Reommend Home Defense for Elderly Couple w/Special Needs

[EmGeeGeorge]

.22 semi-autos(10/22, Mk1,2,3) are a poor choice... IMO. I had a loaded mag jam up after leaving it as such for a month or two, the waxy coating that seems to be on much .22 ammo ended up sticking together, the spring was fine, the rounds stuck to each other and the sides of mag...

.22 double action is heavy, in revolvers....

I'd go model smith 10/64/219, etc..., get those sellier and bellot wadcutters... kick very light, more energy than a .32, the heavier revolver makes the recoil even milder... The trigger can be worked to the point where it is pretty light but still reliable. A 4 inch barrel makes sighting a little easier than a snubby...

If a long gun,

Snake charmer in 410, and if people say a Judge is adequate for HD, dont see why a longer barreled 410 with 5 buck pellets woudn't be sufficient.

Or even a pump action pistol caliber rifle, taurus or rossi, in 357, with 38 specials loaded up...

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Get a 410 I have seen deer killed with 410 slugs or buckshot. One old neighbor of mine filled his tag every year for 45 years using nothing but a 410 pump gun.

 

[crossrhodes]

Hanzo581

I agree with Hanzo581. I would like to see the case and the circumstances to that event. Technically, buy law, pepper spray is considered a chemical agent under the same federal act, Any noxious gas, agent or spray can land you in jail because it's considered chemical warfare under fed law. I guess it would be how good your lawyer is at arguing the "all lesser means had been expended and no other could be reasonably employed".
Let's face it. In today's world a court is going to try and show that you had bad intentions ether way, be it a hollow point bullet, High velocity small caliber (22 cal) or an evil can of hornet spray. Then some one will twist it more and say one item was clearly used with pain and suffering intended to be inflicted. I will say that in a commonsense world you gent have posted some good ideas.....but commonsense went out the window back in the 60's.

Remember...any logical idea we come up with, will have logical way to make it illegal and in the defense of the criminal.
Please Lone Ranger and Roy Rogers come out come out where ever your are....the nation needs you.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Hanzo581: So...if a lady is being raped on her kitchen floor and she grabs a can of raid from under the sink to spray in the attackers face to get him off her she'd be facing charges for using a chemical weapon?

The law clearly states that it is a crime for any person to retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals for purposes other than any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity.

The whole thing has its roots in the theory that using mustard gas on people should be outlawed under all circumstances, while shooting someone with a rifle may sometimes be justifiable, and while using a rodenticide for its intended purpose should be permitted.

When one sees a label stating that Federal law prohibits the use of something for purposes other than those for which it is intended, pay a lot of attention to it!

By the way, it is also unlawful for any person to to assist or induce, in any way, any person to violate, or to attempt or conspire to violate, the above part of the law.

I don't think so.

Do you have a legal basis for that belief?

Posted by crossrhodes: Technically, buy law, pepper spray is considered a chemical agent under the same federal act, Any noxious gas, agent or spray can land you in jail because it's considered chemical warfare under fed law.

You apparently have not read the act carefully. It contains the following provision:

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

I guess it would be how good your lawyer is at arguing the "all lesser means had been expended and no other could be reasonably employed".

I'm afraid you are confusing two things. That argument relates to the defense of justification that would be put forth in a state court in the event that one is charged with the unlawful use of force, deadly or otherwise.

There is no defense of justification related to the Federal charges.

Let's face it. In today's world a court is going to try and show that you had bad intentions ether way, be it a hollow point bullet, High velocity small caliber (22 cal) or an evil can of hornet spray.

No. In a self defense case, county prosecutor might argue that you were not justified in the use of force--that you had an alternative. A Federal prosecutor need only argue that you knowingly possessed or used the substance to injure a person.

To give an idea of how some federal enforcement works these days, driver Bobby Unser got lost in a blizzard and drove his snowmobile onto federal land on which snowmobiles were prohibited. When he went for help to find out where he had been forced to abandon the snowmobile, he was charged with a Federal crime. As a mattter of fact, he was convicted, even though his action had obviously been unintentional.

Fortunately for Unser, the "crime" was a misdemeanor.

...commonsense went out the window back in the 60's.

The year may be debatable...

I hope this helps.

 

[Hanzo581]

I don't have any legal basis for my position. But I am still waiting for a link to the case where someone used a spray (other than pepper spray or mace) for personal defense and was thrown in prison for it.

 

[Dr-Science]

Maybe someone already proposed it, but pepper sprays and the like (i.e. pepper foams) are severely under-rated. That stuff works and works WELL. Many of them are catered towards women (who generally physically have less muscular capacities than a male) so it might be a good idea for the elderly as well. That might honestly be ur best bet; not a gun.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Hanzo581: I don't have any legal basis for my position.

Nor is there one.

But I am still waiting for a link to the case where someone used a spray (other than pepper spray or mace) for personal defense and was thrown in prison for it.

Who said anything about personal defense? The case I referred to was mentioned in a Wall Street Journal article; if you subscribe to WSJ Online you may still be able to find a link.

I had nothing to do with personal defense. It had to do with a person who knowingly used a chemical agent that fell within the scope of the Federal law we have been discussing for a purpose other than a "peaceful" one as defined in the law.

Nor would it matter. The law does not provide for a self defense exception except as mentioned in my previous post (individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace). To put it bluntly, the Federal courts just do not care about why the law was broken--just about "whether."

Do not believe for a moment that the Assistant US Attorney would not prevail in having the United States District Judge refuse to permit the admittance of anything having to do with the fact of a self defense action in the Federal trial, as it would not be relevant; it is highly likely that the jury would not even know about it.

The questions at hand in the Federal case would be, (1) did the defendant carry the wasp spray for self defense, and/or, (2) did the defendant knowingly use the wasp spray for a purpose other than one permitted under the Federal law?

The criminal penalties range from fines and/or imprisonment, with no upper limit, to life imprisonment or death, should the victim die. There is also provision for a civil penalty of up to $100K per occurrence. The importance of that is that the government's evidentiary burden in a civil case is a preponderance of the evidence, which is much easier to prove.

The self defense case, should it ever go to trial, is an entirely different story. The question whether the defendant had used the wasp spray, or any other weapon, for defense would already have been answered, and the remaining question would be whether it had been justified under the law. That case would be prosecuted under state laws by a District Attorney in a county court in a different courtroom, with a different jury, for an entirely different purpose, and there may well be evidence that is relevant and allowed in that trial that is not relevant, and therefore not admitted, in the Federal trial.

One might be acquitted (or not even charged) in a trial about the use of force in the State courts and charged and perhaps found guilty in a trial about the possession and use of chemical weapons in the Federal courts--or vice versa.

From the standpoint of the Federal law, the bottom line is that (1) one does not want to carry wasp spray in such a manner, or with the existence of potentially incriminating evidence, that indicates a purpose other than spraying wasps and hornets; (2) one does not want to spray anyone with it; and (3) one does not want to attempt in any way to persuade anyone else to do either of those things.

 

[Cosmoline]

Ditto on the wasp spray--very bad idea for anyone.

But a PROPER self defense spray might be a good idea. And a noise maker. If they are already deaf or have hearing aids they can easily remove, a big air horn would be one option.

I winced when I saw "no firearm experience." It's one thing if you have an elderly man with ortho problems but who has fifty years with firearms. It's QUITE ANOTHER when the same person is just trying to start.

I hate to say it, but I think this is not a situation where firearms will be helpful. There's too much of a chance of an AD due to arthritic hands pulling the wrong part of the firearm in frustration. Plus you are not talking about taking up shooting as a hobby, which might be fine. You're talking about trying to prepare them to go to the edge of the abyss. Those are two very different things.

Folks talking about a little Beretta also makes me nervous. It's real easy to sweep the wrong person with such a tiny piece, and they are hard for ME to manipulate. I would class mouse guns as among the most difficult firearms to use effectively, requiring years of practice.

The single shot .410 might be an option, but then you have the shoulder problems involved.

 

[JediJJJ]

Thanks for all the responses, I have been monitoring.

I have worked with them on a layered strategy and cautioned them about giving out too much information. Unfortunately, this is no longer they world they grew up in where everyone you knew was a relative or lifelong friend.

I have talked to them about the pepper spray option but they have not decided what they want to do yet. I am not pushing them into a firearm but trying to guide them in making the decison that is right for them. Also, note that the topic of the post was the wife. The husband does not suffer from the same issues and has a moderate level of shooting/handgun experience.

I 'm actually leaning toward the pistol caliber carbine at this point. A highpoint is relatively inexpensive, should be effective, and I can mount a light and/or laser to it easily. It is more powerful than any .22 or .32 and used from a tucked under the arm position should be usable. Also, since I will probably end up having to buy it first to let her try it out it is somethign I wouldn't mind having, JIC. There is still a long way to go to get her comfortable and in the proper mindset regarding safety.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

Consider a 12 ga O/U or coach gun with Aguila Mini shells. Low recoil and prox 980 ft/lbs ME. I certainly wouldn't want to take a hit from that at HD distances.
FWIW
YMMV

 

[GEM]

Wasp spray is a neurotoxin and you breathing it is NOT a great idea. For an older person to get a lung full sounds just wonderful. It is much more dangerous than pepper spray.

I think (for what it is worth) the most important thing is to get rounds going towards the BG and into that person. From the criminological reports that is very likely to stop the crime. Note - not macho stopping power but stop the crime from progessing. If the guy hightails it all well and good.

Thus, I've seen guns like the Ruger Bearcat recommended. If it is revolver based then the SW 632 with the compensator has a nice size and with SW Longs, very easy to shoot with low recoil.

Remember my point is that the big boom and bullet hitting makes the guy go away which is more important than the instant death scenario.

Of course, the folks in question have to try the gun. I'm not sanguine on the shotties. Hard to hold and manipulate.

The 10/22 - might work but I don't see much benefit over a 22 LR handgun.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I am still waiting for a link to the case where someone used a spray (other than pepper spray or mace) for personal defense and was thrown in prison for it. ...

How about just showing us a case in which someone used wasp or hornet spray for self defense against a human adversary?

....The law clearly states that it is a crime for any person to retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals for purposes other than any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity....

And under 18 USC 229A, use of a chemical weapon can get you --

(a) Criminal Penalties.—

(1) In general.— Any person who violates section 229 of this title shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years, or both.

(2) Death penalty.— Any person who violates section 229 of this title and by whose action the death of another person is the result shall be punished by death or imprisoned for life. ...

It looks like the use of wasp or hornet spray for self defense against humans could be a high risk undertaking.

...So...if a lady is being raped on her kitchen floor and she grabs a can of raid from under the sink to spray in the attackers face to get him off her she'd be facing charges for using a chemical weapon?...

There is such a thing a prosecutorial discretion. There's a good chance that a prosecutor will look at the totality of the circumstances and consider that the woman used an improvised weapon in extremis . The law will treat that a whole lot different from someone intentionally keeping wasp or hornet spray available with the intent to use it as a weapon against humans.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I am still waiting for a link to the case where someone used a spray (other than pepper spray or mace) for personal defense and was thrown in prison for it

Your wait is over. Would you consider US v. Cook?

The Government's evidence showed that appellant threw lye on Pelzer, burning his eyes and other parts of his body. The jury, under instructions not here in issue, rejected appellant's claim that he acted in self-defense. The trial judge imposed concurrent sentences of imprisonment, each within its statutory maximum...

In the case at bar, the jury heard the evidence on the condition of Pelzer's eyes and his scars were exhibited to the jury. On the evidence, a determination that he was disfigured by appellant's wrongful act was well within the jury's province. The judgment of appellant's conviction is accordingly

Affirmed.

My reading is that the jury refused to accept Cook's self-defense justification in part because of the weapon he used, and the scarred, maimed victim they were shown--quite an emotional impact on the jury, I'm sure.

Whatever the fine details, this case stands as one of a guy who claimed he used a maiming chemical weapon in self-defense, and the jury--after viewing the damage he caused--rejected his claim of self-defense.

Me? I'd take that under advisement.

 

[zxcvbob]

It's too bad the .38 S&W (not Special) is basically a dead cartridge; otherwise an old Colt Police Positive would be a good choice.

How about a nice steel .38 Special with a 2" or 3" barrel, and load it with wadcutters?

Or a CZ-82. Best $200 gun on the market right now. If the recoil from that is too much, maybe a CZ-83 (.380 ACP should be softer-shooting than the 9mm Mak)

I think someone has already mentioned a revolver in .32 Long.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Anyway, that is where my thinking is at. Let me know what you think. In any case I understand that the most useful thing will be to get some experience with whatever is chosen. It has to be something that she will take to the range and practice with, at least when prodded to do so.

I appreciate you time in reading this long post and look forward to your thoughts.

Thanx

JJJ

Jedi,

How about a Beretta tip up .32. The Tomcat. That way no slide to retract. Just load mag and tip the barrel up and drop the bullet in.

They used to make a .380 but the Tomcat in .32 might do.

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

I think that the real issues involving wasp spray are (1) that it falls within the scope of US Code, Title 18, Chapter 11B, Chemical Weapons, and (2) that its use constitutes the use of deadly force in most if not all US jurisdictions. Alternatives include firearms, if deadly force is justified, and pepper spray, if that will suffice. Neither carries the risk of getting one dragged into Federal court unless the incident in which it is used comes under Federal law.

US v Cook preceded the enactment of the chemical weapons law.

To be sure, it does not seem reasonable that a Federal prosecutor would go after a rape victim who has defended herself with a chemical weapon, but it does not seem reasonable for Bobby Unser to have been charged, tried, and convicted of a Federal offense after having unintentionally driven his snowmobile onto Federal lands, either.

The risk is real and serious, and the prudent way of mitigating that risk is to use something else.

What else? Pepper spray might be the best choice. Consider Cosmoline's points very seriously:

I winced when I saw "no firearm experience." It's one thing if you have an elderly man with ortho problems but who has fifty years with firearms. It's QUITE ANOTHER when the same person is just trying to start.

I hate to say it, but I think this is not a situation where firearms will be helpful. There's too much of a chance of an AD due to arthritic hands pulling the wrong part of the firearm in frustration. Plus you are not talking about taking up shooting as a hobby, which might be fine. You're talking about trying to prepare them to go to the edge of the abyss. Those are two very different things.

Folks talking about a little Beretta also makes me nervous. It's real easy to sweep the wrong person with such a tiny piece, and they are hard for ME to manipulate. I would class mouse guns as among the most difficult firearms to use effectively, requiring years of practice.

 

[mavracer]

I'd also be one to reccomend a big dog. The shotgun or carbine would also be a good choice as long as they both can operate it. Might look at a M1 Carbine.

 

[Kleanbore]

Only two suggestions to get a dog, so far?

 

[Fred Fuller]

Goes without saying, I'd think... if they can manage the addition to the household, that is. Some older folks who really could use a dog are either afraid of them, scared they will get underfoot and cause falls (like my mom asserts as her reason not to want one, thing is, LOTS of fall injuries are caused by pets), or concerned about being able to take care of the animal. It would be nice if getting a dog was a take-for-granted, but unfortunately it can't always be thus.

lpl

 

[conw]

I agree with Cosmoline (gun is not a magic solution for everything) and Lee Lapin (dog - IF you can make it work).

How about a safe room?

 

[Resist Evil]

I think the dog idea and pistol caliber carbine make a lot of sense.

 

[NMGonzo]

What about a care facility?

Really ...

 

[Fred Fuller]

If I might...

Lots of older people want to stay in familiar surroundings, and cherish the independence of living on their own. While many of them are less physically able than they once were, they are still capable of maintaining their ADLs (activities of daily living) and don't need or want to be in any sort of care facility. They want to be in their own homes, in their own communities, among their neighbors.

The fact that reduced sensory abilities (difficulty in hearing or seeing), reduced physical strength, agility and mobility, too much of an old fashioned trusting nature etc. all work against older folks is a simple fact of life, and that's what is being dealt with here. The aim is to help them find manageable "equalizers" (and not just firearms) to potential thugs who are younger and stronger.

lpl

 

[Kliegl]

My grandmother lived in her own home till 98, and the familiar surroundings really helped her. That being said, all she did for security was throw serious deadbolts.

Give them the wasp spray. Who cares if it's against federal code, an elderly disabled couple would never get convicted on that sort of thing, and if they did, tar and feathering of everyone involved would spontaneously occur.

 

[Hunter125]

What about a lever action rifle in .357/.38 Special? If you get one with a big enough loop it should be a little easier to handle with the arthritis. Maybe a little easier to manipulate than a magazine and charging handle. Also, have you considered tasers? I have never shot one, so I don't know what they would be like for someone with arthritis, but it might be a viable option.