A reader asked me what kinds of self defense options are available for the elderly. Should they explore less-than-lethal devices, or should they stick to firearms?
I replied in no uncertain terms that firearms are the only real option for the elderly or those suffering from physical disabilities.
It is an imperfect world, and it is a hard fact that age robs us of our abilities. People are living longer and healthier lives, with athletic prowess retained for far longer than at any time in human history, but every year there is still less sand in our personal hourglass. Eventually it runs out.
Could a healthy, active 60-year-old with some martial arts training hold their own against a violent teenager with no training at all? Sure, but I wouldn't bet any money on the senior citizen. I'd even start to bet against them when they reached 65, and I'd start giving massive odds by the time their 70th birthday rolled past.
Look, it is like this. Combat can be viewed as an exchange of energy. The enemy is trying to dump enough energy in our fragile, quivering flesh to break it. They want to disrupt our ability to resist them, sometimes they just want to force us to hand over our wallet but sometimes they are looking to end our lives.
What is our goal? We are trying to dump enough energy into them so that they have to stop trying to hurt us! When it comes to hand-to-hand encounters, this requires an enormous amount of effort to be expended since we have to get more energy into the bad guy, and in places on his body where it will do the most good, while he is trying to do the same to us. Whoever inflicts the most damage in the shortest period of time will probably prevail.
Even if we try to run away instead of actually going toe-to-toe with the bad guy, we are still expending a great deal of energy in the pursuit of our goal. And it is just as true with a footrace as it is with exchanging blows that the one who can deliver the most energy in the shortest period of time will probably win. Translation: he'll catch you if he can run faster than you.
I wrote about less-lethal alternatives a few years ago, suggesting that the most effective devices are chemical sprays, batons, and very bright flashlights. Both their role and their proper use becomes clear when you think about them in terms of energy delivery.
(Please click on all pictures to see if a larger image is available.)
The flashlight will disrupt the bad guy's vision, making it more difficult for him to deliver energy to you. The chemical spray will also screw up his vision, but it will also make it more difficult for him to breathe so he'll have less endurance. This means that he'll have to slow down the pace with which he dumps energy into his victim or drop from exhaustion.
Lastly is the baton, which I consider to be the most useful less-lethal device. It doesn't hurt the bad guy all by itself, but instead makes your own efforts more effective by at least an order of magnitude. The energy from your blows are concentrated into a smaller area so they will do more damage, and the lever principle means that your own force is magnified.
But all of these devices are mere force multipliers, they don't actually bring anything to the fight. If you cannot muster enough force to damage the bad guy, or too slow to run away even if his ability to chase is impaired, then none of them will do you much good.
Firearms, on the other hand, deliver energy with each round fired. The only physical requirements for their effective use is that someone has to be strong enough to hold the gun steady for aimed fire, and they have to have the hand mobility and strength to squeeze the trigger. The gun does all the rest.
"Ah-HA!" I can hear you say. "What about those electrical defense devices that are all the rage now? Stun guns and the like deliver energy to the target, energy stored in their batteries!"
This is certainly true, but I have two big problems with such devices that not only prevent me from endorsing them, but also prompts me to urge my students to keep away from them.
The first is that they run off of batteries. While the chemical propellant used by firearms is usually viable for decades, batteries won't stay charged that long. It takes a fair amount of discipline to make sure that the batteries are fully charged, and that they haven't degraded to the point that they will still deliver the watts even if they were just unplugged from the wall.
The second problem is with delivery. When it comes to stun guns, you actually have to touch the attacker with the unit. TASER's provide a stand-off capability because they fire little darts that are connected to the main device through wires, but the wires are only 15 feet long or so. If the bad guy is farther away, you had better just sit there and wait.
Need I point out that handguns provide a much greater distance between the felon and the victim? Remember, distance is safety when it comes to a felonious attack.
So there you have it. Less-lethal devices are extremely useful because they are force multipliers. If someone has seen their physical abilities erode through age, illness or accident to the point that they can't deliver enough force to do the job, then enhancement won't be any help.
Better get a firearm.
Comments (12)
Great post. I expanded on it a bit, but I think this is spot on. The elderly are under-served by Self-defense community.
Posted by mostlygenius | March 24, 2008 12:40 AM
Posted on March 24, 2008 00:40
The elderly are under-served by Self-defense community.
Not by me, at least.
James
Posted by James R. Rummel | March 24, 2008 1:13 AM
Posted on March 24, 2008 01:13
Hi, James --
In our self-defense training in the Navy, the magic number is "21". That is, a person can close the distance and attack you in practically no time at all from a distance of 21 feet. It's part of the deadly force triangle: does the person have capability, opportunity, and intent? If he or she is within 21 feet (with no intervening barriers, of course), the opportunity side of the triangle has been met, even for people with a knife, because they can close that 21 feet in no time at all.
I mention this because you state that the gun-type taser device has lines that are 15 feet long. That means that a perp has ample time to close the distance if they want to (and are reasonably spry). The makers of the device might tout it as a ranged attack, in other words, but in my book it still counts as hand-to-hand because the distance is so short.
Posted by Kat | March 24, 2008 3:44 AM
Posted on March 24, 2008 03:44
Good post. I have wondered many times how old I will be when my Muay Thai juice will run out - I am 39 now and can handle the constant wear and tear, bruises and everything else - for now. But by the time I am 60 (or 50?) - no way. Bones get brittle, etc. Gun at that time, hands down.
Posted by Dan from Madison | March 24, 2008 6:44 AM
Posted on March 24, 2008 06:44
The makers of the device might tout it as a ranged attack, in other words, but in my book it still counts as hand-to-hand because the distance is so short.
Great point, Kat! Wish I had thought of that myself.
James
Posted by James R. Rummel | March 24, 2008 9:30 AM
Posted on March 24, 2008 09:30
The drawback to a baton is that these are unlawful for civilians to carry in most states. It may be a felony in your state to carry one unlawfully.
A collapseable baton is not a "non-lethal" weapon. It is an "impact weapon." LE personnel who carry them are required to be trained and certified in their correct use. No such training is available to civilians anywhere, so far as I know.
This make applying a "use of force continuum" difficult for civilians, because the reasonable alternative - pepper spray - in the best available products only reaches 10-13 ft.
For each type of weapon and degree of force, LE officers are trained to answer four main questions, illustrated here with the baton as the weapon.
1) When is it proper to employ an impact weapon?
2) What offender behavior and actions should an officer perceive prior to striking various targets with a baton?
3) What level of imminent danger must the officer perceive prior to using a baton as deadly force?
4) What type and degree of injury can an officer expect from this type of tool and duration of force during typical employment scenarios?
Such parameters create a “threshold requirement” for every degree of force. As a subject meets the threshold for the type of weapon or degree of force, the officer then can decide to employ that amount of force reasonably suited to overcome the suspect’s resistance given the offender’s conduct at the moment. This places the onus for reasonable force on the officer to justify the type or level of force used given the suspect’s behavior and, most important, mirrors the legal requirements of the use of force.
In this type of training, no need exists for the “escalation” or “de-escalation” of force. When the officer’s perception of an offender's behavior meets the requirements that the officer has been trained to observe, the officer may employ the tools, tactics, or methods that are appropriate and reasonable.
Posted by ke4sky | March 24, 2008 1:42 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 13:42
The drawback to a baton is that these are unlawful for civilians to carry in most states.
I'm pretty sure you are wrong about that.
The big problem is that there is very scarce info online concerning the legality of carrying a baton. It is certainly illegal in Texas, New York, California, and your own stomping grounds of Washington, DC. But those aren't "most states", and except for Texas they are places that are known for being unfriendly to the concept of armed self defense.
Everyone assumes that they are illegal just about everywhere, but they are also sold just about everywhere. This doesn't mean that batons are legal to be carried, as you can own a weapon legally while carrying it is illegal, but it does seem odd that the general opinion is that you will get in trouble for carrying a baton when there are virtually no hard facts to support this.
James
Posted by James R. Rummel | March 24, 2008 2:29 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 14:29
The laws in many states allow for concealed carry of handguns or pistols only, not weapons in general. That would include Ohio.
2923.12 Carrying concealed weapons.
(A) No person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person’s person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:
(1) A deadly weapon other than a handgun;
Posted by words twice | March 24, 2008 7:42 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 19:42
I am a bit offended by ke4sky's comment. It sounds a little elitist. Imho if I am an old man with limited options to defend myself I will pick the one I am most comfortable with and the state be damned. Keep your lectures, they don't do any good for senior citizens who are getting harassed and having their property forcably taken from them.
My wife is not comfortable with a gun at this point so she carries pepper spray. I am not sure this is legal and, frankly, I don't care. This is the most comfortable thing for her and she has to defend herself somehow in an emergency situation. Good luck to a DA prosecuting my wife for defending herself against some marauder bent on stealing her goods or wanting to rape her. That is not good PR.
Posted by Dan from Madison | March 25, 2008 7:06 AM
Posted on March 25, 2008 07:06
Dan,
I agree completely with your comment, that legal or not, you must do what you need to do, that the right of self preservation prevails, the state be damned. In your situation I would so likewise. However, I can't "recommend" that anyone intentionally break the law. That is an individual decision, but as the old saying goes, "better tried by twelve than carried by six." How well you fare in front of a jury is highly variable. Having served multiple times as a witness and twice on criminal juries in violent crime cases, I don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about it.
My appologies if I came across as "elitist" for it was not my intent. I'm just a career government bureaucrat who can't wait to retire as far outside the beltway as I can, to someplace in West Virginia where I can shoot out of my windows.
Posted by ke4sky | March 26, 2008 10:34 AM
Posted on March 26, 2008 10:34
One other significant difference between a Taser and a pistol - very few pistols are single shots these days.
Heck, even the little derringers are almost all two-shot affairs.
Even if you're willing to bet that your one shot from the Taser will hit your agressor, and that it will disable them, what are you going to do about his partner(s)?
Posted by KCSteve | March 26, 2008 10:53 AM
Posted on March 26, 2008 10:53
Here in Israel if your can't pass the physical, you can't get the carry permit. So if you are elderly, or suffering from a debilitating illness, you have no choice but to carry a less then lethal alternative.
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel
Posted by DoubleTapper | March 26, 2008 12:44 PM
Posted on March 26, 2008 12:44