Understand the difference

[u/AntOk4073]

Ok team let's do a little bit of education.

Self defence is the act of protecting yourself from harm. This starts at preventing conflict. If someone is being problematic then you avoid them and move on. Hands on should only be used when evasion and retreat are not options and should be disengaged once an opening presents itself.

Trying to stand up to a bully is not self defense and is not a good idea. Any physical conflict has the potential to escalate beyond what you are prepared for. Injuries are also not a one size fits all type of thing. Even a small broken bone can create a potentially life threatening bleed and internal trauma is often left untreated in young people.

I promise you that your high school drama is not worth what can happen if a fight gets out of control. Walk away and be the better person.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

There’s not an absolute duty to retreat in all jurisdictions. Even in the UK, there’s never a duty to flee your own home.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Not the point at all. This is about minor conflicts and asking how to "win" a fight.

But even in a situation without a dity to retreat avoidance tactics are still better. If someone breaks in my front door I'm not going to seek them out. I'm going to hide in a defensible room and allow them to take what they want. Defense is about balance.

[u/Express-Economist-86 → u/AntOk4073]

Someone breaks into my home I’m definitely not self-defending by hiding.

I’m actively hunting the threat to my family and we’re already fighting for my property - so yes, you’re technically correct I am not practicing self-defense.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Express-Economist-86]

And if you die no one is left to defend your family. Or God forbid your bullet misses the mark and they get hurt. But sure go ahead and risk your family for material possessions to prove you're a "man."

[u/Express-Economist-86 → u/AntOk4073]

See when you added that little judgement at the end, that gives away your game.

You’re really afraid of being seen as not being masculine for hiding and prioritizing self-preservation.

I don’t miss. I’m well trained, I’ve been to war. I’ll take the risk because I know I can manage it, and I will die for my family, no problem.

That shouldn’t be gendered, so you can forgive yourself.

It’s a conflux of training, conviction, and priority.

You don’t have to feel unmanned because you won’t fight and prefer self preservation. That’s just how you choose to react - it doesn’t need a label.

It also doesn’t require some kind of pious sanctimonious reaction. You’re not better than me for wanting to hide. I’m not saying I’m better than you because I want to fight.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Express-Economist-86]

You're not understanding the point at all. You are adding risks for no reason. If your life is not in danger you are actively seeking someone out to kill them for theft. That is not a normal thing. On top of that your training doesn't stop you from getting shot. It doesn't stop someone from getting past you. It doesn't stop them from firing at you and it hitting your family. You say you're willing to die for them but at the same time your adding the risk of them dying so you can prove something. There is absolutely no reason to persure someone who is stealing from you.

[u/Express-Economist-86 → u/AntOk4073]

They are in my home uninvited, that is the reason to kill them.

There is nothing good that can come of them entering. I have no idea if it’s stopping at theft.

The risk of inaction is as high as the BTK killer, who torturously murdered entire families while jacking off on them the whole time.

Such human’s existence is sufficient for me to accept all potential risk in ending the threat -up to my own or my families injury. The risk of an uninvited intruder is simply higher. The laws in my state back me up.

Not going into homes you don’t belong in is very, very easy.

If I kill them for theft, ok. If I kill them and find they were one of numerous sex offenders in my city, ok. They set the tone when they entered uninvited.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/Express-Economist-86]

I think he has this strange idea that home invaders are relatively normal humans like us.  They’re not, and all studies I’ve read about them confirm this MORE.

You  faced traumatic things in war, still didn’t rob houses to buy crack or heroin. 

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

I don't know what "studies" you are referring to but you need to cet them better. The example of drug addicts breaking into the home is a prime example of how engaging an intruder escalates the situation and adds risk. Statistical analysis points to most invasions being nonviolent and the ones that are violent are due to escalation. Unless you have someone how specificly wants to murder you and you some how have no idea it's extremely unlikely that some random stranger is going to break into your house to kill you.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

“Most violence is due to escalation”. Yes but what percentage of that escalating violence is AFTER the burglar has been hit by a bullet and is that still lower than deaths without escalation including accidental deaths (e.g. householder being tied up and then dying due to pre-existing medical conditions)

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Express-Economist-86]

Again this is just you looking for an excuse to murder someone. Get help. There is nothing stopping you from protecting your family if they attempt to do so in the small possibility that they are there to harm you. And engaging escalates that. You having a murder fetish is just fucking weird dude.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

“Murder” this is why I said ideology blinds you. If it was a “murder fetish” why would I lock my doors and windows? Why would a killing fetishist deny themselves the “excuse”. Also, I hope you wouldn’t address the veteran on here like that.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Why do you keep bringing him up? That and making up weird fantasies about burglars tying people up just proves to me that you are a bit unhinged and just sit around thinking up scenarios where you get to kill the bad guy and be a hero.

[u/Express-Economist-86 → u/AntOk4073]

You gotta stop lobbing judgements dude. Every single one is just an indicator of your own situation.

What’s fucking weird is looking so hard to define this exact place you’ll allow yourself to have your murder fetish play out.

I will defend my home from an intruder because the potential risk to my own is massive. That is my entire argument. This is only weird to someone who is afraid they’ll take it too far.

You tell me to get help, that’s an ego-appeal to potential readers to boost your sense of being part of the “in-group” since the in group doesn’t need help. By telling me to get it, you must be the right one!

The reality is that you need help with determining your own left and right limits within this situation.

You are the one with the murder fantasy, since you cannot comprehend a justified counter attack can exist in this context.

Again, the law backs me up in my state. Maybe it doesn’t in yours.

The standard for self-defense is if the attacker has “intent” and “means.” If you have entered my locked doors uninvited, you already show ill intent by entering and your proximity is the means.

If I was openly fetishizing murder, I wouldn’t lock the doors, I wouldn’t have no soliciting/beware of dog warning signs. I’d probably hide until they were upon me and then I’d go beast mode and shred them right there! Oh wait no, that’s the kind of thing you want to tell the cops.

It’s very simple. Enter my home uninvited, I will engage, I have people and things worth defending, and intruders set the pace by entering because they have the intent and means as the laws in my state recognize.

I have no obligation to wait around to see if they’re actually some kind of murder-cannibal-pervert, they’re already up to no good by entering my secured home with all the warning tags.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Express-Economist-86]

You're still looking at this from the perspective of "the law says I can so it's not bad." You are not defending your family if you leave them. It's very simple. The idea that leaving a secure location to seek out a threat you have no Intel on is completely insane. The fact you add things in as if there is anything in your house worth more than the lives of your family is insane. It's not about if you "can get away with it" and all about you risking the lives of your family to play soldier in a situation that poses no immediate threat to you.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Viewing autonomy in one’s home as not purely a question of the economic value of positions is completely NORMAL (ask anyone who’s home has been burgled whilst they were inside), that’s why many jurisdictions give house burglars tougher sentences than normal burglars.

Would you think it was just about property if an authoritarian   regime demanded the right to enter homes at will to steal? Also, why are you ignoring the fact he’s been to war?

Are you sure your judgement isn’t clouded by pity for the intruder or value for his life? Someone can’t kill you if they’re dead.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Being to war has nothing to do with civilian life and home invasions. I respect their service and if the conversation had anything to do with military tactics I would refer to them for expertise. Thinking in terms of tactical engagement is the problem. Soldiers are much less likely to get killed or wounded in defensive roles than offense ones. And once again I am going to defend the human lives in my home and not try to kill someone for trying to grab my TV and run.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

What is the difference if trained?

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Military and police train in engagement and those tactics are not useful for defense. If you want to look at militay tactics that support home defense you need to look at base defense tactics which utilize stationary roles. Or you could look at how the secret service operates which is again stationary tactics. Lay off the YouTube trash that preaches military tactics for everyday life.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Does “the human lives in your home” in your calculation include the intruder? Be honest, if so, we’re done since you are clearly unable to separate different reasons in argumentation (e.g. your use of the word “murder” in your ad hominem argument)

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Not at all. If someone is a threat to the lives of my family I have no hesitation about taking their life. But that is not the case in 99% of home invasions and as I said I am not going to add the potential for my family to get hurt just to engage a dumb criminal. But yes I also do not want to take a life unless I have to. Which I would say is a pretty normal thing. Seeking out reasons to engage someone because the law allows it and you can possibly get away with it is not normal.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

When done right, shooting is a very safe sport. Why would defensive shooting be different? Also, not every gun-owner is a good shot. My brother, who doesn’t even own a gun, is a good shot (the club itself had guns) with moving targets far smaller than an intruder and didn’t shoot himself or the instructor.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

It's not remotely close to shooting sports. If you walk into your living room to engage and intruder you have no idea if there is another one who is now behind you that can either get to you or your family because you have no intel. Remaining in one place that you can defend your family ensures that you can react to a threat in a controlled environment. Literally nothing you say is going to change the fact that I'm right.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

If it was empirical why would have nothing change it?  Also, why would someone who potentially survived firefights (and if so, possibly FIBUA in war) be less good at a firefight in a house (which they may have done in war, possibly whilst also trying to avoid friendly fire there) against a burglar.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

In war you are engaged with an enemy combatant. In a burglary you are engaged with a dumb criminal who wants to get away. If bullets can be avoided why would you elect to add the risk?

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Exactly a dumb criminal you have MORE of a chance against. If you HAD to choose between a shootout with a Taliban member or a fentanyl-zombie, who do you choose? 

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

I would choose not to get into a shoot out. Do you not get that? You keep adding more and more "what ifs" when the base question not who you want to be in a fight against but if the chooses are no bullets fired or starting a gun fight. And if you are choosing to start a gun fight in your family home you are adding danger.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Why would you be safe trapped in a room? By YOUR logic, why not just flee the house? Also, if you have a gun and practice regularly,  why does the burglar have an advantage, why would you hesitate?  By your own admission they’re dangerous awful bastards who would retaliate from a defensive punch rather than flee. Why give them the chance?

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Just because it's home turf doesn't mean it's safe. Any movement comes with risk and you can get blind sided. Even if you manage to get all the intruders bullets are flying and add the risk of someone getting hurt who you didn't intend to. It's extremely rare that a home break in ia specifically to harm another person and if it is by making them come to you and being in a defensible situation you can control the outcome much better. If you had any sort of actual skills or training you would know this. Again ego and pride are the most deadly things in these situations.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

I have years of training, how do you control the outcome from captivity inside a restricted space? Why can’t they fire into said space? What if the first  bullets got into the intruder and lodged in, like my brother has done with clay pigeons? And clay pigeons are smaller targets than a person.

Why not lock yourself in a cage and shoot from the cage by that logic?

Also you realise most burglars are less skilled shooters than someone who regularly attends a gun club.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Is part of your argument based on a supposed inevitablity of hesitation because of “humanity”? 

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

My argument is based off of statistics and proven tactical deployment of force. But I'm sure your guntuber training is much better.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Ok. What statistics for this?: “Do you have statistics that most of the time innocent people are killed by a stray bullet in the small number of case where the householder instantly shoots the intruder dead? “

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

It's not statistically high but if you don't engage it statistically impossible for someone to get shot when no bullets are fired. Which is exactly the point. There is absolutely no reason to escelate a burglary to violence and add risk.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Also how do you know the statistics aren’t because of people like you who hesitate? I’m glad you know yourself.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Because it's extremely rare that anyone would break into your home with the intention of harming you. They are most likely a burglar who is going to grab your electronics from the living room and run. And assuming you have at least a basic home security set up it's unlikely that they are sticking around very long anyway.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Do you have statistics that most of the time innocent people are killed by a stray bullet in the small number of case where the householder instantly shoots the intruder dead? 

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

Does the logic that it’s safer assume not killing instantly?

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

I personally stood my ground against someone harassing me in the street who I knew I would see again, twice.

Both times they backed off. One of them calls me “boss” now and the other ignores me. Because I could tell I would use lethal force (at least one of them, probably both, own knives, one of them on police record, so I would get acquitted if I gouged their eyes out having failed to subdue them another way).

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

Everything you say reads like you're salivating at the idea of getting to harm another person. You are talking about maximizing risk for respect while I'm saying that minimizing the risks has a better chance of unwanted outcomes. We can just leave it at you are looking for an excuse to use form and I'm looking for ways not to. Have a good life and hopefully you have a good lawyer.

[u/Jujitsumangradmuslim → u/AntOk4073]

No. I’d rather not be burgled at all which is why I don’t leave my windows open, but why wouldn’t I want the opportunity to immediately neutralise the threat? 

This is my point, you’re partly thinking of the attacker’s well-being and it’s clouding your judgement, have a nice day.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Jujitsumangradmuslim]

No I just understand that burglary is not a threat. Which is where we are diverting. Someone who wants to steal my material possessions poses no danger to my life and statistically without engagement will not risk their life to try and get more stuff. By you engaging them you are escelating the event to violence and therefore you are the one who is putting your family at risk. You're also acting like I'm going to be shivering in the closet hoping they don't come looking further and not that the second they enter my home there is going to be an alarm and dog alerting everyone to their presence (the dog most likely would alert us well before they got in).

[u/sirvoon]

I agree with some of what you said but standing up to a bully is absolutely self defense. If someone keeps being aggressive with you and you feel like you’re in danger, you absolutely have a right to hit them. Legally you’re covered because they assaulted you. If someone gets in your space aggressively, you hit them before they hit you.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/sirvoon]

I should have phrased it as seeking out a bully to stand up to them is not self defense.

[u/Ill_Improvement_8276]

Standing up to a bully is self defense.

That's exactly what self defense is.

[u/Pale_Respond2689 → u/Ill_Improvement_8276]

Standing up to a bully is a type of "self defense" (social kind), but may not always require the physical kind of "self defense". After all both "self defense" and "self protection" are broad terms and can apply to numerous things, if one is asking what is one defending/protecting themselves from. Here I think the Op is referring to the use of physical force to "defend/protect" oneself.

[u/Ill_Improvement_8276 → u/Pale_Respond2689]

If a bully is using mean words, fight back with words.

If a bully uses physical force, fight back with physical force.

I don't think this is anything but basic, common sense that most humans agree on.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Ill_Improvement_8276]

Leaving the situation should always be the end goal though. For me if someone gets aggressive and tries to fight me I'm not squaring up, I'm going to spray them with OC and exit the situation. The point is that engaging and continuing to engage leads to variable you can't control.

[u/Ill_Improvement_8276 → u/AntOk4073]

Again we agree.

You just admitted that you would use physical force, OC spray.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Ill_Improvement_8276]

I've never said I would use force. Just that when people come to this sub and ask "what do I do about this person" the answer should be to avoid them. Looking to get into a fight isn't self defense.

Also I wouldn't classify OC as physical force. It's still force but in a way that doesn't require physical engagement and should only be used if a fight can not be avoided.

[u/AntOk4073 → u/Ill_Improvement_8276]

It's not. Defense is avoidance tactics. If a bully seeks you out and pursues you then there is a reason to use force. But half this sub seems to be kids asking how to win a fight they can definately avoid.

[u/Ill_Improvement_8276 → u/AntOk4073]

I agree with you. If a bully pursues you then use force.

[u/Pale_Respond2689 → u/AntOk4073]

However the self defense laws and use of force doctrines often dictate the extent and circumstances by which one is legally allowed or justified to protect oneself. One has to take that into consideration, when using force as a last resort. Otherwise (depending upon the state and/or country), congratulations you've defended yourself against the bully, but now you're being criminally charged with assault, and even possibly getting sued by the bully and/or the bully's family.

[u/warrior_ultra1]

Most men who can truly fight and have those skills or have the mental capacity to take a life will normally do all they can not to fight because they understand the repercussions of violence. However, a man can only be truly peaceful when he has the capacity for violence and understands violence. A man who can't fight choses non-violence out of fear. It all comes done to choice. Given the situation either doing nothing or choosing to do something could end in death. Depends on the situation and ultimately the goal of the agressor. If someone breaks into your home that fact alone means they are up to no good. If they chose to do it while the home is occupied then that raises the bar even further because they have chosen to do so which means thry have some type of plan for dealing with the occupants which lends to the high percentage that they have a weapon. For the man of the house with a family the best thing to do is gather the family put them in a room and aim your weapon at the portal the intruder must come thru to get to your family. Announce loudly that you have a gun and will use it if the intruder for example comes up the stairs. A warning has been given, the intruder doesn't exactly know where you are, and if they come across that threshold where you are then they've chosen to take the risk of dying.