Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Sabretooth]

Obviously but, more specifically ?

I'm sure i covered this in one of the other threads. I'm not avoiding the question, just don't have the time to answer completely at the moment. Remind me and I'll get more in depth when I get the chance.

 

[Belz...]

Yea I did break into your house. That doesn't mean you get to shoot me.

Yes, it does, actually. Someone who breaks into another person's home is a criminal to start with. If there's an occupant, he's being put in a stressful situation where he has no time to make careful determinations as to whether the intruder is armed, confused, friendly or otherwise. If he can't escape, I don't see how anyone could claim it's not reasonable to defend oneself in any way available.

Criminals don't enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us. When you commit a crime, you forfeit some of your liberties. It's no surprise that self-defense is mitigating circumstances in many cases.

 

[Sabretooth]

"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:






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.)

Injuries? Does it give death figures?

 

[fuelair]

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"


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.


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.



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.

You list your location as Alabama, mine is Florida, I have a strong suspicion that in Alabama you can indeed shoot someone breaking into your house and be fully fine on the "in fear of life or safety " thing. Not sure if you have castle doctrine and/or stand ground - both/either would also apply on that here.. I know you can in Florida.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, it does, actually. Someone who breaks into another person's home is a criminal to start with. If there's an occupant, he's being put in a stressful situation where he has no time to make careful determinations as to whether the intruder is armed, confused, friendly or otherwise. If he can't escape, I don't see how anyone could claim it's not reasonable to defend oneself in any way available.

Criminals don't enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us. When you commit a crime, you forfeit some of your liberties. It's no surprise that self-defense is mitigating circumstances in many cases.

If someone broke into your home and you were not in fear of your life then IMO it would be immoral and illegal to kill that person. Now, if someone breaks into your home and you kill them and you then tell me that you were in fear of your life then, IMO, case closed.

 

[Belz...]

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 missed this gem on the first read. People's sense of safety is crucial to their well-being. Once you violate that sense, you are likely going for the other thing: life. And no one in their right mind will take that chance with you.

 

[Sabretooth]

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.

But, you are essentially doing the reverse to gun-owners. We should ashamed of ourselves for wanting a sporting/hunting/defense tool?

 

[Lowpro]

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.

You can't just kill a person because of your imagination, that's not right or ethical or responsible. You can incapacitate the intruder or you can hide yourself and your family. Do something that doesn't get people killed. That should go both ways but just because I broke into your house doesn't mean you get to kill me either. You don't have to tolerate me and my presence in your house, but you just don't have any ethical right to let your imagination and "what if's" justify killing. You're going to have to deal with it.

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

I gave you a laundry list of the many things you could do that doesn't involve killing. Pick some and stop pretending that killing is the only solution.

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?

How is he getting more rights than you? Again you are trying to promote the kill or be killed argument but that's a paradox here. What you're actually promoting in this scenario is "kill because I'm afraid." I understand the sentiment but it's not ethical and that's self defense. That's a preemptive strike.

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.

Again you only demonstrate that killing is your go to defense. Not incapacitation or securing yourself or just leaving your damned home. You assume an intent that you cannot know only infer and you'd meet that intent by killing first instead of avoiding conflict.

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.

Killing because of your imagination doesn't justify actually killing someone. I thought my life was in danger is the go-to line but you actually have to demonstrate that it WAS IN DANGER. The "thought" part of "I thought my life was in danger" is the part that makes no sense. Either you are in danger or you aren't and you should leverage your options based on that.

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.

Then you may be a responsible gun owner but you're as irresponsible a citizen as the guy who broke into your house, if not worse. You killed someone, he didn't. Again the fact that you think that your warning/pulling the trigger is FINE and safe and justified...you're insane. And you're the one who says I live in a fantasy world and you're the guy who is planned out how to kill.

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.

You have no right to that kind of force to actually make that call to kill. Like I said it's cowboy logic. We don't treat bad will as immediate "kill him" but you're fine with that. Not only do you assume the person's up to no good you jump right to him/her being so damned dangerous that they must die and that you have to pull that trigger. Not only do you ignore any other means of nonlethal ways to handle it I don't even think you're considering it. You're sick in the head but a lot of people think like you do.

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...

Dude listen to how insane you are. YOU ARE MAKING THE DEATH THREAT based on fear. What if that person you're threatening to kill then thinks EXACTLY what you're thinking "Kill him before he kills me". Just because he broke into your house doesn't mean you can just do that to a person. It's hard to meet in middle on this but you're practically making killing easy. You're not trying to prevent death here or murder, you're killing because you don't see the future and that scares you.

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

Nothing you've said above is reasonable to kill anyone. If you think this was the only line I was right about then you need your head examined. Self defense only makes sense when you are actually defending yourself from harm, not preemptively striking and putting yourself in harm's way just to kill.

 

[Belz...]

I'm sure i covered this in one of the other threads. I'm not avoiding the question, just don't have the time to answer completely at the moment. Remind me and I'll get more in depth when I get the chance.

Fair enough. I'll just be in the corner over there.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough. I'll just be in the corner over there.

Oh trust me, I'm there with you my brother.

 

[Belz...]

If someone broke into your home and you were not in fear of your life then IMO it would be immoral and illegal to kill that person. Now, if someone breaks into your home and you kill them and you then tell me that you were in fear of your life then, IMO, case closed.

Indeed. My problem, as a non-gun owner, is that I have no idea, at any time, of you're in my home to hurt me or my family or not. So unless I spy you stealing my new tv and leave on the tip of your toes, I can't take any chances.

 

[Belz...]

You can't just kill a person because of your imagination, that's not right or ethical or responsible.

I don't suppose you think the alternative, wait an see if they start raping your wife, is a good idea.

What you're actually promoting in this scenario is "kill because I'm afraid."

No, that's not at all what he says. He's promoting a "kill because the risk/benefit analysis favours that decision."

incapacitation

A gentle tap on the head, like in the movies !

You killed someone, he didn't.

You think he should've gotten the chance ?

 

[RandFan]

Indeed. My problem, as a non-gun owner, is that I have no idea, at any time, of you're in my home to hurt me or my family or not. So unless I spy you stealing my new tv and leave on the tip of your toes, I can't take any chances.

Law enforcement typically does not make a distinction and they would easily be on your side. IMO: It would be immoral if you were not in fear for your life. Now, we can debate whether you should be in fear or whether or not you calmly shoot first just in case. To calmly kill someone when you are not in fear is, IMO, immoral. I of course think the benefit of the doubt should go to the homeowner. If I were the investigator and it was clear that a break in had occurred and it was obvious that the person was in fear of his life then I would leave it at that.

IMO: Killing someone just because you can and just because a thief made a mistake of thinking the house is empty is not justification for killing someone. But that's a very sticky wicket to say the least. One would think that a home is one place that we should be safe in.

 

[Unabogie]

I agree that if someone enters your home, they are fair game and it's not up to you to wait and see how dangerous they are before incapacitating them. Certainly, as RandFan says, if you know they aren't a threat but kill them anyway just because the law would excuse you, doesn't make that okay in the slightest, but I don't know that you would ever or should ever be prosecuted.

Just my two cents on this side issue.

 

[Metullus]

You can't just kill a person because of your imagination, that's not right or ethical or responsible. You can incapacitate the intruder or you can hide yourself and your family. Do something that doesn't get people killed. That should go both ways but just because I broke into your house doesn't mean you get to kill me either. You don't have to tolerate me and my presence in your house, but you just don't have any ethical right to let your imagination and "what if's" justify killing. You're going to have to deal with it.

If a person breaks into my house it is entirely his responsibility to convince me to my satisfaction that he means my family no harm - it is not my job to give him the benefit of any doubt. I have every right to assume the worst until and unless the intruder can convince me otherwise. I cannot read his mind; I cannot know his intent.

 

[ben m]

Injuries? Does it give death figures?

These papers didn't break it down for their data. They cite a different study as showing an injury/death ratio of 10:1, which suggests that their dataset probably wouldn't have had enough deaths to analyze usefully. (They cite the other study as saying and that injuries are most common when the robber has a blunt instrument instead of a gun, but guns caused all of the deaths studied.)

 

[RandFan]

While we are debating the prudence of shooting a home intruder, let's keep in mind that for most of us that don't live in gang infested neighborhoods the odds of you being the victim of such a crime are remote. For those who can afford it a home alarm system might be a good choice.

 

[Lowpro]

Yes, it does, actually. Someone who breaks into another person's home is a criminal to start with. If there's an occupant, he's being put in a stressful situation where he has no time to make careful determinations as to whether the intruder is armed, confused, friendly or otherwise. If he can't escape, I don't see how anyone could claim it's not reasonable to defend oneself in any way available.

Criminals don't enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us. When you commit a crime, you forfeit some of your liberties. It's no surprise that self-defense is mitigating circumstances in many cases.

But this one is insane to make their LIFE forfeit and just kill them. Yes an owner may not have all the information they need but THAT IS THE PROBLEM. In NO OTHER WAY would we allow that kind of thought where you can kill someone BECAUSE you don't know enough.

The punishment has to fit the crime and an owner (A) doesn't even know of any crime OTHER than the break-in, something you shouldn't kill a person for and (B) the owner is not the arbiter of justice ANYWAYS. There is no justice in killing that intruder. You can't just kill people who have broken your security. You don't have to ignore them, but I mean aren't you listening to Sabretooth?! He's so ready to KILL that person instead of finding a nonlethal method. To him defense is first blood. That kind of attitude is insane WHETHER OR NOT you have guns I haven't even gotten to that part. Guns just make it easier to do without much room for interpretation ie: no one seems to mind the idea of shooting an intruder to death but if instead you say beat them to death with a baseball bat (takes awhile) until their skull caved in we would raise eyebrows. People give guns a pass on that WHICH IS INSANE. There's something wrong with that culture it's not ethical or fair. We take so much pride in due process of justice and raise Hell when someone doesn't receive it but if you are an intruder that's completely abandoned in favor of just straight up death before anything bad could happen, no questions asked. Keep yourself safe from the unknown.

 

[Lowpro]

If a person breaks into my house it is entirely his responsibility to convince me to my satisfaction that he means my family no harm - it is not my job to give him the benefit of any doubt. I have every right to assume the worst until and unless the intruder can convince me otherwise. I cannot read his mind; I cannot know his intent.

But you can't use that to justify KILLING them. Yes you can't read their mind but you can't use that as a defense and except that to be taken seriously. Assuming the worst doesn't mean kill they are just too far removed. That's on YOU, NOT the criminal. You can't indict a person's right to live because of a crime like trespassing and your fears. That's not reasonable or rational and that's not preserving your life yet.

I am honestly shocked that many of you seem to agree with KILLING them in favor of other methods as if killing is the safest option and the only option need considering. What the hell happened to you guys?

 

[Lowpro]

I don't suppose you think the alternative, wait an see if they start raping your wife, is a good idea.



No, that's not at all what he says. He's promoting a "kill because the risk/benefit analysis favours that decision."



A gentle tap on the head, like in the movies !



You think he should've gotten the chance ?

Alright the raping your wife part is stupid and you shouldn't try to play with that loaded scenario. "He could be a rapist, better shoot now and not find out". Again killing because of your imagination is insane. You cannot expect to weasel out of that. I'm also sorry if I keep using the word insane it's all that seems to be running through my head when I read what you're saying. To see you guys saying these things and somehow avoiding cognitive dissonance at the same time...what the hell

As for the risk/benefits thing that's also ridiculous. Shooting now because you have no idea what to expect so expecting the worst...you're going to kill someone because of that? Sir, this ship doesn't float. I mean if we swapped scenarios and put it to a burglar shooting a homeowner because the homeowner came at him in a threatening manner he'd be just as right as you think it is, and don't pretend that the whole homeowner thing nullifies a burglar's ability to consider his options JUST LIKE that homeowner does. Just as much as that homeowner is afraid he might be in harm so he shoots the guy; the same thing is probably going to go through the burglar's head and if the burglar killed that homeowner you'd scream MURDER but not for the homeowner? There is no intelligence in threatening anybody with their life, either by the homeowner or the burglar. You're just rooting for a particular side and trying to justify killing.