View Single Post
Old November 5, 2008, 08:08 AM   #118
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,391
From Jaybird 78:
I'm wondering if all those published self defense articles that get published in the papers and then the NRA reprints are false. Seems like defending one's own home works. Does it work all the time, NO. You win some and you lose some. Lets just hope NOBODY ever breaks into our homes. I guess I will just take my chances when something goes bump in the night and try my hardest to bump back.
Jaybird, "You win some and you lose some" sounds OK to me for poker or betting on the horses, but when losing involves death or serious injury, I am personally too risk averse to "just take my chances." Now, Fiddletown has related something that should indicate just how good my chances would be:

From Fiddletown:
Massad Ayoob tells a story about the National Tactical Invitational, an annual competition in which some 130 of the top shooters and firearm trainers participate by invitation only. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the competitor must clear a house against a single "BG." According to Mas...[ during the first six years of the NTI, one, and only one, competitor got through one of those six NTIs without being judged killed, and he was head of NASA security firearms training at the time. And one, and only one, made it through the seventh year] The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these competitors were highly skilled, highly trained fighters.
I infer from this that as a person who is neither highly trained nor highly skilled, my chances would be non-existent, and that I would not find that "defending one's own home works" if I were to try to defend it by clearing it rather than by putting the intruder at a disadvantage by having him come to me.

Perhaps I am missing your point.
OldMarksman is offline  
Page generated in 0.06090 seconds with 7 queries