Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Nihilianth]

You give guns to people terrified of crimes they are unlikely to experience, what do you expect? Three times in the past few months people have mistakenly driven up my drive. Not only did I refrain from shooting them, I helped them find where they were going.

Many, many pages back, and an old post, I know. But I have personal experience of this occurring:

It was the summer of 1998. I was 14 years old, going on 15. My twin brother and I were in the woods, just north of town, where I lived. These woods were our traditional stomping grounds growing up. We always hiked/biked several trails up there.

In the summer of 1998, however, unbeknownst to us, an oil man from Texas moved in, and bought this land. It went from public land, to private. He hadn't gotten around to posting the "private property" signs yet.

So there we were, in the middle of the trail, stopping by at this one creek to splash around a bit, and some old kook comes running towards us, screaming his off...not from the trail either ahead or behind us, but from a totally unexpected direction: From the middle of the woods!

He was running towards us with a big ole' shotgun, screaming at us to "GET OFF MY LAND!! GET OFF MY LAND!!"

Now, he did not shoot at us. He didn't even so much as point the gun at us. It sure as HELL scared the bejesus out us! We stood up, and ran. And ran. And ran. Until finally we were out of the woods, and back on the paved surface of the road.

When we got home, we were still shaken up, and totally out of breath. Told my mother what happened, and BOY was she PISSED!

My mother, God love her, turns into a crazed Italian maniac when she's angry. About a half hour later after finding this old man's house, he had to call the cops on her, because of the verbal abuse she laid down. Cops showed up, and she was still yelling at him. They just broke it up, and they told the old man to NEVER leave his house with a shotgun in his hands if people were just trespassing on his property. Especially if they are just young kids.

And yes, it was perfectly legal for that man to own a gun. Even after that incident. And yes, he was (and still is as far as I know) considered an "upstanding citizen," and a "responsible gun owner."

The idea that cops and the armed forces go through rigorous training in how to property handle their arms, but the normal citizenry is not so required, is outrageous. Hell, a 16 year old kid has to have at least standardized training in how to operate a vehicle!

It should be made a felony for anyone to so much as brandish a weapon at another human being, unless their lives are truly in mortal danger.

I applaud a Florida mother who gathered her kids up into the attic of her home, and shot and killed an intruder coming up the steps. I do NOT applaud ANYONE who comes outside their home with a gun if someone happens to wander onto their land.

///////////////////////////////////////////

As for "self-defense:"

If you were TRULY concerned about self-defense, by far the most effective means to do so, is to learn some martial arts. I know a bit myself. It teaches you self-control and proper awareness. A lot of people will ask: "But how you know whether you are in a situation that warrants such use of force as a gun?" The simple answer is: "Common sense." Common sense would tell you that if someone pulled into your driveway, and started backing out again, that you are in absolutely NO danger whatsoever. Common sense tells you that if someone is actively breaking into your house, they are likely a threat to your person.

But how do you draw the line between the two extremes? In 99% of all cases, it's quite easy. But there are a few exceptions...probably 1% of all situations... and that's where proper training, and PROPER "responsibility" comes into play. Pulling out a gun should ALWAYS be of the last resort, because it is so unlikely that you would ever have to actually use the thing.

Obviously, every single poster in his board would "agree" to what I have said. But therein lies the problem. I am also sure that the vast majority of "responsible" fun owners would likewise say the same thing as well. I am sure that Sailor guy would also say this. It's just like all those people who claim they "know" what they would do if they were Joe Paterno with limited to no knowledge of a sexual assault; Virtually everybody is this ultimate noble hero. But statistics show how painfully untrue this is. The majority of people wouldn't even so much as tell another soul!

Saying is one thing; but doing is an entire other animal. And in the case of gun ownership, people should be required to be trained in the use of their weapon, and certain hypothetical situations.

 

[Nihilianth]

When is your life in tangible danger? When a stranger has broken into your house and is advancing threateningly towards your bedroom? Or is it only legitimately threatened once Jack the Ripper has handed you a notarized writ of murderous intent? I mean, someone who breaks in with an axe might just be a stray woodcutter looking for a sharpening tool (which he thinks you keep under your daughters bed)... shouldn't rush to judgement!

Come on now! How often do people actually break into houses using axes?

Are you shooting a tazer, nonlethal round, mace or bear spray or other debilitating irritant?

How about instead a nightstick, baseball bat or other dense object that can incapacitate a person? Just don't kill them to kill them that's the problem. There is a fundamental difference between shooting a gun meant to kill and using nonlethal force to incapacitate however it seems the latter receives very little reinforcement; people just want to kill criminals even if their crimes are altogether benign but why take that chance?

There's many ways to deal with an intruder and shooting them isn't the only option and the fact that it's the first option you may consider (keeping in mind all my previous posts; don't want you trying to restart the same crap) is telling about your value on life. I know you like yours and those you may be protecting but choosing to end somebody when their crimes don't warrant death in law anyways (I'm sure you'll spin it as legal to use deadly force in the home blah de blah but I am referring to actual arbiters of law behave ie police; those who have a monopoly on authorized force) and they have yet to commit any crime that does you aren't effectively defending your life because it's not in tangible danger. You want the result to be your safety right? There are many avenues to do that but killing, while effective is also excessive and not fair to the crime. Even citizens should temper their reactions fairly, especially ones who own guns. Even you should agree to that.

But I remember when I went to a shooting range and I was firing at a target and I remember the instructor boasting the ranges for a proper kill shot (center mass, he's great good job *pats back* getting a great job for killing just seems weird). They don't want guns used as a deterrent they want you to kill with them and they excite you with success at a target range. They teach you how to kill with them not when you should. Again that kill or be killed attitude still makes no sense...

As much as I cannot stand the recent pro-gun stance right now, I will have to say this:

If someone actually breaks into your home, their life is forfeit. I hate the idea of a human being killing another human being. I honestly do. I also hate the idea of a knee-jerk reaction of immediately reaching for a gun. But breaking into someone's home, is really not cool. Nobody on this planet are mind readers. You can;t tell if the person breaking in is a professional who is willing to do the occupants harm, or if that person is just a scared, witless animal. Usually, it's the latter. But a person's home is their sanctuary. There is a certain level of violation that one tends to feel when that is broken by someone who has no right to be there.

It's kind of like this one Amish kid who was nearly killed by a large horse near my sister's house. The horse was pulling a cart along, and it got stuck. The kid started whipping the horse, standing behind it. The horse bucked out with his hind legs, right into the kid's chest, breaking several ribs. If one of the ribs were just a few centimeters over, it would have punctured his heart. Now, would the kid DESERVE to die if he did? Yes, and no. No, because he was an idiot that didn't know any better. Yes, because he was an idiot who didn't know any better (but seriously should have; whipping an animal 5 times his size!)

 

[The Don]

How do you figure? It in MY LOCKED HOUSE?????

So if someone breaks into your house, and takes your car keys, your insurance company shouldn't have to pay for a new car???? Same retarded logic.

Under some circumstances this has happened in the UK. Specifically where the keys were visible and accessible.

I have a hard time understanding why someone needs unsecured weapons in their house when the house is empty.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

BTW, "Martial arts" is just glorified dancing. It only really works if your opponent is willing to play fair, and people who think it is effective self defence have been watching FAR too much Dragonball Z.

 

[Nihilianth]

BTW, "Martial arts" is just glorified dancing. It only really works if your opponent is willing to play fair, and people who think it is effective self defence have been watching FAR too much Dragonball Z.

Uhh....excuse me? What a ridiculous little post. Awww....look at NWO Sentryman....isn't he so cute?

 

[Belz...]

There's a lot of crap in that Belz... and you're smart enough to know that.

I love it when posters tell me what I know.

A home invasion is not a special case or unique in any other way in that we treat it for some reason and that special treatment is not ethical.

Ethical ? What ? What in the blue hell are you on about ?

Killing someone because they're in your home against your will and you don't know the future should have massive cognitive dissonance for you but what you're doing is pretending that for some reason your home means you can just kill those people if they meet the extremely weak requirements (they're in your house against your will and you think your life is in danger).

Are you pretending to not understand, here ? There is someone BREAKING INTO your home, where you and your family live. You have no idea what's about to happen, and you can't just leave. Are you telling me that you are unwilling to take whatever steps are necessary to protect yourself and the lives of your family ?

Thinking that your life is in danger isn't the same as your life being in danger

There is no way for you to tell the difference until its too late.

and when Sabretooth said he'd just shoot the guy if he didn't leave after the count of 5 or if he reached into his pocket because that's just enough. You're going to kill someone for a possibility. Nowhere is that ethical except for this special case on self defense which isn't even defense.

Of course it is.

Your rape comment was begging the question it wasn't a scenario.

Begging the question ? You're just throwing stuff hoping it sticks, now. You don't KNOW what's going to happen. They could steal, rape, kill, etc. You have no idea. Your solution is to wait until after the event to make a decision, and THAT is insane.

Rather than actually address my point that you can't kill on a hunch you instead threw in....a hunch.

No, it's not a hunch, Low, it's responding to an unknown threat. And the other "hunch" is just one of several possibilities, but it's the same 'hunch'. You appear to be in nay-say mode, so until you have an actual argument I am done with you.

 

[Belz...]

I've fixed your statement to reflect reality.

You added some new stuff, but why did you remove some of the stuff I put in ? You shouldn't chamber a round in there.

 

[Belz...]

So, it's unjustifiable if I shoot you as you enter my bedroom after kicking in my front door?

Horse ****.

It seems that we have ideologues on both sides of the discussion. I mean, I loathe guns and I'm very nervous around them, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't use them if the need presented itself.

 

[Belz...]

I said not in the house; I didn't say not there.

Ok, would you ask your question again ?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The hell?

Shooting law breakers instead of holding innocent owners responcible got misuse they did not agree to. As trespassers why shouldn't they be shot?

 

[Meadmaker]

As in it's the shooter who projects intent on the trespasser and can basically assume maximum threat with very little effort or requirements to just shoot someone dead. Basically killing without sufficient evidence and instead projecting cause onto them. .... I don't even see how you could arrive to such a conclusion like validating killing someone because they're in your home and you are afraid of something you don't know and we codified that into law! That needs a serious reevaluation.
....

Your understanding of what the law ought to be is consistent with what the law actually was in my youth. (1970s or so.)

However, a lot of states passed laws since then that have given the homeowner a whole lot more latitude. In particular, there is a reason that there are laws called "stand your ground" laws. Before their passage, there was a doctrine about a duty to flee. If someone was in your house, and it was possible for you to run away out a back door, you didn't have the right to use deadly force. Your obligation was to run away unless your life was in danger.

Many legislatures passed laws to specifically end that obligation. You are not required to run away if your state has such a law.

You are still required to determine if a person has hostile intent, but only to the extent that a reasonable person would infer hostile intent. Generally, if they are in your house in the middle of the night, there's a presumption of hostile intent. Often, that presumption is made explicit in the legislation.

Are these good laws or bad laws? For the most part, I think they are good laws. I don't have much sympathy for someone who dies while conducting a home invasion. Granted, there's no death penalty for stealing some jewelry, so it might seem unfair to kill someone just because he's ransacking a flat, but I'm not going to force the homeowner to make a whole lot of complicated legal and ethical decisions while someone is in their house to steal their stuff. It is still wiser to flee out the back door, but if they choose not to, I'm ok with that. The uncertainty is with the home invader, and if it turns out bad for him, karma's a bitch.

The down side of those laws, and the general atmosphere surrounding them, is that some people get a little carried away and go all Dirty Harry on someone who pulls into their driveway, or on their son who lost his keys and decided to break into the house through the window.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Exactly why we need to shoot those criminals tresspassing and using my pool. None of this stupid fences and control bs.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Uhh....excuse me? What a ridiculous little post. Awww....look at NWO Sentryman....isn't he so cute?

I was merely commenting on how Martial arts is overrated (mostly by idiots who watch Dragonball Z/Bruce Lee films and think it gives you super powers). My instructor always told me that unless my back was to the wall, the best course of action was to retreat.

 

[Sabretooth]

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.
<snipped the rest of poster repeating himself>

First of all, I never said I will shoot you as a "preemptive strike". You are completely ignoring the fact that I said I'm giving you numerous warnings to get the **** out of my house. There is no "shoot first, ask questions later" thing going on here. I don't want to kill you.

However, if you ignore warnings, seek me out, continue to advance on me, and/or have a weapon of any kind in your hand, I'm killing you.

Incapacitate? No. I'm shooting to kill. You've made it perfectly clear, after a plethora of warnings, that you want to hurt me or my family. You've lost your chance to negotiate with me.

You asked if I can hear how insane I sound...quite the reverse really. I think you're insane for giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt. I get it, you want to be the better "moral" person. That's your choice. If you want to gamble with your life and end up a dead moral person, be my guest. I think you're crazy to not mind the possibility of losing your life just so you can have a clean conscious.

My life, and my family's lives, come first and always, always will. I don't give a flying **** about the life of the criminal.

 

[BStrong]

I was merely commenting on how Martial arts is overrated (mostly by idiots who watch Dragonball Z/Bruce Lee films and think it gives you super powers). My instructor always told me that unless my back was to the wall, the best course of action was to retreat.

I have a friend that is a very accomplished life-long martial artist.

A mutual friend once asked me if I knew why so-and-so was such a keen fighter/trainer.

I admitted I did not, and was told in return "He can never remember where he left his gun."

 

[BStrong]

Exactly why we need to shoot those criminals tresspassing and using my pool. None of this stupid fences and control bs.

Just like this responsible gun control advocate did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan#Gun_Control_Controversy

"Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot an unarmed teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was on his property illegally. "The interloper was a near-naked teenager who had been skinny-dipping with friends in Rowan's pool, and the columnist's weapon was an unregistered, and thus illegal, .22 caliber pistol."

 

[Sabretooth]

Okay this has to be one of the dumbest thing I have seen in these threads considering that there are people in them that think it is perfectly acceptable to shoot a complete stranger through your door because they were banging on it loudly early in the morning. You really think that people who are terrified that a person knocking on the door is trying to break in would not assume that said AR-15 carrying person is a loonie about to start shooting up the street and decide that the best idea is to open fire first?

It was a joke...hence the

 

[AlBell]

"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.)

The first difference is 'in public domain' vs 'in private domain'.

 

[AlBell]

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.

No, and your cognitive dissonance is now laughable.

 

[Sabretooth]

Thinking that your life is in danger isn't the same as your life being in danger and when Sabretooth said he'd just shoot the guy if he didn't leave after the count of 5 or if he reached into his pocket because that's just enough. You're going to kill someone for a possibility.

Damn right I said that, and I meant it. 5 seconds is plenty of time for you to convince me you are getting the **** out of my house. If you aren't hightailing it out before I get to 2, something is wrong. I have no choice but to assume you are hostile.

You want me to assume he's not going to hurt me. Fine. If you don't break into my house, I'll assume you aren't going to hurt me.

You keep telling me how wrong I am for having this view, but you haven't once told me how you would resolve an intruder in your home other than call the cops and hide. So I ask that you answer a few questions, if you don't mind:

What happens if that intruder seeks you out?

What if he simply comes upon your hiding spot?

How would you incapacitate the intruder?

Have you thought about what happens after you've incapacitated the intruder?

Are you willing to lose your life just so you can show the world you're a better/moral person?