Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[The Don]

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?

No of course not.

In terms of the gun, it depends whether reasonable steps have been taken to secure it.

If the gun has been taken from a secure gun storage device then the homeowner has taken reasonable steps to secure it. If it has been taken from a desk drawer or picked up from an open surface then it has not.

 

[Xulld]

In terms of the gun, it depends whether reasonable steps have been taken to secure it.

If the gun has been taken from a secure gun storage device then the homeowner has taken reasonable steps to secure it. If it has been taken from a desk drawer or picked up from an open surface then it has not.

The home is a secure property storage device. All property owned is stored, locked, in the house.

To get inside the house the thief has already violated the law. Any and all actions from that point forward are solely the responsibility of the criminal.

Blaming the victim seems common when the victim has been demonized, stigmatized etc, logic or equal protection under the law be damned with a cause needs some ends met.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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

Yep, that could be reasonable. Or we as a society could recognize that massively deadly weapons require something more. Like cars, they have external locks and ignition locks. Why two locks when one should suffice? Because they are valuable and dangerous, so we feel it is reasonable to have two locks. Try to insure a car with only one lock that will be parked in public and see what kind of rates you get.

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.

Feel free to advocate for irresponsibility of the gun owner, I think that only makes it more likely that onerous gun laws will be passed rather than sensible ones.

 

[Nessie]

The home is a secure property storage device. All property owned is stored, locked, in the house.

To get inside the house the thief has already violated the law. Any and all actions from that point forward are solely the responsibility of the criminal.

Blaming the victim seems common when the victim has been demonized, stigmatized etc, logic or equal protection under the law be damned with a cause needs some ends met.

No one is asking for perfection. What is being asked for is a general and significant improvement in gun security and who guns are sold to.

Since gun owners and dealers have not been doing enough to ensure security and sensible sales, it is hardly surprising that the majority of people are complaining and taking action. Since it is non gun owners primarily behind the action being taken, you have to accept it is not going to go well for the gun owner. But the gun owner had ample opportunity to act and failed. The NRA are a large part of that fault as their policies have done nothing to reduce gun misuse.

 

[Nessie]

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

That is not true, I am asking for increased security and awkward questions to be asked of those whose guns get into the wrong hands. That is not just thefts by criminals, but friends borrowing guns, kids getting hold of them, drunk people getting hold of them during plain old arguments. Studies of criminals find guns from friends is the most common way of getting a gun. Statistics show homicides during arguments is one of the most common forms of homicide.

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

What is wrong with singling out guns for special treatment? Trying to pretend a gun is just a household object is probably one of the reasons they keep getting into the wrong hands as gun owners are too relaxed about them and what a gun can do.

 

[Xulld]

The reason guns get into the wrong hands is because the wrong hands are attached to a body with a brain that has wants.

We as society should focus on personal responsibility, not the deferment of that responsibility.

 

[Nessie]

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.

That is you advocating summary execution and arguing against reasonable force. That attitude is why Americans shoot each other way more than anyone else. You can't just assume the worst and kill.

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 am surprised to read that after you first paragraph where you appear to advocate showing no risk judgement and shooting no matter what.

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.

So why advocate use of deadly force in one paragraph and then advocate a far less deadly option of avoidance in the second two

 

[Dr. Keith]

The reason guns get into the wrong hands is because the wrong hands are attached to a body with a brain that has wants.

Or the reason the gun got into the wrong hands is because the owner has a brain that doesn't take responsibility for the weapons it owns.

We as society should focus on personal responsibility, not the deferment of that responsibility.

Yes we should. We should hold criminals completely responsible for their criminal activity. We should also hold gun owners completely responsible for securing their weapons. And we should hold bartenders responsible for not over serving their customers. And we should hold teachers responsible for not having sex with their students. Wow, we are pretty good at holding people responsible, this is not that hard when you actually try . . .

 

[Dr. Keith]

So why advocate use of deadly force in one paragraph and then advocate a far less deadly option of avoidance in the second two

I took it as recognizing the right to deadly force to defend one's home, but recognizing that it is a right that need not be used.

I could be wrong.

 

[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.

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.

Because of what was said.

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.



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.

This is why I think more study is needed to see what really does happen. What proportion of home invasions are mistakes, false alarms or pranks? What is the best way to go about defending your home balancing reasonable force, use of a gun and overall risk?

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.

At least you have clearly thought this through and have a plan. The shooter in the OP clearly did not.

I think anyone who wants to have a gun for self defence should have to go on a compulsory course dealing with the law, reasonable force, developing a plan of action including not using your gun. If the shooter in the OP had been on a course which made it clear running out of your house and shooting at people who have just turned into your drive is not acceptable, a life could have been saved by giving him a more sensible plan in an apparent emergency.

 

[Xulld]

Or the reason the gun got into the wrong hands is because the owner has a brain that doesn't take responsibility for the weapons it owns.

.

You are arbitrarily stating that one lock is reasonable, and another lock is not.

Why is locked doors unreasonable, why is a safe lock reasonable?

Why would the responsibility of the gun being stolen be the home owners if the thief defeats one lock in one situation, but not the other?

We should hold criminals completely responsible for their criminal activity. We should also hold gun owners completely responsible for securing their weapons.

These two exclusive sentences overlap. All because you have an arbitrary definition for what it means to secure.

If person A is "Completely responsible" then person B cannot be any responsible.

 

[Nessie]

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.

There was a huge controversy in Scotland in 1994..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1405505.html

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/widow-of-shot-scot-settles-law-suit-1.498995

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/08/us/homeowner-shoots-tourist-by-mistake-in-texas-police-say.html

...after a Texan killed a Scotsman on holiday in a situation which here would mean a murder charge, but there was accepted as justifiable behaviour (The Texan did not go to criminal court, but did have to pay damages). It was the incident that first got me interested in the whole USA/UK gun control issue. This forum finally meant I had a means to discuss the issue in detail.

I have worked around guns in the USA and UK and the difference in attitudes is amazing and I think the most striking difference between the two countries.

 

[Nessie]

The reason guns get into the wrong hands is because the wrong hands are attached to a body with a brain that has wants.

We as society should focus on personal responsibility, not the deferment of that responsibility.

Please stop ignoring the point that keeps being made to you, that what is being looked for is additional security and responsibility from gun owners and dealers to stop, as best as can be possibly achieved, guns getting into the wrong hands.

 

[Xulld]

Please stop ignoring the point that keeps being made to you, that what is being looked for is additional security and responsibility from gun owners and dealers to stop, as best as can be possibly achieved, guns getting into the wrong hands.

I understand your irrational position that gun owners should be responsible for the actions of criminals.

I do not agree with it at any point along the continuum.

 

[tsig]

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.



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.




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.

Looks to me like the burglars have already broken into your house and have stolen your peace of mind.

 

[Giz]

There was a huge controversy in Scotland in 1994..

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scot-is-shot-dead-when-mistaken-for-prowler-1405505.html

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/widow-of-shot-scot-settles-law-suit-1.498995

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/08/us/homeowner-shoots-tourist-by-mistake-in-texas-police-say.html

...after a Texan killed a Scotsman on holiday in a situation which here would mean a murder charge, but there was accepted as justifiable behaviour (The Texan did not go to criminal court, but did have to pay damages). It was the incident that first got me interested in the whole USA/UK gun control issue. This forum finally meant I had a means to discuss the issue in detail.

I have worked around guns in the USA and UK and the difference in attitudes is amazing and I think the most striking difference between the two countries.

There was controversy?

In an area that had suffered home invasions, a guy rings the doorbell multiple times at 4 am and then when it isn't answered, he climbs over the fence into the backyard and starts seemingly trying to break down the back door.

This is as clear an instance of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" as has ever been seen.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You are arbitrarily stating that one lock is reasonable, and another lock is not.

Why is locked doors unreasonable, why is a safe lock reasonable?

Why would the responsibility of the gun being stolen be the home owners if the thief defeats one lock in one situation, but not the other?

I do not think I should make this decision, but neither do I think the NRA should preclude the conversation necessary to make this decision. We, as a society, need to determine what reasonable precautions should be taken. That may even vary state to state, but I would hope a federal base would be nice.

These two exclusive sentences overlap. All because you have an arbitrary definition for what it means to secure.

They are not exclusive. Responsibility is not a limited quantity.

If person A is "Completely responsible" then person B cannot be any responsible.

Yeah, they both can be completely responsible. Joint and several liability is one example of this in the civil context.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It was the incident that first got me interested in the whole USA/UK gun control issue. This forum finally meant I had a means to discuss the issue in detail.

I'm glad you have done that. Thanks.

I have worked around guns in the USA and UK and the difference in attitudes is amazing and I think the most striking difference between the two countries.

Well, that and the fact that they can't speak proper english in the UK.

 

[Polaris]

Looks to me like the burglars have already broken into your house and have stolen your peace of mind.

Not at all. I've been robbed four times since 2007. Six times in my life. I sleep soundly, even if lightly. I still have no problem going to convenience stores after being assaulted in one.

I didn't get the shotgun for home defense - I got it when I lived five miles from a town and smack in the middle of the woods where there are rabid animals and the occasional pack of feral dogs. Only two times I've ever used it had to do with wildlife. Only fired it one of those times.

The only thing that changed was before I was robbed I would have maybe had some sympathy for a burglar who was shot during a burglary. Now I say string them all up.

 

[Belz...]

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?

No, it's because the person BROKE INTO MY HOUSE. Didn't knock or ask for help. Broke in. Are you going to take a chance with the lives of your family ?