Medicare/Old Age Self Defense

[blindhari]

I was looking at NAA vs knife thread and subject of disability came up. Me I am just getting old, medicare this year. When I joined the Army I could handle every weapon issued in the 60's. When I got out I could still handle anything but had a 22 single six, a 20 ga and a 270 win. After some thought I obtained a 65-5 S&W and used it for 20 years as self defense weapon. As I reached 55 I could no longer shoot it for the amount of practice I wanted, bad wrist. I then checked out what was available and bought a 9mm. 5 years later I had the same problem with the 9, I bought 2 light j frame snubs and started loading Trailboss for practice and full loads for carry. Surgery not long ago and 2 snubs are too much to carry full time. I am purchasing a NAA revolver as back up to one 38sp. I have had at least one knife on me since 1966 more as a tool than self defense. I carried a Gerber Mk1 in the Army, now I carry a Buck 135 lightning. I have also needed a cane on occasion since the Army and have studied Irish/English stick fighting. So as an old decrepit man, I will have;
1 38 snub
2 NAA revolver
3 Buck 135 Lightning
4 An oak Brazos cane
5 A cell phone

This is my answer to getting older and slower, less heavy firearms and a layered defense. I am technicaly disabled, most of my gastric system is gone, eyesight used to be better, arthritic knees, arthritic wrists. Still I don't intend to ever be defenseless.
I am curious though as to the solutions anyone else has come up with to overcome phsical limitations. All and any advice appreciated,

blindhari

 

[Serenity]

I am fairly young but do have a physical limitation. Due to a surgery and subsequent therapy I have a very vulnerable area of my body where I can barely stand any pressure, let alone take a hit. Probably similar to the 'boys', for you guys. I have recently acknowledged that attitude and mindset can't make up completely for limitations in physical soundness.

My question is; are there any of you with really bad backs (to the point that they can't take pressure from a belt) and if so; how do you carry?

 

[theicemanmpls]

bug spray

In the house, instead of putting a firearm in every room, (a practice I don't understand) we have a can of this bug spray on every level.

The makers claim it will spray 29 feet straight up. Spray this in the bad guys face, make your getaway.

Black Flag Wasp, Hornet, Yellow Jacket & Scorpion Killer under $4.

http://www.blackflag.com/Wasps/Wasp-Hornet-Yellow-Jacket-Scorpion-Killer

 

[aaronu]

Howdy,

Naturally first would be situational awareness. Don't make yourself a target and all that stuff. I'm sure you're fully aware of this; I'm just trying to think it through as I type.

Second, maybe get a tactical flashlight. They don't have to cost a fortune. Something like a Quark Turbo on 2xAA batteries, fairly high output with good throw, and eats common batteries. The light can be programmed for two light outputs -- one with the head tight and one with it loosened a bit. Set up tight for the highest output and loose for medium, which will give you a lot of light but not enough to blind anyone (yourself included). Keep it set to high output so all you have to do to light someone up is push the tailcap button.

Next up might be pepper spray but as I don't carry the stuff I can't make an informed recommendation on it.

Not so sure about the NAA mini. I assume it is .22LR mini-revolver and not a Black Widow, Mini-Master or a long barreled model like the Earl? One of those might make more sense for your backup gun. Even in the best of times at mini won't be useful much past handshake range. It has such a small grip that it's less easy to control. My father is no spring chicken either. He cannot close his hand around a .22LR mini. The first (and last) time he went to shoot mine, it literaly just fell out of his hand when he went to aim it. He would probably be OK with the .22 Magnum model since it has a larger grip frame.

Also with the mini, you may find yourself having to adjust your grip after cocking the thing, not so good for follow up shots. If you are really sold on the NAA mini, I suggest you look at the NAA website for some aftermarket grips. They have slightly larger, rubber grips for $18 on sale right now. Check on the NAA forum as well. There is an engineer on there (Cvang) making larger grips on a CNC machine and people on the forums really seem to like them.

All that said, I might suggest passing on the mini and looking at a Beretta 21A. It is a bit larger but much easier to hold onto, very reliable and it is semiauto. Since it has a tip-up barrel, you don't have to rack the slide.

Another thought for a backup would be a medium caliber derringer. If you're close enough to use a mini, ask yourself if you'll have time to get off more than a few shots anyway, especially if you're shooting a .22 out of a 1-1/8" barrel. I wouldn't stand in front of one but it's not very powerful relative to most other choices. It might be better to pack a somewhat larger derringer in .38 Special. That way at least your (two) shots might count for more. Something to consider.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Respectfully,

Aaron

 

[aaronu]

Serenity,

First off, don't be discouraged. Maybe mindset or attitude doesn't fully compensate for a physical limitation but it is the most important aspect to surviving bad stuff.

If I could not carry on a belt, there are lots of options. Here are a few off the top of my head

1. Pocket or wallet holster, wear clothing loose enough not to pressure belt line when drawing the gun.
1a. Cold weather, coat pocket carry.
2. Shoulder rig
3. Belly band or ConcealmentT (T-shirt with sewn in holster)
4. Ankle holster <-- may not work depending on physical limitation
5. I recently read about a self defense shooting at a hotel. A young lady working at the hotel had a .22 derringer in her bra and used it to defend herself against an attacker.

This last one is far fetched. I recently saw some pics where someone made a Kydex neck holster -- for an NAA mini-revolver. It would be fine as long as the kydex "sheath" held the gun well and blocked the trigger and/or hammer.

 

[blindhari]

Hello Serenity,
I have several leather vests cut for carrying two 38sp snubs as I am a believer in New York reload. lately I find myself carrying only one in cross draw side. NAA mini will be backup now. Cane is for use before any thought of knife. I once heard an instructor say, "The most dangerous thing in the world is a bit of a stick, with an Irishman on the other end of it".
Aaronu,
Naa is going to be a 22lr/22 mag. I am also having slide on, thumb strap, belt holster made that will hold right side up horizontal for crossdraw and back of the hip horizontal, butt up behind strongside hip, sort of John Wayne position. Both ways will be covered by vest. You are right on situational awareness. Long ago and far away the Army changed my first name to Ranger and my last name to Sgt. blindhari was as close as I could get to team name.


Absent Companions,
blindhari

 

[JRH6856]

Serenity, you might want to check out the Flash-Bang

 

[Serenity]

ouch

 

[rEVOLVEr VII]

My question is; are there any of you with really bad backs (to the point that they can't take pressure from a belt) and if so; how do you carry?

You have many options.
Holster shirt, jacket pocket (depending on weather), Shoulder rig, ankle holster. I also cant see a problem with a iwb holster, it doesn't really put weight on your back like a belt holster would. Or course you can always go with a can of mace, or a stun gun or (slightly more expensive) a taser.

In the house, instead of putting a firearm in every room, (a practice I don't understand)

I hate to get off the beaten path here, but why exactly don't you understand it?

 

[bikerdoc]

Blindhari,

I think our lives have run a parrallel path. What you said minus the gastro, and add in a whole lot of ortho. Do what works for you. Me, cane, knife, gun.
Keep training, be aware, and god bless.
Doc

 

[Kleanbore]

Do Not Use Wasp Spray for Self Defense

Posted by theicemanmpls: In the house, instead of putting a firearm in every room, (a practice I don't understand) we have a can of this bug spray on every level.

The use of wasp spray against a human being violates a Federal law and is subject to very heavy penalties. See this.

 

[theicemanmpls]

The use of wasp spray against a human being violates a Federal law and is subject to very heavy penalties. See this.

Please show me the chapter and verse. This is all I found.

229C. Individual self-defense devices
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.

This law is about chemical weapons. Not bug spray.

I totally disagree with this and your posting from 9/2011.

I am reading the law, where does it say you will be prosecuted, and incarcerated for discharging bug spray at someone. My best guess is if you did that unlawfully, you would be charged with some kind of assault.

 

[Fred Fuller]

"Chapter and verse" is only a portion of 'the law' - the rest is case law, not statute law. Depend on what the statute books say and you're only seeing part of 'the law.'

Therefore the quoting of statute law is discouraged here, as it gives the false impression that "that's what THE LAW says" when it simply is not true. In addition, applicable laws vary widely with different jurisdictions, and the only legal advice we give here is to consult an attorney in your specific jurisdiction who can advise you properly.

Anything anyone here does, either because of or contrary to anything said in ST&T, is their sole individual responsibility. Any member here is always acting completely independently and assumes full liability for the consequences of their actions.

 

[Rail Driver]

@theicemanmpls:

You've got to realize that wasp spray and similar chemicals (not labeled for self defense use) are still considered deadly force.

In other words, if you use wasp spray in a situation where you wouldn't be legal to shoot with a firearm, then you're going to prison for a long, long time.

In a self defense situation that requires/is justified for use of deadly force, wasp spray probably won't be enough. I can tell you as an eye witness to more than one wasp spray situation, not only will it likely NOT stop an attacker, but you also don't want to spray that stuff in your home. It WILL end up all over you. It WILL stink, and it may very likely blind YOU, the user, permanently.

I'm not one of those guys that keeps a gun in every room, I do one better and keep a gun on me instead.

One reader who accidentally received a dose of wasp spray while using it around his home told me he was surprised at how little irritation he felt. "A gust of wind caused a good splash of the spray to come right back into my right eye," he wrote. "I panicked and started to run to a source of water, only to find there was no adverse reaction at all, no more than being squirted with a water pistol. It took me at least ten seconds to get to the water, and I rinsed it off, and never felt anything from it."

As far as the law goes... Here's the "chapter and verse".

This site (the EPA website) explains it fairly well if you take the time to read it:

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/tecom.html

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/fifra.html

 

[theicemanmpls]

@theicemanmpls:

You've got to realize that wasp spray and similar chemicals (not labeled for self defense use) are still considered deadly force.

In other words, if you use wasp spray in a situation where you wouldn't be legal to shoot with a firearm, then you're going to prison for a long, long time.

In a self defense situation that requires/is justified for use of deadly force, wasp spray probably won't be enough. I can tell you as an eye witness to more than one wasp spray situation, not only will it likely NOT stop an attacker, but you also don't want to spray that stuff in your home. It WILL end up all over you. It WILL stink, and it may very likely blind YOU, the user, permanently.

I'm not one of those guys that keeps a gun in every room, I do one better and keep a gun on me instead.



As far as the law goes... Here's the "chapter and verse".

This site (the EPA website) explains it fairly well if you take the time to read it:

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/tecom.html

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/index.htm

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/fifra.html

I don't want to get to far off topic there. The OP was looking to help seniors defend themselves.

First of all, the idea of a loaded gun in every room of a home, is just silly. The only justification I see for that is extreme fear of a eminent home invasion. People come to our home often. Some toting children. I have layers of home defense. The last one being a firearm. This is another topic.

TO EACH HIS OWN.

Regarding a senior wearing a firearm around the house, I have to say NO. I can't imagine my elderly aunt toting a .38 on her hip. She has a loaded .38 next to her bed. It has been in the same place for years.

If someone wishes to wear a firearm around their abode, I say TO EACH HIS OWN.

You are correct in saying one will get in trouble with the misuse of deadly force. I agree that bug spray may be considered deadly force by the courts.

Here is the scenario. Some dirtball does a home invasion into a occupied senior citizens dwelling. The dirtball gets sprayed in the face with bug spray while granny and her walker leave the dwelling. Dirtball has vision problems. Oh, to bad. The jail nurse will treat him.

If you blind someone in self defense, while they are committing a felony act, are u criminally, or civilly liable? My guess is no.

I highly doubt is the EPA is going to show up with men in contamination gear. Federal charges? Prison time? For who, the senior defending themselves?

Regarding chapter and verse on the EPA. I can not locate the text where it says "thou shall not spray bug killer into thy fellow mans face". Nor can I find any reference to prison time.
Send the link, I am interesting in seeing this.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by theicemanmpls: Please show me the chapter and verse. This is all I found.

229C. Individual self-defense devices
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.

You will not find wasp spray properly sold as a "self defense device".

I will try to help you gain an appreciation of the risks by pointing you specifically to the relevant parts of the applicable law. I will then refer to case law or the lack thereof at this time.

This law is about chemical weapons. Not bug spray.

You are almost assuredly correct in your contention that the law was not intended to address bug spray. I will talk more about that whan I get to situation involving appeals. But first, read the defintions:

The term “chemical weapon” means the following, together or separately:
A toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter as long as the type and quantity is consistent with such a purpose.

The term “toxic chemical” means any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

I totally disagree with this and your posting from 9/2011.

That is your privilege, but your disagreement won't help you at all.

A defendant named Carol Anne Bond was convicted for violating this law in 2006 and was sentenced to a long prison term, which she has been serving since 2007. Note that she did not use wasp spray, but in law, that is not a meaningful distinction. Nor did the case involve self defense, but under the Federal law per se, that is not relevant either. I'll get to her appeal and the status of the case later.

I am reading the law, where does it say you will be prosecuted, and incarcerated for discharging bug spray at someone.

It does not say that you will, but it says that you can be, right here:

Any person who [knowingly uses or threatens to use a chemical weapon] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, or both.
Death penalty.— Any ... by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life.

My best guess is if you did that unlawfully, you would be charged with some kind of assault.

It is unlawful. If you were to commit a crime under the use of force laws, you would of course be charged with some kind of assault and battery if not more. We are talking about another kind of offense here--a Federal offense. The Federal courts do not bother themselves with crimes involving use of force unless a specific Federal law (such as the law about injuring the President) has been broken. This law has to do with the use of the chemical.

The defendent in the aformentioned case contended that the Federal law in qustion had been improperly applied in a manner that infringed upon the rights of the States, and she appealed. Last year, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that she has the standing to appeal her conviction under the Tenth Amendment, and the case was remanded to a Fedral distict court. That court has not yet ruled on the case.

As Lee Lapin points out, a layman's interpretation of the "chapter and verse" is a very dangerous thing on which to rely. In this case, we await the possibility that case law will change things. I would not want to bet everything on that possibility.

Of course, there is also the possibility that the Assistant United States Attorney would use his or her discretion and not charge someone who had used wasp spray for self defense. I'm sure you are aware that it would not be up to the local police.

As Rail Driver points out, the deliberate use of wasp spray on a human being would constitute the use of deadly force in most if not all US jurisdictions. For more on that, follow Lee Lapin's advice and consult a local criminal defense attorney. For more on the Federal law, you would have to consult an attorney who practices in the field of Constitutional law.

Stay tuned for the outcome of the Federal case; that could become known soon, or it could take years. In the interim, I suggest that if the use of deadly force is justified, a firearm remains a more prudent choice, in that it would keep the Federal Government out of the case. If the use of deadly force is not justified, the use of wasp spray will remain a very poor choice indeed, regardless of the outcome of the Federal case, and pepper spray would be a better choice.

 

[theicemanmpls]

Klenbore,

Come on. Your position is a stretch.

Carol Bonds best friend was sleeping with Carols hubby, and become PG. Carol, became upset. Carol stole from her employer, a chemical manufacturing company and went after her husbands concubine with serious chemicals. Black flag, one can find at walmart.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/22/133946067/constitutional-questions-arise-in-chemicals-case

CAROL allegedly committed a felony. I would guess attempted murder. This case has nothing, absolutely nothing about self defense.

The topic is seniors defending themselves. Not Carols poor choice of revenge weapons.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by theicemanmpls: CAROL allegedly committed a felony. I would guess attempted murder.

...which is the province of state law.

We are discussing her having been charged and convicted under a Federal law in a court case that had nothing at all to do why she did what she did.

This case has nothing, absolutely nothing about self defense.

I pointed that out.

It is a distinction without meaning, however. She was not charged attempted murder, but with with the the use of chemical agents against a person.

Nor would it matter if it had been a self defense case.

Self defense cases are not tried in a Federal court, or prosecuted by an Assistant US Attorney.

Nor is self defense a defense in the Federal case at this time, though the United States Court of appeals for the Third District could conceivably change some things about the way that works.

The topic is seniors defending themselves.

Yep, that's the topic of the thread, but that subject won't come up in a Federal courtroom, any more than the Federal charge would come up in the county courtroom.

Not Carols poor choice of revenge weapons.

It's about her having knowingly used a toxic chemical against a human being, regardless of her reason.

She has argued that the law was improperly applied. If I were a betting man, I would wager that she'll win--after at least six years behind bars.

The thing is, until the Third US District Court rules, we are speculating about whether the Federal law properly applies.

It currently does.

In a self defense case, the defendant will admit to having used force, including perhaps deadly force, and contend (by providing evidence to that effect) that the act had been lawfully justified but the fact that it had been immediately necessary for self defense.

In a Federal case of this kind, the Government will allege and try to prove that a defendant knowingly committed or threatened to commit a criminal act. The defendant's only recourse is to establish that there is at least reasonable doubt about whether he or she knowingly did the deed. By the way, criminal convictions under many Federal laws, but evidently not this one, do not even require that an act be knowing or willful.

These cases are tried in different courtrooms by different officials.

This may not seem reasonable to you, and it may not align with your conception of the way things should work, but it is reality.

You do what you decide; as Lee Lapin said, your are responsible for your own actions.

But do not advise others irresponsibly on this forum.

 

[scaatylobo]

"Man's got to know his limitations"

That is the quote from the second "Dirty Harry" movie that I live by.

I firmly believe that wearing a gun you can use and not having to retrieve it ,is THE best idea.

BUT it must be one that you know and shoot well.

The law is now ,in my state IF you attack a person over the age of 65 and your 10 years younger - its a felony.

That means I can use a firearm against a perp that is 18 y/o and in MUCH better shape.

I am disabled and cannot do the martial arts I trained in for over 45 years.

I know my limitations and I cannot take a beating,as I might not ever recover from it.

I will avoid the possibility at all cost.

then I will defend myself.

I too EDC a pistol even in the house as I was not told how to know when or IF a home invasion was imminent .

I answer my door prepared to defend my house,no one will get past me to reach my wife - no one.

And yes I understand the dynamics of that type of attack.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by scaatylobo: I too EDC a pistol even in the house as I was not told how to know when or IF a home invasion was imminent.

For many years, I kept a handgun in the bedroom for home defense. I never thought much about it.

I happened to read a review of a .44 handgun that had just gone back into production, and the well-known gun writer mentioned his intention to acquire a third one to keep in a location that I cannot remember.

I thought about that for a moment and I realized that maybe, just maybe, I might need to have a firearm somewhere other than the bedroom. However, I did not and do not like the idea of stashing firearms around the house. I did nothing at the time.

Some time later, I saw a thread here or on The Firing Line on the subject of carrying a firearm while at home.

My initial reaction was that the idea was preposterous. How paranoid can people be, I wondered.

Then, for the first time, I thought about the subject. I realized that the only time my firearm in the bedroom would be of any use to me would be when I happened to be in the bedroom when someone broke in--or, when it might be possible for me to get to the bedroom on such an occasion, without leaving my wife in danger.

Obvious, isn't it? After all those years....

I thought a little more about the possible points of ingress, and about where the two of us might happen to be at the time of a home burglary.

It soon became clear that in many instances I would either be cut off from the bedroom or that I would be forced to try to win a foot race to the bedroom with one or more desperate persons who might be trying to kill me. And there was the issue of leaving my wife in danger.

What had at first seemed preposterous now seemed prudent indeed.

Unless I am going out or have been out (I am retired and often stay home), I carry in a pocket holster.

Of course, step one is keeping the doors locked, and after that comes making the home less attractive for burglars: exterior lighting, thorny bushes under the windows, and so forth.

Heck, until a few years ago, we did not even keep the doors locked when we were at home during the day. Not very wise, I'm afraid.

By the way, it is becoming more and more common in our suburban area for someone to ring the doorbell and/or knock on the front door, and if no one answers, for two persons to suddenly and violently enter the back door with the intention of taking things. On more than one occasion, this has occurred during the daytime when people are at home.

Scary.

We do not answer the door unless we recognize who is there. We do not like to deal with people asking for money or trying to sell something, and should the person or persons intend violence, one would be very vulnerable when answering the door.

 

[scaatylobo]

Au Contraire

I believe it is VERY prudent to answer the door.

First of all,if no answer they will believe no one home and then YOU have a confrontation.

Second,IF you are answering the door = HAVE A PLAN.

To be non - confrontational at YOUR door,have a blocker that does not allow the door to be pushed open.

NO,not a cheapo chain, - but the solid steel door blocks or a "Fox" lock that will stop a 250 pound running back.

I was an LEO and therefore I am a bit more confrontational at my house then many will be.

I am armed and I know how to use the tools to protect.

I also do not take chances,if I see ANY threat or chance thereof - I act.

And I am prepared to answer for my actions.

I did for 26 years with no shots that were not intentional.

I am a FIRM believer in training.

And if you think you cannot be disarmed,your only fooling yourself.

 

[Kleanbore]

It is true that not answering a door could leave someone who is looking for a house into which to break with the impression that no one is home.

That said, I do not like the idea of opening the door to what may be more than one person who could easily overpower me.

So--high on my list of priorities is an intercom.

I think a CCTV would be a good idea, too.

 

[JRH6856]

So--high on my list of priorities is an intercom.

I think a CCTV would be a good idea, too.

Peepholes in the door are useful to an extent, but it is too easy for a visitor to stand outside the field of view to consider them reliable. You can usually talk to someone through the door without opening it but then you have to be standing behind it and that may not be the safest position.

Intercom and CCTV are invaluable if you are concerned about answering the door. In any case, if home invasions are a concern, I recommend a steel door and frame and installing 3 deadbolts, one opposite each hinge. If nothing else, it can buy you some time.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'd suggest something counterintuitive--go bigger not smaller. For example if you are having trouble with recoil try something like a Walther PP full size with standard .32 ACP. The older steel frame pistols soak up a lot more recoil and are easier on old bones. Carried in a Galco shoulder rig you barely notice it, though.

Bug spray or household chemicals for self defense is a misuse of the product, can maim or blind, and more importantly won't accomplish the desired result. It's too dangerous and toxic for less-than-lethal and not reliable enough to stand in place of deadly force. The availability of proper sprays for defense moots the question. DO NOT use bug spray!

 

[scaatylobo]

Fire Extinguisher

If your bound and determined to use LTL force [ less than lethal ].

May I suggest a 10.00 dollar fire extinguisher.

I once was sprayed by one during a fire,and it made 'Mace' seem mild.

I was LEO and did training and used Mace on students.

At least with Mace or ACR as its called,you can still breathe.

With an Extinguisher,there is NO AIR.

Great for stopping a perp from coming down a hallway.