Stand Your Ground (licence to kill)?

[GeeMack]

See, for me, that's the first consideration. 'If I go downstairs and confront these people with my gun, am I increasing or decreasing the chances that my family or I will get shot?'

If you hear a commotion downstairs that you determine is not someone in your family, are you increasing or decreasing the chances that your family or you will get shot if you just lie in bed? Would you go to the top of the stairs and try to see what they're up to? And would that increase or decrease the chances that your family or you will get shot? What if they were coming down the hallway, already upstairs? At what point would you decide you or your family might be at some risk and take some kind of action? Or is the life of that person rummaging around in your house valuable enough for you to just allow them free access while you just hope for the best?

 

[fuelair]

Wow.... nothing like a poorly thought out three word answer.

Are you saying that violence is not popular on tv, movies and video games? Really?

Yes it is - and I do not tend to watch things where the violence is the bad guys killing/terrorizing innocents because I loathe that (like a DeNiro movie I went to in a situation where I couldn't leave that opens with the bad guys shooting a group of people in an armored car hold up - with no reason except they can. I took the only other option and went to sleep.)).

On the other hand I am all for terrorists, bank robbers, nasty polluters, cartel (drug/slave/etc.), gang members etc. being dispatched in interesting ways that give them time to deeply regret their lives with particular feeling for the last few minutes - in real life or fiction.

The answer was not poorly thought out. Just terse and correct.

 

[3point14]

If you hear a commotion downstairs that you determine is not someone in your family, are you increasing or decreasing the chances that your family or you will get shot if you just lie in bed? Would you go to the top of the stairs and try to see what they're up to? And would that increase or decrease the chances that your family or you will get shot? What if they were coming down the hallway, already upstairs? At what point would you decide you or your family might be at some risk and take some kind of action? Or is the life of that person rummaging around in your house valuable enough for you to just allow them free access while you just hope for the best?

It's not that difficult.

If they come up the stairs then action is appropriate.

If they stay downstairs and simply take my stuff, then I stay upstairs with my wife and children. I'm not risking my life or the life of my family for insured goods.


ETA: You seem to believe that engaging the thief is the best way to minimise the chances of your family getting shot.

Oddly, I think exactly the reverse.

 

[The Dark Lord]

@ The Dark Lord



Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound pretty ... unwise at best.

1. Many criminals have the same fascination you have with guns.
2. They don't have to worry about shooting their family members by mistake.
3. They are already breaking the law, so that doesn't stop them either.
4. The low life might not be alone.

How many low life burglars do you think shoot 500+ rounds a month? That plus the tactical advantage of it being my home means that, yeah, I bet on me.

5. I am not an expert but I believe that in Arizona, shooting someone in your home still exposes you to a civil "wrongful death" lawsuit.

No. Not really. The law says I would not be civilly liable. I guess they could still sue me, but they would lose and I would be awarded costs.

Lastly... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

Do these victims include gangbangers who are of course more likely to be shot?

 

[Cylinder]

I just don't get why people would start a firefight...

Sorry, I guess I was boasting a bit. If I take a first shot, there will be no firefight.

 

[3point14]

Sorry, I guess I was boasting a bit. If I take a first shot, there will be no firefight.

You've never missed?

Never had a round misfire?

Really? You're 100% on that?

Impressive.


ETA - What if there are two of them?

 

[Cylinder]

You've never missed?

I've missed, but the failure rate for a properly-ranged shot will be very low. I'm not going to miss at home defense ranges. The reason isn't that I'm a spectacular shot - I'm a good shot though the vision fades over time. I'm very disclipined at shot selection. That's where training and practice become important.

Never had a round misfire?

An exposed misfire is the nightmare situation. Of course, 99.9% of misfires are maintenence issues. If you just store your home defense firearm whereever for years and think you can just pull it and start blasting, you're not taking home defense seriously.

ETA - What if there are two of them?

That's a very different tactical problem. I would be far less likely to initiate when faced with two armed targets.

 

[Skepticemea]

"Home defence" - A term that just rolls off the fear-alumned tongue.

 

[3point14]

I've missed, but the failure rate for a properly-ranged shot will be very low. I'm not going to miss at home defense ranges. The reason isn't that I'm a spectacular shot - I'm a good shot though the vision fades over time. I'm very disclipined at shot selection. That's where training and practice become important.



An exposed misfire is the nightmare situation. Of course, 99.9% of misfires are maintenence issues. If you just store your home defense firearm whereever for years and think you can just pull it and start blasting, you're not taking home defense seriously.



That's a very different tactical problem. I would be far less likely to initiate when faced with two armed targets.

How certain are you that, having decided there is only one person invading your home, that you're right?

There are just too many unknown variables here for me to consider initiating violence.

 

[GeeMack]

It's not that difficult.

If they come up the stairs then action is appropriate.

If they stay downstairs and simply take my stuff, then I stay upstairs with my wife and children. I'm not risking my life or the life of my family for insured goods.

I don't have any stairs.

ETA: You seem to believe that engaging the thief is the best way to minimise the chances of your family getting shot.

Oddly, I think exactly the reverse.

I believe that I should be entitled to decide at what point it's appropriate to proactively defend my life or property, and that I should not be restricted in that choice based on some third party's assessment of the value of my TV vs the value of a person who would take my TV... or my kids... or my life. I believe that when someone breaches the barriers of my property, he/she has already demonstrated a lack of consideration for me, my family, and my property, and has consequently relinquished any benefit of the doubt. I believe that availing myself of the greatest number of options to defend myself and my property, within practicality, is the prudent thing to do. I believe that having a small club and a medium sized handgun at easy access serves part of that purpose.

So you have misunderstood my position. I believe that being prepared to engage the thief and having the legal option to do so is the best way to minimize the chances of me or my family getting shot.

And as always, if you don't want to risk getting shot for breaking into houses, don't break into people's houses. And if you don't want your sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, or the kid down the street getting shot for breaking into houses, the best way to reduce that possibility is to help them understand the risks they take breaking into houses. Putting the responsibility on homeowners for the lives and safety of people who would intentionally breach their property barrier is, I believe, not a reasonable solution.

 

[3point14]

I don't have any stairs.




I believe that I should be entitled to decide at what point it's appropriate to proactively defend my life or property, and that I should not be restricted in that choice based on some third party's assessment of the value of my TV vs the value of a person who would take my TV... or my kids... or my life. I believe that when someone breaches the barriers of my property, he/she has already demonstrated a lack of consideration for me, my family, and my property, and has consequently relinquished any benefit of the doubt. I believe that availing myself of the greatest number of options to defend myself and my property, within practicality, is the prudent thing to do. I believe that having a small club and a medium sized handgun at easy access serves part of that purpose.

So you have misunderstood my position. I believe that being prepared to engage the thief and having the legal option to do so is the best way to minimize the chances of me or my family getting shot.

And as always, if you don't want to risk getting shot for breaking into houses, don't break into people's houses. And if you don't want your sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, or the kid down the street getting shot for breaking into houses, the best way to reduce that possibility is to help them understand the risks they take breaking into houses. Putting the responsibility on homeowners for the lives and safety of people who would intentionally breach their property barrier is, I believe, not a reasonable solution.

Easy tiger.

You will note that I have at no time stated that I don't think you should not be able to do what you are proposing.

I am simply exploring why, when faced with these questions, you come up with a different answer to myself.

 

[GeeMack]

Easy tiger.

You will note that I have at no time stated that I don't think you should not be able to do what you are proposing.

I am simply exploring why, when faced with these questions, you come up with a different answer to myself.

You made this assessment of my position...

"You seem to believe that engaging the thief is the best way to minimise the chances of your family getting shot."​

When my position is actually this...

"I believe that being prepared to engage the thief and having the legal option to do so is the best way to minimize the chances of me or my family getting shot."​

To reiterate, I believe that availing myself of the greatest number of options to defend myself and my property, within practicality, is the prudent thing to do. You may not choose that option, or you may judge your "within practicality" to be at a different place than mine.

 

[Cylinder]

"Home defence" - A term that just rolls off the fear-alumned tongue.

Well - we spell it defense. Really, home defense probably is a poorly worded term if taken out of context. Home security or maybe home safety is a better term. It's a philosophy really.

We have fire drills. As a matter of fact, it's probably time for one. The girls each have an aluminiuim (a loom e num) bat in their room to break the window in case of a fire exit. It's probably wasted time - I doubt those plans will ever see the light of day.

We talk about tornado safety periodically.

We talk about safe practice in public. How to prevent yourself from being a victim as you go about during the day.

Of course - am I'm not attributing this characteristic to you - but I believe that it's the "fear-alumned" coward that leaves their head in the sand and pretends that none of these threats exist. Not the kind of anti-macho coward who fears confrontation but the anti-responsibility coward who thinks that the safety of the family is solely a matter for the government.

Fact is the government has no stake whatsoever in my family's safety. I do.

 

[Skepticemea]

I've a question that may or may not belong in a separate thread;

If it is acceptable to shoot a burglar in the act would it also be acceptable to shoot the burglar as punishment for committing a burglary after they've been convicted?

 

[3point14]

You made this assessment of my position...

"You seem to believe that engaging the thief is the best way to minimise the chances of your family getting shot."​

When my position is actually this...

"I believe that being prepared to engage the thief and having the legal option to do so is the best way to minimize the chances of me or my family getting shot."​

To reiterate, I believe that availing myself of the greatest number of options to defend myself and my property, within practicality, is the prudent thing to do. You may not choose that option, or you may judge your "within practicality" to be at a different place than mine.

Fair enough. I shall explore this line of reasoning with someone else then, as I am either missing something or failing to communicate effectively.

Have fun.

 

[Cylinder]

If it is acceptable to shoot a burglar in the act would it also be acceptable to shoot the burglar as punishment for committing a burglary after they've been convicted?

No

 

[RandFan]

I don't want to kill anyone. But I doubt that killing some low life that broke into my home would bother me that much.

Probably not. Empathy isn't for everyone. I don't want to kill ants but when they get in my home it doesn't bother me much.

On the other hand, people who do bad things are not necessarily sociopathic. Many have family members, children, spouses, etc.. They are one of the reasons we don't have cruel and unusual punishment. When you kill someone you permanently harm people. If you reasonably fear for your life then I understand. But killing someone because you judge them a low life, well, I don't. Many good people do bad things.

 

[Resume]

I've a question that may or may not belong in a separate thread;

If it is acceptable to shoot a burglar in the act would it also be acceptable to shoot the burglar as punishment for committing a burglary after they've been convicted?

Nope.

 

[Skepticemea]

Nope.

Cool.

 

[Cylinder]

Cool.

Generally, it's not acceptable to shoot a burglar to protect property. It's certainly not ethical in my opinion.