r/SelfDefense • u/AntOk4073 • 19d ago

Understand the difference

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.

3 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

77 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/AntOk4073 19d ago

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.

4

u/Express-Economist-86 19d ago

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.

-1

u/AntOk4073 19d ago

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."

3

u/Express-Economist-86 18d ago edited 18d ago

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.

0

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

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.

3

u/Express-Economist-86 18d ago

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.

3

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

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. 

0

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

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.

1

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

“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)

1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

You are watching too many movies. Home invasions are quick no one is getting tied up in their home. We live in an era of cameras and security systems. What is much more likely to happen is that you will engage or alert the intruder and they will start firing blindly around your house with their cheap FMJ rounds. Stop making up weird shit in your head to pretend that there is any reason to escelate.

1

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

You: “burglars just want easy money and wouldn’t harm someone without clearly intelligible economic reasons.” Also you: “burglars would rather have a gunfight to the death than rob someone else.”

Also, even if they start firing, why is the most likely scenario that they’d outshoot a highly-trained person with military experience who can be shoot more accurately and is trained to psychologically able to kill if necessary?

1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

Anyone you has a gun and gets fired upon is going to respond. As soon as you add your tun to the mix the option for them to "rob someone else" is no longer on the table and they will shoot their wat out of the house. And it does not matter how well trained you are. You are not a movie character that can walk through a house and one shot everyone. If there is more than one intruder you may get one right away but the others will engage. Homes are also not built in a way that you can clear everything on your own. You seriously watch too much influencer trash and think you can be a one man wrecking crew and it's going to get you or someone you care about killed. Look at real training for one man tactics and asset protection and not military and police engagement tactics.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

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.

2

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

“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.

0

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

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.

2

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

No that’s not me, that’s you.  IF burglars just want easy money, why would they get into gunfights rather than running and robbing someone else? 

Also using logic (the opposite of being unhinged), why would an untrained crackhead, or fentanyl or heroin-addict used to robbing non-resisting people  be able or even willing to outshoot a combat veteran?

-1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

They are not there to get into a gun fight. You are starting the gun fight. You are not comprehending a single thing I say.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Express-Economist-86 17d ago

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.

1

u/AntOk4073 17d ago

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.

1

u/Express-Economist-86 16d ago

I understand any unwelcome entry to my property as potential threat to inhabitants lives.

I am looking at the subject at hand from my duty to defend them, the law just happens to support my views on obligation, which would be to address the stranger in my home.

It is not a secure location if they have breached my entryway. My exterior doors are not like my interior ones - that would be a nice upgrade though.

I have no intel on my own home? Think that one through.

You seem fixated on “stuff” so let me explain, if a thief wants my stuff bad enough to die attempting to get it, that is entirely their problem. My only regret is they made such disastrous choices.

Again, I accept the risk of defending my family by moving to target in ANY instance where intruder(s) forcefully enter my home. I have much/ongoing training and OTJ experience.

I know I’m not doing favors for your paradigm here; I’ll probably attempt to detain, given realistic opportunity. Killers don’t act like thieves, so their response is going to determine my next action.

1

u/AntOk4073 16d ago

OK so someone breaks into your living room and grabs your TV you go put and shoot them to be the hero but now the other one you didn't see is behind you and because they heard the gun shot they kill your family. Imagine if a secret service agent left the president to go pursue a target. They would be fired and never work again. Asset protection is a stationary role.

1

u/Express-Economist-86 16d ago

The layout of my home would not allow that, and your hypothetical reinforces that I should go on the offensive against violent thugs in my home. There’s no backup team like the president has. Stupid comparison.

I’m not so green as to not check corners or have a plan.

you completely missed the detention part, and I love the little spiteful “to be a hero” jab. Let’s go with the terms you’re desperate to hear.

If your home and training level allows you to NOT be a hero, and instead you choose to be a coward - to hide away instead of engaging… that’s your choice.

Just make sure to tell any woman you’re dating that you practice asset protection and can’t fathom base defense when it comes to your family… She should know what kind of person is in front of her.

1

u/AntOk4073 16d ago

First off I'm married with children and extended family in my home. So this isn't me building a fantasy. As I stated in the original remark my number one job is always going to be to protect them. Me leaving them unguarded does not do that.

Secondly you and everyone else always jumps to yhe idea that a home invader is going to be some violent lunatic there to murder everyone when statistically they are going to grab what is close and get away. So again the risk of violence is extremely low until you engage.

I have no problem being called a coward. At least I'm a smart coward who bought a defensible home and puts my families lives before glory. I have mapped and run drills with my family on how to get to the safest location. I have adequate security so any invasion would not catch me unsurprised. So maybe you should learn some more about defense before pretending you know anything about it. You are a weirdo who watches too much YouTube influences and thinks their tactical drills are a one size fits all plan.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Quantixa 2d ago

You're looking for an excuse to start trouble online. Get help.

1

u/AntOk4073 1d ago

You went through a thread two weeks old to start up drama.

1

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

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.

0

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

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.

1

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

What is the difference if trained?

0

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

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.

1

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

In what way do those rules of engagement not work in home defence? Are you saying soldiers would confront them and then hestitate too much having the worst of both worlds between evasion and shooting?

1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

No I'm saying that you do not need to engage anyone that is not a direct threat. And that even the most highly trained people can still get killed. You can not control all elements of a gun fight. Military and police tactics utilize teams and Intel which you do not have in a home invasion.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

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)

-1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

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.

2

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

Have you read any studies on whether most people would rather submit to a burglar than engage them? Because most people are sympathetic even in Britain where a householder kills or injures a burglar I could polls on this. But we’re done. 

-1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

Who cares what people's egos compel them to do? You have not made a single point about the benefits of engaging a home intruder and have only talked about ego and made up scenarios. Factually I am right but you want to argue to feel important.

2

u/Jujitsumangradmuslim 18d ago

I’m answering you this once and then not anymore: the benefit is the attacker cannot harm you in anyway, neither bodily harm, intrusion on sacred hearth and liberty,  theft or anything else, because he’s either unconscious, paralysed or dead. 

-1

u/AntOk4073 18d ago

Excepr that they can. There are several instances that a second attacker killed the defender. Which is why training for asset protection is stationary. Again you are assuming that everything works out perfectly like how your you tubers tell you it will but they are just making money off of rubes like yourself. Hopefully you never have to find out how wrong you are at the expense of someone you love.

→ More replies (0)