Thread: Girl-Friendly Home Defense

Why not a non lethal weapon like those stun guns that shoot the contacts into the intruder? They have the ability to incapacitate the person very quickly. Not sure if these can be bought for personal defense however.

Originally Posted by SneeBeezums

Why not a non lethal weapon like those stun guns that shoot the contacts into the intruder? They have the ability to incapacitate the person very quickly. Not sure if these can be bought for personal defense however.

Nope, not a good idea. They aren't reliably capable of incapacitating someone; they generally only have one shot and if you miss you can't fire again; they can easily be defeated by thick clothing; and if you do manage to hit someone, they are only effective for as long as they deliver electricity... what are you going to do, stand there holding the trigger and continually zapping the guy for 15 minutes while you wait for the police to show up?

Originally Posted by Syme

Nope, not a good idea. They aren't reliably capable of incapacitating someone; they generally only have one shot and if you miss you can't fire again; they can easily be defeated by thick clothing; and if you do manage to hit someone, they are only effective for as long as they deliver electricity... what are you going to do, stand there holding the trigger and continually zapping the guy for 15 minutes while you wait for the police to show up?

I only suggested it because it might be easier for a person to stun the person and make an escape for safety rather than pulling a trigger of a firearm and taking a person's life. I can't see whipping a gun out and shooting a person for the first time, life or death situation, is an easy thing to do. I mean hell every girl I know doesn't want to go hunting to kill animals and cries if they hit one with their car. It might be easier emotionally for the person to have one of those stun guns, incapacitate the robber, and run until the cops show. If you take out a firearm and hesitate even the slightest, whose to say the robber isn't armed and will likely retaliate.

As for the debate in the caliber, a .22 would not be a bad choice. A .22 round is strong enough to penetrate the human skull. Or even a 9mm. If might not have enough oomf, but again, a well placed round will kill a person. If you shot a robber in the lungs, heart, or the head he isn't going to be getting away.

Originally Posted by SneeBeezums

As for the debate in the caliber, a .22 would not be a bad choice. A .22 round is strong enough to penetrate the human skull. Or even a 9mm. If might not have enough oomf, but again, a well placed round will kill a person. If you shot a robber in the lungs, heart, or the head he isn't going to be getting away.

Uhh, no, this is totally wrong. Again, it's not about whether the bullet can kill someone, it's about whether it can reliably and rapidly incapacitate them. This depends on penetration and wound channel diameter. All bullets are capable of killing someone, but not all bullets are capable of reliably and rapidly incapacitating them. .22 LR is not capable of the latter. End of story. .22 is therefore a terrible choice for defensive use. There is a reason that virtually every single self-defense instructor, firearms expert, etc. will tell you that .22 is an inadequate round for self-defense.