Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Sabretooth]

Seeing as it takes a jury of peers who aren't biased by immediate fear and a defendant who has a case reasoned out by a capable lawyer (usually) in due process in order to legally kill someone I don't think you should have the right or the tool to bypass all that in the name of self defense. You shouldn't have the right to choose to kill on your own. We don't tolerate it when attackers do it and that should extend to defenders as well. Guns should absolutely be off the table in that choice of how you want to defend yourself. Your ability to leverage lethal force should not be made by just you unless you think summary execution is a good defense.

I shouldn't have the right to choose to live or die? But you (or someone else) have the right to choose for me? Huh?

So I should just take death like a man and R.I.P. knowing that my killer will be caught, tried, and sentenced on my family's (and yours) dime? All so you can feel good in knowing that a responsible, law-abiding citizen didn't have a scary gun to shoot back?

That logic of yours is mind-boggling. What gives you the right to tell me I can't have the right to defend myself?

I'd like to know what fantasy world you live in. It sounds glorious...

Face it. You probably suck at assessing when you can kill someone even in defense. Sailors definitely did.

I'd rather have 12 people judging me instead of 6 people carrying me.

 

[Lowpro]

I shouldn't have the right to choose to live or die? But you (or someone else) have the right to choose for me? Huh?

So I should just take death like a man and R.I.P. knowing that my killer will be caught, tried, and sentenced on my family's (and yours) dime? All so you can feel good in knowing that a responsible, law-abiding citizen didn't have a scary gun to shoot back?

That logic of yours is mind-boggling. What gives you the right to tell me I can't have the right to defend myself?

I'd like to know what fantasy world you live in. It sounds glorious...



I'd rather have 12 people judging me instead of 6 people carrying me.

Your logic is just as mind boggling though because kill or be killed is a two ways street. Let's say I broke into your house. I'm committing a crime actually. If you as a homeowner point a gun at me I can defend myself by shooting you in the face right? That's self defense, even if I'm committing a crime. Because kill or be killed right?

You may have the tools for self defense but you don't know when you can use them; you make that up as you go along and it only gets determined after the fact. If we as a society don't commit summary execution why then trust an individual to then?

This isn't about how scary guns are so stop trying to make it about that so you can caricaturize the argument. It's about scary people and defending yourself is just as scary. If I get in a fist fight or I steal your TV the fact that you have a gun and can actually shoot me with it and probably get away with it in this country depending on where you live (Hell one guy was praised for killing some people who stole his neighbor's stuff) is also as scary as being attacked by someone with a gun too. If you'd rather kill instead of be killed you BETTER only do it when you're actually going to be killed (it's quite the paradox). But that is only determinable after the fact and probably when one person's dead. No, if you want to defend yourself it should be by nonlethal methods. Stop promoting your kill or be killed bullcrap. That would just as easily justify any death row inmate to kill anyone who is about to push the syringe in or pull the switch.

 

[fuelair]

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?

In the past -including recent - they died - sometimes with torture (intended or not) included. Not all - but enough I will not take any real chances.

 

[Sabretooth]

Your logic is just as mind boggling though because kill or be killed is a two ways street. Let's say I broke into your house. I'm committing a crime actually. If you as a homeowner point a gun at me I can defend myself by shooting you in the face right? That's self defense, even if I'm committing a crime. Because kill or be killed right?

No. You broke the law. It's my home.

You have some backward logic. Since the the criminal broke into my home, and apparently has more rights than I, I should just step aside and he can take whatever he likes...heck, I'll help him pack the van! Because live and let live, right! Until he shoots me on the way out because he didn't want a witness. I guess he didn't follow the same "live and let live" principle. Oh well, it's all good. At least I didn't own a scary gun...that would be wrong!

You may have the tools for self defense but you don't know when you can use them; you make that up as you go along and it only gets determined after the fact. If we as a society don't commit summary execution why then trust an individual to then?

See, there you go again. You assume I don't know when I can use self defense.

In NY, I have the right to use deadly force toward anyone in my home that is approaching me (or a family member) in a threatening manner, regardless if the intruder has a weapon.

I may not use deadly force if the intruder is retreating from my home and/or property (meaning, I am not allowed to shoot him in the back).

IMO? If you don't want to be "summarily executed", don't *********** break into my house.

 

[fuelair]

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.

.

Yeah - like a thylacine could sing.........

 

[Sabretooth]

This isn't about how scary guns are so stop trying to make it about that so you can caricaturize the argument. It's about scary people and defending yourself is just as scary.

You're absolutely right...having to defend your life is scary as hell! Now imagine defending your life when a gun is pointed at you and all you have is your fists.

If I get in a fist fight or I steal your TV the fact that you have a gun and can actually shoot me with it and probably get away with it in this country depending on where you live (Hell one guy was praised for killing some people who stole his neighbor's stuff) is also as scary as being attacked by someone with a gun too. If you'd rather kill instead of be killed you BETTER only do it when you're actually going to be killed (it's quite the paradox). But that is only determinable after the fact and probably when one person's dead. No, if you want to defend yourself it should be by nonlethal methods. Stop promoting your kill or be killed bullcrap. That would just as easily justify any death row inmate to kill anyone who is about to push the syringe in or pull the switch.

I'll repeat what I said in my previous post with a little edit...and it's really quite simple:

If you don't want to be "summarily executed", don't *********** break into my house or threaten my life.

 

[AlBell]

I think he was suggesting an even stronger point: that the reason the guy was shot was because he was "brown". Of course he offers no evidence of this, since he has none.

Also noteworthy is that the brother of the victim of the shooting says he does not think the shooting was motivated by racism.

I find it fascinating how eager many on this forum are to imagine incidents of racism.

I chalk it up to 'takes one to know one'.

 

[AlBell]

Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

They do not arm their employees. They do not teach them to stand their ground. They teach them to give up the valuables, avoid conflict ... and turn security-camera footage over to the police later.

Why? Because the long, long list of things that can go wrong---missed shots hitting bystanders, mistaking non-robbers for robbers, wrongful-death lawsuits even from people you shoot "legitimately", and escalation of "robberies" into "shootouts"---are more expensive than just walking away. (Also: employees may play with the store's gun and have accidents; the store's gun may get stolen; the store's gun may get used in intra-employee arguments having nothing to do with robbers; etc.) The same is true of home defense. It's cheaper (in lives and in money) to make a policy of run/hide/call-911.

Yup, iff run/hide is still practical; others have mentioned age and disabilities may make these options impossible.

 

[Lowpro]

No. You broke the law. It's my home.

Yea I did break into your house. That doesn't mean you get to shoot me. That kind of crime doesn't mean my life is forfeited, that's ridiculous. The fact that you may even THINK that you're justified to kill me is sickening. That's why kill or be killed doesn't even make sense. You would have to be in a situation that you could not escape from and you'd have to have either precognition and see the freakin' future or have the attackers intent telegraphed in such as a way that it's demonstrable that he/she was going to kill you. And you think you're able to just do that. You didn't even try earlier you just think you can shoot who breaks into your home. That's not kill or be killed, that's "trespass and die"

You have some backward logic. Since the the criminal broke into my home, and apparently has more rights than I, I should just step aside and he can take whatever he likes...heck, I'll help him pack the van! Because live and let live, right! Until he shoots me on the way out because he didn't want a witness. I guess he didn't follow the same "live and let live" principle. Oh well, it's all good. At least I didn't own a scary gun...that would be wrong!

No you can stop him by calling the cops, but you can't just outright murder him even if he's stealing your stuff. At THAT point your life isn't even in any demonstrable danger yet so kill or be killed is not even applicable at this point. Shooting me would be murder not self defense. And if you actually presented yourself physically to me then you're even dumber. If self preservation is your main concern you should make sure you run away and avoid conflict. You don't open the door and point a gun at me, that would escalate the problem. I know you don't want your crap stolen but your crap isn't your life and it's not worth losing or taking a life for either. Do it nonlethally.

See, there you go again. You assume I don't know when I can use self defense.

In NY, I have the right to use deadly force toward anyone in my home that is approaching me (or a family member) in a threatening manner, regardless if the intruder has a weapon.


I may not use deadly force if the intruder is retreating from my home and/or property (meaning, I am not allowed to shoot him in the back).

A) that law is dumb because again it's not kill or be killed at that point; it's kill because you're afraid. If I approached you absolutely intent on kicking you in the balls the fact that you think you can jump all the way up the self-defense ladder to straight up shooting me is ridiculous. The law keeps you from being labeled a murderer which is what you'd actually be.

B) You again are conflating lethal force with self defense as if the two are the same thing. You can defend yourself without having to kill someone and you shouldn't be killing anyways for the same reason that person approaching you in a threatening manner shouldn't kill you. Your kill or be killed logic is still paradoxical at this point.

IMO? If you don't want to be "summarily executed", don't *********** break into my house.

No if I don't want to be arrested or thrown in jail I shouldn't break into your house. The fact you think you have the right to kill me before I've done anything more than ruin your sense of safety or take your junk is actually ridiculous. I know it's easy to see a criminal's right to life as forfeit just because they broke into your house but that's honestly just wrong and unethical. That's ridiculous cowboy logic.

I mean you're the one who says you don't want guns in the hands of irresponsible owners which can only be determined after the fact which AGAIN is hilarious that you don't see the problem there but you think it's actually responsible to let people choose when to kill so easily. You're going to have to understand that self defense doesn't translate to kill or be killed. Kill or be killed would justify any robber shooting at the cops who point their guns at them in self defense.

Again let's look back at Sailors. Obviously he murdered Diaz. The only thing that those kids did was harm his feeling of being safe. That's not worth killing for.

 

[Sabretooth]

Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

They do not arm their employees. They do not teach them to stand their ground. They teach them to give up the valuables, avoid conflict ... and turn security-camera footage over to the police later.

Why? Because the long, long list of things that can go wrong---missed shots hitting bystanders, mistaking non-robbers for robbers, wrongful-death lawsuits even from people you shoot "legitimately", and escalation of "robberies" into "shootouts"---are more expensive than just walking away. (Also: employees may play with the store's gun and have accidents; the store's gun may get stolen; the store's gun may get used in intra-employee arguments having nothing to do with robbers; etc.) The same is true of home defense. It's cheaper (in lives and in money) to make a policy of run/hide/call-911.

I disagree. The "no gun, just give up" policy is due to liability issues. And even with this policy, many clerks are killed.

Name one corporation in America that encourages employees to carry (besides law-enforcement/security).

They don't because if something does happen, the lawsuits would be crippling.

You know who does have guns on site? The mom and pop shops. The ones that, if they gave up their register every time a thug with a mask walked in, they'd be out of business.

 

[AlBell]

So you are readily admitting that irresponsible people have ready access to deadly weapons, yet you're in favor of continuing said policy (assumption, based on your postst)
and back the NRA which has opposed studies on gun related violence for decades and continues to activily fight ANY regulation that would better determine competency of said folks.


Wonder what the limit is on "single rouge" before loonies accept that it actually represents the norm?

When did ladies makeup enter the thread? Perhaps 'rogue' is what you were trying for?

 

[ben m]

So I should just take death like a man and R.I.P. knowing that my killer will be caught, tried, and sentenced on my family's (and yours) dime? All so you can feel good in knowing that a responsible, law-abiding citizen didn't have a scary gun to shoot back?

Take it from the perspective of a murder victim. Why can't they say the same thing? Their killer had a gun, they didn't, and that happened due to gun laws.

Should he just take his death like a man and RIP? All so gun-aficionados can buy guns without the gubmint tracking them (or take your pick of whatever gun-aficionados want that Law X doesn't let them do.)

It's the same principle on both ends. Just like every policy choice you can imagine. High speed limits? Some people get hurt. Low speed limits? Different people get hurt. Take your pick.

Drinking age set to 21? Some people get hurt ("drinking now happens in private with worse supervision"). Drinking age set to 18? Different people get hurt ("19 year olds now getting drunk at bars"). Take your pick.

CPSC requires that all tablesaws include SawStop? Some people get hurt ("I couldn't afford a SawStop so I tried to get by with a circular saw and cut my hand off"). CPSC declines to require SawStop? Other people get hurt ("I bought a regular tablesaw and cut my hand off"). Take your pick.

Gun laws? Same thing. Strict gun laws? Fewer gun murders/suicides/accidents. Loose gun laws? Fewer home-invasion murders. The problem is: there are currently 30,000 gun murders and suicides and incredibly few home-invasion murders. The balance says we need stricter gun laws. Are you one of the people who will get hurt? Well, just like you do with your non-SawStop tablesaw, your 65mph speed limit, and your 21yo drinking age, we have to have some policy, and no single policy can make everything perfect.

 

[Sabretooth]

Yea I did break into your house. That doesn't mean you get to shoot me. That kind of crime doesn't mean my life is forfeited, that's ridiculous. The fact that you may even THINK that you're justified to kill me is sickening.

I see. You just broke in for a cup of coffee? Not to rape my daughter? Well, why didn't you say so!

Just because you are willing to gamble with your life, doesn't mean I should have to do the same.

Do I want to kill you? Absolutely not. The simple solution is...don't break into my house! But why are you trying to convince me that I should give a person who just broke the law by breaking into my house the benefit of the doubt? My life, and the lives of my wife and daughter, are far too valuable to me to guess that this guy is probably not going to hurt them.

No you can stop him by calling the cops...

Right. Call the cops. What shall I do with the intruder while we're waiting for them? Talk about the weather? Exchange cookie recipes?

...but you can't just outright murder him even if he's stealing your stuff. At THAT point your life isn't even in any demonstrable danger yet so kill or be killed is not even applicable at this point. Shooting me would be murder not self defense.

I'm not going to shoot him if I catch him running out with my TV. But let's say he sees me, drops the TV, and reaches into his jacket/pocket/whatever...I'm pulling the trigger. It's not murder if I feel he's going to kill me. I'm not the criminal here, remember? Why are you giving him more rights than me?

And if you actually presented yourself physically to me then you're even dumber. If self preservation is your main concern you should make sure you run away and avoid conflict. You don't open the door and point a gun at me, that would escalate the problem. I know you don't want your crap stolen but your crap isn't your life and it's not worth losing or taking a life for either. Do it nonlethally.

I would most likely give a verbal warning, out of your sight, for you to get the **** out of my house. If you leave, no one dies. If you do not comply, I have every right to assume you have hostile intentions. After the warning, if you come toward me, I will pull the trigger.

A) that law is dumb because again it's not kill or be killed at that point; it's kill because you're afraid. If I approached you absolutely intent on kicking you in the balls the fact that you think you can jump all the way up the self-defense ladder to straight up shooting me is ridiculous. The law keeps you from being labeled a murderer which is what you'd actually be.

You are asking me to be psychic and assume the criminal only has good intentions. If you are approaching me in a threatening manner, how the hell am I supposed to know if you are going to try to break my nose or give me a hug? If I have a gun pointed at you, you are ignoring verbal warnings, and you're still approaching me, I'm pulling the trigger.

B) You again are conflating lethal force with self defense as if the two are the same thing. You can defend yourself without having to kill someone and you shouldn't be killing anyways for the same reason that person approaching you in a threatening manner shouldn't kill you. Your kill or be killed logic is still paradoxical at this point.

Right. Like I said, if I have a gun pointed at you, you are ignoring verbal warnings, and you're still approaching me, I'm pulling the trigger.

No if I don't want to be arrested or thrown in jail I shouldn't break into your house. The fact you think you have the right to kill me before I've done anything more than ruin your sense of safety or take your junk is actually ridiculous. I know it's easy to see a criminal's right to life as forfeit just because they broke into your house but that's honestly just wrong and unethical. That's ridiculous cowboy logic.

If I have a gun pointed at you, you are ignoring verbal warnings, and you're still approaching me, I'm pulling the trigger. I have no ethical rhyme or reason to assume you mean good will to me. If you leave, you get to keep your life.

I mean you're the one who says you don't want guns in the hands of irresponsible owners which can only be determined after the fact which AGAIN is hilarious that you don't see the problem there but you think it's actually responsible to let people choose when to kill so easily.

It wasn't my choice to have you break into my house. I won't kill you if you leave before I count to 5...

Again let's look back at Sailors. Obviously he murdered Diaz. The only thing that those kids did was harm his feeling of being safe. That's not worth killing for.

You are, finally, absolutely right. Sailors murdered that boy and he should serve the rest of his years in prison.

 

[Xulld]

However I would like to know why, in your opinion, other countries do not seem to have such a problem with violence that individuals feel the need to own so many guns (per capita, that is.) If the question is unclear, feel free to say so.

Far easier to answer why we find the difference in homicide rates amongst the countries, than what the most common feelings are regarding the way we go about self defense.

IMHO a person who legally carries any weapon already has the same mindset as myself despite the type of weapon.

Chances are they would carry the most effective weapon they could legally.

Ultimately the reasons why an individual carries are probably similar to my own, and are a large part of the reason I am willing to share such a painful experience.

Statistics are not a driver for most human behavior. Another and probably more precise way to say it is that personal experience has a much greater impact on our beliefs than statistical data. The most skeptical, critical thinker still can find themselves strongly affected.

Approaching bias from an honest perspective takes a lot of courage, and constant vigilance.

I am biased. I will admit it. My experiences of violence have made me hyper vigilant. Loosing people I love means I cannot settle for some law to reduce a statistic, I must take personal action to be prepared.

You tell me what personal action you have taken to be prepared for any emergency after having experienced such a thing, even vicariously through close friends, and maybe we can have a conversation about what it means to feel you need to prepare. One way I do it is by carrying a gun.

Some here want to talk about the parents at Sandy Hook as if they are their own personal martyrs for gun control, that makes me sick because I know what it means to loose someone you love and hate that I had no way to stop it. I hate that Andrea was unarmed against an animal twice her size armed with a fire extinguisher, she fought for her life but had no chance.

None of you really give a crap about the kids at Sandy Hook, and any parent who is willing to trade the feeling of safety for actually being able to affect a difference faced against such monster should feel shame at acting so smug.

 

[Belz...]

I understand the question, but I'd be lying if I said I had the right answer. My opinion is that it has to do with culture and geography.

Obviously but, more specifically ?

 

[Giz]

A) that law is dumb because again it's not kill or be killed at that point; it's kill because you're afraid. If I approached you absolutely intent on kicking you in the balls the fact that you think you can jump all the way up the self-defense ladder to straight up shooting me is ridiculous.

This has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read on JREF (and that is quite a feat).

I feel like a shouldn't even try to engage and point out all the things that are wrongheaded or impractical about that statement. I should just stand back and admire its unashamed refusal to let anything remotely resembling reality intrude upon its self-righteous scenario.

 

[Belz...]

Some dude just shot his girlfriend in a restaurant when his gun went off as he adjusted his pants.

Wow. What an idiot. Loaded, with a round in the chamber AND with the safety off ?

 

[ben m]

I disagree. The "no gun, just give up" policy is due to liability issues. And even with this policy, many clerks are killed.

"Liability issues" are actually a really good judge of risk. Let's say that Dairy Queen fears a $1M lawsuit per death. A typical store is losing utterly trivial amounts of money---$1000/y---to these robberies, so a rational policy is aimed only at death prevention.

Now, an unarmed clerk can get shot by a robber. It happens all the time---nighttime-gas-station-clerk is an incredibly dangerous job. The clerk doesn't want to die, and the Dairy Queen doesn't want him to die. What's DQ's advice on how to prevent the clerk's death?

What's the NRA's recommendation? They've said, over and over: "the only way to not-die in an armed robbery is to be armed yourself." The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, right?
The NRA tells us that carrying a gun is death-prevention, and death-prevention is what the NRA wants. Let's check the research:

Robberies where employee didn't resist: 474. Fraction injured: 4%
Robberies where employee resisted: 36. Fraction injured: 53%

Workplaces where guns were permitted were about 5 times as likely to experience a homicide as those where all weapons were prohibited (adjusted odds ratio=4.81; 95% confidence interval=1.70, 13.65). The association remained after adjustment for other risk factors. The findings suggest that policies allowing guns in the workplace might increase workers’ risk of homicide.

Nope. In reality---and DQ/7-11/etc. agree with this---the best way to stop a bad guy with the gun is to give him the money so he goes away. The best way to survive an armed robbery? Don't resist.

The NRA's advice is the opposite of true. "A good guy with a gun" is most likely just escalating a robbery into a murder. "A good guy with a gun" isn't scaring the robbers off, he's prompting them to open fire. Read the paper. Look at the stats.

I don't see why "home burglaries" would be any different. An unarmed homeowner is going to get robbed occasionally but almost never harmed. An armed homeowner is going to get robbed slightly-less-often, but shot by the spooked robber notably more (5x more?) often.

(And this---the right to a wholly counterproductive self-defense strategy---is the right whose preservation costs 30,000 lives a year? Good lord, what a disaster.)

 

[Sabretooth]

Should he just take his death like a man and RIP? All so gun-aficionados can buy guns without the gubmint tracking them (or take your pick of whatever gun-aficionados want that Law X doesn't let them do.)

You have the wrong assumption of my position on gun control. I don't want free-willy-nilly sales and ownership...reasonable gun control is absolutely necessary.

What I don't agree with is the idea that people cannot CCW or Open Carry or Bans of AW (though, I agree reasonable mag limits are probably a good idea).

With that being said, how about you preach to criminals about the dangers of breaking into homes because you might get dead, instead of preaching to me about why I shouldn't shoot the bastard if he's threatening me or my family?

It's the same principle on both ends. Just like every policy choice you can imagine. High speed limits? Some people get hurt. Low speed limits? Different people get hurt. Take your pick.

Actually, yes, the principle is the same:

- Don't break the speed limits and you greatly reduce your chances of getting hurt.

- Don't break the law and you greatly reduce your risk of getting shot at.

Seems fair to me.

<snipped other stories>

Gun laws? Same thing. Strict gun laws? Fewer gun murders/suicides/accidents. Loose gun laws? Fewer home-invasion murders. The problem is: there are currently 30,000 gun murders and suicides and incredibly few home-invasion murders. The balance says we need stricter gun laws. Are you one of the people who will get hurt? Well, just like you do with your non-SawStop tablesaw, your 65mph speed limit, and your 21yo drinking age, we have to have some policy, and no single policy can make everything perfect.

I'm lost. What are you proposing exactly when you say "strict gun laws"? Outright ban? I need you to clarify your position, please.

 

[lionking]

None of you really give a crap about the kids at Sandy Hook, and any parent who is willing to trade the feeling of safety for actually being able to affect a difference faced against such monster should feel shame at acting so smug.

Firstly, congratulations on your mind reading proficiency. Secondly, I'm a parent (are you?), and I'm supposed to feel ashamed about not owning a gun? What complete and utter crap.