Let's talk aluminum baseball bats


PDA






Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 13, 2009, 02:43 PM
Haven't played softball in over 10 years, but used to. Other day I was perusing the massive spring collection at Academy and ended up buying a couple that were marked way down - one for softball, and one just for playing around and/or self-defense. Have to say, I really like these. The differences are in the length and weight of course.

All the ones I bought had the 2.25" barrels:

The softball bat is 34 inches, 26 oz. Feels about right for slow-pitch softball, though I'd have preferred a 32 inch, 24-25 oz one for myself (at 5' 8" tall and 170 lbs).

The bat I bought that I think would be handy for self-defense is a "Little League Baseball" bat, and it's 32 inches and 19.5 oz. Feels very lively and good in the hand.

Another bat that felt super-lively was a "Fastpitch Softball" bat, and it was only 28 inches long, and only 18 oz. But I'm sure it could crack some noggins in a self-defense situations.

Anyone else get a kick out of these for something besides baseball/softball?

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's talk aluminum baseball bats" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Attila The Killa
March 13, 2009, 05:03 PM
I recently took up baseball and was thinking the same thing. One of these to the skull = PAIN, and lots of it. I wouldn't recommend letting the kids play lightsabers with these. It could be great for persuading someone to think twice before breaking into your house again :)

highorder
March 13, 2009, 05:12 PM
Remember to keep a ball and glove with the bat, especially in your car.

JImbothefiveth
March 13, 2009, 05:34 PM
One of these to the skull = PAIN, and lots of it.
An aluminum bat might even kill.

hso
March 13, 2009, 07:58 PM
If previous discussions are any indication, aluminum T-ball, soft-ball and baseball bats are an obvious favorite.


On the other hand, it should be considered a lethal weapon when applied to the ball-shaped thing on top of people's shoulders.

Duke of Doubt
March 13, 2009, 08:10 PM
The aluminum bats dent and bend on impact -- particularly repeated impact. Aluminum telescoping door clubs bend and break apart, too, at least when used as improvised clubs.

I carry a small wooden bat in my car, along the left side of the cockpit. Never had a problem from cops; one even laughed pretty hard. I was on my way to court, and dressed like a respectable professional; I just happened to have a frigging baseball bat in my car -- I told him it was for collecting fees. He didn't remark nearly so much on the 9mm pistol; that was "normal."

Marlin 45 carbine
March 13, 2009, 08:13 PM
drill holes completely through the tip and drive tight-fitting nails (16 penny or bigger) that you have ground the points down sharp on. 6 or 8 should do it. 'pain factor' X's 10.:what:

sm
March 13, 2009, 08:58 PM
drill holes completely through the tip and drive tight-fitting nails (16 penny or bigger) that you have ground the points down sharp on. 6 or 8 should do it. 'pain factor' X's 10

NO!

I was foreman of the Jury, and the case was looking pretty favorable until the evidence was described and then placed into evidence.
That boy went to jail and and also faced civil suit!

The evidence was a old wooden baseball bat, that had been "modified".

THR does NOT condone illegal acts, or the promoting of ideas that will not only result in someone getting into serious trouble with the Law, also in the courtroom.
It puts THR as a forum and all members of Staff at risk for Legal action as well.

Pay Attention:

Anything one uses to defend themselves will be described as "Weapon" by first responders, and in a courtroom.

I do not care if it is your shoe, 20oz bottle of water from a vending machine, your disposable Bic ink pen, your child's tippy cup, car keys...etc.

TimboKhan
March 13, 2009, 09:16 PM
I am a huge advocate of the bat as a weapon of defense. Easy to use, can do a lot of damage, cheap.

I second what SM said: No need to modify it further. A bat to the skull is sufficient and defensible (depending on the circumstances, I guess). A nail-filled bat to the skull is probably a felony in most states.

Besides all that, how in the world are you going to defend a bat as a weapon of opportunity when it looks like, you know, this:

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Timbocaster/bat1.jpg

Riss
March 13, 2009, 10:24 PM
Bat with nails = medieval mace. Way cool. Would rather use an Oak softball bat. 2x or 3x the weight of an AL bat.

Art Eatman
March 13, 2009, 10:54 PM
You've gone about as far as you can go with, "Hmmm. A baseball bat can be used as a self-defense weapon."

Folks hve been doing that for over a hundred years. Most figured it out before their teen years.

Advocating something as incredibly foolish as making a bat into a mace is, aside from being illegal, not in any way acceptable for any member of THR. That idea has to work its way upward to reach "contempt".

Enough.

hso
March 14, 2009, 11:33 AM
drill holes completely through the tip and drive tight-fitting nails...

That's about the worst advice possible. SM and TK are absolutely correct in saying this takes a simple piece of sports equipment and turns it into a felony conviction for you if you ever end up using it. It also takes a simple effective club and turns it into a badly balanced "club". Add the fact now that you have to be concerned with cutting/snagging yourself with the thing.

Let's avoid suggesting "Thunderdome" silliness.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 14, 2009, 02:49 PM
While that's not what this thread is about, and while I had and have no intention of doing it (making a mace or spiked club), I am absolutely floored by the responses of sm, timbo, Art, and hso.

Absolutely incredible to me, that *talking about* a particular homemade weapon, which is far less deadly than a GUN fercripessake (ya know, the main thrust of the entire forum), is somehow a faux paus.

How is a spiked club any more "evil" or "illegal" (allegedly) than the many many threads on axes, spears, halberds, swords, hatchets, shovels, etc., etc., etc.?

And it's not illegal either *necessarily*, either; rather, its legality (possession of a spiked club) is going to vary state to state and country to country, and almost certainly the majority of states would not find it illegal for use in the HOME. Note that neither my original post, nor the initial suggestion of the spiked club, express or implied any use outside the home, and therefore any potential illegal use via "carrying", which is perhaps illegal in some states.

I remain quite shocked and very very :confused: by the the kneejerk responses here, in a "Non-Firearm WEAPONS" forum.


Advocating something as incredibly foolish as making a bat into a mace is, aside from being illegal, not in any way acceptable for any member of THR. That idea has to work its way upward to reach "contempt".

That is saying that "aside" from illegality (alleged), this is inherently wrong somehow. WTH?? :confused: Would it be ok if purchased instead of homemade or what? This is way way off base, for the very intelligent, savvy, learned, and (ordinarily) logical moderator and friend Art, IMO. :p

I really think a *modification* of opinions is warranted here, no? Or, perhaps there is something I do not understand about the parameters of discussion of this subforum.

Weezy
March 14, 2009, 04:42 PM
It's the same advice as when people recommend you don't stencil "DUKE OF DEATH" on the side of your home-defense shotgun. If you do ever have to use it, remember that it's going in front of a jury.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 14, 2009, 05:17 PM
Actually, no, it's not the same at all. Adding to the *actual effectiveness* of a weapon's ability to incapacitate is not all the same as adding words evidencing a reasonably-inferred intent to kill (improper when the intent should be to stop an attack).

And even if it was, it's STILL not the same as what Art suggested, that it's "incredibly foolish", implying that's somehow inherently "evil" to modify a weapon to make it more capable of rapid incapacitation. I submit that making an already deadly weapon into a different deadly weapon with a greater ability to quickly incapacitate is not necessarily foolish, and in fact not foolish at all if it's the only weapon you have; to the contrary, it's quite wise. In fact, the sentiment expressed is indistinguishable from chastising someone for using those deadly hollowpoint bullets in a gun used for self-defense. Takes a weapon, and makes it more effective than it previously was (with the unfortunate but acceptable side effect that it also happens to make it more deadly). These attitudes would doubtless fit in seamlessly in NJ, where a citizens' use of hollowpoints is illegal.

Look at the picture posted by timbo. I submit that just LOOKING at someone weilding that thing in self-defense is gonna cause a certain percentage of otherwise-determined thugs to flee in fear, actually saving them some bodily harm, not to mention that of the victim, possibly. It's quite fear-invoking. This is a GOOD thing, in a self-defense weapon, as it can work to AVOID violence.

Odd Job
March 14, 2009, 05:26 PM
Plenty people in the emergency room from broken bones from a baseball bat.
When I was a student I remember seeing a fairly beefy bouncer in the theatre with a fractured ulna from an aluminium baseball bat.

For those who don't know, South African aluminium is the no-nonsense version of 'aluminum' :neener:

DesmoDucRob
March 14, 2009, 05:36 PM
When I consider a self-defense weapon, I always take into account the perspective of the ignorant. I don't mean that insultingly, I am talking about those who are legitimately unfamilliar with self-defense weapons. I take into account the fact that this weapon may be judged by those people. For those reasons I've always thought a baseball bat "when kept with a glove and ball" as Highorder said, would make a fine (effective) self-defense weapon. Remember that the purpose of self-defense is SELF-DEFENSE. It would be easy to explain the use of a shotgun for home defense when you have a pair of mallards mounted on your wall. ...same applies to non-firearms.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 14, 2009, 05:51 PM
Sure, I can see that, but (a) there's a difference between discussing the wisdom of using weapon 'X' in political climate & jury pool 'Y', and banning the topic from discussion, along with chastising those who brought it up. And, (b) I see your point, but I submit that that attitude is one of meek peasants, not citizens in a country where legitimate self-defense is perfectly legal.

I for one think that it is indeed a pretty good idea to keep a ball & glove if you carry a bat in a vehicle. But in the home, I don't think you need any justification for the deadliest, quickest-incapacitating weapon you can legally get your hands on.

RyanM
March 14, 2009, 06:55 PM
For those who don't know, South African aluminium is the no-nonsense version of 'aluminum'

I'm a fan of platininium baseball bats, myself.

---------------

I for one think that it is indeed a pretty good idea to keep a ball & glove if you carry a bat in a vehicle. But in the home, I don't think you need any justification for the deadliest, quickest-incapacitating weapon you can legally get your hands on.

I believe what you meant to say is that you wish you didn't need any justification, or that if the world were perfect, you wouldn't need any justification. The way the legal system "works" in most places, anyone with an IQ over 80 is likely to be dismissed as a juror, for being biased (towards the truth). End up in front of a jury of people who think that empathizing and bargaining with a criminal is a viable tactic, and the results won't be very pretty for you, if you used something like a baseball bat with spikes in it.

Even an "evil" assault weapon would be easier to defend in court. Those at least tend to have some pride of ownership and "cool factor" associated with them, completely absent from a crude makeshift weapon; i.e., you might say you bought a rifle just like the one in your favorite movie, and that it was the only thing handy. Or it was bought pre-election as an investment, and you decided to keep it instead of selling it. A be-spiked baseball bat isn't much of an investment.

JShirley
March 14, 2009, 08:14 PM
Adding to the *actual effectiveness* of a weapon's ability to incapacitate

Somewhat true...if it actually increased the effectiveness of the weapon. Since it doesn't, and greatly increases the probability of going to jail if used as modified, it's incredibly foolish to advocate such a thing.

Incidentally, relying on "deterrent factor" in your weapons to stop a potentially lethal threat is incredibly stupid, whether your defensive tool is a manual weapon or a 12 gauge. It's more the bailiwick of Counter-Strike internet commandos than anyone's who actually serious and even semi-knowledgeable about self-defense.

John

Duke of Doubt
March 14, 2009, 08:21 PM
DesmoDucRob: "I take into account the fact that this weapon may be judged by those people."

Me, too, to an extent. My carry gun is a Beretta 92FS. If asked why I selected that particular weapon, I can say, truthfully, that part of the reason was that it is carried by our Army soldiers and used to be carried by our State Police -- before they upgraded to the H&K .45. Thus, it is a patriotic and civic choice, and arguably less deadly than what our State Police now carry. Now, in my home is a different matter. In the event of a home invasion, I honestly do not expect to be asked those sort of questions with much force. Accordingly, I may choose to defend my home with my .44 magnum Smith 29, or with my SAR-1 and a full thirty round magazine. After all, it's my home, and a different level of scrutiny tends to apply.

hso
March 14, 2009, 08:24 PM
far less deadly than a GUN

Let us dispel this myth once and for all. A baseball bat is no less lethal a weapon than a gun. Not one bit.

It may be used in a manner that does not kill, but a blow to the skull will end your days as quickly, and perhaps more certainly, than a pistol shot to the head. Same goes for all but the lightest/smallest club-like weapons.

Byron Quick
March 14, 2009, 09:10 PM
Got some real world experience for you people who think the gun is oh, so much more deadly than a bat, club, or other blunt instrument.

I've ten years experience working the emergency department. I've seen a few stabbings, cuttings, shootings, and bludgeonings. The vast majority of the stabbings, cuttings, and shootings survived. Out of the people who sustained blows to the head with a blunt instrument exactly one 'survived,' if you want to call being on a ventilator in a nursing home with no brain wave activity...'survival.' Based on the testimony of my eyes, a blow to the cranium by a blunt instrument is more dangerous than being shot by a handgun or stabbed by a knife. And that includes chest cavity trauma.

Some states specifically prohibit the nails deal. In others nails would probably turn a 'no true bill' by the grand jury into an indictment.

hso
March 14, 2009, 10:43 PM
So let's recap:

Clubs are deadly weapons. As much as any handgun.

Clubs are effective deadly weapons.

Modification of clubs is a waste of time and can result in your self-defense claim going out the window and you ending up being charged with a homicide. Establishing intent is much easier when your club looks like something from Hollywood.

Modification of a club makes you far more susceptible to a successful civil lawsuit from the BG's survivors.

nalioth
March 14, 2009, 11:10 PM
It would be easy to explain the use of a shotgun for home defense when you have a pair of mallards mounted on your wall. . . . and what country do you live in?

Incidentally, relying on "deterrent factor" in your weapons to stop a potentially lethal threat is incredibly stupid, whether your defensive tool is a manual weapon or a 12 gauge. So why do some states' laws have "threat of deadly force" lumped in with "deadly force"?

Isn't the point to negate the situation? Isn't it best to negate it without bloodshed?

RyanM
March 15, 2009, 08:06 AM
Isn't the point to negate the situation? Isn't it best to negate it without bloodshed?

I don't believe that was really the point. The point is that it's idiotic to rely on deterrence, as opposed to merely hoping that the bad guy gets deterred.

If you keep a shotgun in cruiser ready condition, hear a burglar some night, and then wait until you know he's in earshot to rack the slide; i.e., you were holding an empty gun for some length of time, while you had no clue where this guy was, just so you could make a scary noise when you did find him, or he found you... that's really stupid.

But if your shotgun is in cruiser ready and you just rack the slide the instant you pick it up, that's not so stupid. There are tons of other reasons to not have a round in the chamber (like house fires), and racking the slide as soon as possible means you have a functioning gun as soon as possible. If the guy hears the sound and runs off, so much the better, but that would be a purely incidental effect.

Also, "threat of deadly force" is mainly to catch criminals. Actually, pretty sure that in England, it's only a felony assault if you actually manage to inflict some manner of wound, and if the court determines that you intended to inflict grievous bodily injury and/or death. So if you threaten to shoot someone, it's not a felony assault. If you shoot and miss, that's not a felony assault either. If you only wing the guy, it's only a felony assault if you don't say "I only meant to wing 'im!"

So US law makes an attempt at punishing intent, while British law only punishes success. Actually, that's a very common theme if you compare the two legal systems.

qwert65
March 15, 2009, 08:54 AM
Clubs are deadly weapons. As much as any handgun.

I disagree, while clubs certainly can and will kill, they are not as deadly as a handgun, if you take away head shots, i'll choose getting hit by a bat over shot every time, further an assailant can "block" with his forearms. that never works as well as "blocking" a bullet esp. in popular service calibers. There is a reason that policeman carry sidearms in addition to clubs.

I do agree that modifying a bat is incrediably stupid and dosent increase effectivness(think of those nails getting caught on someones clothing)

bikerdoc
March 15, 2009, 09:01 AM
Lets think a little more HighRoad

This is an update of an older post, I hope it stimulates some discussion.

Been trying to put my thoughts on my Self defense philosophy into a format I can share with others. It is more about thinking and planning than blazing guns.
Here it is. Tell me what you think. It is not carved in stone and I am open to all suggestions!

I use the acronym STARE W

S = Situational awareness. Think. Be aware of what is around you, and how it is developing, and how it will affect you. In a static situation like the home,keep thinking and re-evaluating your plan.

T = Train with all your weapons of choice. Create a layered defense, Become
proficient using your brain, hands, impact weapons, knives,and guns.
Think about other things that can be improvised weapon in a given
situation.

A = Avoid potential trouble. Blend in. Keep your mouth shut.

R = Remove yourself from the area, run, walk, drive.

E = Escape or evade from the problem, if you can

and the W is:

W = Win if fighting is your only option.

qwert65
March 15, 2009, 09:07 AM
Just my opinion bikerdoc, but could you combine R and E, and then make E eliminate the threat(to you not neccessarily to everyone) ?

Then you can get rid of the cumbersome W just MHO

hso
March 15, 2009, 09:29 AM
qwert65,

See posts 22 and 23 (wow, never try to post when you have influenza and a fever of 102!:o). A bat may be used in a less lethal manner AND most people who have come into BQ's ER with club wounds to the head did not survive while a much higher percentage of pistol shot patients recovered. Ask an ER nurse or MD which takes longer to recover from and produces more permanent disability, a gunshot wound or a shattered "pick your body part". I don't have any objective statistics, but my friends who work in ER an Surgery have all (all 5 of them) said that they'd rather have some punk shoot them than have some punk wail on them with a baseball bat.

Don't take my word for it if it seems too incredible. Ask your acquaintances who work in ER or Surgery their opinion.

qwert65
March 15, 2009, 09:47 AM
Hso, I cant find posts 65 and 66 I'm only post 30??
In my experience (I'm new at it) as a veternarian, I see lots of animals, HBC, stabbed, shot hit by sticks, etc. Since tissue is tissue medically speaking it really depends on the force and where hit for example (and this one supports your opinion) I saw a dog shot with a 22 to the skull, it was behaving normal(though I'm sure it had a headache)

Another dog this one a GSD was shot 3x with a 357, didnt hit anything vital and was fine.

I've also seen dogs get shot in the abdomen, face, and chest and taking out the face(shotgun) these injuries were much worse then if clubbed in that area. the one in the chest the bullet entered both lungs and exited the chest ribs might break from a bat and bruise some lungs but thats all. further if the bullet struck the heart it's game over

obvisouly any study is unscientific as glancing blows with both weapons are possible. further getting shot with a 22/25 is different then a 45/44 same as me swinging a bat compares to barry bonds swinging one.

they'd rather have some punk shoot them than have some punk wail on them with a baseball bat.

This I agree with but ask them if they would rather have some punk wail on them or get shot repeatdly. you cannot compare getting hit 10x in the head/chest vs a single hole it is completly different, compare to getting hit with one pellet from 00 or all 9 pellets.
Another thing to consider besides the amount hit is that dead ppl go to the morgue, this skews the stats of ppl shot in the head. I do not know if you are a hunter but would you rather hunt man size game with a bat or a handgun?

yay 500 posts!

pmeisel
March 15, 2009, 10:25 AM
I personally prefer a heavy walking stick, or a crowbar, both of which I am more likely to use for the purpose they were originally intended for than a baseball bat.

TimboKhan
March 15, 2009, 01:26 PM
if you take away head shots, i'll choose getting hit by a bat over shot every time

You ever been shot dude? I have, and I can tell you that it's maybe 50/50 if I would rather get shot again vice getting worked over with a bat. That is actually one of the reasons I am such a fan of the simple bat. So you know, I have been in situations where people were not afraid of guns but were terrified of getting whacked by an axe handle. I am not saying the bat is the equal or superior to the firearm, but it can be just as fearsome.

Jason_G
March 15, 2009, 01:57 PM
I was in the Sevierville County Hospital (I think that was the name of it) emergency room in Tennessee late one night after a friend got food poisoning on our trip.

I had been in there for hours and had already seen some interesting sights, when in come some EMTs with a fella whose face looked like raw hamburger. His shirt was thoroughly soaked with blood, and his eyes were completely swollen shut. A few minutes later the police came in with a young lady in a nightgown and house slippers. One of the cops was holding an aluminum T-ball bat.

I'll let you do the math.

Don't know whether it was SD or not, or if the guy lived, but he was sure messed up. And she was a little bitty thing.

Jason

Gunfighter123
March 15, 2009, 02:34 PM
In my "rough and tumble" days , many people called me Batman .

Now I carry a 2"x2"x 3 foot lenght of green outdoor type porch rail --- the squareness of it , causes more damage to skin and bone then a round object. A round object has more of a chance of "glanceing off " a hard round bone {think skull } while a sqr. or rect. will have the sharp corners more likey to "dig in".

I learned that myself while learning nunchucks and other Eskrima-type weapons = OUCH !!!!

hso
March 15, 2009, 03:39 PM
qwert65,

It may be that your observations as an animal doctor and those of the people doctors are different because of the way that the two see bats and guns used.

Humans rarely get shot more than a couple of times. The riddled with holes incidents are pretty rare. When folks start swinging with a bat they're almost always swinging for the head. That's why those defensive injuries to the arms are so common, people trying to protect the head. Once they connect with the head the damage is pretty massive.

I would think the few times a bat gets used on a dog, the angle of attack is pretty different from that of a human and that the targets are more general as opposed to focused on the head.

TK, you should talk to an SF buddy of mine that was in Somalia. He has a story about people there having nearly no fear of their weapons until a driver pulled out a "silver" bat and whacked one of the locals on the head to get him off the supply truck. The crowd reacted so immediately and strongly that the team had shot aluminum bats flown in ASAP. Crowd control became much easier after that.

qwert65
March 15, 2009, 05:46 PM
hso, that is a good point, animals are usually better at dodging and except for abuse cases usually only get hit once or twice. however I still would take a handgun over a bat anyday

Timbokhan, if you read post 31 I clearly state that there is a giant difference btw getting hit repeatley with a bat vs one gsw.

My only point was that a bat is not the equal to a handgun(or at least any in a service caliber) as was stated in an earlier post.

JShirley
March 15, 2009, 08:32 PM
The point is that it's idiotic to rely on deterrence

Excellent post, Ryan, that's my point exactly. If you are indeed facing a potentially lethal threat, you can never rely on having excess time. Which means by the time any firearm of mine is on my target, I'm going to be squeezing the trigger. By the same token, I don't plan on posturing menacingly ( :rolleyes: ) with any manual tool before I employ it defensively.

John

Grizfire
March 15, 2009, 09:24 PM
If someone comes after me with a bat, I like my chances of outrunning them. Most likely the perp will trip on his own, sagging, pair of pants, before he could ever get close enough to take a swing. One the other hand its kinda hard to out run gun fire.

Fight or flight instincts, of course, depend a lot on the particular situation, and your own physical abilities.

Grizfire
March 15, 2009, 09:29 PM
And to add to the thread, you could always get a fish bonker. They conceal a little better than a full size bat.

I like the lanyard on this one so that you can wrap it around your wrist, lessening the likely hood of it being taken away.

http://ny-image1.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.8157689.jpg

from...

http://www.etsy.com/view_listing.php?listing_id=6038219

22-rimfire
March 15, 2009, 09:52 PM
I have a small aluminum bat for knocking sharks in the head. Of course there aren't any sharks other than in the commercial aquariums here in TN. But, you know, you do have to watch out for those sand sharks, land sharks, and occasionally those snow sharks. They are spreading east from the Gulf Coast.

Jason_G
March 15, 2009, 10:03 PM
And to add to the thread, you could always get a fish bonker. They conceal a little better than a full size bat.

Yeah, those are nice, but fish bonkers/tire thumpers are not legal in all states IIRC. A Louisville Slugger is. You are right though, about the size being a little easier to stow away, as well as the lanyard.

Jason

nalioth
March 15, 2009, 11:08 PM
I like the lanyard on this one so that you can wrap it around your wrist, lessening the likely hood of it being taken away. The lanyard works both ways, if it's secured to your wrist.

TimboKhan
March 16, 2009, 12:04 AM
I would think the few times a bat gets used on a dog, the angle of attack is pretty different from that of a human and that the targets are more general as opposed to focused on the head.

Speaking for myself, I would have a little bit of a hard time cracking a dog with a bat. I mean, getting attacked sucks and I certainly will if I need to, but in the back of my head, I think I know that the dog is just being a dog. Maybe a mean dog, but a dog nevertheless. Humans that are in whacking distance are going to get cracked because they are purposefully, knowingly and with malice breaking societal norms. As they break them, so shall I.

As a general rule, I don't think most people really want to have to hit a dog. My suspicion is that most of us just sort of hope the dog will go away. For proof of my theory, I would suggest watching virtually any video of someone getting gnawed on. The general response is not to punch the dog, the general response is to shy away and avoid the bite. With some exceptions, watch any episode of Cops. Guys will turn into jelly immediately when the dog attacks. Not always of course, but most times.

Qwert, I saw the difference you spoke of and was addressing it from the point of view that most people that swing a bat aren't going to just do it once, but are going to whack away. If you want to compare one solid hit to the body v. one gunshot wound, it's hard to argue against what you are saying. If you want to argue headshot v. headbashing, not so much. Not to sound creepy or bloodthirsty or mall-ninjaish, but I guarantee you that if I put all (or even just most) of my considerable bulk behind a swing and connected with a guys head, he would be just as dead as if I shot him. As a general principle, I don't consider a gun any more or less dangerous than any other weapon. That may sound a little weird to you, but I don't. That isn't to say I don't consider them a superior weapon, because I do, just not inherently more dangerous. I mean, dead is dead. Bullets don't kill you any deader (nor, in many cases, any quicker) than a bat to the head, a sword through the heart or a sharp stick in your throat.

qwert65
March 16, 2009, 07:40 AM
Timbo khan I understand what you are saying now

Carl Levitian
March 16, 2009, 03:21 PM
I think a bat or other blunt forc e truma weapon will have a much faster effect than a bullet in some cases. And in some cases, dischargeing a firearm may not be in the cards. Crowded surroundings, danger to family members, shooting is not an option sometimes.

Also there are times one may have to have a weapon, but can't have a firearm. Traveling overseas, a student in a college dorm room, Landing in a airport in a non-firearms city.

The one time I had to defend a member of our family, it was a pit bull attack on our corgi. If I'd had a gun, I couldn't have used it anyways, since the pit was on top of my dog. I had no choice but to use a stout hornbeam hiking staff. I'd have ended up shooting my own dog with any gun.

From what I've read about past battles and weapon, blunt force seems to have been preffered. I suppose medevil peasants cold have carried a large dagger for defense, but the quarterstaff seemed to be most popular among those who traveled the king's highway.You may not even feel a really sharp bladed injury for a bit, but a crushing blow will cripple that hand/arm imediatly.

PaladinX13
March 16, 2009, 04:28 PM
This conversation is being carried out by- I suspect- largely healthy men. While I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a little old lady's cane either, I think the relevance of a gun as a self-defense tool is that it works for the infirmed, frail, and otherwise helpless better than any other tool which relies upon strength, aggression, and dexterity.

It is difficult for me to see a bat being used clinically (outside of psychopathic stoicism or martial arts mastery) and without anger, which its less-than-lethal (in many minds if not legal status) nature might invite its unwarranted use. I can see one being used out of desperation... but if we have guns, we ought to rely on those in such times.

To be clear, in the eyes of the law, the legal consequences of using a firearm are identical to using a bat in self-defense (barring sentencing factors - if you're using it in correlation with a drug sale, for example). A bat constitutes lethal force, just like a gun does. To flip the question, would you be justified in shooting a man coming at you with a club? Of course you would! So even if you mean to use your club as a less-than-lethal self-defense tool, the law will not treat it that way.

If you're contemplating a bat either as a covert means of self-defense or as a way of dealing less-than-lethal trauma over a firearm... those are bad reasons.

If otherwise disarmed, then you do the best with what you can, but improvised weaponry aren't more "innocent" legally than items traditionally deemed weapons.

Carl Levitian
March 16, 2009, 06:27 PM
["This conversation is being carried out by- I suspect- largely healthy men. While I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a little old lady's cane either, I think the relevance of a gun as a self-defense tool is that it works for the infirmed, frail, and otherwise helpless better than any other tool which relies upon strength, aggression, and dexterity.

It is difficult for me to see a bat being used clinically (outside of psychopathic stoicism or martial arts mastery) and without anger, which its less-than-lethal (in many minds if not legal status) nature might invite its unwarranted use. I can see one being used out of desperation... but if we have guns, we ought to rely on those in such times.

To be clear, in the eyes of the law, the legal consequences of using a firearm are identical to using a bat in self-defense (barring sentencing factors - if you're using it in correlation with a drug sale, for example). A bat constitutes lethal force, just like a gun does. To flip the question, would you be justified in shooting a man coming at you with a club? Of course you would! So even if you mean to use your club as a less-than-lethal self-defense tool, the law will not treat it that way.

If you're contemplating a bat either as a covert means of self-defense or as a way of dealing less-than-lethal trauma over a firearm... those are bad reasons.

If otherwise disarmed, then you do the best with what you can, but improvised weaponry aren't more "innocent" legally than items traditionally deemed weapons."]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well I for one am rated at 50% disabled by injuries from active duty. I know of a few others here that are advancing age. Then there was that pen that gave some very unexpected resistance to an attack for an old woman.

Guns are fine is you're allowed to have them. But some of us have the minfortune to live in a non CCW state. I'm not sure of the point of your post. Yes a gun is going to be better for aged or infirm people. But this is the "Non-firearms weapons" forum, so we explore other choices. There are some people who by geography, or other reason, cannot have a firearm. I very much doubt you will have yours if you get on a plane and land in New York or London, or Washington D.C., San Fransisco or....

As for a non firearm weapon appearing more innocent, I doubt that elderly lady would have had such an easy time walking away if she'd pulled a small J frame .38 and shot the guy. Most jurys would not have nailed her for anything, but she would still be out all the lawyers fee's and court time it took to get her off. Not to mention living with it afterward. If there is a less than leathal way to get rid of a low life, it's okay to do so. The keyboard comando will never really know what it's like to see the light in someones go out forever, even ifit is a thug attacking you. For most people it can be a good thing to avoid it. Pull the trigger on anyone, and see the trouble that comes knocking vs jabbing someone in the gut with a cane or swinging a bat at an intruder in a dorm room. There's a whole world of difference in what is used. Using a cane, or bat, or pen, or any other household item, has way more plausible deniability attached to it than using a trusty 1911 on someone. In the case of a bat or cane or like, there's a definate possabiltiy there will be no police involvement at all. If the intruder runs off, all's well. Drop an intuder with a gun, and your legal problems have just begun, like it or not. Those troubles can haunt you for years to come. again, even if you win, it's going to cost lots of bucks for the lawyers.

I've noticed that among people in CCW states, too often the only responce they can come up with is the "pull my gun and shoot them" routine. I'm sure the law firms love it.

There's a galaxy of differnce from hitting someone with a bat, to shooting and killing them with a gun.

PaladinX13
March 16, 2009, 07:40 PM
Carl, no disrespect meant, by the way... below, I may use words like "absurd" or "fantasy", but I do not mean to impeach you personally, only a specific and narrow point - that when the intentions and results of justifiable "crimes" occur, the legal consequences are the same irrespective of the platform (and might even be more serious, with respect to intent, for blunt trauma)... thus given the legal option and the unquestionable efficacy of firearms over bats, one should think hard before opting for the latter.

There are some people who by geography, or other reason, cannot have a firearm. I very much doubt you will have yours if you get on a plane and land in New York or London, or Washington D.C., San Fransisco or....Despite this all of your following text contrasts not the legal availability of a gun to a blunt instrument, but its efficacy as an alternative. To that end, it's an absurdity with which you're stacking all the variables into a neat little fantasy.

Crimes are punished based on intent and results. These definitions are either statutorily fixed or rest in a large and old body of common law not likely to change merely because of your individual circumstances. The jury's range of discretion is far more limited than you proffer. If we are to do a fair comparison, it must be like for like, not your absurd examples where the biddy ends up before an unsympathetic jury while your fantasy baseball bat ninja deftly slinks away unreported.

The lowest level of defense is deterrence. A gun on the biddy's hip or a reputation for carrying will do more for her than her cane will. If anything, the latter marks her as infirmed and prey that can neither escape or give chase.

The next level of defense which can give rise to offense is brandishing. Once again, brandishing a firearm is a greater deterrence to any marginally rationally minded criminal than waving a cane around. If the criminal is not rationally minded at all, then deterrence is irrelevant irrespective of your weapon choice. If the criminal has some special knowledge that biddy would be willing to cane him, but not shoot and therefore attacks when he sees the gun but not a cane, he might have a rational reason, but biddy does not.

The legal consequences of shooting and using a weapon that legally constitutes deadly force is identical in an assault, manslaughter, or murder. Whether she brandishes, assaults, or kills. For a lay-person to effectively stop with a blunt instrument, requires more aggression than a firearm. The first blow must be decisive or the subsequent blows must make up for the shortage. The same can be said of firearms, however, repeated shots are routinely disclaimed in court more effectively than repeated blows. The jury has more freedom to question the intentionality of trigger pulls than baton swings. Repeated blows is the textbook example of malice which can factor into intent even if the result (death) with either weapon is the same.

In the use of force continuum, blunt instruments are only a shade under firearms because of their capacity for death or permanent injury (and again, because of the intentionality built into their usage), and gambling on that slight distinction as reason to justify the less effective weapon is both fool hearty and what antis do to justify gun bans. Even law enforcement, who are trained in the force continuum, routinely make mistakes in which to use... is it any wonder that most nightsticks have been phased out and ASP training is less emphasized than tasers or OC.

I've noticed that among people in CCW states, too often the only responce they can come up with is the "pull my gun and shoot them" routine. I'm sure the law firms love it.Hah, I live in Jersey. Until recently, we had one of the least forgiving Castle Doctrines in the nation (for example, an abused spouse would not be able to resort to self-defense unless literally backed into a wall... if she defended herself in an open area like the living room, she would not be entitled to argue self-defense). In fact, it's the reverse. The more adverse a state is to gun ownership, the more likely they are to perceive and statutorily codify other items or improvised objects as weapons constituting deadly force.

One should not kid themselves into believing non-firearms are somehow "innocent" before the law. If the result is the same, it's the same. If you justifiably brandish a gun to prevent a crime, you face exactly the same charges someone waving a bat does. The same if you assault or kill. And frankly, if you really believe you're in such great peril of random crime, you might as well use the gun so we can get the good press... otherwise, antis are fully justified in saying we can defend ourselves otherwise.

In terms of practical effects... certainly guns are more effective stoppers, which is why police & military use them and why we fight so hard for our right to have them, as opposed to our right to practice kung-fu.

Again, all of the above presumes the gun is a legal alternative, which is what you debated. If it is not a legal alternative, you can elect to follow a moral imperative or do your best within the confines of the law, but that has nothing to do with the legal consequences of a gun v. improvised weapon.

TimboKhan
March 16, 2009, 08:40 PM
If you're contemplating a bat either as a covert means of self-defense or as a way of dealing less-than-lethal trauma over a firearm... those are bad reasons.

If otherwise disarmed, then you do the best with what you can, but improvised weaponry aren't more "innocent" legally than items traditionally deemed weapons.

Excellent points, but speaking for myself, less than lethal isn't the idea. If someone invades my home, there are no "less-than-lethal" options, nor am I particularly interested in implementing any outside of a dog as a warning system, and maybe a one-time, non-negotiable, immediately complied with "Get out of my house right now" (situations may vary on the verbal warning".

I think what we are saying, generally, is that in a self-defense situation it does in fact look better if your using ye olden Louisville Slugger v. a two-handed viking broadsword. Of course you are right: Dead is dead is dead, and it don't much matter how you got there. In the eyes of a jury, a bat is a weapon of opportunity, a sword is a pre-meditated implement of death. Mas Ayoob has commented several times on perception being the key to a verdict in cases he was involved with, and a bat has a relatively low "threat" perception.

PaladinX13
March 16, 2009, 09:44 PM
"Weapon of opportunity" is not a legal concept and is instead typically used to describe the modus operandi of psychopaths who kill without provocation (and thus no premeditation in weapon selection). Defense is justified by the amount used not the method chosen.

The fear of weapon perception, within reason, is mostly unjustified. The only way "premeditation" enters the picture as an issue is where you basically lured the victim to you to kill them, which would require a pretty extraordinary set of facts to substantiate (and, if they can even make that case out, your priority should be living differently rather than bat or not).

In addition, Prosecutors are forbidden from prejudicing the jury with irrelevant information not tied to the substantive charge... or attempting to confuse the legal issue. As there's no legal difference between a sword or bat, if the prosecutor tries to do it, he can be subject to discipline, disbarred, and end up granting you mistrial (where they're unlikely to retry you) or appeal.

Perception's largest role is in the discretion of the LEOs and Prosecutor, who out of personal prejudice or discretion may elect to charge you or not. If it "smells" wrong to them, they might arrest/charge when another weapon would otherwise cause them to let you go even if technically identical under the law. But when you're at the level of a baseball bat, you're so far along the force continuum that it's unlikely they're going to turn a blind eye. This'll vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the circumstances, of course, but it's a narrow and unpredictable distinction not worth betting on. You do not have a presumptively valid use of a baseball bat as a weapon while swords or "bad" guns are presumptively invalid.

The law doesn't work that way and if it did we'd basically be living in a country where justice was meted out by dice roll. Results are far more consistent than that... and realistically, in either case, if the prosecutor doesn't exonerate you, it'll come down to a mechanical plea or settlement (if civil). There might be the odd case that is extraordinarily unjust or abnormal for that rare person who decides to gamble with a jury that isn't properly instructed... but those are so rare and would be like assuming every criminal case ended up like OJs and every civil case was like multi-million dollar suit against dry cleaners for one missing pair of pants. And you can't structure your life around those outcomes otherwise you'd never leave your house in anything less than Class III armor and drive to work in an Abrams.

bad_aim_billy
March 16, 2009, 10:44 PM
Never thought a thread about baseball bats would cause so much dissension in the ranks. Pretty sad, imho... :(

Smith
March 16, 2009, 11:25 PM
Remember to keep a ball and glove with the bat, especially in your car.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but what would be the point of the ball and glove? Is there some law against carrying a bat in your car? Also, it seems to me that if a person followed the quoted advice and was forced to use the bat for self defense, he would be in much worse shape when evidence surfaced that he did not play baseball, but carried the ball and glove for the sole purpose of misleading police officers than if he had carried the bat with no ball and glove. (This, of course, is not applicable if you play baseball.)

pmeisel
March 17, 2009, 12:09 AM
Well, I think aluminum sucks. The kids should play with wood bats like I did.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 17, 2009, 02:15 PM
I think Paladin's reasoning is very persuasive, by and large; thanks for the excellent responses Paladin and Carl and others.

There is no doubt that blows to the head can be and are quite deadly, and that a bat is a deadly weapon. Yes, it MAY be used as a "less-lethal" weapon if the user chooses to so employ it by avoiding blows to the head. But a gun MAY also be used in the same way as a club - either are still lethal/deadly weapons.

I want one just in case the ammo runs out or gun jams! :)

JohnKSa
March 17, 2009, 05:18 PM
I'd carry a large flashlight before I'd carry a bat. Everyone should have a big maglite in their car or by their nightstand/front door.

orionhawk
March 17, 2009, 10:08 PM
Smith - yes, in some cases there is in fact a law. Specifically, I seem to recall in South Carolina that a baseball bat possessed without a glove/ball (or other baseball gear) is subject to confiscation.

anyone checked out Cold Steel Cutlery's polyurethane bats?

Smith
March 18, 2009, 03:04 AM
Smith - yes, in some cases there is in fact a law. Specifically, I seem to recall in South Carolina that a baseball bat possessed without a glove/ball (or other baseball gear) is subject to confiscation.


Ah, well in that case I understand.

TimboKhan
March 18, 2009, 11:13 AM
Paladin, you make a well stated argument that to a certain degree I just happen to disagree with. I mean, I don't think you are wrong, but I don't know that you are entirely right. Well, whatever.

jack the toad
March 19, 2009, 02:26 AM
I haven't held one but saw them advertised. I think Cold Steel has a poly bat called the Brooklyn Crusher or something like that. It's not for baseball.

red_metallic
March 19, 2009, 10:20 AM
Let's avoid suggesting "Thunderdome" silliness.

Darn it, I was just gearing up to deliver my chainsaw hypothesis!

The bat I bought that I think would be handy for self-defense

Is a bat being considered instead of a non-lethal alternative such as a chemical deterrent? I'd certainly grab a bat if that was the only thing at hand, but a bat sure puts me up close & in the kill zone if my assailant has some hidden weaponry. A chemical deterrent at least has some reach. (I know, there is no guarantee it will be effective.)

I guess the way I'd think about a modified bat is along the lines of keeping your custom defense handloads in your carry weapon vs. factory ones. Great until you shoot someone and end up in civil court long after being cleared in criminal court.

Plaintiff's Attorney -

"I point to Mr. X at the defendant's table. Not content with professionally loaded, commercial material, he concocted homemade ammunition to wound, to mame, TO DESTROY......! We cannot make the plaintiff whole after the vicious & inappropriate attack upon his person but we can make him more comfortable......"

(Insert bat w/ nails in place of handloads above.)

RyanM
March 19, 2009, 01:55 PM
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/426608ab8c/bat-fight

JImbothefiveth
March 19, 2009, 02:46 PM
There is no doubt that blows to the head can be and are quite deadly, and that a bat is a deadly weapon. Yes, it MAY be used as a "less-lethal" weapon if the user chooses to so employ it by avoiding blows to the head. But a gun MAY also be used in the same way as a club - either are still lethal/deadly weapons.
A club blow to the arm or ribs probably isn't lethal. A shot, anywhere is potentially lethal, due to bleeding. Although it won't stop someone quickly, a shot to the foot is still legally considered lethal force. Now maybe if you're immobilized and someone is running at you from 100 yards with a knife, and you know you can hit the foot and make a quick second shot if that doesn't work, I could see that. If you have to use a firearm, though, you probably need a stop right now.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 19, 2009, 03:02 PM
I really wanted to focus in this thread primarily on the ERGONOMICs of bats/clubs - what LENGTHs and WEIGHTs do you find the best tradeoff of feel/speed to weight/devastation?'

That's where I intended to go with this thread. Any thoughts on that subject? But it's been a good discussion nevertheless.

General Geoff
March 19, 2009, 04:18 PM
Going back to the first page about the argument against putting nails into a baseball bat. Question: How would that compare to using a purpose-built morning star in a defensive scenario? The two devices are effectively the same, but the morning star was designed and constructed with the spikes in place. Would its use be any more or less defensible in a court of law than a modified nail bat?


edit; sorry Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow, for the slight derailment revisitation. :o

indoorsoccerfrea
March 19, 2009, 04:27 PM
I would say speed is more important...in baseball what enables you to hit the ball farther is bat speed, not the weight. I could take a bat that weighs a 1000 lbs and tap you with it, but it won't do anything. If I take a bat that weighs 1 lb and hit you with it as hard as I can, it is going to do some serious damage.
I say pick the lightest bat that gives you good reach. longer the better.

7X57chilmau
March 19, 2009, 05:08 PM
A long bat slows the movements just as badly as a heavy one. Short and light would be my choices....

And personal pref. would have me swingin' a wooden one. No "magic" in aluminum. No soul. LOL. :)

I'd choose a bat in the 24-28" range, wooden, with a grip fat enough for my meat hooks. I could then adjust the weight (and thus speed) to my personal wishes by counterboring the fat end. If I needed it heavier, I'd bore and cast lead.

I won't do either, tho. A decent stick will serve me just fine, if it comes to hittin'..

"Kid! Git Daddy his hittin' stick!"

J

JShirley
March 19, 2009, 06:22 PM
It's not quite true that a long bat slows movement- or rather, it's true, but deceptive. A longer lever exerts more leverage.

John

sm
March 19, 2009, 06:47 PM
<raises hand>

Are we to the part: Aluminum versus Wood in this thread yet?

Put me down for wood if we are. Aluminum just sounds wrong when it hits stuff.

*blue-n-wood baby, blue-n-wood*

Jason_G
March 19, 2009, 07:29 PM
<raises hand>

Are we to the part: Aluminum versus Wood in this thread yet?

Put me down for wood if we are. Aluminum just sounds wrong when it hits stuff.

*blue-n-wood baby, blue-n-wood*

ROFL! :D

Jason

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
March 19, 2009, 07:40 PM
OK, Yes, go ahead and include wooden bats, too, please.

But talk about weight/length/ergos - go!

RyanM
March 19, 2009, 10:56 PM
It's not quite true that a long bat slows movement- or rather, it's true, but deceptive. A longer lever exerts more leverage.

Why do people keep saying leverage? It's really not true at all. Now, if you hold a bat with one hand way at the end, and your other hand 6" from the striking end, then yes, you would have a ton of actual leverage. However, gripping a bat normally (for a swing, rather than a thrust), you have almost no leverage at all. Try pushing a heavy object using the bat, with your hands in different places. You need to space them wide apart to get any leverage at all.

A longer bat, for the same weight, gives you more speed, potentially. For a given weight and moment of inertia, the angular velocity of a bat swing will be the same. And for a given angular velocity, the speed at the tip will be greater for a longer bat.

elmerfudd
March 19, 2009, 11:20 PM
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/426608ab8c/bat-fight

That was one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time.

earlthegoat2
March 19, 2009, 11:32 PM
Two Words: Brooklyn Crusher

General Geoff
March 19, 2009, 11:36 PM
Why do people keep saying leverage? It's really not true at all. Now, if you hold a bat with one hand way at the end, and your other hand 6" from the striking end, then yes, you would have a ton of actual leverage. However, gripping a bat normally (for a swing, rather than a thrust), you have almost no leverage at all. Try pushing a heavy object using the bat, with your hands in different places. You need to space them wide apart to get any leverage at all.

A longer bat, for the same weight, gives you more speed, potentially. For a given weight and moment of inertia, the angular velocity of a bat swing will be the same. And for a given angular velocity, the speed at the tip will be greater for a longer bat.

Third class lever. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#Third-class_levers) Since energy is mass times velocity squared, that means a baseball bat drastically multiplies deliverable energy on a target. This happens through leverage.

Gunfighter123
March 19, 2009, 11:44 PM
I like "blunt trama" type weapons to be the same length as the Eskrima stiks I train with ---- distance from the inner armpit to the finger tips if arm in at your side.

For me , this allows either a one or two handed grip. I also put grip tape on bats etc. to keep your hands from slipping off during a full power swing.

I also prefer a lighter weight , around 16-22 oz. rather then a sledgehammer weight.

pmeisel
March 19, 2009, 11:57 PM
really wanted to focus in this thread primarily on the ERGONOMICs of bats/clubs - what LENGTHs and WEIGHTs do you find the best tradeoff of feel/speed to weight/devastation?'

That's where I intended to go with this thread.

Highly personal to the wielder. My wife is short and compact but strong. Couldn't handle a long bat very well but on a short one the weight wouldn't matter. I am tall, wide and strong, could easily wield the largest.

For the general population, I would favor a short bat for ease of one-handed use. The longer bat gives reach and speed, but only if you successfully connect, squarely.

jbkebert
March 20, 2009, 12:04 AM
Well I can give feedback as to the effectiveness of a baseball bat as a weapon or unintended one. My wife and I just got home with our three year daughter after spending 5 hours in the ER. My two boys were playing baseball earlier this afternoon. Our three year old daughter decided to play catcher and was hit in the right temple by my 9 year old son with a 30 oz eastman. It did not knock her out or anything like that but the hospital went ahead and did a CT scan. They sent us home saying she might have a mild concusion from the blow. So yeah they can knock the crap out of someone real darn easy.

Gunfighter123
March 20, 2009, 12:44 AM
Jbert --------- glad your little girl is not hurt badly and that she is home with you and your family.

TimboKhan
March 20, 2009, 01:34 AM
Suckily, I just found out that one of the kids that I work with probably won't be getting his GED, if he even manages to live. Not unsurprisingly, he was worked over with a bat last Sunday while participating in a gang rumble, and as of about 20 minutes ago, he is still in a coma and is still barely clinging to life. Even if he does live, he has experienced injuries that are life-changing.

dvcrsn
March 20, 2009, 01:36 AM
Dr Tad--in terms of weight and length--it really depends on strength and practice to find what works for you--I tend to alternate between 2 sticks--the one I have carried the most is a 54 inch long hickory walking stick from Whistle Creek and my more "dressy" alternative is the African walking stick from Cold Steel (they have several types of very strong sticks designed for support and defensive use). Both work well for me because even when I am the size I should be--you are looking at between 67 and 68 inches in height and 200lbs (in college I was benching well over 300lb and am still fairly powerful) and on a bad knee, I can always justify a cane (harder to justify for a 15 year old jock in a gang area)--but for most people something like the African walking stick works well because the big knob on the top makes a good pommel to counterbalance the shaft to make it easier to use sabre fashion (and use the knob to punch with instead of your fist) or reverse it and use the knob like a hammer grasping the middle of the shaft at a point that gives you the best balance of speed and reach

sm
March 20, 2009, 02:06 AM
TimboKhan,

I am sorry to hear about one of your kids.
Sending best...

Steve

TimboKhan
March 20, 2009, 02:30 AM
Thanks, man. Like I said, it isn't surprising. Sad, but not surprising. This kid was a pretty big challenge and was an active gangbanger. Underneath it all, he was a pretty good kid, but he just had a hard, hard view of what life is and how to live it, and those beliefs jumped up and bit him.

PTK
March 20, 2009, 02:56 AM
This kid was a pretty big challenge and was an active gangbanger. Underneath it all, he was a pretty good kid, but he just had a hard, hard view of what life is and how to live it, and those beliefs jumped up and bit him.

All too common, but nevertheless that's not something I'd wish on anyone. I'll be praying for him. :(

7X57chilmau
March 20, 2009, 08:47 AM
Ouch, Timbo.... My sister and her husband spend much of their time working with troubled youth.... I've seen their pain when they "loose" one....

J

bikerdoc
March 20, 2009, 10:12 AM
Sorry Tim, Had same experience when I was The RN at a Juvenile detention facility. Kid got straight, got out, did good in school, then one day got killed on the street by a bat. It hurts to loose one.

On topic - I have avoided this thread because I dont own a bat. I walk with a cane and know how to use it.
Nuff said.

jbkebert
March 20, 2009, 10:44 AM
Timbo sorry to hear about your student. I will keep him in my prayers.

hso
March 20, 2009, 10:57 AM
TK,

Sorry.

TimboKhan
March 20, 2009, 09:01 PM
Thanks dudes. I appreciate the thoughts.

JShirley
March 20, 2009, 11:14 PM
Sorry, Timbo. :( I have a few kids that I know aren't on the straight and narrow, but whom I can't help loving.


Back to bats- I can use a stick any number of ways. The shorter bats are handier, and the longer bats are stronger~ but I'm not sure it matters unless your attacker has a long manual weapon, as well. If you're the defender in your house, you're probably good, there.

John

RyanM
March 21, 2009, 01:37 AM
Actually, never mind. Previous statement isn't going to lead to anyone figuring out how physics actually works.

cliffy
March 21, 2009, 01:41 AM
Aluminum can dent, so I like a Louisville Slugger wooden bat. Titanium won't dent, but I can't find one anywhere. cliffy

Deltaboy
March 21, 2009, 01:23 PM
I have used a LS when I was a young man in a couple of street figths between rival HS.

I perfer wood! Short T ball bats.

Duke of Doubt
March 21, 2009, 02:37 PM
sm: "Are we to the part: Aluminum versus Wood in this thread yet?"

Since Post #6.

hso
March 21, 2009, 11:58 PM
Nunh,unh. Let's not drift too far off topic.

TimboKhan
March 22, 2009, 01:47 AM
U HAZ TAKEN MY CONSTITUTIONAL RI....

Oh, wait. No you didn't. Sorry.

stickwhistler
March 22, 2009, 04:37 AM
Hi, please forgive my intrusion, but I found this article
that may help decide aluminium -v- wood.

www.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/alumwood.html

I confess that I wouldn't like to be hit with either!:uhoh:

JShirley
March 23, 2009, 12:56 AM
Welcome, and thanks for the link. :)

John

Duke of Doubt
March 23, 2009, 06:46 PM
Let's settle this, DeNiro-style.

"A man become pre-eminent, he is expected to have enthusiasms ...":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc9zF8G2Pvc&feature=related

hso
March 23, 2009, 09:59 PM
Thanks, stickwhistler and welcome.

mulletguter
March 23, 2009, 10:56 PM
I carry the Boone Bat in my truck and one on the boat. Never had to use the one in the truck, but killed plenty of big fish with the one on the boat.


http://www.captharry.com/product/Gaffs-Harpoons-Tag-Sticks-Harpoons-Tag-Sticks-Bats/Boone-Bat/Gaffs,/925.html Boone Bat

Another good one

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/producte/10001/-1/10001/35322?&cid=chanintel&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=35322 Fish Bat

memphisjim
March 23, 2009, 11:05 PM
rusted nails work best

JShirley
March 24, 2009, 12:48 AM
Give it a rest already. If that's a joke, not everyone knows it, and some are dumb enough to think it's a good idea.

sm
March 24, 2009, 01:32 AM
stickwhistler,

Welcome to THR, and thanks for the link.

Reasons I was partial to wood bats, include having used various sizes as a mandrel in working metals.

Often times we removed the "cap" if you will at the handle and this allowed whatever we need to slip onto a wooden mandrel allowing us to straighten/ round it out.
The wood did not mar the metals or whatever we were using with such mandrels.

Naturally, if a situation came up, just using whatever was handy, includes these ball bat/mandrels.

Hence the reason we obtained cracked and broken bats, these we could "fix", or "adapt" for other mandrel needs.


Interesting thing came out when I was very young. Wood retains blood and marks.
I mention this as there was situation where an abusive husband came in to do harm to his wife and kids.
They were separated, [judge hinted real heavy this was a good idea] so I cannot say there was a restraining order or not, still the husband was asked to stay away.

Granted everyone knew the situation with this family, still the wooden bat had supporting evidence.

Husband busted glass to gain entry as the locks had been changed. Glass was embedded in the bat.

In the course of this "heated interaction" , husband sets down the bat. Wife gets bat and the marks of where she deflected a serrated knife he came at her with, were on the bat.

Then she hauled off and knocked him flat as a fritter with a 10" cast iron skillet.
Up and under his chin...

Needless to say, divorce was easy, even in times where divorce was not a popular, in fact frowned on.
In this situation though...nobody blamed the wife for filing for divorce.

Still the bat had supporting evidence to assist.

Yes, the husband tried to make it look as she went after him...
Thankfully the kids were spending the night with some other kids for a sleep over.


Use Enough Cast Iron

turkeythigh
March 27, 2009, 05:42 AM
well i am going to go back to the actual topic at hand. the use of a baseball bat as a self defense weapon. it is a good one. it is light, well balanced, and easy to use even by the most in experienced of users. all in all a good tool of self defense. and i think the whole nails in your bat legality thing does depend largly on local laws. so if you want to do it i recommend that you check your state and local laws on the matter before you do.

bikerdoc
March 27, 2009, 06:09 AM
Back in the day of 64 mustangs I was a pretty good ballplayer. Passed it on to my son, who was scouted but choose swimming as his ticket to to a full ride to college.
Now I got the granddaughters practicing T ball with plastic bats.

Whats my point, take those bats and go teach a kid how to play ball.

KBT1911
March 27, 2009, 02:28 PM
Before you can say in legal terms that you are "defending yourself" by clubbing someone stupid with a bat? That's my question. I know in Texas you can be accused of possessing a deadly weapon just for having a bat in your car without a legit reason (like "I'm on my way to practice"). I could see if it was a home invasion and the bat just happened to be there, but in that case, I'd rather have a Mossberg 500 than a bat.

JShirley
March 27, 2009, 04:53 PM
You may not be able to get the perfect homerun hit on that home invader...but then again, you might. A single blow to an intruder would certainly be very defensible in court. Even multiple hits could be defensible if the threat was still threatening.

John

sm
March 27, 2009, 05:50 PM
I'm partial to 28" hickory axe handles myself.
Useful for all sorts of stuff around the house, barn, shed, property...
Even a cracked one, glued a bit and wrapped with electrical tape is useful.

i.e.
Instead of just reaching first, check first with the axe handle in the garden, corner of a barn, shed.
Just reach in the weeds to find a kid's ball, and then just knock it on out...
The design works great for tightening a fan belt or similar, and it does not mar the other stuff under a hood or machinery.
Prop a door open.
Checking air pressure...
Messing with barbed wire...
Messing with electrical fence, or needing to move a downed wire out of the way....

Nothing wrong with a 48" axe handle, just 28" is a bit more quicker.
It has enough reach to get a fella with a locking 4" hunting knife, to quit doing what he was doing.
Then again, with two broken bones, he had to quit doing a number of things for a bit.

Small town police and deputy Sheriff, ain't got a problem with a hickory axe handle.
They have been known to tote one around the small town baseball field...
keep one handy in a squad car, around their home and property...

I need to pick me up another 28" one, a cracked one will work, if'n I can run across one.

GregGry
March 28, 2009, 06:54 AM
Modification of clubs is a waste of time and can result in your self-defense claim going out the window and you ending up being charged with a homicide. Establishing intent is much easier when your club looks like something from Hollywood.

This is completely wrong. This is why:

Find a court case where the weapon a person used was used to prove they were guilty. Over 2 years on this site, and hundreds of hours of research in law and I have never run across such a thing.

A bat will be considered deadly force if its within its delivery system range and used in the manor that could cause death or great bodily harm. If someone is 10 feet away and has a bat (at the ready) and is advancing towards you (with the obvious intent) then you have a case of someone trying to use deadly force on you.

Almost anything can be used to kill another person. Some things are more lethal then others in the deadly force category (or should I say the chance of survival varies). Adding nails to a bat increases its chances of causing death or great bodily harm. Mainly because the nails could easily puncture the heart/lungs/arteries/etc. However making it a more effective weapon does not change the fact that it is considered deadly force when used with intent.

The weapon you use, be it a bat with nails, a plain bat, or a truck, can't be used as evidence that a person is guilty of murder. If you were justified in swinging a bat at someone's head, then you would be just as justified with swinging a bat with 20 spikes in it. The law doesn't state that there are multiple levels of deadly force, and your only allowed to use certain levels against certain threats (such as level 1 for bats, level 2 for bats with nails, level 3 for guns, level 4 for vehicles, level 5 for bombs, etc). If you are faced with a deadly force threat, you can counter that with deadly force of your own, be it a bat with nails or a plain bat.

There is one possible potential problem with putting nails in a bat. Much like how an baton an officer uses is not considered deadly force when used as trained (the training requires the baton to be aimed below the waist in most cases). If a person were to take a blow to the head and die from a baton (say if the person were to lunge during the swing, which resulted in them being hit in the head) the officer will likely be in the clear because the intent wasn't there. In the case of a bat, the question of the bat being capable of causing death or great bodily harm is easier to answer with nails in it, even if the bat is small. Even so a standard bat could easily cause great bodily harm or death, and its far more capable of doing such things then a baton.

Any remote/knife edge/cliff hanging/1 in a million chance you have of convincing a jury that you swinging a standard louisville slugger was in a manner that would normally not cause death or great bodily harm (Such as in a case where you claim you were using the bat with the intent to keep a person back, and not in a way that that would cause death or great bodily harm) would likely be eliminated with nails since the chance for death or great bodily harm is much higher with nails. Again thats going to be hard because your average person swinging a bat full tilt at a average person could easily cause great bodily harm at a minimum even with swings to places other then the face.

The reality is you shouldn't use a bat to combat anything other then a deadly force threat. You also shouldn't put nails in your bat because it really wont help you a much. A mace is even worse since with minimum training you would likely be hard pressed not to tenderize yourself.

rwehnau
March 28, 2009, 07:15 AM
http://www.coldsteel.com/brooklynsmasher.html

"What kid, let alone an adult, wouldn’t want an unbreakable bat? Now Cold Steel is proud to offer you our first forays into the manufacturing of athletic equipment, the Brooklyn Smasher® and the Brooklyn Crusher®."

bikerdoc
March 28, 2009, 08:54 AM
rwehnau
\welcome to THR

JShirley
March 28, 2009, 06:16 PM
The weapon you use, be it a bat with nails, a plain bat, or a truck, can't be used as evidence that a person is guilty of murder.

True enough- but it can prove malice aforethought (mens rea is real and I can find court cases to demonstrate its use ;) )and it may be illegal. If you had to choose between weapons that are approximately equal in effectiveness, and one was legal, and one was not, you'd be a fool to deliberately choose the illegal one.

John

JShirley
March 28, 2009, 06:18 PM
The weapon you use, be it a bat with nails, a plain bat, or a truck, can't be used as evidence that a person is guilty of murder.

Perhaps- but it can prove malice aforethought (mens rea is real and I can find court cases to demonstrate its use ;) )and it may be illegal. If you had to choose between weapons that are approximately equal in effectiveness, and one was legal, and one was not, you'd be a fool to deliberately choose the illegal one.

John

Dimis
March 28, 2009, 09:39 PM
louisville slugger 32 inch ash not metal no spikes=Perfection

as for the proving in court blah blah blah if someone attempts to harm me or my family be damned the law untill im actualy in that court room ill use a scud missle if i had it handy and ill smile in the court room when they ask why i used it because i defended my stake in this world by any means neccessary

bikerdoc
March 28, 2009, 10:46 PM
Please god just let this thread fade into oblivion. The horse is dead

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's talk aluminum baseball bats" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!