Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[tyr_13]

They are the ones who get to decide that all on their own.

No. That's not what people have said. You keep ignoring that the criminal has the option to not do the thing that reasonably puts their lives in danger by putting the home owner in fear of their life. Breaking it in and of itself IS the criminal deciding.

 

[Lowpro]

No. That's not what people have said. You keep ignoring that the criminal has the option to not do the thing that reasonably puts their lives in danger by putting the home owner in fear of their life. Breaking it in and of itself IS the criminal deciding.

But that isn't a crime where you can leverage lethal force on either. Anywhere else where a criminal broke into a store or something to steal beer let's say the store owner actually does NOT have the right to kill them for that because trespassing and stealing aren't actionable to lethal force unless they themselves also present a danger to the store owner. And while it's not law (I don't think) most stores have their employees give up the money and hide.

But for some reason in the home no need for that because of the "what if" boogeyman.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Most states already have a "keep your guns out of easy reach of children etc" laws.

The problem being that when they are broken the gun owner is typically punished by losing their child and paying for a funeral. We all agree that piling a civil or criminal penalty on a parent at that point is a bit much.

What I have a problem with, is requiring these be implemented, and that I submit to an "inspection" to check to make sure I'm complying.

I don't like that, and will never agree to this. Ever.

So, help me out here, what is the least invasive way to make sure that guns are owned by responsible gun owners? I'm not proscribing a solution as much as I am asking why other gun owners aren't clamoring to get the guns away from people who are complete idiots.

Maybe we just set up presumptions in the law that the gun was not properly secured unless you can show it was properly secured and that the security was nonetheless breached. No inspections, but it will require gun owners to document their security, which shouldn't be hard.

If you believe that, I've got some property in Arizona I would be willing to give you a GREAT deal. Interested?

It served as a payroll safe in a lumber mill for 40 years, at times protecting hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in a rather poor rural area. If it can't secure my few hunting rifles in a suburban garage I would be very surprised. But you are logically right, I should have said highly unlikely, instead of expressing such certainty. The point being I have done what I was able to do. I want other gun owners to accept a reasonable amount of responsibility for their weapons, too.

No. I do not agree at all. I have an unsecured weapon hanging on my wall. Should I be responsible if someone breaks into my house, through my either locked doors, or locked windows, and steals my gun? No.

Not one bit. It's a silly opinion, IMO.

Then we disagree. but, I think that we as a society should be able to trust that you as a gun owner have secured your weapons to a generally agreed standard. Maybe we can agree that if your home has some minimum degree of security that will suffice, maybe we will require something more, but I think we should talk about gun owners being responsible for securing their guns.

I do find it rather funny that you yourself do not feel secure enough in your home to sleep unarmed, but you feel it is safe enough to store your weapons without further protection. On the one hand it is as safe as a gun safe, but on the other it may as well be made of rice paper as the villans come storming in.

What you mean to say is if the plaintiff can show that the gun owner didn't secure it well enough? Burden of proof.

Exactly. Guns should be secured, if they are not secured an injured plaintiff should have the right to sue the owner for not properly securing the gun if they can carry the burden of proof. Defining "secured" should be a public decision that gun owners should be happy to participate in.

 

[Lowpro]

One thing I've learned in my years on this forum is that even 'skeptics' have some amazing abilities to ignore reality, particularily when it comes to subjects that are not about the supernatural or woo science.

I mean, I'm sure you and I would disagree quite a bit about gun laws, but even my revulsion for firearms (the very thought that people on the street as I go to work may be armed chills me) doesn't make me argue for nonsense. Lowpro's posts seem, as I said, more idealistic than realistic. If he were in that situation, and I hope he never is, I think he might not act the way he says one should.

Another thing I've learned on these forums is to avoid extremes. Especially in social issues, the people shouting "white" and the people shouting "black" are almost always both wrong. So I try to point out the wrong on both sides.

It's realistic almost everywhere else in the world except the home. There could be a perceived idealism to thinking a criminal's life is not forfeit but that's kind of a common idealism especially in law. You need sufficient evidence to kill. Trespassing and "what ifs" aren't sufficient evidence anywhere else except the home and I think that's kinda crappy. I don't want anyone dying, neither criminals are homeowners so when we resort to it on both sides I'd prefer stringent measures. We loathe criminals who kill for bad reasons but I see self-defense lethal use in the context of what a lot of people saying to fall into bad reasons too. We don't allow this in public, why allow it in private? If you were outside of a bar after having a fight with the guy and you see the guy walking up to you and you got scared, couldn't measure his intent but knew it might not be good so you point a gun at him and yell (escalation) and then shoot him in the chest intending to kill him to defend yourself the only difference here is that it's in public, not the home. And you wouldn't be able to get away with that in public.

Oh and that did happen to a friend of mine but he lived.

And you may be right about my views changing in that situation, but I haven't decided to kill on what if's now so I doubt I'll do it when the time comes. That and I don't have a gun in my home but I do have bear spray and if worse came to worse like the guy DID have a gun and I'm in "now I have what I need to know that my life is in danger" mode I'm actually probably going to run. If I did own a gun I wouldn't be opposed to using it though in that circumstance.

 

[Nessie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqIUGGQz2wM

That video starts with Senator Graham saying guns have saved thousands if not millions of Americans from home invasion.

So where are the statistics to back that claim up? If there are thousands if not millions of home invasions every year which need a gun to defend against them, where are all the crime reports and police investigations to catch these intruders? Surly many intruders are seen and described and traced nearby by police and put to court is the crime is so common. But that does not seem to be the case. Or is it that many burglaries are being given the title home invasion by those who want to sell the fear?

This website, designed to sell home security makes the claim that "In the U.S. alone, 1 out of every 5 homes will be victimized by a violent home invasion or burglary."

http://www.globalsecurityexperts.com/home-security/crime-prevention-advice/home-invasion-stats.html

But a crime wave on that scale would be known about. It is as if the USA has a home invasion problem on an almighty scale that is kept secret from the statistics

 

[Polaris]

You're missing the point. I'm not saying he should get some protection in the law on whether he's breaking into a house but that doesn't make his life forfeit or at least it shouldn't. We require a lot more evidence before we can justify killing a criminal even in self defense OUTSIDE the home. But inside where it's almost some crazy Schrodinger's Cat where you don't know what to expect so you expect the worst it's fine to just straight up kill him for trespassing and the "what ifs" fear homeowners have. They are the ones who get to decide that all on their own.

Oh I get the point. He's not "trespassing" either. Trespassing is walking across my lawn. He's breaking and entering to commit burglary or worse. Castle Doctrine is just that, to assume that an intruder has the worst intentions and therefore deadly force is authorized. I like it that way. It shouldn't be up to the homeowner to assume the slime who just broke into his HOUSE is worth the benefit of the doubt.

I disagree that it doesn't make his life forfeit. As far as I'm concerned his life is forfeit the second he steps foot inside someone's house. He's less than ****. If it's my house, he gets one warning. After that, I shoot him. If I see he's armed, he doesn't even get the warning.

Oh and the intruder cares about what he feels. At that moment his behavior actually matters a lot, in fact its his behavior that telegraphs intent to the homeowner. The fact that we think it's fine to ignore that seems weird to me.

I'm sure he does. He doesn't care about anything else, and that's why he's a burglar. That's why if I don't shoot the bastard, I want him to be so terrified, so absolutely quivering with fear, that for the rest of his life he puckers just thinking of running into me again - let alone breaking into my (or anyone else's) house.

 

[Nihilianth]

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

Whoa whoa whoa! There is a world of difference between "
trespassers" and B&E. You shouldn't shoot trespassers, because that would be murder! Someone breaking into your house, is quite a bit different.

 

[tyr_13]

But that isn't a crime where you can leverage lethal force on either. Anywhere else where a criminal broke into a store or something to steal beer let's say the store owner actually does NOT have the right to kill them for that because trespassing and stealing aren't actionable to lethal force unless they themselves also present a danger to the store owner. And while it's not law (I don't think) most stores have their employees give up the money and hide.

But for some reason in the home no need for that because of the "what if" boogeyman.

People live in their homes. Criminals don't just break into stores to murder people or rape, (mostly) but those things happen more often to homes. Homes aren't just storage spaces for all your ****.

And again, you're backing 'breaking and entering into a home' with 'trespassing in a store' and straw manning to include 'can shoot dead even if trying to leave'. You're not arguing with what people are actually saying but twisting it to fit your narrative.

 

[Sabretooth]

Obviously but, more specifically ?

I've tried to answer your question with details here

 

[Dr. Keith]

That video starts with Senator Graham saying guns have saved thousands if not millions of Americans from home invasion.

So where are the statistics to back that claim up? If there are thousands if not millions of home invasions every year which need a gun to defend against them, where are all the crime reports and police investigations to catch these intruders? Surly many intruders are seen and described and traced nearby by police and put to court is the crime is so common. But that does not seem to be the case. Or is it that many burglaries are being given the title home invasion by those who want to sell the fear?

Isn't that the research that the NRA won't allow the CDC to conduct?

 

[Lowpro]

Oh I get the point. He's not "trespassing" either. Trespassing is walking across my lawn. He's breaking and entering to commit burglary or worse. Castle Doctrine is just that, to assume that an intruder has the worst intentions and therefore deadly force is authorized. I like it that way. It shouldn't be up to the homeowner to assume the slime who just broke into his HOUSE is worth the benefit of the doubt.

I disagree that it doesn't make his life forfeit. As far as I'm concerned his life is forfeit the second he steps foot inside someone's house. He's less than ****. If it's my house, he gets one warning. After that, I shoot him. If I see he's armed, he doesn't even get the warning.



I'm sure he does. He doesn't care about anything else, and that's why he's a burglar. That's why if I don't shoot the bastard, I want him to be so terrified, so absolutely quivering with fear, that for the rest of his life he puckers just thinking of running into me again - let alone breaking into my (or anyone else's) house.

Dude first off you're pretty much sounding like a killer-in-waiting here. A burglar's right to life isn't forfeit just because he's burglarizing that's dumb. You may not like him but you also may not like a lot of people; you don't shoot them because you think they're scum. You can shoot them to defend yourself and all the Castle Doctrine does is say that you don't need to leverage force and you can kill him or her for what may not be anything worth killing him for. If he stole your TV you absolutely shouldn't kill him. Just like if he stole a TV from Best Buy the store owner can't count off and then shoot him.

However on the subject of weapons I've made it patently clear that at that point go for it. I do think it's silly for you to dismiss a criminal's logic and assume his thought process for him or her though, in fact it's hilarious how you caricaturize them. "He doesn't care about anything else, that's why he's a burglar." That's a dumb idea for you subscribe to. You and burglars are probably almost completely identical you know and that's not a semantics game. They are putting themselves in danger by breaking into your home to steal your stuff; their nerves are probably as wired as yours are and you're ready to kill them. Self preservation occurs for both individuals and while you're fine dismissing the criminal's feelings that doesn't mean reality bends to your dismissal either.

 

[Nessie]

And in Georgia, it's assumed that someone in your house, unlawfully, is assumed to a threat to a person's safety and life.

........

Then I am concerned that in Georgia the law has been written that way to accommodate gun owners only and is not properly taking cognisance of all possible situations. The gun is an instant escalation of potential force to deadly, it is the highest point on the scale of self defence. Allowing gun owners to assume their life is at threat is legalised summary justice, shoot first ask questions later.

I am very uncomfortable with a situation that gives untrained people deadly force and then lets them lose to use it on an assumption.

 

[Nihilianth]

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.

Oh, well, you cleared that up. You reposnded immediately after me, and it really seemed as though you were directing your comment at me. Besides offending both dancers and fighters, I thought you completely ignored what I wrote:

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.

It is the best way to learn about situational awareness, making a person armed with a gun a hell of a lot more effective in making the proper, responsible, decision.

Furthermore, it makes things much easier to deal with someone who actually is attacking you. Like a woman being attacked by someone with a knife in a dark alley. Knowing martial arts is far more effective than knowing how to shoot.

 

[Metullus]

You are again conflating defense with intent to kill here which is what I am trying to say needs proper leverage. I didn't say you need them to strike first before you can defend yourself I said that you should meet it with proper leverage. Instead it goes all the way up the ladder to "Kill" without any requirement to assess when you can kill them. You don't have to give them the benefit of the doubt but killing them for intruding doesn't seem a proper response either.

I think it is you who are conflating defense with the intent to kill. What do you mean by "proper leverage"? Am I expected to meet fists with fists, screwdriver with screwdriver, baseball bat with baseball bat? I do not say that he should be killed for intruding. I am saying that I should be able to act with lethal force if necessary to protect myself and my family from harm. I am saying that it is not unreasonable for me to assume the worst until the bad actor convinces me otherwise. I do not see why I should put myself or my family at risk for the benefit of the intruder.

But not only do we allow it we seem to say it's the only safe option to homeowners. Because again no one likes to hear about dead homeowners and we love to hear about dead criminals. But when we are also expected to utilize proper force in everywhere EXCEPT the home I don't see why the home becomes the exception.

I do not see anyone arguing that it is preferable, for example, to kill an intruder over making him go away. The willingness to use deadly force in defense of life and limb is not the same thing as a desire to use deadly force or the intent to unnecessarily kill or maim someone. Neither do I see anyone arguing that killing intruders is "the only safe option to homeowners." That is what I think we call a "strawman".

 

[Dr. Keith]

I agree with Lowpro. You cannot leap straight to deadly force in self defence.

I agree that morally it is difficult to make that leap, I would have trouble killing someone as they crossed my threshold.

But from a policy point of view it is more of a burden of proof issue. The homeowner gets the benefit of the doubt over the invader in the eyes of the law. If the homeowner was completely unreasonable in their fear, such as the case of Mr. Sailors, or say a person forgetting that they had a house guest and shooting them on the way to the restroom in the middle of the night (a fear of mine when staying with one of my gun toting college friends) then the burden of proof is met by the injured party.

Otherwise you have a homeowner defending a wrongful injury suit by the guy who was sneaking into his house to steal the TV and wrenched his back when the homeowner tackeld him. Sure, the suit will go the homeowners way, but why should he even have to defend it.

Moving the burden in the homeowners favor just seems to make the system work better, or at least that is our experience.

 

[Nihilianth]

Yeah, if Steven Seagal has taught me anything, it's that it's easy to disarm people with firearms.

Ya know, you only really make yourself look like an idiot when you fail to quote the very next sentence, while making a comment that has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

Now go back and read the rest of that paragraph that I wrote, <SNIP>.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0, rule 12.

 

[Lowpro]

People live in their homes. Criminals don't just break into stores to murder people or rape, (mostly) but those things happen more often to homes. Homes aren't just storage spaces for all your ****.

And again, you're backing 'breaking and entering into a home' with 'trespassing in a store' and straw manning to include 'can shoot dead even if trying to leave'. You're not arguing with what people are actually saying but twisting it to fit your narrative.

In what way?! I'm the one who brought up the STORE scenario and said that it should be adopted into the home scenario too because you would, as a homeowner, STILL be able to defend yourself against murder and rape if that's what is demonstrably going to occur with lethal force and you can use nonlethal force JUST for trespassing all the way up the ladder (something stores I don't even think are allowed to due to liability issues).

How in the hell have I ignored anything or twisted anyone's response here? You haven't demonstrated why the home is different (Hell no one's ever addressed that question and I've asked several times) so maybe your response is that people live in their homes and that's where most murders and rapes occur (far be it from me to point out that's also where most people spend their daily lives on average but I'll let you play with the statistic).

YOU are the one who deliberately ignores the fact that I am saying there should be proper leverage to self defense (something we already DO for public self defense so it's not a foreign concept) and that nonlethal options to handle trespassing should be preferred leverage. If you are being attacked and can infer actual physical harm rather than "Someone's here. I can feel pain, he may make me feel pain. Die intruder die!" that crap because you're not defending yourself in fear of your life in any tangible way. I know the laws not agreeing with me so I think the law should be changed and we should reinforce nonlethal methods and intent to neutralize without outright killing. If we want that for criminals then we should also want it for law abiding citizens too.

 

[Sabretooth]

Lowpro: I'm not wading through the nonsense. Your premise is clear and simple:

You want me to assume the criminal that just broke into my house means me absolutely no harm.

My answer to that is: I cannot, and will not, ever assume that the person breaking the law and upsetting my personal security is simply there to take a few things and be off.

How you choose to deal with a violent intruder is your own dealing. I'm sure the awe you feel about my side of the coin is the same way I feel about yours.

I've already said that I would not go out of my way to seek and kill an intruder. I said I would warn them, multiple times, to get out. I even said that I would never shoot them in the back if they were getting out. I said, more than once, that the only time I'm pulling the trigger is if that criminal ignores my multiple warnings and still attempts to approach me.

I do not want to kill anyone. Period. I'm a firefighter and first-responder. I'm in the business of helping lives not taking them...but I'm not going to give someone the chance to take mine.

 

[Lowpro]

Lowpro: I'm not wading through the nonsense. Your premise is clear and simple:

You want me to assume the criminal that just broke into my house means me absolutely no harm.

My answer to that is: I cannot, and will not, ever assume that the person breaking the law and upsetting my personal security is simply there to take a few things and be off.

How you choose to deal with a violent intruder is your own dealing. I'm sure the awe you feel about my side of the coin is the same way I feel about yours.

I've already said that I would not go out of my way to seek and kill an intruder. I said I would warn them, multiple times, to get out. I even said that I would never shoot them in the back if they were getting out. I said, more than once, that the only time I'm pulling the trigger is if that criminal ignores my multiple warnings and still attempts to approach me.

I do not want to kill anyone. Period. I'm a firefighter and first-responder. I'm in the business of helping lives not taking them...but I'm not going to give someone the chance to take mine.

And you're going to kill them instead of a nonlethal option. Got it. Oh and I never said assume no harm I said don't assume worst case scenario because you could shoot dead someone who is not a threat to your life even in the case of your verbal responses though I also made a caveat in that I mentioned I have an alarm system and that if the system was going off and the criminal was still seeking me out yea that would push the assumption towards "oh he's here for me". I probably won't outright kill him and prefer nonlethal means.

By the way asking for me to respond to your questions and then dismissing it as nonsense so you can completely avoid a response to it in favor of talking about how YOU want to behave is pretty piss poor stuff man, thanks.

 

[Sabretooth]

And you're going to kill them instead of a nonlethal option. Got it. Oh and I never said assume no harm I said don't assume worst case scenario because you could shoot dead someone who is not a threat to your life even in the case of your verbal responses though I also made a caveat in that I mentioned I have an alarm system and that if the system was going off and the criminal was still seeking me out yea that would push the assumption towards "oh he's here for me". I probably won't outright kill him and prefer nonlethal means.

We're at an impasse. I don't agree with you and vice versa.

By the way asking for me to respond to your questions and then dismissing it as nonsense so you can completely avoid a response to it in favor of talking about how YOU want to behave is pretty piss poor stuff man, thanks.

I really do apologize. I wasn't trying to be rude. I wasn't dismissing your answers, but my response to all would have been identical. Just saved a lot of repeating myself.

Bottom line is that I think your plan of waiting for the intruder to shoot first is a perfect way of ending up dead. To me, self preservation should always rule. If that intruder doesn't want to die, simply don't break into my house and then refuse to leave when I ask/demand them to do so.