive side anyway. Girls, on the other hand - call me old fashioned, but Trish Stratus aside, my way of thinking just does not include girls fighting off others using their fists, and such. And let's face it, and it's not paranoia - girls are more likely to be attacked by predators throughout their life. It is my job to protect my little girl, and I welcome the opportunity to be able to fulfill this role (this is by no means indicating that I look forward to kicking some as-of-yet-unknown male's ass in the future, but you know what I mean.
I also think about my wife and how she has probably had her fair share of my son and his Transformers fetish, following in the footsteps of his Dad. My son, praise God, will never be confused with a borderline (or even close) effeminate male. Of course, my wife, being a woman, probably has a harder time relating to him than a girl offspring - I mean, today my son was sick with a fever and in the late afternoon, I thought it would be relaxing if he and I took a bath together, but with squirt guns and super soakers in hand, shooting animal targets on the shower tap, and yelling in delight when we knocked the zebra or bear figurine into the water. I'm pretty sure this is not behaviour my wife would likely exhibit, so I am glad that we now have a girl that she will be able to relate to in due time, teach her how to become a woman, just like I am teaching my son how to become a man.
I also think - one day, she may decide to get married and have children of her own. I would be the one who would traditionally walk her down the aisle and hand her over to some guy who will obviously be taking my place as her future protector (or he better be, otherwise, he'll be the hypothetical aforementioned male who gets his ass kicked by yours truly).
In talking with my wife on this one, the second has definitely been easier, in most respects. I guess like anything else, we know what to expect, though obviously a lot can change quickly. We also leverage our son heavily, eliciting his help whenever necessary, to care for his new baby sister. He has, without question, been more than up to the task. Which I was reminded at church a couple of days ago by another parent, is something that we may have taken for granted - battling sibling jealously is something that just adds an extra layer of stress to an expanding family. Thankfully, we haven't had to deal with any of that, so yes, we are fortunate. Sure, our sleep patterns are no longer what they once were, once our son got accustomed to a regular bedtime and slept through the night and we can stay up and watch movies or whatever. On a day like today, where both kids are home and one is sick and the other is a bit fussy - well, I was telling my wife, it's hardly anything that I should complain about. The lack of sleep is not great, but that too, passes, as quickly as a toddler fart. I don't get those parents who want to have children badly, Very soon, our daughter will be sleeping through the night (hopefully sooner rather than later) and then she'll be talking and toilet training and then going to school, just like my little boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)