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.

Rape Is About Sex, Not Power

Haven't had that much time to write blog entries this year - between my wife being 8+ months pregnant and having to work like a dog, logging lots of overtime hours this year, I've been too tired to do anything, even writing and target shooting, both of which I thoroughly enjoy. However, I have a few minutes tonight and have been itching to discuss an issue that has been on my mind, the catalyst of my wanting to examine this issue coming recently in my inadvertent eavesdropping on a conversation while in line at the supermarket.

There are some things in life which over time, you have simply come to believe, whether it is through societal pressure, social conditioning, hearing what at first appears to be a well thought out argument, or simply for the reason that you didn't think it was worthwhile to ponder the other side of the coin. There are not a lot of positions for which I have flip-flopped (and especially more than once), but this is one of them, and I am now back to my original position, that I held more than 25 years ago.

Unfortunately, I learned the tragic meaning of the word "rape" when I was in grade two or so. Of course, it was from fellow students, who probably had no clue what they were talking about, but somehow heard it from their parents or others who probably should have exercised a bit more conversational discretion. Anyhow, I thought it was pretty disturbing that someone (a man) would force themselves sexually onto someone else (a woman). I remember that I was both confused and saddened. Nowadays, the word "rape" has been softened tremendously, with the hyperbolic and vague term "sexual assault", which can mean anything from lightly patting a woman's bottom to full forced intercourse. The word "rape" is almost never heard anymore, especially in media. I am not a sociologist, but as a guy with a half-functioning brain, I can offer some guesses as to why this is, the foremost of the reasons being the constant bantering of feminists over the years that rape (and I will use the word here, not for dramatic effect, but to ensure that the disturbing nature of this act is prominent in your minds) is not about sex, but about power (have a look at those who espouse this argument - they are almost always women, and more than often women with a clear ultra-left, pro-choice, feminist bent. Now, I will confess that for a good many years, about two decades or so, I found that explanation plausible, even during my late twenties, when I made a sharp return to my conventional conservative belief system that I have always had.

I don't have a whole lot that I agree with as far as the Roman Catholic church goes, but I certainly can say that they position on the cause of rape is dead-on. They posit that rape is as a result of lust, and if I can take that further and offer my position on this, I would contend that rape is in fact about sex, and not power.

I can hear the collective hearts of the feminists out there now, beating faster with every word I say here, with clenched teeth and matching fists, shaking their heads in disbelief that I would argue against their conventional wisdom. But you know, I have had some time to think about this and I can no longer find enough substance in their argument for me to subscribe to their position.

Again, I'm not sociologist or criminal pathologist, so while I cannot cite studies for you (all of which can be skewed and biased anyway) or line up a row of expert witnesses, I can say that a belief that rape is about sex and not power makes much more sense for the following reasons.

1) Look at the typical profile of a rapist. Generally lacks social skills and interaction. It's been shown that they have had copious amounts of exposure to pornography (which is about sex, not TV). As a former porn dealer, I can see where that line between fantasy and forcefully acting out what you see in porn can be crossed, though thankfully I've never crossed it. These perpetrators are usually not only social misfits, but have also not had any meaningful sexual relationships. Rapists are usually not married men. So these guys are likely not getting sex from anywhere and with almost all men, they eventually need a sexual outlet somehow (and habitual masturbation is unlikely to meet their needs). Combine that with a lack of social skills and interaction and add in a steady diet of porn, and you have a sex offender in waiting.

2) It eliminates any potential stimuli that may have emanated from the victim. Yes, this is a touchy point, but I want to reiterate that regardless of any sexual stimulus that may be present from a female wearing provocative clothing, it still does not warrant her being violated by an attacker. However, I absolutely will not subscribe to the notion that a woman who wears shorts so short that it looks like underwear, will not attract attention from men. A generally attractive woman wearing a tight halter top on a hot summer day will garner attention from men, and especially men who envision that a woman like that is one who is inviting sexual advances (wanted or not) - hell, that's what it's like in porn, so it must be true, right??? Anyhow, if you say that provocative or revealing clothing has anything to do with it, then it lends some credence to the sexualization argument, but of course, feminists would prefer to argue from a power/lack of power position as it is seems more socially explainable, textbook-wise.

3) If rape is about power, why is it that sex is always used? Those who disagree with me will argue that sex is only a tool, a means by which the ends are met. But you have to ask yourself. If you wanted to overpower and dominate someone, why choose sex? Why not just punch the living crap out of someone? Why not verbally and emotionally humiliate? It could be argued that forcing yourself on someone dominates them and achieves all the above objectives, but if this is the case, why is it that rapists almost always ejaculate? Isn't it enough to simply humiliate the victim sexually? Why do these rapists feel they must "finish"? I believe it is because their objective is not to humiliate and overpower their victim, but instead, find someone on whom they can fulfill their sick fantasies and desires. They basically have a selfish desire for sex and have decided that they must have it, even if it is at the expense of another human being. That is why you see senior citizens and children being raped - both of these groups are vulnerable and conversely are already on the lower end of the power scale. It is not about power - it is about easy access to fulfil the perpetrator's twisted desires. Another case in point - you see gang rapes in prisons among all-male populations. OK, in that case, there is another element in play - homoxexuality, but why are these generally heterosexual guys resorting to forcing homosexual sex on clearly weaker members of the population? Nothing to do with power. Everything to do with their need for sex. I don't like comparing humans to animals and very seldom draw comparisons, but you can look at it from the perspective of animals attacking weaker animals (and I don't think my comparison is too far off, since these criminals are pretty much animals). It is not because they want to exercise their power. It is almost always because they are hungry and need to fulfil their insatiable need for food. They happen to attack a weaker animal because they know that they are more likely to succeed in getting what they want.

Now, all this being said, I will be quick to add that I am not saying that sex crimes (notice from a legal and criminal perspective, these acts are called "sex crimes" and even the term sexual assault is not neutral, as it is indicative of a sexual aspect, so that can hardly be discarded) are devoid of elements of a power struggle or any aspects of domination. Similarly, I am not denying that these perpetrators have a warped, if not incomprehensible view of women and how they relate to women. I am simply arguing that I don't believe that in the minds of the attackers, that wanting to overpower their victim is their primary motivator. Overpowering is a means to end end, which is their forcing someone to meet their own selfish sexual needs. That, in my view, is the catalyst behind all rapes. It would certainly be interesting to read transcripts of interviews with convicted rapists (on their own volition - not controlled interviews by feminist psychologists asking leading questions) to see whether my hypothesis has any merit. I strongly suspect that I am not too far off here in my statements.