What options do "minors" have for self defense?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Eric M, unless you are part of certain demographics or do things to land yourself in trouble your chances of being mugged or seriously injured are quite slight.

The chances of a law abiding citizen becoming the victim of a violent criminal assault on any one day, or in any one year for that matter, are in fact "quite slight." They vary according to a number of factors.

However, the chances of being attacked at least once during one's lifetime are much, much higher--and are higher for younger people, who have a longer time to face the odds.

And the odds are one thing. The severity of the potential consequences are something else again.

There are those who seem to assume that rape victims are likely somehow to blame for their fate. That's unfortunate, and it really involves the same thought process that would involve blaming any victim for having been criminally attacked.

However, it does bring up the issue of how to avoid being attacked in the first place. That takes us back to the very good advice given by hso in Post #12.

Thousands of teens get in school yard fights every day as they have since the beginning of civilization without anything more than superficial injury and hurt pride. However, if you bring a weapon to such a fight and seriously injure somebody, self defense or not, you will have far worse problems than taking a butt whipping. When teens fight cops generally couldn't care less if one side was just defending himself.

The law distinguishes between the use of force in mutual combat and the use of force in self defense, both among teens and among adults.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Modern teenage boys can weigh upwards of 200 pounds. When someone that size decides to pound on you it is serious. When I was 7 or 8 we used to play tackle football in the back yard. We got away without serious injury because we just were not big or fast enough to hurt each other. By the time we were in high school we had gained 100 pounds and had to have pads and helmets to play yet several people still got hurt. It is the same way with fighting. A group of 16 or 17 year old males is a deadly threat especially since they may not have the judgement to know when to quit.

Just because the law does not take minors seriously is no reason that you should not.

 

[Hangingrock]

Minors/teenagers in the 18-20 brackets we send them to war. In category do you place them in? Not meant to deviate from the subject.

 

[Owen Sparks]

My neighbors boy is 17 and he is going into the National Guard this Summer doing basic training between his Junior and Senior year. This "child" is 6' 2" and weight about 190 pounds, lifts weights and runs for a hobby. I would dare say that he could probably whip at least 75 percent of the grown men on this forum in a fight. Just because the law may not hold him fully accountable for his actions that does not mean his actions could be potentially deadly. Good thing he is a good kid but there are plenty like him who are not.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
Posted by JustinJ: Eric M, unless you are part of certain demographics or do things to land yourself in trouble your chances of being mugged or seriously injured are quite slight.

The chances of a law abiding citizen becoming the victim of a violent criminal assault on any one day, or in any one year for that matter, are in fact "quite slight." They vary according to a number of factors.

However, the chances of being attacked at least once during one's lifetime are much, much higher--and are higher for younger people, who have a longer time to face the odds.

Are you reffering to the US Dept of Justice Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization report? I don't mean to get off topic but that report is ridiculously flawed. For one, it is highly skewed by non-random violence. Second, the crime rate has significantly gone done since it was taken. And last, the report was done as a survey with the definition of assault to include threats. So everything from playground bullies to frat boy bar fights are included as is domestic violence.

There are those who seem to assume that rape victims are likely somehow to blame for their fate. That's unfortunate, and it really involves the same thought process that would involve blaming any victim for having been criminally attacked.

My comments are in regards to realistic probabilites, not blame and nothing i've said is to the contrary. To say that the majority of assaults are not random in now way implies that victims of random violence are at fault.

The law distinguishes between the use of force in mutual combat and the use of force in self defense, both among teens and among adults.

Sure, on paper.

The thing is that no one is talking about a schoolyard fight. We're talking about any aggressor you may meet on the street. People looking to rob or assault someone may not go for an 8 year old. But the difference in appearance between a 20 year old and a 16-17 year old is very little and won't discourage an attacker one bit. Your logic dictates that you only need a defense of some sort if you are a thug. I would imagine not many here would agree with that.

No, my logic dictates no such thing. Of course there is a chance any minor, no matter how upstanding, could be the victim of random violence. He could also be hit by lightning but that doesn't mean he should walk around in a rolling faraday cage. There are quite a few in the "self defense" community who go way overboard in relation to realistic threat potentials. I just hate to see a teenager go down the overly paranoid path because of an unrealistic expectations of risk.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I am a self-defense instructor and we teach two classes. One for kids and one for adults. Most of the same material is covered it is just that the kids class is shorter and faster moving while the adult class focuses more on the mental side of the techniques. The kids who hang with it eventually get promoted to the adult class. This is NOT based on age so much as on height and weight. Over the last twenty five years it has been my experience that people under 18 are far more likely to be assaulted by their peers. One of the reasons is that the law does not take assault by one minor against another as serious. In reality the danger really depends on the size of the kids involved. Once males get up to 150 pounds they can seriously hurt another person with a simple punch, kick or elbow strike no matter what age they are. To compound this bullies tend to be cowards at heart and only pick on smaller and weaker people. Most adolescent fights tend to happen in the junior high school age groups when there is a tremendous disparity in physical maturity and size among boys. This is a very dangerous time for a boy to be small.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: [In saying that the chances of being attacked at least once during one's lifetime are much, much higher--and are higher for younger people, who have a longer time to face the odds] Are you reffering to the US Dept of Justice Lifetime Likelihood of Victimization report?

While that report dies discuss that fact, it is a simple statistical fact and should not really require any data to support it. If one's chances of being victimized in a particular year are one over x, one's chances of being victimized at least once in two years are higher than one over x, that of being victimized at least once in three years are still higher, and so on. That's the way it works.

Thus, annual statistics are not what one would reasonably used in risk assessment, and one cannot really draw any conclusions from them.

I don't mean to get off topic but that report is ridiculously flawed. For one, it is highly skewed by non-random violence.

I would not characterize the inclusion of "non random violence" as a flaw.

Obviously, any one person's likelihood of being victimized will differ markedly from the averages due to a number of factors. Where one lives, one's travel habits and work schedule, whether one frequents shopping malls, and whether one associates with a tough crowd all enter into it. The averages are indicative of very little that could be applied to specific individuals.

However, I do not believe that there are any facts from which one can reasonably infer that "unless you are part of certain demographics or do things to land yourself in trouble your chances of being mugged or seriously injured are quite slight", and though the likelihood may indeed be very low, the potential consequences can be very severe.

Of course, that depends in large part on what one means by doing "things to land yourself in trouble". Does using an ATM machine fall into that category? It does make one a target. How about refueling one's car at night? How about walking out from a computer store carrying a large carton? I observed a person about to be victimized while doing that recently, and I prevented the crime.

Consider the acts of wearing nice shoes or using an electronic device.

In our large urban area, there are reports every week of violence attributed to drug deals. There are also reports every week of violence associated with the aforementioned situations and many others, as well as sex crimes that I presume one would not characterize as "non random".

And last, the report was done as a survey with the definition of assault to include threats.

Of course, but not all threats. An assault is a threat of imminent harm combined with an indication that the assailant has the ability to actually harm the victim.

No, that is does not involve mugging or serious injury per se, but it does involve a credible threat of imminent harm, and it is the first prerequisite of justified self defense.

To say that the majority of assaults are not random in now way implies that victims of random violence are at fault.

True. It is also a statement that has not been substantiated. Not would it enter into the strategies and tactics that a reasonable person would adopt to reduce the likelihood of being harmed.

 

[brickeyee]

In the context of federal law and firearms - a minor is a person under the age of 21.

That is simply not correct.

Federal firearm law does not allow the sale of ANY firearm to minors, and defines them as under 18.

(b) Sales or deliveries to underaged persons.
A licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed
collector shall not sell or deliver
(1) any firearm or ammunition to
any individual who the importer, manufacturer,
dealer, or collector knows or
has reasonable cause to believe is less
than 18 years of age,

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr478.99.pdf

 

[allaroundhunter]

While the age to buy a handgun from an FFL is 21, in Texas it is legal to own one if you are 18 or over (be it either gifted to you or bought from a private seller). Texas law says that anyone who may legally own a firearm may legally carry on their own property, as well as to their vehicle from their residence and vice versa (without a CCW license). Being over 18 and still under 21, these are the only places that I can carry.

The only thing different is if a CCW carryng man, age 21+, gets assulted in the Wal-Mart parking lot and fires after sustaing a beating and only fires with his last breath, he is an alive hero.

Minor who does the same, while still alive, may go to jail.

So, if someone tries to carjack me in a Wal-Mart parking lot, I am legally entitled to defend myself and my property.

Laws are not black and white, and are not the same from state to state, or even city to city. Trying to make a statement like this as a blanket statement is not a good thing to do when it comes to firearms laws.

This is a very dangerous time for a boy to be small.

+1..... been there, done that...

 

[tuj]

When I was a minor, I carried a knife, both fixed and folders. It was illegal (the fixed blade) and stupid to do and I am thankful I never had to use them. I also carried a sharpened composite plastic spike, even into an airport (this was before the body screeners and pat-downs). I used to even keep a tiny 2" blade in the inside rim of my cap. All stupid things that I wouldn't recommend. Got stopped once by a cop who found a pocket knife (under 4" thankfully) and got grilled by him but ultimately was let go. Again, I was young and stupid and paranoid.

I found that Jeet Kune Do worked for me, but its like Krav or any of the other modern combatives where you are aiming to do maximum damage, which usually means nasty things like eye strikes. Later I took up Brazilian jujitsu more as a workout than for self-defense. Ended up breaking my femur sparring.

One unarmed assailant: BJJ is pretty good, break their arm or choke them out.
Two or more or any armed: running away is better.

None of your options are that good. Best to always avoid the situation if you can. Actions have consequences and we're not always thinking about that, especially when we are young. Just my humble $0.02.

 

[JustinJ]

While that report dies discuss that fact, it is a simple statistical fact and should not really require any data to support it. If one's chances of being victimized in a particular year are one over x, one's chances of being victimized at least once in two years are higher than one over x, that of being victimized at least once in three years are still higher, and so on. That's the way it works.

Thus, annual statistics are not what one would reasonably used in risk assessment, and one cannot really draw any conclusions from them.

I agree except for one problem. Looking at violent crime rates in one's city and multiplying it by their life would be a good indicator except the numbers are extremely skewed by people who are victims because of illicit activities. This is what i'm reffering to as opposed to wearing nice shoes. This is exactly why the rates drop dramatically as the demographic gets older. The results are not only skewed by gang bangers and drug dealers but also bar fights and domestic violence. If you think police won't charge willing participants in a fight with assault you are mistaken. At least in the city i reside in. Random violence was a poor term but this type of assault is what i was reffering to. Unfortunately there are no stasticis, at least that i'm aware of, that take these things into account. A much better way to try and calculate one's statistical chances of being on the receiving end of a violent crime in their life time is to look at rates for their age and above.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: Looking at violent crime rates in one's city and multiplying it by their life would be a good indicator except the numbers are extremely skewed by people who are victims because of illicit activities.

Again, the stats for a city constitute averages, and the likelihood of victimization of any one person or group of people will differ from the average for many reasons.

Actually, one does not multiply the rate times the lifespan. The calculation involves an exponential function. In any event, for any person, the likelihood of being victimized at least one over a longer period is much longer than over a shorter period, and one should never base assessments for risk management on period statistics.

Murders and gunshot wounds that occur among those who are involved in illicit activities are certainly a major contributor to violent crime. On the other hand, crimes against criminals that do not result in death or in injuries that must be reported by medical persons (bullet and stab wounds) are often not reported. Are the numbers really "extremely skewed"?

To the extent that they may be, does that mean that law abiding persons are not at a meaningful level of risk of being victimized by criminals? I do not think so.

This is what i'm reffering to as opposed to wearing nice shoes.

My reference to that had to do with the fact that expensive footwear has in many instances provided a motive for strong-arm robbery that has resulted in death. Wearing such shoes increases the likelihood of victimization for good kids and bad and it is not an indication that one has been involved in something illicit (unless, of course, the victim is the second owner who acquired the shoes unlawfully). One who wears expensive shoes these days may learn that the assertion that 'Kids...don't tend to get mugged, being kids and all' is not something upon which to rely.

This is exactly why the rates drop dramatically as the demographic gets older.

I'm not sure what it is to which you are attributing a reduction in crime rate with increasing age.

The reduction in number of older people who commit violent crimes could probably be attibuted to changes in aggressiveness related to hormonal balances; to better economic status and having "more to lose"; and possibly, to attrition.

I'm not sure how the statistics of victimization vary with age. Middle aged people are less likely than young adults to frequent bars, but they usually make much more attractive targets for car jacking, armed robberies around places of high value entertainment, and attacks at cash machines. It does seem that there is little or no correlation at all between the risk of being a victim of random gang violence such as the "knockout game" and the age of the victims.

Certainly, when young people run in bad circles and engage in illicit activity, they do put themselves at higher risk, but I do not see any basis for concluding from crime statistics or from anything else that the chances of young people who do not do so becoming the victims of violent crime are "quite slight". Maybe today, maybe nest week, but not so much over the lifetime.

And of course, there is the other dimension--the severity of the potential consequences. The number of people who attend a large, well known private untiversity nearby who have been mugged, robbed, raped, and/or murdered in recent months is actually quite small. But people who attend school there have been advised to take extraordinary precautions, including taking University-provided cars when going home from the library or classes at night, walking in large groups, etc..

These are most often minors, but from the standpoint of availability of tools for self defense, university restrictions put them all in the same boat.

 

[JustinJ]

Actually, one does not multiply the rate times the lifespan. The calculation involves an exponential function. In any event, for any person, the likelihood of being victimized at least one over a longer period is much longer than over a shorter period, and one should never base assessments for risk management on period statistics.

Yes, you are correct about the exponential function. Statistics was over ten years ago but that means the probabilities are even far less in relation to previous rates of occurence. Risk management should not be based solely on any statistics but they are clearly an important consideration and can help to keep things in perspective.

My reference to that had to do with the fact that expensive footwear has in many instances provided a motive for strong-arm robbery that has resulted in death. Wearing such shoes increases the likelihood of victimization for good kids and bad and it is not an indication that one has been involved in something illicit (unless, of course, the victim is the second owner who acquired the shoes unlawfully). One who wears expensive shoes these days may learn that the assertion that 'Kids...don't tend to get mugged, being kids and all' is not something upon which to rely.

I know what type of event you were referring to. We've all heard the story about a kid getting shot for his Air Jordans. But funny you bring that example up since by all your previous posts i assume your advice would be to hand over the shoes rather than use a weapon to defend them? In fact, i would guess your advice would be to comply or flee so the only situation the kid would use a weapon would be if attacked by a faster opponent who did so for no other reason than just wanting to seriously harm somebody. Which means the chances of needing a weapon are now even far smaller.

I'm not sure what it is to which you are attributing a reduction in crime rate with increasing age.

The reduction in number of older people who commit violent crimes could probably be attibuted to changes in aggressiveness related to hormonal balances; to better economic status and having "more to lose"; and possibly, to attrition.

I'm not sure how the statistics of victimization vary with age. Middle aged people are less likely than young adults to frequent bars, but they usually make much more attractive targets for car jacking, armed robberies around places of high value entertainment, and attacks at cash machines. It does seem that there is little or no correlation at all between the risk of being a victim of random gang violence such as the "knockout game" and the age of the victims.

I think i explained why vicimization rates decline with age. Older victims obviously do make much better targets to criminals yet in spite of this they are far less likely to be the victim of violenct crimes overall. Older people are much less likely to engage in illegal activities. This indicates how far crime victim statistics are skewed by people invovled in illicit activities.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vagetab.cfm

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: We've all heard the story about a kid getting shot for his Air Jordans. But funny you bring that example up since by all your previous posts i assume your advice would be to hand over the shoes rather than use a weapon to defend them? In fact, i would guess your advice would be to comply or flee so the only situation the kid would use a weapon would be if attacked by a faster opponent who did so for no other reason than just wanting to seriously harm somebody. Which means the chances of needing a weapon are now even far smaller.

That's off topic, but from the broader perspective of ST&T, I'll correct your misconceptions.

I have said that if an armed robber had me at gunpoint, I would be most unlikely to draw and fire. Under most circumstances, that would simply precipitate a shooting that may not otherwise occur. There are some people who may be able to draw from concealment and shoot before an assailant who is already pointing a gun can react and fire, but I'm not one of them, and even if I were, I would not want to rely on the capability of a handgun to instantly incapacitate an assailant who has his finger on the trigger.

Now, situations differ. If there had been a pattern involving certain kinds of attacks that usually result in death or serious injury in an area (the gang-inspired "knockout gam" is an example, and taking athletic shoes may be another), one may have to take his or her chances anyway. If the victim's strategies and tactics have failed and attackers are there demanding the shoes, he or she is faced with a decision. In any event, the fact that drawing on an armed robber is an extremely risky proposition at best does not make having the ability to defend oneself a bad idea.

I think i explained why vicimization rates decline with age. Older victims obviously do make much better targets to criminals yet in spite of this they are far less likely to be the victim of violenct crimes overall. Older people are much less likely to engage in illegal activities. This indicates how far crime victim statistics are skewed by people invovled in illicit activities.

Not really, but now you have explained your opinion.

I think everyone agrees that involvement in illicit activities increases one's exposure and vulnerability to violent criminal attack. I think we can also agree that older people are less likely to be involved in gang activity than younger ones. Those factors would contribute to declining victimization rates with increasing age, but the declining rates do not provide a quantitative indication of that influence.

There are many other factors at work. Younger people, including the vast majority of law abiding ones, are less likely to go to singles or other bars, where many criminal attacks occur, than are older people. They are far more likely than older people to be involved in the most dangerous careers, such as pizza delivery, night work at quick shops and service stations, and police work. Older people are more likely to stay home at night and buy gasoline during the day, and far fewer of them are likely to be found leaving a university library or night class at night where assailants know they can find such easy victims. There is no basis for attributing the decline, or even a large part of it, to the influence of criminals who are victims of crime, much less of reported crime.

Nor is there any reason to contend that minors should not learn to defend themselves unless they are involved in illicit activities.

 

[JustinJ]

I have said that if an armed robber had me at gunpoint, I would be most unlikely to draw and fire. Under most circumstances, that would simply precipitate a shooting that may not otherwise occur. There are some people who may be able to draw from concealment and shoot before an assailant who is already pointing a gun can react and fire, but I'm not one of them, and even if I were, I would not want to rely on the capability of a handgun to instantly incapacitate an assailant who has his finger on the trigger.

You have also argued that one should not use force to defend property in a broad sense. Maybe you were reffering to deadly force but almost any weapon in a street fight can have lethal consequences.

I think everyone agrees that involvement in illicit activities increases one's exposure and vulnerability to violent criminal attack. I think we can also agree that older people are less likely to be involved in gang activity than younger ones. Those factors would contribute to declining victimization rates with increasing age, but the declining rates do not provide a quantitative indication of that influence.

There are many other factors at work. Younger people, including the vast majority of law abiding ones, are less likely to go to singles or other bars, where many criminal attacks occur, than are older people. They are far more likely than older people to be involved in the most dangerous careers, such as pizza delivery, night work at quick shops and service stations, and police work. Older people are more likely to stay home at night and buy gasoline during the day, and far fewer of them are likely to be found leaving a university library or night class at night where assailants know they can find such easy victims. There is no basis for attributing the decline, or even a large part of it, to the influence of criminals who are victims of crime, much less of reported crime.

If illicit activity has a direct correlation to likelihood of being the victim of violence it stands to reason that members of demographics less invovled in illicit activity will have lower victimization rates. Ecspecially of certain types of violent crimes such as murder. Thats not to say there are not other factors but to me it is obviously a significant one. Regardless, we do of course agree that crime rates are skewed to some degree by illicity activity even if we disagree as to how much. And ultimately crime statistics refute these notions that attack is inevitable for everybody and danger is lurking around every corner. Thats not to say one should not be smart or vigilant but what is all to often lacking is perspective and i think its a shame for a teen to become obsessed with these highly improbable dangers as numerous adults seem to be.

Nor is there any reason to contend that minors should not learn to defend themselves unless they are involved in illicit activities.

Minors involved in illicit activity should cease the illicit activity. There is nothing wrong with minors learning to defend themselves. Ecspecially with tactics such as avoidance, deescalation and martial arts. Carrying improvised weapons is however something entirely different.

 

[Kleanbore]

You have also argued that one should not use force to defend property in a broad sense. Maybe you were reffering to deadly force but almost any weapon in a street fight can have lethal consequences.

The use of deadly force to defend tangible, moveable property is unlawful in all states except one.

When one elects to employ reasonable, non deadly force to defend property in jurisdictions in which it is lawful, there is the risk of serious injury. In addition, should the incident escalate into the use of deadly force, a successful defense of justification may prove unsustainable. I would not attempt it.

Not that that has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Do not confuse the use of force in defending against robbery with the defense of property. The use of force in the defense against robbery is considered to constitute the use of force in the defense of persons.

Also, do not confuse an unprovoked attack that results in serious, imminent danger, and that necessitates the immediate use of force if avoidance, deescalation, escape, and evasion are not possible, with a street fight.

By the way, the distinction has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the defender.

And ultimately crime statistics refute these notions that attack is inevitable for everybody and danger is lurking around every corner.

True. It's a simple manner of balancing likelihood (perhaps remote) with the severity of potential consequences (up to extremely severe). Basic risk management.

Thats not to say one should not be smart or vigilant but what is all to often lacking is perspective and i think its a shame for a teen to become obsessed with these highly improbable dangers as numerous adults seem to be.

I would not confuse prudence with obsession.

Would you really want your young daughter to not be protected against dangers because they may be "improbable"?

There is nothing wrong with minors learning to defend themselves. Ecspecially with tactics such as avoidance, deescalation and martial arts.

I agree. I would add pepper spray and similar items if permissible under the circumstances.

Carrying improvised weapons is however something entirely different.

Do you think it would be OK for someone who is twenty one years of age, but not for someone in the same circumstances who is twenty?

 

[USAF_Vet]

Defense at home: Grab a gun.

Defense on the streets: Strength in numbers, fast feets, hand to hand training isn't a bad option, but getting away should trump engaging.

I wouldn't recommend anything that could be construed as a weapon (even the rural school my aunt works for bans pocket knives) just because it could cause more problems. The odds of a minor needing to use deadly force is not significant. Getting hassled by "the man" for having a pocket knife is a lot more probable.

 

[Hamilton Felix]

Interesting and thorny issue. What do you tell/teach your kids at what age? Much depends on the child and on his environment. The two boys I recently adopted are "softies," raised by a Mom who is not (when she was a cop, the rapist who tried to kill her didn't survive) and has the scars. In our little logging town, bullying exists. Kids everywhere sense weakness and pounce on it. But we don't have the murderous gang bangers of the big cities (locals would not tolerate that).

Do we teach the kids a few simple strikes that will hurt? Both are overweight and probably would not outrun all assailants. Do we teach them the potential uses of the nice aluminum flashlights we bought them? Do we teach the sixth grader that his belt with heavy square buckle converts quickly to a "distance weapon" that outreaches a knife?

Sooner or later, as our society continues to unravel, even in this relatively nice rural setting, they'll encounter situations where there is no avenue of escape or teacher/parent to call.

Interesting thread. We may not have all of the answers, but we've got quite a few.

 

[Loic]

Martial art will help for several reasons.
Balance, self confidence, staying fit, awareness/ been sharp and also the hand to hand.
Self confidence and self control is probably the most important for kids, as it will not bother them if some other kids start calling them names etc..

Avoiding fights is the best of course.

If its impossible, then fighting skill comes to play, and the kid need aim for the bigger/leader of the group and put him down fast. The others will hesitate to come forward.
Knees and groin are easy targets that one punch/kick is all that's needed and hurt like hell. Other body parts are also effective but much more damage could result.

Sent from my EVO 3 D using Tapatalk

 

[Harold Mayo]

Sam1911 pretty well covered it.

Too many people want to default to a gun for self-defense just because it's "cool" (whether they consciously think it or not).

Situational awareness is the first thing to cultivate along with physical fitness. Some decent martial arts training doesn't hurt but it has to be decent or else it's counterproductive. BJJ/grappling or boxing are the ones that I'd personally recommend.

While the hero notion might kick in if you see someone else in trouble or if you get confronted, it's usually best to get away rather than fight. While I do find it difficult to say that, logically it's the best thing to do. The whole "be a good witness" thing is the best road to take. The way that you can WITHOUT being armed is really the way that you should act if you ARE armed, at least as a non-LEO.

 

[josiewales]

Look into your states laws regarding black powder firearms. If your laws say an antique or muzzleloading weapon is not a firearm, you could carry that. Be very careful though, if you kill or injure someone in SD and he gets a good lawyer you could be in BIG trouble. Probably your better choice would be a knife with a 3 in. blade.

 

[JustinJ]

Look into your states laws regarding black powder firearms. If your laws say an antique or muzzleloading weapon is not a firearm, you could carry that. Be very careful though, if you kill or injure someone in SD and he gets a good lawyer you could be in BIG trouble. Probably your better choice would be a knife with a 3 in. blade.

I would suspect that the same BIG trouble of shooting somebody with a black powder gun could be had by stabbing them with a knife.

I would not confuse prudence with obsession.

Would you really want your young daughter to not be protected against dangers because they may be "improbable"?

Obviously we all have our own opinion as to where the distinction lies. I don't know if the OP has surpassed my definition of prudence because i don't know him but i've read many posters who i believe have and worry they may be influencing him.

Of course i would want my daughter to be protected from dangers but i also want her to not live a life of irrational fear. Girls by the way have different threat potentials and risks of getting themselve in trouble.

Do you think it would be OK for someone who is twenty one years of age, but not for someone in the same circumstances who is twenty?

From a threat level or maturity level? I think the differences between 20 and 21 are much smaller than between in high school and out of high school, in both regards.

 

[rEVOLVEr VII]

Look into your states laws regarding black powder firearms. If your laws say an antique or muzzleloading weapon is not a firearm, you could carry that. Be very careful though, if you kill or injure someone in SD and he gets a good lawyer you could be in BIG trouble. Probably your better choice would be a knife with a 3 in. blade.

For the record were talking about minors, people under the age of 21, although blackpowder firearms are not recognized as firearms by federal law it is still illegal for a minor or anyone who does not have a ccdw permit, or anyone who is not of age to carry a deadly weapon (if im wrong guys please correct me). Plus I wouldn't trust mine or anyone elses life to a blackpowder firearm. As for the suggestion of carrying a knife, unless your properly trained in CQC I don't believe it's going to do a lot of good. Especially with someone who is bigger and faster. Plus i'm sure you would be in an equal ammount of trouble if you used it on someone as you would be with the blackpowder gun.

As stated above I believe Sam1911 had the best overall response, situational awarness is key. Plus learning hand to hand combat is never a bad thing, I'm not saying go Chuck Norris on someone, but learning enough to temporarly neutralize a thug and escape is the best bet.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: I think the differences between 20 and 21 are much smaller than between in high school and out of high school, in both regards [(threat level and maturity level)].

I agree.

Maturity level is a very important issue.

There is also the very significant distinction between school age 'kids' and minors who are no longer in school.

That distinction pertains to particularly weapons in that school rules are much more restrictive than most state laws.

There is also the fact that schools maintain and impose standards of discipline that are different from either state codes or common law. Where I live, I'm told that if a secondary school student is forced to defend himself using martial arts, that student well be dealt with very firmly regardless of necessity. Not sure I like that....

 

[allaroundhunter]

Where I live, I'm told that if a secondary school student is forced to defend himself using martial arts, that student well be dealt with very firmly regardless of necessity. Not sure I like that....

This is how it was in all of my schools. In high school (less than 6 years ago) a student was being physically attacked by a kid twice his size, literally. The smaller kid had practiced martial arts for most of his life and put the bigger "bully" on the ground without throwing a single punch or kick. The larger kid broke his nose upon hitting the ground and the student who defended himself was going to be sent to an alternative campus, even though the whole encounter was filmed by security cameras....the school decided not to expel him when threatened by a lawsuit.