Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Belz...]

I disagree. If you have a gun, you must do everything to keep it secure.

Of course, but if some moron breaks into my house and falls in the non-existent stairwell which is under repairs, it's not my fault.

 

[angrysoba]

**** happens!

 

[Polaris]

This reads like pure fantasy.

With all due respect, I don't give a **** what it reads like. There is no quiet way to break into my house. Even with the key the front door is heavy and loud, and the back door isn't much better. My shotgun and phone are not far from where I sleep, and my reading lamp has an arm extension that is very bright and can be pointed at the door. The bed forms effective concealment from anyone coming in, if need be.

I know this scenario is about as likely as a tap-dancing thylacine showing up on my doorstep with a singing telegram, but there's nothing wrong with being prepared.

"But what if I can't leave?"

Well what if the intruders were bulletproof?



For anyone who is able to leave their property during a home invasion leaving the best course of action is to leave the property. It's by far the safest course of action.

The chances of intruders being bulletproof are zero, so you can nip being ridiculous in the bud right now. However, you can't deny that people in wheelchairs exist. There are places without back doors. I've lived in them. My girlfriend lives in one. My father lived in one for a while (unless you count the fire escape - one so rickety that it'd be better to take your chances with an intruder). Inside the bedroom areas of my house (except for the master bedroom window) there is no way out. Eventually there will be (in case of fire more than anything) but financial constraints prohibit cutting a door in a brick wall for me right now.

Refusing to leave on general principle is the worst possible course of action. There again if you can't be gunned down in your own house, where can you be gunned down?

Have you ever been burgled? I can assure you it's not a fun experience. It's violating. While staying might be the worst possible course of action, and not one I'd choose if I had the choice, I wouldn't ever vote to convict someone who stayed and shot a burglar. This is a person, and I use the term as loosely as possible, who rather than be productive has broken into someone's home to steal things someone else worked for because the burglar is too shiftless and stupid to get a job. His life is worth less than anything he could possibly steal.

And let's not forget that burglars aren't the only danger out there. Any woman living alone can tell you that.

 

[Belz...]

And let's not forget that burglars aren't the only danger out there. Any woman living alone can tell you that.

I agree that anyone who breaks into your house can reasonably be met immediately with deadly force.

 

[Polaris]

Yes, it was just an expression to say keeping away from potential trouble is the plan.

Gotcha. I like to be a step ahead in case that doesn't work.

 

[Polaris]

I agree that anyone who breaks into your house can reasonably be met immediately with deadly force.

I'm honestly at a loss to understand why anybody would disagree with that.

 

[Nessie]

I agree that anyone who breaks into your house can reasonably be met immediately with deadly force.

I'm honestly at a loss to understand why anybody would disagree with that.

I am at a loss as to why it is reasonable to meet immediately with deadly force. What if a shout alone was enough to frighten off the intruder?

What if it was not an intruder at all, but someone who has made a mistake or actually poses no threat and is looking for help or is a friend or relative?

Why is it you feel the need to go straight to Def Con One? Is it because you can because you have got a gun and so you just skip over other means of defence?

How do the majority of Americans manage who do not have a gun?

 

[The Don]

I'm honestly at a loss to understand why anybody would disagree with that.

I disagree with it. The force should be proportional.

If, like is usual in the UK, the person breaking in is unarmed then deadly force is unnecessary. If the person is armed but is only interested in taking possessions then deadly force is unnecessary.

 

[remirol]

I'm honestly at a loss to understand why anybody would disagree with that.

Nobody Not many disagree with that.

Where we disagree is that I consider pro-gun advocates to be making the following mistakes:

1. overestimating the likelihood of such an event occuring in the first place (specifically, a breakin while the owner is home)
2. overestimating the likelihood of that owner being both ready and capable of successfully defending themselves during such an event
3. underestimating the likelihood of an accidental misuse event occurring
4. underestimating the likelihood of a deliberate misuse event occurring

In my experience, vocal pro-gun advocates tend to hold themselves up as the measuring stick for #2, #3, and #4 when considering "the average person"; I base this on how frequently those same advocates will go into extensive detail about their training, how often they shoot, their knowledge of firearms, etc. yada. yada., tl;dr.

However, I consider the average person to be barely capable of tying their shoes on a good day without written directions*. There is no way in hell that you are going to convince me that the same Quality Individuals™ who made Honey Boo Boo a household name are ever... EVER... going to be individuals who can be trusted to, in a high-risk pressure situation with only a tiny amount of time to make a decision:

a) correctly identify their target
b) ensure that no innocents are downrange of that target
c) operate their weapon properly

This is probably the root of where we disagree. Pro-gun advocates tend to hold up their holy grail of "more training!", and to this I would offer up as a counter all 50 individual state DMVs, and the general skill level of American drivers compared to many other First World countries. We can mandate a certain level of training all we like, and what will happen is that the equivalent of diploma mills will spring up run by "well-meaning citizens", just like "pill mills" and various other certification-acquisition factories for various other industries.






* For the humor-impaired, hyperbole sometimes serves a purpose.
** ETA: In the time it took me to write the post, two people disagreed.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I disagree. If you have a gun, you must do everything to keep it secure. That is where the USA has gone horribly wrong. It let any old idiot have gun and does very little to reverse that situation.

I am not asking for perfection. I am asking for gun dealers and owners to get their act together and stop irresponsible people from getting guns. Since gun owners and dealers have not been able to do that, it is hardly surprising that non gun owners have had enough and are going to do the job for you.

Unfortunately due to ignorance and anger they are going to go about it the wrong way with some badly thought through laws, such as in NY where they forgot to exempt police. But since the alternative is to leave it to gun owners and dealers who are have shown little signs of action, I am sorry but tough.

This is my primary frustration. The responsible gun owners show up talking about their trigger locks and quick access gun safes, but they will die screaming if anyone were to suggest that such "responsible" measures be required.

As a responsible gun owner I think that there should be laws to require others to be reasonably responsible as well. I have my guns in a safe and I know they can not be stolen and used against myself or anyone else. I am responsible for my guns and I think others should be responsible as well. I think there should be legal means to deny gun ownership to those who are unwilling to recognize that responsibility.

But that is a pipe dream in this country so I have previously proposed that gun ownership should come with a clear liability: if a gun is used in a crime the registered owner of that gun is strictly liable to the victims of the crime unless it can be shown that reasonable measures were taken to secure the gun. This would obviously require registration and insurance, or at least a showing of financial responsibility, much like liability insurance for automobiles.

For someone like me this insurance would be dirt cheap: My guns are kept in a safe with no ammo. They are taken out for use at a gun range and during their respective hunting seasons. I can imagine my insurance company requiring me to take further gun safety training courses, as it has been decades since I have done so, and that would be fine. I am one of the responsible gun owners and this would be a small price to pay to make sure that my neighbors were being just as responsible.

 

[Nessie]

Nobody Not many disagree with that.

.....


* For the humor-impaired, hyperbole sometimes serves a purpose.
** ETA: In the time it took me to write the post, two people disagreed.

I think the vast majority of the UK would disagree immediate deadly force is appropriate. Then Americans who do not arm themselves, surely they think that as well? So that is the majority do not think it is appropriate.

 

[remirol]

I think the vast majority of the UK would disagree immediate deadly force is appropriate. Then Americans who do not arm themselves, surely they think that as well? So that is the majority do not think it is appropriate.

No, I think deadly force is quite appropriate because you aren't going to have any time to make a decision about what the bad guy is going to do. You don't know if he's armed or not and you don't know what his purpose there is -- you have to act immediately or, in the event he's NOT there just to take your stuff, you'll get dead. Assuming that just because many burglars are incompetent that the one directly in front of you is also incompetent is a recipe for self-splat.

The reason I don't arm myself for home defense is because I know that burglars try to target homes during times when nobody is there, and I live in an area where home invasions are incredibly uncommon. I face more personal risk just by getting on the freeway and commuting to work.

I don't and wouldn't carry a gun because I know that muggers are less likely to select me as a target because of my physical frame (6'2, 230#) and because I make an effort to be constantly aware of my surroundings -- they would prefer to go after someone smaller who isn't paying attention to what's happening around them. Also, I tend to stay away from places where I'm likely to get mugged. Amusingly, the effort I put in for the former would be necessary for me to adequately defend myself with a concealed weapon anyway, so I find it vaguely humorous that the effort itself is what's most likely to deter those intent on taking my wallet.

Plus, I don't carry cash. If someone mugs me despite all the above, I can get the cards and phone cancelled within eight hours plus any charges reversed. And on top of it all, if I'm somewhere that I might get mugged, I've likely been drinking anyway and thus should _not_ be carrying a gun under any circumstances.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Nobody Not many disagree with that.

Where we disagree is that I consider pro-gun advocates to be making the following mistakes:

1. overestimating the likelihood of such an event occuring in the first place (specifically, a breakin while the owner is home)
2. overestimating the likelihood of that owner being both ready and capable of successfully defending themselves during such an event
3. underestimating the likelihood of an accidental misuse event occurring
4. underestimating the likelihood of a deliberate misuse event occurring

In my experience, vocal pro-gun advocates tend to hold themselves up as the measuring stick for #2, #3, and #4 when considering "the average person"; I base this on how frequently those same advocates will go into extensive detail about their training, how often they shoot, their knowledge of firearms, etc. yada. yada., tl;dr.

However, I consider the average person to be barely capable of tying their shoes on a good day without written directions*. There is no way in hell that you are going to convince me that the same Quality Individuals™ who made Honey Boo Boo a household name are ever... EVER... going to be individuals who can be trusted to, in a high-risk pressure situation with only a tiny amount of time to make a decision:

a) correctly identify their target
b) ensure that no innocents are downrange of that target
c) operate their weapon properly

This is probably the root of where we disagree. Pro-gun advocates tend to hold up their holy grail of "more training!", and to this I would offer up as a counter all 50 individual state DMVs, and the general skill level of American drivers compared to many other First World countries. We can mandate a certain level of training all we like, and what will happen is that the equivalent of diploma mills will spring up run by "well-meaning citizens", just like "pill mills" and various other certification-acquisition factories for various other industries.






* For the humor-impaired, hyperbole sometimes serves a purpose.
** ETA: In the time it took me to write the post, two people disagreed.

It is frustrating to have the model citizen gun owner come in here and tell us how awesome they are and then defend the rights of idiots without an an ounce of awesome to take on the same responsibilities.

Reminds me of the insurance commercial where the guy is asking the the chainsaw juggler to pass him one, he's got this. That one can safely handle a responsibility does not mean that all can.

 

[Ranb]

I agree that anyone who breaks into your house can reasonably be met immediately with deadly force.

Immediate as in without any time to determine why they are there or any warning at all? What if you are not in the house at the time? This is a good way to be arrested for killing a police officer for example. Calling 911 while retrieving a weapon to defend yourself is probably going to be a better course of action.

Ranb

 

[Xulld]

I disagree. If you have a gun, you must do everything to keep it secure. That is where the USA has gone horribly wrong. It let any old idiot have gun and does very little to reverse that situation.

I am not asking for perfection. I am asking for gun dealers and owners to get their act together and stop irresponsible people from getting guns. Since gun owners and dealers have not been able to do that, it is hardly surprising that non gun owners have had enough and are going to do the job for you.

Unfortunately due to ignorance and anger they are going to go about it the wrong way with some badly thought through laws, such as in NY where they forgot to exempt police. But since the alternative is to leave it to gun owners and dealers who are have shown little signs of action, I am sorry but tough.

What you are asking for is the deferment of responsibility from the thief stealing to the owner not preventing the thief from stealing.

But only for one piece of property . . . guns.

 

[Polaris]

I am at a loss as to why it is reasonable to meet immediately with deadly force. What if a shout alone was enough to frighten off the intruder?

Because what if it isn't? The shotgun is my last line of defense, why assume deadly force would be immediate? The intruder would get a warning first. If that works, fantastic. I'd rather not have to shoot the son of a bitch, if for nothing else than blood is hard to get out of grout. What I have in mind is holding him at gunpoint until the police arrive, but I want to make sure the threat of deadly force is not an empty one.

What if it was not an intruder at all, but someone who has made a mistake or actually poses no threat and is looking for help or is a friend or relative?

I'm pretty sure someone breaking into my house at night isn't looking for his aunt. I'm not talking about a knock on my door or a car in my driveway at 3 on a Saturday. I live in a largely hispanic neighborhood so having guys show up at my door selling cleaning products or meat isn't all that rare.

Why is it you feel the need to go straight to Def Con One? Is it because you can because you have got a gun and so you just skip over other means of defence?

How do the majority of Americans manage who do not have a gun?

Remember the scenario I'm talking about is a break-in. At that point it is at DEFCON One, and I'm not the one who put it there. I don't see it as unreasonable to assume the worst of an intruder, and I have no way of knowing if he's armed or not.

I don't know how the majority manage. They probably don't think about it, or call the police and get out of the house, like I'd do if I wasn't disabled and living in a house without a way out if I'm in bed when this (highly unlikely) event would happen.

For the record, if I'm in the living room and someone tries to break in, I'm leaving out the back door.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think the vast majority of the UK would disagree immediate deadly force is appropriate. Then Americans who do not arm themselves, surely they think that as well? So that is the majority do not think it is appropriate.

I think I would agree that going straight to deadly force is not always the right answer for all the reasons laid out by remirol. But I was raised in Texas, so my default is that if you break into someone's home you have no right to expect to leave with a pulse.

If I can scare you off, that would be best. If I can flee I will. If I can secure myself on site I will. If I have to engage I will fight until you are subdued. And if you die before you are subdued, that would really suck, but mainly for you.

So, I think I agree with you that I do not go straight to deadly force, but since it is my home, if I do use deadly force sooner than you expect I won't feel sorry.

 

[Dr. Keith]

What you are asking for is the deferment of responsibility from the thief stealing to the owner not preventing the thief from stealing.

But only for one piece of property . . . guns.

Nope, we do the same thing for cars.

If you leave the keys in your car while you run in to the gun shop for ammo and a kid steals your car and kills some pedestrians and wrecks into the side of the gun shop you will can expect to be sued by several parties.

But if you take reasonable precautions to secure your car you will not be liable.

The question is: why do we not require, by law, that gun owners be responsible?

Furthermore, why doesn't the NRA promote laws that would require gun owners to be responsible? Do they not promote responsible gun ownership? Why do they fight so hard for the irresponsible gun owner?

ETA: And neither is a deferment of responsibility, it is recognizing all parties for their portion of responsibility. The kid/criminal would still be just as responsible for their actions, but why shouldn't the owner also be responsible for their lack of reasonable safety measures?

 

[SomedayGirl]

What you are asking for is the deferment of responsibility from the thief stealing to the owner not preventing the thief from stealing.

But only for one piece of property . . . guns.

Well, yes. It is quite unlikely your TV or jewelry would be used in the commission of another crime. It would be unsurprising if a gun stolen from you is used in such a manner, so the standard for securing the gun should be greater than for most other types of property since the potential danger from a stolen gun is greater.

ETA: In TX for example if a firearm is not reasonably secured and your child grabs it and fires, accidentally shooting the neighbor kid, there is a potential criminal charge against you. There is no such criminal charge if your kid grabs a bat and swings it, accidentally bashing the neighbor kid. Guns are held to a stricter standard in this instance than other kinds of property.

 

[Xulld]

Well, yes. It is quite unlikely your TV or jewelry would be used in the commission of another crime. It would be unsurprising if a gun stolen from you is used in such a manner, so the standard for securing the gun should be greater than for most other types of property since the potential danger from a stolen gun is greater.

ETA: In TX for example, if a firearm is not reasonably secured and your child gets ahold of it and accidentally shoots the neighbor kid, there is a potential criminal charge against you. There is no such criminal charge if your kid grabs a bat and swings it, accidentally bashing the neighbor kid. Guns are held to a stricter standard in this instance than other kinds of property.

We are not talking about a child that is lawfully present in a house getting your gun, we are talking about a thief breaking into your house illegally, stealing a gun, and the owner being responsible for that.

I am well aware of the law in regards to children and firearm safety.

The narrative being presented is that any method for securing if defeated was insufficient.

Just imagine if we used the same logic for any other property. That can of gas in your garage can kill. Should we hold the owner responsible if a thief breaks into their house, steals the can of gas, and uses it to kill the family next store in an arson fire? The only reason this flies with guns is because of stigma.

No of course not.

The locks on my door are my protection against thieves stealing my property.

That I have additional locks on my gun safe is irrelevant. I could have locks upon locks upon locks, and a thief could still acquire my guns through illegal means, however no where along that path of causation should I be held responsible based on the number, or lack of locks beyond the threshold of my private property when it comes to another human being who should be responsible for their own actions committing crimes against me and my property.