# Home invasion scenario.....



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 23, 2015)

You are awoken in the middle of the night to the sound breaking glass. You don't have a home security system, you own no dog to give you any forewarning.

You are in bed next to your wife/significant other. Your children are in the next room.

You step out into your hallway, take a few steps into your living room. Someone that has just broken into your family's home quickly comes towards you. They may or may not have a weapon, but you don't know because it's dark and you're disoriented.

What do you do?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2015)

There's a few things in the scenario which don't apply.

I have a Maglight next to the bed, the one that takes the five D-cells. It's right where I can easily reach it. There are also at least a few sharpened pencils on the side table there.

I don't currently have a dog, so I understand the lack of forewarning, but there have been times where I have been awakened in the middle of the night by disturbances. My partners in the various circumstances have commented on how quickly I snap awake and am instantly ready when there is a crisis. 

Hewing strictly to conditions, assuming there is no one out in another room for whose safety I have to be concerned, I'd be using the landline to call the cops. If the landlline is down, then I use the cellphone. If it sounds like they're heading towards the bedroom, i sit low next to the door. I don't currently have any children living with me, so I can rule out that a kid broke a water glass, and my current relationship isn't to the point where someone would be coming over without warning. Still, I can wait next to the door on the floor and take out someone's ankles if they enter. 

What is the point of the question? Is it a matter of who went through training to be able to act without having to think things through? Or something else?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 23, 2015)

Ok, no children in the house to maybe have broken a glass and startled you. Rule that out. You have a flashlight. Ok. You call the cops, and they'll be there in how long? Several minutes, maybe? It varies. 

So the intruder enters your bedroom, where you're waiting to take out their ankles. Then what? Subdue them until the cops arrive? But they have a gun. Then what MIGHT happen?

Edit: The point of the question is, you don't know who you're up against. How big they are, how violent/tough they are, what kind of weapon might they have. You want to rely on the authorities to get there in time to deal with them?

Sorry, should have put that in before I re-posted.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2015)

If I were to think that the police were always an option, I wouldn't have all kinds of items in the house like the sharpened pencils near at hand.

Did you think I mentioned them because I like doing puzzles?

Incidentally, a small female friend and I were out in a bar/pub/cafe thing, and this guy took offense at us and started talking about how we didn't know how dangerous he was. My friend saw that look on my face, and asked if we could leave.

When we got out, she asked me what was in my pocket. I admitted that I had been judging distances in case it was necessary, and that it had been my plan (if necessary) to blind him by stabbing him in the eyes with the pen in my pocket, before going for the throat as well. She took it in stride that I felt no guilt about mayhem being committed on someone who is declaring himself to be a danger to those around him. 

Are you asking if I'm willing to let someone else die for his or her beliefs, rather than me dying for his or her beliefs?


----------



## Edika (Jan 23, 2015)

Is this scenario an attempt at justifying having some sort of firearm to fend off any sort of intruders?


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 23, 2015)

I really can't see this thread ending well. No one's done anything wrong, though, so it's staying open for now.

I am watching, however.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 23, 2015)

Explorer said:


> If I were to think that the police were always an option, I wouldn't have all kinds of items in the house like the sharpened pencils near at hand.
> 
> Did you think I mentioned them because I like doing puzzles?
> 
> ...



What? I'm talking about a criminal that just broke into your home and you're talking about defending it/yourself with sharpened pencils? Are you ....ing serious? You completely ignored the scenario I presented and turned it into something else. So you have options, right? Take out the intruders ankles with your flashlight OR your sharpened pencils? Thanks that's all I wanted to know. 



Edika said:


> Is this scenario an attempt at justifying having some sort of firearm to fend off any sort of intruders?



I want to know what you would do in this scenario. Is is that far fetched? It's not where I live. Honestly, I want to see what your response is. Or do you have some lethal pencils like Explorer.


----------



## Vostre Roy (Jan 23, 2015)

I really can't answer such a question since I've never been in a situation where's my life has been really at danger (being yelled at by a guy with a knife over 100ft away doesn't count, eh). I could, should and would do a lot of stuff but in the end, I have no idea how I'd react in such a situation.

I came here because a situation had happened in my town this week wich has sparked a huge debats on gun and self defense. The story is here Six chefs d'accusation pour Léo Boulet | ICI.Radio-Canada.ca

Since its in french and I can't find any english articles on that subject, I'll do my best to translate the most important parts.

Guy's name is Léo Boulet, owner of a little convenience store wich is also his house. The area is a bit of a ghetto in my town, and this guy had a good historty of robbery. He decided to count on his own and get some guns. Now, guns here are more regulated than in the States, but my area is in the north and much of our tourism comes from people on hunting and fishing trips, so hunting rifles are quite common, though I've never seen anything else than my mother's boyfriend guns. 

Fast forward to the events. Some robbers comes in his convenience store and ask for the money. Being sick of it, Léo draw his weapon and shoots at them, injuring one of the guys (he's still alive but was quite badly injured). Whats next? Well the guys who robbed him got arrested and convicted of robbery. Léo on the other hand is now held in prison, being convicted of:

- Intentionally discharging a prohibited weapon
- Aggravated assault on the shooting's victime, harming and mutilating him
- Using a pistol in a negligent way
- Owning a loaded, restricted weapon without a permit and a weapon's registration
- Owning a prohibited weapon without a permit and the weapon's registration
- Owning a weapon for dangerous uses

(keep in mind that I'm roughly translating those laws stuff, not sure about all the terms)

*TL;DR* Guy was robbed, shot the guy and now must face justice for his actions.

Brought that event here since it lead me to think: What could I legally do if such an event would happen? I don't hear a lot of events implying guns in my town, the only ones I recall are from the town next to mine, Val-D'Or (wich we called "Little Montreal" when I lived there), so I don't really get the NEED to get a gun to defend myself. And I especially love the fact that I don't live in the Far West where that would be the normal way to react. But I can get how a 75 years old man had enough of that crap and decided to take care of his security by himself. I don,t side at all with the robbers by the way, they had it coming, but as far as I know, those guy didn't had gun. They could've, but didn't.

So what would I do? My best to avoid such a situation. If I have to react, I'd probably grab a knife and get a risk of being injured vs being useless, but I can't tell for sure...

Hopes all makes sense and is enough on topic, I don't post in P&CE much, neither do I write such long post lol


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 23, 2015)

So am I just supposed to assume he made it past my elaborate collection of booby traps?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 23, 2015)

eaeolian said:


> I really can't see this thread ending well. No one's done anything wrong, though, so it's staying open for now.
> 
> I am watching, however.



There will be no name calling or nastiness from me, and I doubt from Explorer either, no matter how strongly we disagree. 

So thank you.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 23, 2015)

Vostre Roy said:


> I really can't answer such a question since I've never been in a situation where's my life has been really at danger (being yelled at by a guy with a knife over 100ft away doesn't count, eh). I could, should and would do a lot of stuff but in the end, I have no idea how I'd react in such a situation.
> 
> I came here because a situation had happened in my town this week wich has sparked a huge debats on gun and self defense. The story is here Six chefs d'accusation pour Léo Boulet | ICI.Radio-Canada.ca
> 
> ...



In that scenario, I don't see how anyone could side against the store owner. The fact that he's facing charges for defending himself and his place of business is ridiculous. What is a person supposed to to do in that situation? Just take it? So what if they didn't have a weapon, that store owner didn't know it, and even if he did, should he have to get into a physical confrontation with them? No way.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 23, 2015)

Vostre Roy said:


> *TL;DR* Guy was robbed, shot the guy and now must face justice for his actions.



Unfortunately, there's a lot of context missing here. We don't know how the robbery actually played out, and the article I don't think says the intruders were armed, or with what. I mean to say that we don't know whether or not the store owner was under any real threat. Maybe he didn't know either.

It just kinda sounds like people want to justify shooting other people for some strange reason, but we don't have enough information to say that the store owner did the right thing. What we _do _know is that he had a loaded restricted weapon before any of this happened in the first place, which still would have been all kinds of illegal even if he didn't shoot someone with it.

In the case that there wasn't a serious threat to his personal safety, I think allowing yourself to get robbed is the lesser evil compared to shooting someone.


----------



## Randy (Jan 23, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Is is that far fetched? It's not where I live.



My first and only advice to you: MOVE


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 23, 2015)

I guess I'd start saying, "what are you doing" and try to nonchalantly talk with the guy, hoping that we could negotiate some sort of deal where I get to leave the house with the family. I sure as hell wouldn't run at the guy because I don't know anything else at this point. BUT: if it starts going south, and I get the feeling that he's going to harm the family, then I rush the guy. I'll probably lose and die, but that's really the only option at this point.


----------



## wat (Jan 23, 2015)

Take him down, choke him out, tell wife to call the cops.


----------



## vilk (Jan 23, 2015)

I grab my laser pointer. Then, I sneak over to the pitch black dark you cannot see anything corner of the living room (or wherever he is) undetected (maybe just halfway down the hallway?). I shine the laser at his chest. With a booming voice I shout, "FREEZE. I'll shoot!" and then try to instruct him into some kind of un-threatening position while I call the police. The plan is to convince the robber that I'm a crazy ex-miliary gun nut or something. I'd maybe try to grab a blunt object by me just incase he realizes I'm faking at some point and tries to get me. But ideally I'd be hiding in the shadows until the police arrive and the laser pointer would scare him enough to stop him.


----------



## MoshJosh (Jan 23, 2015)

Well if I was certain what I heard was breaking glass in the house (there are always weird noises in my house as we have a dog and 2 cats) I would immediately call the police (I always have my cell phone on the night stand incase I need to check SS.org in the night). I would then use the flashlight on my phone and the pocket knife thats usually by my bed (if I didn't take the knife out of my work pants and it was say in the laundry room I would try and find something to use as a weapon just in case) then I would search around the house and if I found someone I would probably loudly confront them with something like "what are you doing in my house, the cops are on the way" or "stay back I have a weapon" 

I don't know its easy to run the scenario when its not actually happening but I think I would do something along those lines ^^^

obviously there are circumstances that would change the situation i.e. intruder has a gun/immediately opens fire or attacks but . . .


----------



## USMarine75 (Jan 23, 2015)

I've participated in tons of these as mental excercises, tabletop, and role-playing. My fav is when you're all geeked up and the person runs up to you and hugs you. You're standing there twitching from an adrenaline dump with a shock knife or simunitions gun in your hand... and boom... nothing... "green balls".


----------



## ferret (Jan 23, 2015)

Disclosure: I'm a raging liberal by US standards.

Response: Anyone breaking into my house in the scenario outlined (I.e. it's definitely not the children, only me and my wife), better be ready to acquire holes in their body, or perhaps receive some bludgeoning. My castle. Verbal warnings and a "Get out, cops on the way" will be issued, but upon reaching my actual room and attempting any entry, they become forfeit.

Further response as liberal: Gun control has never been about taking guns away. The fact that the narrative often takes that path is silly. It's about trying to ensure responsible ownership. However I don't really plan to expound on this or get into a gun control debate.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Jan 23, 2015)

I think I'll let this song answer that.



It would make better sense to go with Shinedown's .45, but it's too melancholy. So, since I have a 30/30 *and* some 150 gr rounds...

Castle Doctrine FTW!


----------



## pink freud (Jan 23, 2015)

Well, as I sleep on the third floor, the only entrances are on the first floor and there is only one staircase up to the third, this scenario is impossible.

So that?


----------



## troyguitar (Jan 23, 2015)

vulcan neck pinch


----------



## beyondcosmos (Jan 23, 2015)

I'd call the police then rush to wherever the nearest ideal makeshift weapon is, be that kitchen knife or even just a freaking chair to rush the guy with.

If said burglar says he or she is looking for my money and demands that I tell them where it is, I'd laugh, say they picked the wrong house to look for money in, and proceed to start curling up on the floor while laughing about how poor I am.         



(that first part is serious, though.... if a person breaks into your house/apartment, chances are they are also willing to cause you harm)


----------



## TedEH (Jan 23, 2015)

beyondcosmos said:


> if a person breaks into your house/apartment, chances are they are also willing to cause you harm



 I don't think that's the case often enough to make that assumption. It's reasonably common for home invasions to be committed by people you're familiar with in the first place- family, acquaintances, etc. and as far as I'm aware, the majority of intrusions/robberies/etc. don't involve any weapon at all, let alone a gun. Granted, I'm in Canada, so it's different here- but that doesn't change that people don't just invade people's homes because they're evil and want to murder you for no reason.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 23, 2015)

Well, this is weird. I had a really good post in here, but no one is giving me positive rep.  
Do people not like me anymore or something?


----------



## TedEH (Jan 23, 2015)

I think if there was still rep, you'd deserve some for admitting you'd probably lose and die instead of taking the macho route of claiming you could take anyone down with MacGyver'd weapons and mad fighting skillz.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jan 23, 2015)

Is this a for serious thread or...?

Because I'm kinda sitting here doing my best Charlie Brown impression like, "Good grief..."


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> So the intruder enters your bedroom, where you're waiting to take out their ankles. Then what? Subdue them until the cops arrive? But they have a gun. Then what MIGHT happen?
> 
> The point of the question is, you don't know who you're up against. How big they are, how violent/tough they are, what kind of weapon might they have. You want to rely on the authorities to get there in time to deal with them?



I'd just like to point out something here.

My bedroom is difficult to get in and out of outside of the door. I can break a window, but not silently, so that would alert the intruder or any potential accomplice(s) outside.

As you point out, I have no information about the intruder(s), including their exact location and whether any are armed. I have no idea how long it will take for the police to arrive. However, I do know where the intruders will physically be, and I know where my attack points will be on their bodies, should they follow the only possible route into the kill zone. 

*My thought is, set up an ambush*, with the goal of taking out the knee with the metal club, and then going for the collarbone(s) in order to disable use of the arms. If the intruder doesn't come into the bedroom, then I never get exposed to that danger. If the intruder does come into the bedroom, I know where from, I have the advantage of backlighting on the intruder from the hall, and I have the advantage of surprise. If my attempts at going for the collarbones wind up hitting something a bit riskier for the intruder (meaning that I might accidentally hit a more lethal point like the temple), that's just a risk I'm willing to take. 

*You appear to be taking me to task for this, and I'm curious as to why. *

I'm trying to figure out what you're arguing. 


Are you saying that a better course would be to leave the bedroom, taking the risk of announcing my awareness of their presence and thereby toss away the element of surprise?
And that I should let them know that if one if them is suddenly incapacitated, that they can know definitively that it is due to the actions of a defender, instead of possibly thinking one of them tripped when coming into the bedroom and leading to an accomplice furiously trying to communicate with them, giving me even more information about an accomplice's location, and maybe even height based on where the voice is coming from?
And that I should do so with the knowledge that there might be more than one of them, so I can't control from what direction they're going to come at me?
And that I should go where they have a better chance of using firearms at a distance, instead of waiting where a firearm advantage is neutralized?
*I'm really curious about your reasoning about where I'm wrong on the above points.* IMO I think you need a refresher course on tactics.

*I'm especially surprised that you criticize calling for available backup once a threatening situation reveals itself. Is there an advantage to taking the cowboy approach and *not* informing backup of all the details you know? *

One small possible scenario is that a neighbor called the cops. Now they're outside and blind, about to come in, and I'm out in the living room... *and* backup has no idea what the layout of the house is, and has no idea that the innocent resident might be in the line of fire. 
*
What is the tactical advantage of not calling for possible armed backup and/or acting as a forward observer for said backup? *

Oddly enough, I've had more than five situations in the past year where i called 911 due to a threat to someone's safety. (I wrote about aspects of two of them here.) In some of the situations, the officers did show up soon enough that the behavior was still going on. 

*I would think that exploiting your tactical advantages, including calling for, and acting as an observer for, possible armed backup, as well as using knowledge of the terrain and concealment for an ambush, make good tactical sense.

I am very curious as to your arguments for abandoning those tactical advantages, including what you think is gained by the tactics you would substitute as superior.
*


----------



## Randy (Jan 23, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I'm trying to figure out what you're arguing.



I'm going to guess this whole thread is foreplay leading up to some kind of incredibly underwhelming statement about guns.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 23, 2015)

Randy said:


> I'm going to guess this whole thread is foreplay leading up to some kind of incredibly underwhelming statement about guns.



That would be disappointing. This is the modern world, it should be automated weaponized drones.


----------



## Randy (Jan 23, 2015)

pink freud said:


> That would be disappointing. This is the modern world, it should be automated weaponized drones.



Inside? How small are these drones?

Scratch that. How big is your house?


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 23, 2015)

TedEH said:


> I think if there was still rep, you'd deserve some for admitting you'd probably lose and die instead of taking the macho route of claiming you could take anyone down with MacGyver'd weapons and mad fighting skillz.



What is this?! No rep?! I'm going to break into Alex's house and night, encounter him in the hallway near the living room, and walk quickly toward him!


----------



## Michael T (Jan 23, 2015)

I'm from Kentucky so. Lol. I have a pistol in each night stand and an AR on the back of the bedroom door. 

I'm one of those that if you park in my driveway you will be approached with a firearm. That's just how I am. If I didn't invite you on my land you are considered an intruder and trespassing.

I have a wife and 8 year old so I take no chances


----------



## pink freud (Jan 23, 2015)

Randy said:


> Inside? How small are these drones?
> 
> Scratch that. How big is your house?



I bet you could rig a Derringer up to one of those tiny helicopters.

Or have it carry around a cage of hornets. I bet your average robber wants nothing to do with weaponized hornets.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Jan 23, 2015)

1. Collect hornets

2. Weaponize said hornets

3. ?????

4. Profit


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jan 23, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> 1. Collect hornets
> 
> 2. Weaponize said hornets
> 
> ...



"NOT ME YOU ASSHOLES! Get them, dammit!"

And you forgot "put freakin' lasers on their heads".


----------



## Stoutness762 (Jan 23, 2015)

I sleep upstairs,alone (I AM in high school) but I'd grab my knife and load my nagant. If they aren't armed, I'd just deliver a nice left hook to their temple. If they had a gun, I'd shoot. If they had a knife I'd use the barrel of my gun (total length is 51 inches for the whole weapon) to try to knock it out of their hands. If that didn't work, a 150 grain 7.62x54 round will. Then I'd call 911. If the attacker died Id feel bad, but better them than my family or black lab


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 23, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> You are awoken in the middle of the night to the sound breaking glass. You don't have a home security system, you own no dog to give you any forewarning.
> 
> You are in bed next to your wife/significant other. Your children are in the next room.
> 
> ...



Get the kids out of the next room and bring them into the main bedroom, lock the door if possible, barricade it using the bed if there's no lock, and ring law enforcement. 

I'm pretty sure most home invaders bring a weapon for intimidation purposes, and only use their weapons if they feel threatened. So, my safest bet is not to threaten them. Murderers, on the other hand, tend to know their victims. If I've done something to convince somebody that I should be murdered, I doubt they'd try it in the middle of the night through breaking and entering, a scenario that would likely see me resisting or escaping. It's easier to kill people when they have a false sense of security. So, there's a damn low chance that anybody breaking into my house would be there to kill me, and the same probably applies to anybody that doesn't live in the middle of gang territory or a war zone.

If somebody is trying to steal my stuff, they can have it. Most of it is insured, I have photos of everything, including serial numbers, so selling it off wouldn't be too simple, and the most important thing:

*It's just stuff.*

Protecting my stuff is not worth risking my life, the lives of the people I care about, or even the live of the robber. Most criminals are not evil, and I'm not going to spend the rest of my life knowing that I ended somebody else's because I didn't want them to take a guitar or a game console. That shit is replaceable.

Now, I'm sure plenty of people think that this attitude makes me a 'perpetual victim'. I disagree on the basis that my owning a weapon does nothing to prevent the crime from occuring. I might be able to put it to a sudden end, but I was made a victim the moment somebody entered my home unlawfully. Being that most robberies that occur in my area are drug-related, I'd also argue that even if everybody in the town owned weapons, desperate meth-heads would still break into houses (most likely in the middle of the day when nobody is home), and would then be able to take any unsecured weapons as well as the cash and valuables. At this point, I'd live in a town with meth-head that have guns instead of knives, and I don't need that shit in my life.

So, weapons wouldn't solve the crime problems in my area as well as decriminalising drugs would. But that's a whole other debate.


----------



## Choop (Jan 23, 2015)

TBH I'd personally rather keep my firearms in a safe due the the chance that an intruder could enter your home and find a loaded gun stored underneath your mattress or whatever, and potentially use that against you or just flat out steal it (guns ain't cheap, ya know). Some people have good hiding spots though, but I don't want to take that chance personally. I have an aluminum baseball bat by the bed...ha. That's about the extent of my home invasion prevention at the ready. Really it's dumb to discuss scenarios and argue hypotheticals, because there's always the potential for outside factors that could affect a situation.


----------



## asher (Jan 23, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "NOT ME YOU ASSHOLES! Get them, dammit!"
> 
> And you forgot "put freakin' lasers on their heads".


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jan 23, 2015)

asher said:


>


----------



## Necris (Jan 23, 2015)

Randy said:


> I'm going to guess this whole thread is foreplay leading up to some kind of incredibly underwhelming statement about guns.


If that does happen at least give him credit for not skipping the foreplay.


----------



## pink freud (Jan 23, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> *pic*



I think you meant Laser Bees.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 23, 2015)

pink freud said:


> I think you meant Laser Bees.



BEES!!!






BEES!!! 



(lasers optional)


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 23, 2015)

One one hand, this isn't the direction I thought the thread would go in.

On the other, I now think this is the direction all threads should go in.

Why bother debating gun ownership and legislation when we can BEES!

EDIT: It has just occurred to me that the bees might be in cahoots with the aforementioned small weaponised drones. Maybe they're sick of dying every time they sting somebody and have decided to follow the lead of humans in our eternal quest for oil by embracing technology in the eternal quest for pollen. But, I'm probably overthinking it.


----------



## The Q (Jan 23, 2015)

Randy said:


> I'm going to guess this whole thread is foreplay leading up to some kind of incredibly underwhelming statement about guns.



And for some murricans (not Americans) to talk about how macho & militaristic they are and how they are going to shoot you with their abundance of guns. Yee haw. 

Get the jump on the burglar if you can and you are somewhat fit but don't fatally wound him, unless you want to go through the ordeal of proving that you acted on self defense and *legally*. For example, here, you can't use a gun (even if you have a licence for it which is hard) if the perpetrator is unarmed or even threaten him just because he parked in your roadway. Shooting him (or threatening him to shoot him with a gun) can get you in trouble, but you're really screwed if you use a firearm that's been registered for hunting or sharpshooting (as a member of a shooting club), for self defence. 

If you can't get the jump on them, move out and call the cops. While burglars are usually nonviolent they might be fitter than you or more skilled with small weapons. If it ends in a struggle, you certainly don't want to go out of breath in a second.


----------



## BornToLooze (Jan 23, 2015)

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Tell them that they're in the wrong house and it would be in their best interest to leave.

If that doesn't work, I have this for backup


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 23, 2015)

I used to keep bird shot loaded, but I've since moved on to "less than lethal" rounds. Right now I'm loading rubber ball rounds, basically a cheaper civilian version of the M1013. 

I don't see how anyone can_ not_ use these. Look up videos on their use. These will get even the toughest, most drugged up SOB on their knees crying. 

Can they kill? Yes, and they should be treated with the same respect as metal rounds. Though, the chance of killing a fit person with something other than a head/throat shot is VERY low. 

It's the best of all worlds. I get to look and sound menacing with a real gun (which is usually enough to scare away your typical burglar), and knock someone the heck down if needed. And, best of all, the target will live, so no burden of committing murder.


----------



## that short guy (Jan 24, 2015)

I didn't read everyone's responses so if this has been said you'll have to forgive me.

And preface I don't think I'm some "macho billy bad ass that can take down anyone" however, if people I love/care about are in that house and I feel like they're in danger, there's no scenario where that intruder doesn't leave in the back of an ambulance.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 24, 2015)

Michael T said:


> I'm from Kentucky so. Lol. I have a pistol in each night stand and an AR on the back of the bedroom door.
> 
> I'm one of those that if you park in my driveway you will be approached with a firearm. That's just how I am. If I didn't invite you on my land you are considered an intruder and trespassing.
> 
> I have a wife and 8 year old so I take no chances



Please tell me your kidding about the driveway thing. Unless you live on a huge piece of property that being on your driveway would be like someone parking in your garage that is a gross overreaction. 

Even still...


----------



## BornToLooze (Jan 24, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Please tell me your kidding about the driveway thing. Unless you live on a huge piece of property that being on your driveway would be like someone parking in your garage that is a gross overreaction.
> 
> Even still...



It depends on his definition of approached with a firearm. A holstered pistol and an AR at low ready are 2 completely different things. Now out in the sticks, I'd completely understand bringing a rifle if someone pulled up in your driveway. That's how the place my dad used to have was, if you were pulling up in the drive way and we didn't know the truck, you were up to something because otherwise you wouldn't have a reason to be there.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 24, 2015)

Which is why I said unless he had a big piece of property. Honestly, none of that takes into account that someone could simply be lost, which happens a lot in the sticks. A lot of my folks live in the middle of nowhere and they are all pro gun people. None of them would just approach a stranger with a rifle at their side just to intimidate them. 

If someone does that in a more suburban or urban area they're just whacky.


----------



## BornToLooze (Jan 24, 2015)

We never seemed to have people who where lost. 99% of the time they would pull up and unass the area pretty quick when they saw someone was there.


----------



## Randy (Jan 24, 2015)

I live rather officially in the middle of nowhere and its more common that you meet an unannounced vehicle at the end of your driveway with an apple pie than with a pistol or a 'low ready AR'

To be fair, though, the latter wouldn't look half as cool on the 'Publisher's Clearing House' commercials.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 24, 2015)

BornToLooze said:


> We never seemed to have people who where lost. 99% of the time they would pull up and unass the area pretty quick when they saw someone was there.



I've seen that happen as well, but I feel like you may be viewing the scenario as far more nefarious than it really is. That'd happen a lot at my dad's old place and he locks nothing. People didn't come back while we were gone to still anything. In almost every case they were just looking for a place to turn around or stopping to find their bearings. I'd be willing to bet it happened while we were gone as well. Not saying that applies everywhere, but IMO living in the sticks is super safe. You're tucked away so someone staking out your place is simply highly unlikely.


----------



## BornToLooze (Jan 24, 2015)

flint757 said:


> I've seen that happen as well, but I feel like you may be viewing the scenario as far more nefarious than it really is. That'd happen a lot at my dad's old place and he locks nothing. People didn't come back while we were gone to still anything. In almost every case they were just looking for a place to turn around or stopping to find their bearings. I'd be willing to bet it happened while we were gone as well. Not saying that applies everywhere, but IMO living in the sticks is super safe. You're tucked away so someone staking out your place is simply highly unlikely.



We had people try to break in 10+ times. They actually got in the first time and stole a TV and a bunch of ammo. After that we had the place locked down tight than Fort Knox. So when some one pulls into your driveway and hauls ass when they see somebody, what do you expect? You can say what you want about people, but I don't trust them. I've had people break in, try to break in, try to mug me, I've had to pull a knife in self defense a couple times because I was too young to have a pistol. I don't trust people, never will. That's the thing some people don't realize, there is true evil out there, and has no problem using violence against you.


----------



## Randy (Jan 24, 2015)

Thanks for my quarterly reminder why I'm glad I don't live in Texas. The world you describe sounds like The Road Warrior.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 24, 2015)

I live less than an hour from him and experience none of that. My dad lived in Santa Fe which is about an hour out and also never experienced that.  

Baytown IME sucks though, no offense. Never been a fan of the area and I work just outside of it. People everywhere are not this way, but there are obviously areas that are worse off than others. That being said, if people actually did pull weapons on me all the time (luckily no one does) I'd probably move. By pull I mean in both a defensive and offensive manner. I wouldn't take kindly to someone pulling a weapon on me to 'protect' themselves either. Doesn't exactly make for a great first impression.


----------



## pushpull7 (Jan 24, 2015)

eaeolian said:


> I really can't see this thread ending well. No one's done anything wrong, though, so it's staying open for now.
> 
> I am watching, however.



Oooooo me me me!

I hate to break you the bad news, but people are raped, killed, robbed, stabbed, brutalized DAILY on just such a scenario. I really must say as someone who's been through all of that (except for death) I really don't see the point in this.

People stereotype garbage all the time. They rarely see the true nature of people, and then attempt some "experiment" to see how people will react.

I find it pointless, and cruel.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 24, 2015)

I get what you're saying, but 'true nature' is pushing it a bit. Do you have any desire to do any of those things? If not then I don't think it is simply a part of what makes us human. Plenty of good and shitty people in the world. The only real problem is from a stereotype POV some good people are stereotyped as bad and some bad people blend in with the good. You avoid most of the things people fear by simply not going into the ghetto parts of town. Unless you have no choice, due to living or work situation, it isn't like there is anything there worth seeing/doing anyhow.

My next door neighbor at my old house did get robbed several times however. That being said, it was high school kids that his daughter new. Most break ins usually are (someone you know). I'm personally not mentally prepared to kill a high school kids over a couple hundred dollars. Sure it's mine and I'd feel 'safe', but you'd have to be a weirdo for things like that to not weigh on your conscience at least a little bit. I'd also note that the robberies happened when they weren't home. This was made possible likely because the daughter blabbed about going out of town or something. So other than a security system or a vicious dog it isn't like there's much you can do to stop it other than move (which they eventually did).


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 24, 2015)

I created this thread just to see different people's responses.

There has been a lot of home invasions in my area recently, while the residents were home during the day and at night. They weren't there just to rob, they attacked the residents. In more than one of the incidents, the intruders were shot and killed. Some friends and I at a get together were discussing it the other night. A couple people there took this moral high ground with a condescending attitude towards those of us firearm owners that would be willing to kill someone in a scenario like that. They couldn't really provide any other answer except that it's never acceptable to end some ones life no matter what. The vast majority of situations no, it's not right to take a life, but sometimes that is the only option, imo. A last resort.

I just wanted to see, since you have no idea about an intruders intentions, how many people are willing to take the chance at a physical confrontation. A friend of mine involved in the conversation thinks he's Billy Badass and acts as if it wouldn't be a big deal to just knock them out and subdue them. Maybe you do take them down, maybe you chase them off? But physical confrontations can escalate very easily. What if they get the best of you? Do you really know what they might do next? Especially once you've fought with them and most likely pissed them off? No you don't. Those of you with wives and kids, do you really want to take that chance? I wouldn't. That's kind of a terrifying thought.

Someone willing to enter your home while you're there has some brass balls and probably doesn't have a problem causing physical harm to you. I will not wait to see what their intentions are. They'll get a quick, loud verbal warning, along with my 1911 pointed at them. If they don't use that time to turn tail and make their exit, or they continue to approach me, they won't be breaking into any other homes, ever. I don't ever want to have to take a life, but I wouldn't hesitate to do so if I feel like my life is in danger.

Like I said, I just wanted to see what others would be willing to do if something like this happened.


----------



## McKay (Jan 24, 2015)

Slightly different case since I'm in the UK but I'd grab whatever was to hand and try to fight them off with it, depending on the number of intruders. One of our houses was robbed a lot when I was growing up and the above scenario eventually played out and it worked. The advice to simply "move" isn't helpful at all. Sometimes you can't, other times it can be a lengthy process. If people want to hide or call the police first then I respect that and it can be an appropriate response, it really just depends on the individual situation.


----------



## Edika (Jan 24, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> I want to know what you would do in this scenario. Is is that far fetched? It's not where I live. Honestly, I want to see what your response is. Or do you have some lethal pencils like Explorer.



No, no sharp pencils. You honestly have to admit though that the timing of this thread along with the Charlie Hebdo "experiment" by gun advocates and your contributions there pointed to that. No name calling and no offense meant, maybe a slight jab with a bit of observation.

In the countries I've lived home invasion while the residents are in is really rare. Mainly because firearms are illegal so the chances of robbers getting their hands of them is minimal. Also why should they bother going in and stealing something while you're in when they can wait for you to be absent and go in without having to confront someone? The aim of the robber is to steal not to kill. If they're stalking a house they more or less know they'll find valuables inside and have more or less a plan.

Now if they're coming in to cause harm to you or your family then they'll use more stealth in order to surprise you and not give you an opportunity to fight back.

In the rare cases of crimes of desperation, then you won't expect the robbers to go for the well off neighborhoods and just grab what they can't. I assume they'll again wait for an opportunity when the resident is not in or find an easier target.

The area I'm living in has identical houses, mine has an old used car while my neighbors have better and newer cars. If they get in the residential area I live in then there are far better targets than my house. I don't advertise what I have and really few people know what is inside. I never had anything for people to steal and while my current situation has have me helped acquire a couple of instruments of some value, in the remote chance somebody robs my house I'll let home insurance deal with that.

Now if I go on movie and TV series mode when the robbers decide to target my house and are dumb enough to enter while we're still in then I don't know what I'll do. Probably cower in fear and plead that they take what they want and leave us be. Or go mental and see how many casualties I create. Or something in between.


----------



## McKay (Jan 24, 2015)

Edika said:


> Mainly because firearms are illegal



I thought NI was the one place in the UK where you can own a gun for self defense?


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Jan 24, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> You are awoken in the middle of the night to the sound breaking glass. You don't have a home security system, you own no dog to give you any forewarning.
> 
> You are in bed next to your wife/significant other. Your children are in the next room.
> 
> ...



I'd realize that it's just my bassist who does this kind of thing all the time. I'd find him a couch and give him a blanket. 

Back to bed.


----------



## Randy (Jan 24, 2015)

McKay said:


> The advice to simply "move" isn't helpful at all.



"Isn't helpful at all" is a fast greater overstatement than the one you're accusing me of making.

I grew up in NYC, Long Island and Northern New Jersey as a kid in the late 80s early 90s. I know you're not from the US so I'll give you the cliff notes: it sucked and it was dangerous. My parents house was frequently ransacked, cars were stolen, etc etc. They made the decision that was no place to raise kids, so they left both their jobs, left our extended family down there and moved somewhere up north where they knew nobody, had no guarantee of as job. 

We spent weeks without electricity, months without heat or plumbing and we shared one room for years. It wasn't easy but it was progress, eventually we normalized and for the last 20 years, I've never spent a night with my door locked or a weapon handy, or had to contemplate scenarios like that in the op.

I work in the nearest bigger city. My first office was in a shit neighborhood but three years there, the worst that ever happened to me was being panhandled once or twice. Regardless, the neighborhood made my customers uncomfortable so I found a similarly priced office in a different neighborhood, still in the city. In the 10 years I've worked there, I've seldom locked my car door and my car has never been stolen or broken into.

I hear stories like the OP and it sounds like the wild west. I'll conceit that not everybody can drop everything and move but its a judgement choice and I take exception to the notion that its 'useless advice'.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Jan 24, 2015)

I'd dress in sexy lingerie, invite them up to the bedroom, seduce them, then fall in love with them and get married and have 3 children - named, Ronnie (he's the oldest and is a senior at the local high school) Henry (he's the middle child, who has gone through bullying for his glasses, but wants to be accepted to Yale when he's older) and Sarah (a tough talking tomboy who is very close to her father/potential robber). 

Or i'd call the police. I can't really work out which is the best option.


----------



## technomancer (Jan 24, 2015)

Since this is neither politics or current event I moved it to the right section


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Jan 24, 2015)

technomancer said:


> Since this is neither politics or current event I moved it to the right section



Not so fast, good sir.

Off-topic it may be, but this thread did, however briefly, venture into the realm of colonial organisms. A hornet is colonial insect. Hornets have a queen. Queens are part of a monarchy. Monarchy is a political system. Political systems, naturally, deal with politics. Political topics belong in the P&CE section.

6 degrees of separation!


----------



## scottro202 (Jan 24, 2015)

I'd probably grab my phone and dial "911" and leave it on speaker, as I grab either my baseball bat or my hunting knife (I don't even hunt, I'm just a lil bit southern and I thought it was cool  ). I then yell at my grandfather to grab his .38. By this point my dad and dogs would also be awake. Hopefully by this point, me yelling the fact that there are 3 grown men, and a gun in the house would scare him off. I'd probably also yell that 911 has been called. If that doesn't work, well, I think my Grandfather said it best. 

"I'll prosecute all of the survivors."

If I move out in the next few months like I plan to, I'd be living with 3 other dudes, one of them being a black belt who owns ALMOST as many guns as my grandfather. I'd probably do a similar thing.


----------



## max3000 (Jan 24, 2015)

As someone who has done training with firearms with various self-defense scenarios here is the smartest thing to do:

If you are unarmed, and by that I mean you have no firearm, lock yourself and your family in a room and call 911. Doing anything other than that is going to endanger you and everyone around you.


----------



## beyondcosmos (Jan 24, 2015)

BornToLooze said:


> That's the thing some people don't realize, there is true evil out there, and has no problem using violence against you.



THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE. SOMEONE FINALLY SAID THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH.

I am a very idealistic person in the sense that I'm always trying to give people the benefit of the doubt and I want to help and take care of all people, even those I have no relation to. But at the end of the day, there are people who don't care AT ALL about the wellbeing of others and will do horrible things to anyone, no matter how nice or forgiving/tolerant that person is.

I used to thing that guns were very stupid, and that anyone who owned a gun in a 'civilized' or 'safe' neighborhood was stupid. But the bad guys target those neighborhoods. They leave the 'hood' or thuggish area to go and take on a 'safe' neighborhood, knowing there are plenty of people who will just give them whatever they want in order to escape being harmed or killed.

And even then, those people get seriously harmed or killed.

I'm not gonna say 'shoot to kill, no matter what' or anything like that. Most people who legally own the types of guns that many would label 'child killers' after all the horrible shootings we've had in America are responsible, and know that you don't automatically assume you are to shoot an intruder with the intention of killing them.

It's all a matter of protecting yourself in a world where people with weapons can very well go into a neighborhood that is seemingly 'safe' and break into a house. I highly doubt anyone in this thread who owns guns and is saying that they don't trust people ACTUALLY wants to kill anyone. They just want to protect their families and not feel vulnerable to those people who would consider murdering someone if it meant succeeding in stealing valuables. And there are those people out there. They come and go much more frequently than anyone of us would like to know.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I'm very unsatisfied with gun laws in my country, but I'm even more unsatisfied with the way the media and public opinion portrays legal gun owners after every shooting that happens. People who legally own guns and are responsible with their weapons wind up being lumped into the same pile of criminals who have unregistered weapons after there's some sort of shooting.


----------



## Edika (Jan 24, 2015)

McKay said:


> I thought NI was the one place in the UK where you can own a gun for self defense?



I've been here for 19 months so I have no idea if it's actually legal or not. I don't see any locals going around with firearms and nobody has mentioned that they own a gun for self defense. From what I heard and read about the history of NI I would thing it should be the first place in the UK that firearms are illegal. I'll look it up though out of curiosity.


----------



## SpaceDock (Jan 24, 2015)

This is why I have a dog, security system, and a samurai sword next to my bed.


----------



## Edika (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm wondering if people are basing their opinions about house roberies on what they see in movies, TV series and maybe a few extreme cases publicised by the media. I've had a bicycle stolen from my balcony in France. It was during the night and we didn't understand anything. The next day I just raised my shutter and realized it was gone. Same with a friend that was two stories up.
When I lived in Greece with my parents they opened one of the three appartments in the floor we lived. It was the highest floor, it was summer and they went in Friday night. The people next to that appartment didn't realize anything, we didn't realize anything. Sunday afternoon as I was coming home taking the stairs for a change I saw a pantyhose just before our floor and noticed the door was slightly open. Not sure if the burglars were still in (I was 99% they weren't but didn't want to take any chances) I went back to our appartment and tried to check for movement from the eye piece on the door realising that they had sprayed on it. I notified the in between neighbors, which didn't hear anything, and asked them if they heard anything at that point. I called the police and went to find a phone bill in the lobby to give to the police to notify the owners.

My point is people breaking into homes try to be as stealthy as possible as they want to enter, take as many valuables as they can and be gone. Some might be prepared for resistance but they'll flee before entering into confrontation. My final real life example is from my sister when they tried to enter from their balcony door during the summer. My brother in law was on call in the hospital and my sister was alone with my nephew. The burglars thought they were away as the car wasn't there. She heard the screeching noises as the were trying to open the balcony shutters and in a moment of courage she turned on the kitchen light and spoke with a deep voice that she was coming at them. They of course just left as they didn't manage to enter the appartment. People new they were doctors, word got around and the thieves thought they'd find lots of stuff to steal.

Home invasions with the intention of robbery is mostly planned and they know their target has valuables to steal. They don't go in randomly and try to find the instance the residents are away. 

Now if we're talking about the insignificant chance that you'll be a target of a serial killer or a mentally disturbed thief out for violence I prefer living in my blissfull ignorance instead of worrying every second that someone might break in. And why you ask? Because I went through that when I moved here. The whole area is houses with windows facing the streets and gardens with garden doors that are mainly glass. Being a city boy I freaked out and was jumping at the slightest noise. Then I realized that all the houses are like that and why would someone target my house since I haven't given any reason for my house to be targeted.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jan 24, 2015)

Step 1: Grab one of my shotguns.

Step 2: "Freeze! Identify yourself!"

Step 3: in the case of a weapon or violent reaction, "boom chchink boom!", in the case of confused kid burgular "sit your ass down, don't move and let's have a talk"

Step 2 could be avoided assuming the flashlight on the nightstand has batteries.


If you try to fvck with my family, I will kill you. If you aren't 100% dedicated to being a violent criminal or can learn a lesson with a Remington 870 pointed in your face I will let the justice system work it's magic.

I know that's the answer that a lot of people don't want to hear, but I'm not ashamed of it even slightly.

Most thieves can feel God's fingers dancing down their spine when they hear that first shell being pumped into place.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jan 24, 2015)

And yes, we've had people come up our driveway up to no good before. In those cases, my dog scared them off. She gives off the simple but effective "I will rip your throat out" vibe when she knows something is up.


----------



## redstone (Jan 24, 2015)

Your scenario is invalid.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 24, 2015)




----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 24, 2015)

Fellow gun enthusiasts, what are you loading your self defense guns with and why? Have any of you considered less than lethal options?


----------



## McKay (Jan 24, 2015)

Edit: Disregard this


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 24, 2015)

It's interesting that so many people on here are confident they'd send the intruder home on a stretcher or in a body bag. I would do my best, but I'm not aware of too many situations where the intruder was hurt or killed. In fact, in my town there was a situation were a guy broke into a house at like 5:00 am, and when the home owner came down to hear what was up the guy ran out. The homeowner grabbed his gun and ran after him and shot him to death. But as it turned out, the guy who broke in wasn't the guy he shot - it was a jogger out for a run. 

But I would think that not knowing what was up would prevent you from having the wherewithal to prepare and have the upper hand. My guess would be that if the intruder was armed, and you pointed a gun at him, you'd be shot. I doubt he'd give you the same chance to "identify yourself." Nut if you are a normal person, and you shoot first, you risk killing your uncle Jimmy, or some other person who wasn't the hardened criminal you thought it was.

I'm not saying the idea of taking out the bad guy is wrong. But I am saying it's not likely realistic. Unless there are a lot more of these "homeowner takes out would-be robber" stories than I am hearing.


----------



## ferret (Jan 24, 2015)

That's why my response was specific: When my bedroom door starts to open is when I'm letting loose. If they leave without coming into my room, then there's no need for further action. Cops are called, warning issued. Danger to myself and my wife doesn't begin till the intruder attempts to enter our room. At that point, sorry. Not trying to be a badass or sounds like I'm going to win, but if they've been told to leave, cops are coming, don't enter this room, and try to? I'm going to make an attempt at defense.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 24, 2015)

ferret said:


> That's why my response was specific: When my bedroom door starts to open is when I'm letting loose. If they leave without coming into my room, then there's no need for further action. Cops are called, warning issued. Danger to myself and my wife doesn't begin till the intruder attempts to enter our room. At that point, sorry. Not trying to be a badass or sounds like I'm going to win, but if they've been told to leave, cops are coming, don't enter this room, and try to? I'm going to make an attempt at defense.



Yeah. I guess in my situation I'm thinking that I have kids, so that's probably the last thing I'd want to do! Honestly, I'm not really sure how I'd react. Maybe I'd just freeze. Or maybe I'd be better than I think I'd be.


----------



## ferret (Jan 24, 2015)

Well, it's based off the stated scenario of no kids, just you and wife.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Jan 24, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Fellow gun enthusiasts, what are you loading your self defense guns with and why? Have any of you considered less than lethal options?



All of my long guns are used for hunting and not home/personal defense. I keep them locked in 2 safes when I'm not hunting. The ammunition is locked in a safe, as well.

As for the defense guns, I keep my .45 (c.c./personal defense) and .357 (nightstand) loaded with Black Hills JHP. 

I haven't considered any LTL rounds, and, to be honest, probably won't. I guess it's a psychological thing. Regardless of how effective they are in tests (extremely effective, I know), I just wouldn't feel comfortable staking my life on a rubber bullet or beanbag in a worst case scenario.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 24, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> All of my long guns are used for hunting and not home/personal defense. I keep them locked in 2 safes when I'm not hunting. The ammunition is locked in a safe, as well.
> 
> As for the defense guns, I keep my .45 (c.c./personal defense) and .357 (nightstand) loaded with Black Hills JHP.
> 
> I haven't considered any LTL rounds, and, to be honest, probably won't. I guess it's a psychological thing. Regardless of how effective they are in tests (extremely effective, I know), I just wouldn't feel comfortable staking my life on a rubber bullet or beanbag in a worst case scenario.



I haven't found any handgun LTL options that I would go with, and I really don't think I'd ever use one of my handguns as a first choice in a defense scenario. I do keep my G17 in my nightstand though. 

Honestly, I was not at all convinced that LTL would be effective, even after watching a bunch of videos. I took a couple boxes (which, unfortunately aren't too cheap) of .32 rubber balls for a 12ga to a range. I set up some plywood and they wrecked it. I could easily see these breaking bones at the kind of distance we're talking about and the bigger, harder rubber balls are supposedly considered deadly at under 10 feet. Remember, they're less than lethal, not non-lethal. 

I wasn't a believer till I tried, and I've been singing the praises since.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 24, 2015)

For home defense I like a pump shotgun because I know how to feed the gun, with a good shotgun shell holder on the side for less-lethal and in the tube l like around 00 buck shot give or take. Bird shot is bad, the doctor will hate you and they are not likely to be able to get all the shot out. The smaller bird shot still will still go through drywall, some theorize it will not but in testing in does go through. If a pump/semi-auto is wanted there is the Benelli m3.



Here buckshot, birdshot, and a slug is shown. there are several different sizes of buckshot and birdshot.






Here is a birdshot x-ray. Shotgun pellets do not spread very quickly, the gun still needs to be aimed. This would likely be 30 yards or more.







For guns with a picatinny rail there are pepper spray mounts.


----------



## BornToLooze (Jan 24, 2015)

beyondcosmos said:


> I highly doubt anyone in this thread who owns guns and is saying that they don't trust people ACTUALLY wants to kill anyone. They just want to protect their families and not feel vulnerable to those people who would consider murdering someone if it meant succeeding in stealing valuables. And there are those people out there. They come and go much more frequently than anyone of us would like to know.



I have no desire to kill someone. However, I have a family that I will do anything to protect. That's why I said speak softly and carry a big stick. I'm going to do everything I can to convince them to leave, but I'm going to have a weapon in case they decide to do something really stupid.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> You are awoken in the middle of the night to the sound breaking glass. You don't have a home security system, you own no dog to give you any forewarning.
> 
> You are in bed next to your wife/significant other. Your children are in the next room.
> 
> ...



Flashlight, burglar/home invader, dead. In that order. There's no scenario where this guy lives. 

There's a Springfield XD in the nightstand next to a Maglite....my wife has one in hers as well. I'd open the door, light up the flash just to make sure (I'd never shoot someone without looking at them first), and then shoot until he falls down and can't get up. 

I have a beautiful wife and 15 yr old daughter that I won't allow to be raped or terrorized. UT has Castle Doctrine laws, meaning laws that completely support the decision I've stated above. To me, if you've stepped so far outside the boundaries of law that you'll go into another man's home to rape/rob/steal/kill then you deserve whatever happens to you. *Break into my house and I catch you, you die. Simple as that.*

I'll be 41 next month, I'm not Billy Badass or a cowboy or whatever. I just decided a long time ago that no one gets to take what I and my family have worked to have or hurt the people I love because they're bigger or stronger. 

For the people that say "it's just stuff, why would you shoot a person for taking stuff?" To my mind, it's *not* 'just stuff'...it's providing a safe home for my wife and child, and having them know that whatever happens, they'll be protected and that they have a safe place to live.

I won't allow that to be taken from them by anyone.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 25, 2015)

Not to discount what you said, but the moment someone walked in to your home they were no longer safe. Whether you kill or don't kill the guy doesn't really change that and if it were to happen again it isn't like there is some obvious way that criminals would know the last guy that made the mistake to break in took a dirt nap. By extension it doesn't make a second or third attempt any less likely.

I'd definitely be way more cautious with a teenager in the house given their tendency to sneak around or sneak people in. It'd be just awful if I blew a hole through my daughters boyfriend as an example.


----------



## scottro202 (Jan 25, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Fellow gun enthusiasts, what are you loading your self defense guns with and why? Have any of you considered less than lethal options?



I don't own any myself, but when I do, my self defense weapon will DEFINITELY be bean-bagged. Non-lethal, but just as effective. Same result without the impending *insert possible consequences for the alternative here*


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Not to discount what you said, but the moment someone walked in to your home they were no longer safe. Whether you kill or don't kill the guy doesn't really change that and if it were to happen again it isn't like there is some obvious way that criminals would know the last guy that made the mistake to break in took a dirt nap. By extension it doesn't make a second or third attempt any less likely.
> 
> I'd definitely be way more cautious with a teenager in the house given their tendency to sneak around or sneak people in. It'd be just awful if I blew a hole through my daughters boyfriend as an example.



Safe means that no matter what happens or who comes in, they won't be harmed in any way if I have anything to say about it. Dude comes in uninvited looking to rob/rape/steal/whatever he's dead on the floor. Not to discount what you said, but I would have thought that'd be obvious.

My daughter knows what will happen if there's an unexplained noise in the middle of the night. The rule is if one of her friends needs a place to stay she comes in and wakes me up, lets me know what's going on and puts her friend on the couch. We deal with it in the morning. She follows this rule and knows the reason why. I don't want to shoot her boyfriend either. 

Well, maybe a little.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> Flashlight, burglar/home invader, dead. In that order. There's no scenario where this guy lives.
> 
> There's a Springfield XD in the nightstand next to a Maglite....my wife has one in hers as well. I'd open the door, light up the flash just to make sure (I'd never shoot someone without looking at them first), and then shoot until he falls down and can't get up.
> 
> ...



You're exactly right. Someone that's willing to break into another mans home has shown total disregard for others. So tough shit for them. They made that choice. I'll be damned if I'm going to cower in the corner while they loot my house. And this attitude that most intruders aren't there to hurt you, holds no water. *You have no idea what their intentions are*. I'm not taking that chance with my life.

Moving isn't really an option at the moment, though it will happen in the not too distant future. I live on the west side of Indianapolis about 10 minutes from downtown. It's not the wild west here yet, but it's headed in that direction. And it sucks because I grew up in this area and I hate watching it go down the drain. And it is.

Edicka. I'm not basing my scenario on movies or tv though. It's based on what has been happening around where I live. People are murdered/raped/beaten/robbed all the time around here.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> Safe means that no matter what happens or who comes in, they won't be harmed in any way if I have anything to say about it. Dude comes in uninvited looking to rob/rape/steal/whatever he's dead on the floor. Not to discount what you said, but I would have thought that'd be obvious.
> 
> My daughter knows what will happen if there's an unexplained noise in the middle of the night. The rule is if one of her friends needs a place to stay she comes in and wakes me up, lets me know what's going on and puts her friend on the couch. We deal with it in the morning. She follows this rule and knows the reason why. I don't want to shoot her boyfriend either.
> 
> Well, maybe a little.



Eh, if you've got the guy actually pinned down killing him wouldn't make you any safer. I knew what you meant and was pointing out that there is zero reason killing the guy would make your family feel any safer before or after the incident. Indeed obviously it would make your family feel safer during the incident though, as the incident would be effectively neutralized.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> *You have no idea what their intentions are*. I'm not taking that chance with my life.



I know what their intentions are NOT...relatively certain the guy didn't break into my house to make me and my family breakfast. The fact that I know what their intentions aren't is enough to make me fire. 



flint757 said:


> Eh, if you've got the guy actually pinned down killing him wouldn't make you any safer. *I knew what you meant* and was pointing out that there is zero reason killing the guy would make your family feel any safer before or after the incident. Indeed obviously it would make your family feel safer during the incident though, as the incident would be effectively neutralized.



I know bro.....you seem like a smart guy, so let me lay something out for you.

The scenario outline above made me think about how exactly it would go down. It's 21 feet from the door from my deck to the door to my bedroom. Hit up YT and you'll see a ton of videos stating exactly how fast someone can cover 21 feet...indeed, it's outlined in many of the classes I've taken, and it's the reason many cops will shoot a guy coming at them with a knife inside that perimeter. It's about 3-4 seconds, and I know this for a fact because I've timed myself and my wife at a full run from door to door. 

In this scenario, dude comes through the door, I hear it, he's waiting or whatever, I walk out the bedroom door and it's maybe 2 seconds before he's on me. Time enough to fire, and that's what I'd do, and that's pretty much the end of the argument for me.

It's interesting to me to note your age. Not saying that you being younger is the reason for a differing opinion, but I'd like to know if you live alone or still live with your parents, and if you think your response would change if you had a wife and a kid. You think so or no?

I'd like you to watch this and see what you think, and if your response would differ. Dude kicks in homeowner's door carrying a machete and gets shot because of it, and then admits on the tape he was there to kill the homeowner. Not fake, dude lived and was tried and found guilty, and dude that shot him had nothing bad happen to him. NSFW. Mods, if this needs to be taken down let me know and I will, I just thought it was relevant to the discussion.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jan 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> But I would think that not knowing what was up would prevent you from having the wherewithal to prepare and have the upper hand. My guess would be that if the intruder was armed, and you pointed a gun at him, you'd be shot. I doubt he'd give you the same chance to "identify yourself."



Hence the flashlight. Or a lightswitch. 


My response was slightly rushed (I had something to do). I'm not saying I'd blast anybody. Just a worse case scenario.



As for self defense rounds, we usually keep 00 buckshot nearby. I've heard people swear that taping the front of the sabot in a birdshot shell works really well. They say it kinda explodes on impact. Seems a little sketchy to me, but I can see how it would help minimize collateral damage because you'd have tiny pellets instead of buckshot going through walls.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> I know what their intentions are NOT...relatively certain the guy didn't break into my house to make me and my family breakfast. The fact that I know what their intentions aren't is enough to make me fire.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I lived with my parents, in an apartment with a roommate and in an apartment by myself and my opinion didn't change based on the circumstances.

I will say that I can at least appreciate the level of preparation you've taken. The fact that you have a plan and I assume the technical skill to handle yourself under such a scenario hopefully would mean that when you have to make that call it was the right call to make. Indeed more people should have some plan of action. If they own a weapon for home defense they should definitely train themselves up on what to do and probably some marksmanship type of courses as well. 

My problem on a grander scale is how many people buy a gun for home defense and that's just the end of it. That's how someone accidentally shoots a neighbor, their own family members, friends of the family, pets, etc. As it's been mentioned certain ammo's are really dangerous to people outside of the house. If someone just went to the store and bought the first thing they saw and thought it'd do the job they could seriously hurt someone. The story someone mentioned about the jogger comes to mind too. I do think unless you got a clear view of the dudes clothes/face you shouldn't pursue the suspect outside the house with intent to shoot as that jogger story has probably happened on more than one occasion.

I'm sure some of my positions are about age. If I lived in an extremely rough neighborhood I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I'd definitely have some contingency plans in place.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jan 25, 2015)

I'm with steinmetzify all the way on this one.

You make the decision to break into my house, I have the means and cause to make you dead.


----------



## youngthrasher9 (Jan 25, 2015)

Thank you, flint. 

You brought up an extremely important detail. If one is going to own a weapon for self defense, they need to be properly educated on how to handle it, and what not to do.

If one doesn't have the proper training, there's a possibility that they get killed with their own weapon.


----------



## The Q (Jan 25, 2015)

Jeez, some people here give the impression that they almost wish for someone to break in their house in order to use their guns. "If you enter my house I AM GOING TO KILL YOU DEAD!". Is it THAT important for you to make sure that you kill the guy instead of averting the robbery?

So far, I've only heard ONE opinion of a person owning a gun that I agree with, who tries to use non-lethal ammunition and my props to that guy; if I lived in the US and had to buy a gun for self-defence, I'd probably do this as well if I had to live in the US.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

Jeez, some people here give the impression that anyone would be allowed into their home to do whatever they wanted, whether it be take their tv or kill their mother.

Thankfully, none of us have to make choices that you agree with. 

Here, in the greatest country in the whole world, if someone breaks into your house you can LEGALLY shoot and kill him if necessary. 

Different strokes, man. It's how some of us were raised. There's no legal process involved. If the guy breaks the law and invades the sanctity of your home, there are pretty much no legal repercussions at all, depending on where you live.

Keep in mind that we have roughly 370 violent crimes per 100,000 people, while in your country you have roughly 2 per 100,000 in any given year. 

http://www.crimeinamerica.net/crime-rates-united-states/

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/Greece/Crime


----------



## Michael T (Jan 25, 2015)

I completely agree with everyone on being trained to use your firearms safely and properly. I grew up around firearms and tend to forget that not everyone has. 

A person not properly trained can be just as dangerous to themselves and loved ones as the potential intruder.


----------



## Sephiroth952 (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


>



I know that guy was probably pumped full of adrenaline, but are some doors really THAT easy to kick in? He made it look as such.

As for me, I have a bat, a bow, and a lock on my door. Probably use the bat before anything. All of my guns are kept at my father in a safe.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

Sephiroth952 said:


> I know that guy was probably pumped full of adrenaline, but are some doors really THAT easy to kick in? He made it look as such.
> 
> As for me, I have a bat, a bow, and a lock on my door. Probably use the bat before anything. All of my guns are kept at my father in a safe.



Looks to me like a hollowcore door. Yeah, basically it's pretty easy to just walk right through it.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 25, 2015)

The risk to breaking into someones home is being shot and killed.

It is good to have the ability to escalate force. Having the ability to use less-lethal and quickly switch to lethal is important. The skill and weaponry of the invader is unknown. So, limiting oneself to only less-lethal could cost a person their life.


----------



## Edika (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> ...
> 
> Here, in the greatest country in the whole world, if someone breaks into your house you can LEGALLY shoot and kill him if necessary.
> 
> ...



Not to go to a debate about the superiority of countries, especially since most of you guys are from the US, but you can see how that first statement is being refuted in the same sentence and your last paragraph. Even geocraphically that's inaccurate.

I understand your desire to protect your family and I am not questioning your ability to do so. I have a family too and one that is a couple of months old and I can relate in the case of home intrusion while we're still inside. If the situation is as you describe in your country I can also understand the level of violence required to protect your space. What I don't understand is why would people would have a sense if pride that they actually have to respond in this manner? Why is it an appropriate response to arm yourselves to the teeth, have barred houses and alarm systems? Are all those criminals really hardcore psycopaths that want rape and kill you? If so aren't they a product of your society and shouldn't you guys be more focused of finding the root causes to diminish this situation instead?

I know that it sounds like idealistic hippie drivel to some of you (even though I hate hippies). I can't say if someone invades my space I won't feel similarly. When I had my bike stolen from my balcony I felt violated and really angry. And they didn't come into my appartment and I didn't have a child back then. Did I want to beat the hell out of these people? Yes I did. Kill them over a bike, a guitar or a stereo? No, not by a long shot.

I want reiterate that extremelly violent crimes in most of the times are premeditated. It means the criminals will use the element of surprise and try to take the individual that will provide the biggest resistance. In any case as well prepared as you might or as much faith ìn your battle abilities you might have or as many plans and drills you might have run they won't guarantee success in real life scenarios. Preparation might be a key to a higher success rate but not a 100% rate. So that means there is a possibility that you won't be able to keep your family safe. And there goes my previous statement on fighting the root of the problem instead of just trying to manage the end results.


----------



## McKay (Jan 25, 2015)

Edika said:


> Not to go to a debate about the superiority of countries, especially since most of you guys are from the US, but you can see how that first statement is being refuted in the same sentence and your last paragraph. Even geocraphically that's inaccurate.
> 
> I understand your desire to protect your family and I am not questioning your ability to do so. I have a family too and one that is a couple of months old and I can relate in the case of home intrusion while we're still inside. If the situation is as you describe in your country I can also understand the level of violence required to protect your space. What I don't understand is why would people would have a sense if pride that they actually have to respond in this manner? Why is it an appropriate response to arm yourselves to the teeth, have barred houses and alarm systems? Are all those criminals really hardcore psycopaths that want rape and kill you? If so aren't they a product of your society and shouldn't you guys be more focused of finding the root causes to diminish this situation instead?
> 
> ...



I don't know where to start so I'm just going to point out the most obvious flaw in your reasoning: You think guns are inherently lethal, they're not. They're less lethal than knives and more effective as a defense weapon*. You don't sound like a hippy, you just sound misinformed.

*I hope nobody tries to use the "you're more likely to hurt yourself" statistic despite it being more misleading than using gross rather than inflation adjusted debt increase as a relevant metric


----------



## Edika (Jan 25, 2015)

So dealing with the actual problem makes me misinformed? Let me point out the objective fault of your logic.
As someone that has gone through training to use a firearm the objective was to use it to shoot the actual target (man shaped target) in areas that would be critical for his demise. When facing a high stress situation like the scenario described your brain is going to go to primal mode, you're not going to think "oh I'll shoot the guy in the leg and arm to incapacitate him". Depending on the aim of the shooter he might not hit vital points but I don't this is not the intention when facing an intruder or an armed opponent.
I'd argue that a knife attack would be less lethal depending on the intended targets knowledge of self defense or use of long meele weapon like a bat. Try hitting a homerun with a bullet though.

Oh and I hate hippies!


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 25, 2015)

7stg said:


> limiting oneself to only less-lethal could cost a person their life.



I can't see this at all, would you mind elaborating on why you feel this way? 

I've been trying to find instances where LTL was not effective and the only things I can find are cases where the attacker was extremely drugged up and violent, those who were wearing protective clothing at riots in order to stop this kind of ammunition, and those who were at the limits of the effective range of the ammo.


----------



## Dusty Chalk (Jan 25, 2015)

I'd sleep through it.

No, seriously. I've had maintenance come to my door, knock, ring my phone, knock, break in, and I didn't hear them until they opened the master bedroom door.

(Some sort of pipes issue with my downstairs neighbor.)

So yeah, I have a gun, now. But I'd probably end up dead, so the gun is moot.


----------



## asher (Jan 25, 2015)

Dusty Chalk said:


> I'd sleep through it.
> 
> No, seriously. I've had maintenance come to my door, knock, ring my phone, knock, break in, and I didn't hear them until they opened the master bedroom door.
> 
> ...



Or you'd wake up much poorer


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

Edika said:


> <snip for space>



I'm not going to get into a debate on the superiority of countries either; my statement was mostly a knee jerk reaction to the guy from Greece. The people that assume those of us that say we would shoot someone to protect our families are in fact champing at the bit to do so get on my nerves. 

I don't want to shoot anyone, ever. I hope to God I never do. But the fact that I'm prepared to do so doesn't make me a bad person, and no one telling me that I am will make it so, certainly not someone from another country that's apparently possessed of a completely different set of values and has a different morality.

The sense of pride doesn't come from the fact that I have to respond in this manner; it comes from the fact that I CAN in the country that I live in. I have friends all over the world and too many have told me that there's no recourse for them if someone breaks into their house to rape their wives and kill them. We don't have to live like that and I'm glad of it.

This is not something I think about every day, nor do I train for it every single second of my life. Statistically speaking the odds are pretty much against it. So is me being in a car accident, but I wear a seat belt. I'm not a militaristic gun happy type of guy, just a regular dude that's made a choice. I don't really talk about it unless someone asks, which the OP did.

You asked "Are all those criminals really hardcore psycopaths that want rape and kill you?"

How would you know? Is there a tag on the guy's shirt that says "I'm only here for the TV, no raping involved." No, there isn't. The fact that this guy has stepped so far outside the boundaries of the law basically leads me to believe that there's nothing he won't do, and that's not ok when it comes to my family...and there are news stories here every day that shock even me, about the things that people will do and have done. YES, there are some really hardcore psychopaths out there roaming our streets, and YES they break into houses and YES they set people on fire to watch them burn. Yeah, those things happen. The fact that those things happen and HAVE happened in my city completely shift the thinking from 'they probably just want the TV' to 'holy shit they're here to rape and kill us'. Even though I live in what's classified as a 'nicer' area of my city, we still have our fair share of violent crimes and random targeting.

To reiterate my point about not wanting to shoot someone, I will say this. The situation I outlined in my first post would more than likely be completely different if I were home alone. Is shooting someone for stealing my television ok? OF COURSE NOT. It's a ....ing television...not worth a human life. I'll buy another TV. Same goes for pretty much anything else in my house....I'll buy more guitars, more video games etc....I'd probably be a lot more likely to talk to the guy were I home alone than shoot him. I'd give him a chance to get out, I'd hold him there at gunpoint while calling the cops, whatever. 

Then you posted this: 'Preparation might be a key to a higher success rate but not a 100% rate. So that means there is a possibility that you won't be able to keep your family safe.'

Absolutely, dude. Absolutely....but the fact that I have a plan and the means to effectively carry it out (i.e. gun, training, drills, wife just as trained etc...) is the higher chance of success I'm looking for. I can not and WILL not take a chance that the guy who just broke into my house only wants the TV, and doesn't want anything more. I WON'T stand idly by unarmed and unwilling, hoping that they just take the TV and don't notice that there are attractive women in the house.

One more thing, just to be clear. If you stick your hand in a fire, you're probably going to get burned. If you stick your hand in syrup, you're probably going to have a sticky hand when you're done. If you drink alcohol in sufficient quantities, you're going to get drunk. These are all choices that people make every day, and they accept the consequences. 

If you break into someone's home in America, there's a good chance you're going to be shot because of it.....the reaction that I take because of YOUR choice is on YOU, not me, meaning that if YOU hadn't broken into my house YOU wouldn't be twitching and bleeding on the floor right now. I will never feel guilty or wrong for reacting to a choice that YOU made.

I won't feel one way or another about it personally, and I won't lose one second of sleep because of it. That's the choice I'VE made. I know that might sound cold. I honestly don't care. When it comes to my wife and daughter, the dude that broke into my home isn't even a blip on my morality radar and he never will be.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 25, 2015)

Are you sure it's legal to kill someone that broke into your house? I'm pretty sure it's not. It might be nice if it was, but I don't think it is.

And I find it interesting that most of the people here think they'd be successful in taking out an intruder. If that were the case don't you think the NRA would be using those stories in their lobbying and marketing? 

I'm sorry, but the idea that you guys think you could realistically identify, then take out someone in the middle of he might just isn't realistic. Unless someone can provide me with evidence that this sort of a thing works, I'm just going to chalk this up with what people would LIKE to do, rather than what would actually happen.


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 25, 2015)

Yeah, so u just looked it up. Unless you're in a Stand Your Ground state you cannot shoot unless shot at first. That's a big dice roll - taking care of the wife and kids is going to be hard if you're behind bars. 

To me, the only realistic option is to do what Max said - load a gun with non lethal rounds, and shoot first, ask questions later. You have nothing to lose that way. And you don't have to take precious time to identify the person.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> Are you sure it's legal to kill someone that broke into your house? I'm pretty sure it's not. It might be nice if it was, but I don't think it is.



I know it's not in your state. At least it wasn't last time I checked when I thought of moving. From what I remember, what you guys in CA have to do is find a window and get out...that was what I was told when speaking with a Sheriff's Dept when I asked what my options were. Might still move.

Completely legal here though. Breaking and entering is a misdemeanor, but doing it at night makes it a felony, and doing it when people are home jacks it up even higher. Regardless, yeah. Legal. 

Castle Doctrine laws state in effect 'a man/woman has the reasonable right to expect not to be attacked in any place that's considered private property, i.e. your home or car. Someone breaking into those places is considered to be doing so to cause you harm and you have every right under the law to use any force you deem necessary up to and including lethal'.

Cope show up, see huge pile of broken glass, dead dude on floor, say "good shoot" and haul dude out. This has happened numerous times over the past few years in our city. Utah is actually a really progressive state when it comes to guns.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> Are you sure it's legal to kill someone that broke into your house? I'm pretty sure it's not. It might be nice if it was, but I don't think it is.



It depends on the laws of your state. 

Read this: Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, you can use "deadly force" if you feel that you are in "peril". It's not a "get out of jail free card" like some folks think, you still have to go through all kinds of legal proceedings, but it does have a basis in reality. 



> And I find it interesting that most of the people here think they'd be successful in taking out an intruder. If that were the case don't you think the NRA would be using those stories in their lobbying and marketing?



I don't know why you think this is so far fetched. I haven't been shooting my whole life, but I'm a good shot now and I have extensive training dealing with stressful situations (First Responder/EMT training and experience, HazMat training and experience, Security/LE training and experience). Add to that that I know my home in the dark, and know my weapons very well. 



> I'm sorry, but the idea that you guys think you could realistically identify, then take out someone in the middle of he might just isn't realistic. Unless someone can provide me with evidence that this sort of a thing works, I'm just going to chalk this up with what people would LIKE to do, rather than what would actually happen.



You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Fact of the matter is, there aren't very many break-ins while people are likely home. The entire scenario itself is very rare and thus outcomes being reported are rare. 

Most burglaries, up to 70% depending on where you get your info, take place during the day, and up to 90%, once again data is data, take place when the occupants are not home. 

Like has been said before, we're just preparing for the off chance of something happening. I don't suspect I'll EVER have to use any of my firearms for self defense, but I rather have it there on the off chance. It's cheap, easy, and even fun to maintain these arms so why not?


----------



## flint757 (Jan 25, 2015)

While I can understand doing what you have to do I call BS on a lot of y'all saying that 'they asked for it' and therefore it won't haunt you in the least. I suppose if you absolutely convince your sub-conscience that they were there to rape and murder you it might help you sleep better at night. Sure, there is no way to really know whether that was in fact the case as well. You don't know that for sure though, so call my doubtful that it wouldn't weigh on peoples conscience at least a little bit. Granted a lot of that attitude is posturing (not that you won't do it, but the notion that you'd be unphased), but for anyone that actually holds true for you may need therapy. 

*general you


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> To me, the only realistic option is to do what Max said - load a gun with non lethal rounds, and shoot first, ask questions later. You have nothing to lose that way. And you don't have to take precious time to identify the person.



I can't get behind this at all. The reason that the term "non-lethal" is starting to fade out of use is because it's just not true and makes a lot of folks lose respect for what are still dangerous weapons. 

Never shoot first, always ask questions. Don't take forever to ask questions but don't go in guns blazing because your fridge's cooling coil made a thud. 

You can, and people certainly have, kill someone or permanently maim them with less than lethal ammo. 

They just give you a cushion for if you do make a mistake, and they're also just safer (not safe) to have around in general as I'm not going to blow my foot off with it. I'll break my foot and hate the world for awhile, but I'll still be able to walk.


----------



## ghostred7 (Jan 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> Are you sure it's legal to kill someone that broke into your house? I'm pretty sure it's not. It might be nice if it was, but I don't think it is.


Depends on your state...absolutely. It's called Castle Doctrine.
EDIT: Max ninja'd me on this one lol



Hollowway said:


> And I find it interesting that most of the people here think they'd be successful in taking out an intruder. If that were the case don't you think the NRA would be using those stories in their lobbying and marketing?


I find it interesting that one that has had zero training in this matter thinks those with much training wouldn't be successful. There are plenty of locations that teach courses tailored to night break-in, in-home tactics, etc. 

Can't speak to the NRA or really couldn't care any less about them. Contrary to popular belief, most law-abiding citizens that support firearms/2A have NOTHING to do with the NRA and prefer to keep it that way.



Hollowway said:


> I'm sorry, but the idea that you guys think you could realistically identify, then take out someone in the middle of he might just isn't realistic. Unless someone can provide me with evidence that this sort of a thing works, I'm just going to chalk this up with what people would LIKE to do, rather than what would actually happen.


Yes, I think that *I* could realistically ID and take out someone in my home. I've rehearsed weapon locations, tactical places to hide to be not in line of sight of any entrances, etc. Not only me, but with my family. This includes safe rooms, escape routes, etc. I'd wager any military veteran on this board, especially anyone that has had MOUT training could perform this should the need arise. That doesn't count those, like myself, that have attended extra training specific to home invasion.

There are home invasions gone wrong, there are also some that rarely get media attention that come out "right." I'm not going to say on a public board what I would do in my specific home scenario. I will say that If, Gods forbid, it actually does happen, I'm more than adequately prepared.

Some articles where criminals didn't get what they expected in home invasions (found using "home invasion stopped" on Google).

Grandfather with gun stops home-invasion rape

This one also speaks to the lack of charges against the home owner having the right to defend self in home (Castle Doctrine) Bearing ArmsNC Gun Owner Stops Multiple Attackers In Home Invasion, Kills One. - Bearing Arms

...and so on. Now I'll be the first to say that while these people may not have executed with the most tactically sound decisions (or even made some outright dumb ones), it was still effective in their scenarios.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 25, 2015)

flint757 said:


> While I can understand doing what you have to do I call BS on a lot of y'all saying that 'they asked for it' and therefore it won't haunt you in the least. I suppose if you absolutely convince your sub-conscience that they were there to rape and murder you it might help you sleep better at night. Sure, there is no way to really know whether that was in fact the case as well. You don't know that for sure though, so call my doubtful that it wouldn't weigh on peoples conscience at least a little bit. Granted a lot of that attitude is posturing (not that you won't do it, but the notion that you'd be unphased), but for anyone that actually holds true for you may need therapy.
> 
> *general you



This is all fine as it's your opinion, but saying that people need therapy for having made a choice in one area of their life that you don't agree with is patronizing to say the least.

I made that choice when I became a husband and it was reinforced when I became a father. It's not something I chose lightly, and it's not something that's ever going to change. Some scumbag enters my home illegally, they're done and that's all. If at the end of the encounter he's dead and my family is unharmed, I've done my job as a husband and a father and I'll sleep fine. 

The part where you seem to think that I need to sit down and ponder the morality of what I've done (taking a human life etc..) is never a consideration, because that person stepped outside the boundaries of what I think of as 'human behavior' the second they forced me to make the choice to kill them to defend my family. Again, if they hadn't chosen to do what they did, they'd still be alive. Their choice, not mine.


----------



## totalnewb (Jan 25, 2015)

ghostred7 said:


> Depends on your state...absolutely. It's called Castle Doctrine.
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that one that has had zero training in this matter thinks those with much training wouldn't be successful. There are plenty of locations that teach courses tailored to night break-in, in-home tactics, etc.
> ...



I read a while back that some states were trying to make it to where if someone is in your yard you can shoot them, which is scary to me because when I am walking places I routinely walk on peoples yard -albeit as close as I can to the curb- to avoid cars. May be an OT reply but still.


----------



## ghostred7 (Jan 25, 2015)

totalnewb said:


> I read a while back that some states were trying to make it to where if someone is in your yard you can shoot them, which is scary to me because when I am walking places I routinely walk on peoples yard -albeit as close as I can to the curb- to avoid cars. May be an OT reply but still.


There's some grey area about the yard. Some states consider the yard part of the "castle" and therefore backed by Castle Doctrine. Personally, if they're only in my yard, the cops or my neighbors can handle it. The second they try to force their way into my home....all bets are off.


----------



## totalnewb (Jan 25, 2015)

ghostred7 said:


> There's some grey area about the yard. Some states consider the yard part of the "castle" and therefore backed by Castle Doctrine. Personally, if they're only in my yard, the cops or my neighbors can handle it. The second they try to force their way into my home....all bets are off.



Yeah, I just live in Texas, and I just worry about someone that's on meth, or just itching to kill someone, or is so frightened of the outside world that anyone that comes near them is a threat. ( not all texans are like this, but still. )


----------



## flint757 (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> This is all fine as it's your opinion, but saying that people need therapy for having made a choice in one area of their life that you don't agree with is patronizing to say the least.
> 
> I made that choice when I became a husband and it was reinforced when I became a father. It's not something I chose lightly, and it's not something that's ever going to change. Some scumbag enters my home illegally, they're done and that's all. If at the end of the encounter he's dead and my family is unharmed, I've done my job as a husband and a father and I'll sleep fine.
> 
> The part where you seem to think that I need to sit down and ponder the morality of what I've done (taking a human life etc..) is never a consideration, because that person stepped outside the boundaries of what I think of as 'human behavior' the second they forced me to make the choice to kill them to defend my family. Again, if they hadn't chosen to do what they did, they'd still be alive. Their choice, not mine.



I didn't say you shouldn't act or that killing the intruder was necessarily the wrong move. Killing someone should weigh on your conscience at least a little bit though. If that's patronizing so be it. Didn't say you _had_ to feel something, just that you should. 

Also, while obviously the guy breaking in takes the lions share of the fault/blame in what happens to you and them that doesn't mean you didn't do something. So you did in fact make a choice...


----------



## Hollowway (Jan 25, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It depends on the laws of your state.
> 
> Read this: Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



(Sorry for quoting the whole thing - I'm on my phone.)

So I was thinking it's far fetched just because Ive never heard of it working. On the one hand you've got the pro gun people saying its effective to have a gun and take out the bad guys. Then you've got the anti gun guys saying it doesn't work in reality, and guns in a nightstand usually result in more harm to the family (over time) than an intruder. 

If owning a gun and keeping it loaded in the bedroom offers a decent chance of self defense, and a negligible chance of hurting a family member (from kids getting to it, etc) I'd like to get one. But I just don't know, and I don't hear of stories where it worked (though, I haven't ever looked).


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 25, 2015)

Hollowway said:


> (Sorry for quoting the whole thing - I'm on my phone.)
> 
> So I was thinking it's far fetched just because Ive never heard of it working. On the one hand you've got the pro gun people saying its effective to have a gun and take out the bad guys. Then you've got the anti gun guys saying it doesn't work in reality, and guns in a nightstand usually result in more harm to the family (over time) than an intruder.
> 
> If owning a gun and keeping it loaded in the bedroom offers a decent chance of self defense, and a negligible chance of hurting a family member (from kids getting to it, etc) I'd like to get one. But I just don't know, and I don't hear of stories where it worked (though, I haven't ever looked).



Like anything else, it's not as black and white as "gun guys say it's good, non-gun guys say it's bad". 

I guess I'm one of those "pro gun people", but I don't just leave my guns hanging around the house all willy nilly. I could have a whole kindergarten class romp around and not ever be in danger from my guns. All those with live, standard rounds are kept locked up. 

The single shotgun I have with LEL rounds is kept on a rack behind my headboard. It's easy for me to get because I know how it's held in, but someone just approaching it (which they wouldn't be able to easily see it, would have to do a lot of fussing. 

As long as the firearms are respected and cared for properly, they are not any more dangerous to those in the house than a paperweight. 

If you want instances where it has worked, just look:

Man, woman traumatized after killing intruder, daughter says | News - Home
Sarasota man who killed intruder arrested on gun charge | TBO.com and The Tampa Tribune
Police: 14-year-old shoots, kills intruder in southeast... | www.wsoctv.com
Orange County homeowner shoots, kills intruder | Local News - WLKY Home
Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder - ABC News
Springs woman will not face charges for shooting, killing intruder | News - Home


----------



## The Q (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> Jeez, some people here give the impression that anyone would be allowed into their home to do whatever they wanted, whether it be take their tv or kill their mother.
> 
> Thankfully, none of us have to make choices that you agree with.
> 
> ...



I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about guns or whichever country is "teh bestz", because neither Greece nor US are (for different reasons which are off-topic here); that's a remark I'd probably reserve for certian Nordic countries, perhaps Canada, and because I find feeling proud for one's country to be excessively stupid.

Note however that I am not arguing the legality of killing someone if he enters your home, I'm arguing that some people present this as their first option. "You get into my house and I'll kill you". 
We are talking about people here that while they have no right to invade your property and threaten anyone in your family (though as someone said, most burglars try to be stealthy, they're not psychotic murderers that are ready to kill the owner), someone is ready to murder them as their goal, instead of averting the robbery. I find this to be a frightening mentality.

There is research that argues the point that more guns create more chaos, but again, I'm not here to argue guns. If I were (or immigrate) in the U.S., I'd probably have firearms of my own because I have a knack for sharpshooting - if I were forced to use one against an intruder I'd *always* try to go for the non-lethal option.


----------



## ghostred7 (Jan 25, 2015)

The Q said:


> Note however that I am not arguing the legality of killing someone if he enters your home, I'm arguing that some people present this as their first option. "You get into my house and I'll kill you".
> We are talking about people here that while they have no right to invade your property and threaten anyone in your family (though as someone said, most burglars try to be stealthy, they're not psychotic murderers that are ready to kill the owner), someone is ready to murder them as their goal, instead of averting the robbery. I find this to be a frightening mentality.


You're not going to have time to discern their intentions. The lives and safety of my family trump my trying to be an amateur profiler when I have someone coming into my home that's not supposed to be there.

Re: shoot to injure vs kill. Most of us are trained to to shoot center-mass. Shooting to injure, depending on distance, can be a more difficult shot and ultimately put you and who you're protecting at greater risk.

So ya...I'm not going to take the time to do an inquiry of intent. Simply not enough time. If someone is coming in uninvited, especially by force, presumption is that they're there with ill intent and me and my loved ones safety is paramount above all.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> Here, in the greatest country in the whole world..., we have roughly 370 violent crimes per 100,000 people, while in your country you have roughly 2 per 100,000 in any given year.



*Okay, I read that proposition in that post ("greatest country in the whole world") and the supporting statement (more than 185 times the violent crime) in support of killing someone.

Is the scoring rubric from "greatest country in the whole world" at all tied to violent crime?*

Does having a higher death rate for school children in schools from firearms also contribute to it being the greatest country?

I just don't' understand why mentioning this terrible aspect of the US helps your case.

The fact is, some attitude in the US contributes to the States having a death rate from violence for school children being more in line with a war-torn Third World country than the rest of the civilized world. 

Once someone makes that claim, it often means they are shutting down the possibility of acknowledging that the claim might not be true. I'm hopeful that's not the case here, especially since the topic tounches on how the US has more violent crime than more civilized countries.


----------



## Edika (Jan 25, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> ...for space also



I will admit that being from different countries and facing different situations reflects the differences in the response of handling situations. I will also admit that if I was faced with a situation like you guys describing, armed individuals invading my house with my family inside, my response won't be as civilized as I'm mentioning. I agree that you don't know if the perpetrators are coming only to steal or do more harm and in that point you're only thinking about protecting your family.

It seems that a portion of criminals in your neck of the woods are not in it just for the financial gain but for the power trip of it all. In the countries that I have lived criminals would intentionally want to hurt you if you've become a target for some reason, other than a robbery. As I stated in my previous posts thieves usually want to steal without being noticed or come in direct contact with residents.

I don't think people here wanting to protect their families and loved ones are crazy gun nuts, as the discussion might seem to turn that way. I don't agree with the tenacity that firearms are defended and the speed at which lethal force is called upon however. It's a bit unsettling reading about perfectly normal people making mental exercises about dispatching intruders. 

I don't consider you a cold individual and it is true that we're coming from different backgrounds. People that hurt my family in direct or indirect ways with malice in mind stop being classified as human beings in my mind so we sure agree on that. I understand that it is their choice so you shouldn't feel bad about the consequences they might face. If I had to use lethal force I would, I just can't say with the same certainty that it wouldn't affect me. I am sure that it wouldn't leave you unscathed, despite your resolution to the contrary. I'm basing that in two factors, the subconscious mind and the fact that you seem like a decent individual with sound ethics and morality.

To end this long winded post, I truly wish that you never have to face this kind of scenario, or any of the members here that we agree or disagree, where your family will be endangered and harm might come to them, or you have to hurt/kill another individual. 

Just to participate in this hypothetical scenario, if someone came in my house, since our bedrooms are upstairs, I'd try to hide just on the side of the staircase and jump on them as he/they reach the top, sending them crashing down the staircase. I have a tool case near by that has a French wrench, a hammer and screwdrivers in there that can do some serious damage. Unfortunately my cooking knives (real sharp) are in the kitchen downstairs so I won't be able to use them. If it was just me and my wife we'd try to get away with minimal involvement with the perpetrators. Despite my proclamations of non violence in previous posts, having an infant in the house means they other flee or they go down even if I go down with them.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 25, 2015)

BTW, a friend of mine once heard someone making a ruckus late at night. She grabbed her gun, crept to the top of the stairs, and almost shot her sister and mother, who had used their key to come into the house but had knocked over a vase when they hadn't turned on the front hall light. 

They were trying to be quiet and not wake her while they prepared a surprise for her the next morning for her birthday. 

That fits the scenario and some of the solutions suggested in this topic, so I thought it would be interesting to present a factual example of how those things can sometimes play out.


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 25, 2015)

Edika said:


> It's a bit unsettling reading about perfectly normal people making mental exercises about dispatching intruders.



There's an understatement. The only person I've ever talked to that has put this much thought into home security was born in South Africa, and moved out of that country partially because of the seriously f_u_cked up crime rates. It seems you're twice as likely to be shot in South Africa than in the US, and the conversations tended to revolve around dissuading home invaders. 

So, the South African solution? High fences, sturdy doors, barred windows, and dogs. Big, fucking nasty dogs that you couldn't introduce to your closest friend without risking their life. 

At the end of the day, the average home invader and the average 'home protector' probably both favour themselves in a gun fight. We're kind of arrogant as a species in this respect. Even if you're essentially Christian Bale's character in Equilibrium, no home invader would know it, and most might think that they're essentially Christian Bale's character in Equilibrium (I can't emphasise how much I enjoyed that shitty, shitty film). So, your particular set of skills with firearms doesn't actually factor in to whether or not somebody attempts to break into your home, because nobody that breaks into your home knows whether or not you're a butcher, a baker, or Christian Bale in Equilibrium. You know what does stop them from getting into your home (or at least makes it take ten times longer to get in)?

High fences, sturdy doors, barred windows, and ninja dogs.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 25, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I can't see this at all, would you mind elaborating on why you feel this way?
> 
> I've been trying to find instances where LTL was not effective and the only things I can find are cases where the attacker was extremely drugged up and violent, those who were wearing protective clothing at riots in order to stop this kind of ammunition, and those who were at the limits of the effective range of the ammo.



For me the key is having the ability to escalate force quickly when needed. It is great to have less lethal options and the opportunity to start with that, but when they prove ineffective at stopping the invader not having that next step allows the invader to finish out their attack and define the level of harm they inflict. 

Also, the type of less lethal ammo matters, some are more effective than others. You gave some examples, just being high on adrenaline may be enough to cause less lethal means to be ineffective. Also, what weapons does the attacker have and what is the appropriate response to stop the attack. 

There are states where less lethal creates legal challenges because those anti-gun, anti-self protection, states will argue that if you use less lethal options then the attacker did not pose a credible, imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm to you or another innocent life and you go to jail. stupid, I know, but government...


----------



## The Q (Jan 25, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> There's an understatement. The only person I've ever talked to that has put this much thought into home security was born in South Africa, and moved out of that country partially because of the seriously f_u_cked up crime rates. It seems you're twice as likely to be shot in South Africa than in the US, and the conversations tended to revolve around dissuading home invaders.
> 
> So, the South African solution? High fences, sturdy doors, barred windows, and dogs. Big, fucking nasty dogs that you couldn't introduce to your closest friend without risking their life.
> 
> ...



Offtopic but hey, regardless of the gaping plotholes (you can effectively force a population to take a drug to suppress their feelings... how exactly?), I really loved the philosophical aspects of that movie along the lines of Brazil, THX1138 and Fahrenheit 451. Hey, even the fact that Sean Bean died (again) did count!


----------



## 7stg (Jan 25, 2015)

Explorer said:


> BTW, a friend of mine once heard someone making a ruckus late at night. She grabbed her gun, crept to the top of the stairs, and almost shot her sister and mother, who had used their key to come into the house but had knocked over a vase when they hadn't turned on the front hall light.
> 
> They were trying to be quiet and not wake her while they prepared a surprise for her the next morning for her birthday.
> 
> That fits the scenario and some of the solutions suggested in this topic, so I thought it would be interesting to present a factual example of how those things can sometimes play out.



Get something like this so you know what you are shooting at, and follow firearm safety rule "Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jan 25, 2015)

7stg said:


> For me the key is having the ability to escalate force quickly when needed. It is great to have less lethal options and the opportunity to start with that, but when they prove ineffective at stopping the invader not having that next step allows the invader to finish out their attack and define the level of harm they inflict.



Can you give me some examples where LEL would fail? 

And lets assume we're using quality, medium-high density rubber balls, .32 to .46 and between 18 and 24 per 12ga round. 

I've seen these bust apart plywood and MDF at between 6 and 10 feet. Folks in real situations have had their fingers, hands, ribs, and jaws broken with these things. Some folks have even died from them. 

This isn't the first time folks have said that LEL is not satisfactory, but it's not nerf. 

As for the legal aspect, that's something else entirely. Given some cases in MKE over the last few years, I think I would be fine, legally. There was a gentleman who tased an unarmed intruder and he made it out fine, so there is precedent for LEL, at least where I live. Actually, come to think of it I'm pretty sure WI has some of the most defense favoring laws their are, hence those two kids that got shot a couple years ago just for being on someones lawn.

I'm not trying to argue, I just want to discuss this. I asked before and got hit with a lot of tacti-cool speech, so I guess just dumb it down for me.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 25, 2015)

The Q said:


> Offtopic but hey, regardless of the gaping plotholes (you can effectively force a population to take a drug to suppress their feelings... how exactly?), I really loved the philosophical aspects of that movie along the lines of Brazil, THX1138 and Fahrenheit 451. Hey, even the fact that Sean Bean died (again) did count!



They already put flouride in the drinking water in some places. What's to stop them putting something else.

Stay calm everyone, there's Prozac in the drinking water | Society | The Guardian


----------



## The Q (Jan 25, 2015)

According to some studies that came my way, these traces of antidepressants found in tap water are pollutants rather than intended elements (unless we have proof for that, it's pretty much a conspiracy theory which I don't mind discussing, keeping in mind that fact).

Polluting the water supply requires an organised network of technicians, scientists and engineers that are "into it", kinda difficult to achieve since most water supplies are supposed to be highly regulated.

In any case, in the movie they had to take the medication willingly.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 25, 2015)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you give me some examples where LEL would fail?
> 
> And lets assume we're using quality, medium-high density rubber balls, .32 to .46 and between 18 and 24 per 12ga round.
> 
> ...



bean bags and solid rubber slugs are most potent.

Hey, hold my beer and watch this

rubber sponge ball star



buckshot rubber sponge balls




salt vs bean bag


Bean bag


a few people shot in the thigh with less lethal 


rubber slug






how to do the change over with the shotgun method. lead shot in the tube ie the green in this vid and less lethal ie red in this vid.


----------



## pushpull7 (Jan 26, 2015)

I do not like this thread


----------



## Explorer (Jan 26, 2015)

^Then why you readin' it? 



7stg said:


> Get something like this so you know what you are shooting at, and follow firearm safety rule "Be sure of your target and what is beyond it."



Are those firearm safety rules actually a requirement, something you agree to when you purchase a gun, and which are drilled into every gun purchaser in a mandatory course? 

Because I'm perceiving the implied assumption that only an insignifacnt percentage of US gun purchasers (5-10%) aren't following those rules, in the same way that there is an unwarranted assumption that guns make all citizens (including schoolchildren) safer in the US than citizens (including schoolchildren) in a country which doesn't have so many guns in the hands of the citizens for "protection."


----------



## 7stg (Jan 26, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Are those firearm safety rules actually a requirement, something you agree to when you purchase a gun, and which are drilled into every gun purchaser in a mandatory course?
> 
> Because I'm perceiving the implied assumption that only an insignifacnt percentage of US gun purchasers (5-10%) aren't following those rules, in the same way that there is an unwarranted assumption that guns make all citizens (including schoolchildren) safer in the US than citizens (including schoolchildren) in a country which doesn't have so many guns in the hands of the citizens for "protection."



The 4 firearm safety rules are virtually universal. Some organizations and manuals that come with a gun word them with slight differences but the meaning is the same. Sometimes an extra rule or 2 is added.

All guns are always loaded. (all does mean all and always does mean always at any time)
Never let the muzzle point at anything you are not willing to destroy. (never means never at any time ever)
Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety


----------



## ghostred7 (Jan 26, 2015)

Explorer said:


> BTW, a friend of mine once heard someone making a ruckus late at night. She grabbed her gun, crept to the top of the stairs, and almost shot her sister and mother, who had used their key to come into the house but had knocked over a vase when they hadn't turned on the front hall light.
> 
> They were trying to be quiet and not wake her while they prepared a surprise for her the next morning for her birthday.
> 
> That fits the scenario and some of the solutions suggested in this topic, so I thought it would be interesting to present a factual example of how those things can sometimes play out.



Did your friend actually almost squeeze the trigger or did she just have it at the ready?


----------



## asher (Jan 26, 2015)

7stg said:


> The 4 firearm safety rules are virtually universal. Some organizations and manuals that come with a gun word them with slight differences but the meaning is the same. Sometimes an extra rule or 2 is added.
> 
> All guns are always loaded. (all does mean all and always does mean always at any time)
> Never let the muzzle point at anything you are not willing to destroy. (never means never at any time ever)
> ...



Ideally virtually universal. But there's no mandatory, regulated understanding of them to own and operate a firearm.


----------



## Grief (Jan 26, 2015)

In the UK burglary is fast diminishing as the value of consumer goods has dropped so low and the availability is so good. What's the point of stealing a tv or a laptop if no one wants to buy them and you can hardly get any money for them?

In the US I would strongly suspect that home invasions are split between those where the occupant and perpetrators are known to each other and those that are planned to target the ostentatiously wealthy who arguably have a need for enhanced security. I would guess there's not a lot of average homes targeted by strangers, maybe someone has the stats handy?


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 26, 2015)

Grief said:


> In the UK burglary is fast diminishing as the value of consumer goods has dropped so low and the availability is so good. What's the point of stealing a tv or a laptop if no one wants to buy them and you can hardly get any money for them?
> 
> In the US I would strongly suspect that home invasions are split between those where the occupant and perpetrators are known to each other and those that are planned to target the ostentatiously wealthy who arguably have a need for enhanced security. I would guess there's not a lot of average homes targeted by strangers, maybe someone has the stats handy?



I tried looking up various stats on this topic a day or two ago, and came up pretty close to empty. The difficulty is that the data on crime tends to be compiled by law enforcement, and I think they collect data based on what they feel is relevant to their work within their state / county / province / community / etc. So, the data exists, but actually being able to compare the data of New South Wales, Australia to Athens, Greece or any of the fifty United States kind of requires that the data is transformed into statistics (incidents per 100,000 people, for example).

Having said that, I haven't checked the OECD website, because once I log on to that and start digging around I tend to get lost and distracted. Lots of cool stuff on that site.


----------



## Grief (Jan 26, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


>




This video is interesting. Both chaps knew each other and lived at theh same location so it ties nicely with my earlier conjecture. 

But i wonder why the guy breaking in didn't have a gun too? Because part of the rationale for having guns is that bad guys have access to them too i thought.

And if he did, what would you then advocate the homeowner have - a bigger gun?

He certainly needed a better door, if not for fire safety alone. That door wouldn't be legal in the UK, maybe in the US it is ok.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 26, 2015)

There are several downfalls in how homes are typically built around here. Like the chain on a front door is typically only anchored down with like 1/2 inch screws. That is certainly not deep enough to be well anchored. Most home locks are only made by 2 or 3 brands and they are bottom of the barrel when it comes to preventing someone from picking or forcing the lock. Schlage has even made a new digital lock that can be raked with a $20 tool off Ebay (not their intention, but it is the case). A lot of it is more deterrence than actual prevention. The only thing I can say about a chain on your door is it's only really effective if you have an alarm system as it will take them a little longer to get in which leaves them less time to steal things before they have to jet. In the grand scheme of things an alarm system is actually not that expensive if you like your things. You can even set it to go off during the night if you were worried about people breaking in while you were home. That way it spooks the burglar and immediately alerts the police. I'm not sure if there is a legal requirement on the type of doors a home has to have though. There certainly should be so we can hold home builders and building managers accountable. If them cutting corners makes my home easier to break into I certainly wouldn't be happy about that.


----------



## Randy (Jan 26, 2015)

No specific line for me to quote but regarding the trajectory of the conversation right now, I share an office with a company that contracts out to police departments for special services, so I meet a good deal of retired/off-duty cops and security professionals.

I was going over some of this stuff with a guy one time, and he said it's common in really aggressive cases for burglar to just chop through the sheet-rock of the wall if they encounter a particularly difficult door.


----------



## flint757 (Jan 26, 2015)

Makes sense for internal walls. 

The outside of my house is brick and siding though, so in that case it'd be easier to just break a window or find one that's already open.


----------



## Randy (Jan 26, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Makes sense for internal walls.



Yeah, I think he primarily was referring to apartment buildings with inside corridors/hallways and office buildings.



flint757 said:


> The outside of my house is brick and siding though, so in that case it'd be easier to just break a window or find one that's already open.



Never say never.


----------



## Discoqueen (Jan 28, 2015)

I think I'll own some big, scary dogs in the future. I'd be too lazy to get out of bed anyways. As for my current living situation? I'd probably use my telecaster.

Edit: that video where "Dwayne" gets shot is totally ....ed


----------



## Grief (Jan 28, 2015)

Here's some stats that might have some usefulness. For the folk who keep loaded guns in the bedroom, statistically you and your husbands/wives (and of course only statistically, no offense meant ) are much more likely to murder each other than face deadly force during a burglary:

FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

But maybe there are better stats out there?

If not and the real rate is 94 deaths per 316 million people we're into the realms of 'more people (around 100 per year) die from shovelling snow'.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jan 28, 2015)

Discoqueen said:


> I think I'll own some big, scary dogs in the future. I'd be too lazy to get out of bed anyways. As for my current living situation? I'd probably use my telecaster.
> 
> Edit: that video where "Dwayne" gets shot is totally ....ed



Off topic: I can't help but read Dwayne in CM Punk's snotty voice when he'd do promos on The Rock and refer to him as "Duh-wayne".


----------



## Dooky (Jan 28, 2015)

Why in your original scenario do you say: 'you don't have a dog', but leave the option open for other weapons?
I have a dog, a German Shepherd, who sleeps in the same room as me; and she is the reason I don't feel the need to have a weapon by the bed. I'm quite confident she would fvck-up any intruder, possibly even kill them, and I wouldn't have to go to court for the intruders death (I don't know what it's like in the US, but in Australia you would get manslaughter charges for shooting and killing an intruder) but the dog would be not liable as I have clear signage that says: 'Beware of the Dog' and the dog is doing what dogs naturally do - I wouldn't even be made to have the dog put down. It's win-win!


----------



## flint757 (Jan 28, 2015)

I assume he wrote it that way because he was stacking the deck to make a point.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 28, 2015)

The Q said:


> I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about guns or whichever country is "teh bestz", because neither Greece nor US are (for different reasons which are off-topic here); that's a remark I'd probably reserve for certian Nordic countries, perhaps Canada, and because I find feeling proud for one's country to be excessively stupid.
> 
> Note however that I am not arguing the legality of killing someone if he enters your home, I'm arguing that some people present this as their first option. "You get into my house and I'll kill you".
> We are talking about people here that while they have no right to invade your property and threaten anyone in your family (though as someone said, most burglars try to be stealthy, they're not psychotic murderers that are ready to kill the owner), someone is ready to murder them as their goal, instead of averting the robbery. I find this to be a frightening mentality.
> ...



I'm not going to debate it either and to me, NOT having pride for the country you live in is excessively stupid. 

That being said, the term 'home invasion' has a different meaning here in the US than a simple burglary...you stated that someone said above that most burglars try to be stealthy, and that's true....in fact, most *burglars* in this country will actually try to come into your home while you're not there, lessening the chances of getting caught or shot, but the Wiki definition of 'home invasion' reads:

'In the United States, a *home invasion* is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping. Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robbery&#8212;personally taking from someone by force&#8212;is differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone). As the term becomes more frequently used, particularly by the media, "home invasion" is evolving to identify a particular class of crime that involves multiple perpetrators (two or more); forced entry into a home; occupants who are home at the time of the invasion; use of weapons and physical intimidation; property theft; and victims who are unknown, but sometimes known, to the perpetrators.'

OP stated in the thread title 'HOME INVASION', not burglary. Given the different definitions, I tailored my response to the definition of home invasion. 

As far as the 'frightening mentality' you described above where someone is ready to murder the intruder instead of averting the robbery? I'm much less concerned with a home invader's well being than I am of the well being of my family. Read the definition. In a 'home invasion' here, these people aren't here to take your television and leave quietly....they're there to terrorize first, rape and murder second, and steal things LAST. There's no 'fighting one guy and taking him down' and having that be it....there's only taking out as many as I can so my wife has less people to shoot.

The part where you're talking about living in the US and having firearms and using your 'sharpshooting skills' made me laugh uproariously, so thanks for that. You're talking about the above scenario, where you were dead asleep...wife next to you, kids in the next room, and you hear breaking glass. The next 25-30 seconds are going to be the most stressful of your life up to this point...the fact that you think you're going to be able to control the enormous adrenaline dump that takes place *immediately upon awakening* and 'sharpshoot' someone in the leg, in the dark is nothing short of hysterical. Green Berets, Force Recon troops, Delta Force, Rangers, cops, everyone in a high stress situation like this trains for years to be able to function under that kind of stress and they still fvck it up on a daily basis. Anything you've learned at a range is not going to help you at this point....there's no leg shooting going on. This is why EVERY SINGLE FIREARM CLASS YOU'LL EVER TAKE teaches you to shoot center mass...it's a large target, easier to hit when your hands are shaking, and has a greater chance of stopping the encounter. Which is my point. I want to stop the encounter, the fastest way possible. The fastest way possible is to kill the guy running at you in the dark, regardless of what you think you know.

To me, it's not 'you're wrong and I'm right' or vice versa. I get where you're coming from, believe me. I don't want to kill anyone either, and it's something I hope never happens. It's just a choice I made a long time ago....I can see how you might be appalled by that choice, given the disparity of crime in our respective countries, the fact that a lot of us are brought up with guns and maybe in Greece you aren't. 

The fact that you disagree with my choice doesn't make you right or morally superior, regardless of what you think about people that will shoot home invaders. If that's not your stance then right on, but the people here that disagree so violently and use words like 'frightening mentality' and 'therapy' somehow seem to come across that way...like those of us who have made this choice have something fundamentally wrong with us because we don't feel the same way you do. 

Statistically speaking, the choice that you say you'll make in this scenario is likely to get you killed along with your family. These people aren't entering your home to do anything nice to you or your family, and any kind of day to day consideration that we all make about the sanctity of life goes out the window in this type of situation for me. 

Between having a dead family I barely bothered to try to save or disagreeing with people that want to down my moral choices because they don't understand them, I'll take disagreeing with people like you all day every day.

Have a nice evening, sharpshooter.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 29, 2015)

Dooky said:


> Why in your original scenario do you say: 'you don't have a dog', but leave the option open for other weapons?
> I have a dog, a German Shepherd, who sleeps in the same room as me; and she is the reason I don't feel the need to have a weapon by the bed. I'm quite confident she would fvck-up any intruder, possibly even kill them, and I wouldn't have to go to court for the intruders death (I don't know what it's like in the US, but in Australia you would get manslaughter charges for shooting and killing an intruder) but the dog would be not liable as I have clear signage that says: 'Beware of the Dog' and the dog is doing what dogs naturally do - I wouldn't even be made to have the dog put down. It's win-win!





flint757 said:


> I assume he wrote it that way because he was stacking the deck to make a point.



No, it wasn't to stack the deck.

I didn't use a dog in the scenario because I can't own one, I'm highly allergic, so I guess I was just using my personal situation. I would actually feel much better if I could have a nicely trained German Shepard, I just can't really. I wouldn't own an animal that I have to leave outside all the time. I have sympathy for animals, just not for people that force their way into my home.

Manslaughter charges for killing someone that entered your home and could possibly kill you. Is it like that in all of Australia? We have ridiculous laws like that in some states in the US, but thankfully not mine.




The Q said:


> Note however that I am not arguing the legality of killing someone if he enters your home, I'm arguing that some people present this as their first option. "You get into my house and I'll kill you".
> We are talking about people here that while they have no right to invade your property and threaten anyone in your family (though as someone said, most burglars try to be stealthy, they're not psychotic murderers that are ready to kill the owner), someone is ready to murder them as their goal, instead of averting the robbery. I find this to be a frightening mentality.
> 
> There is research that argues the point that more guns create more chaos, but again, I'm not here to argue guns. If I were (or immigrate) in the U.S., I'd probably have firearms of my own because I have a knack for sharpshooting - if I were forced to use one against an intruder I'd *always* try to go for the non-lethal option.



Wrong. Guns aren't going to cause the chaos of a home invasion, the intruder brought the chaos, *my* gun is going to end it before it goes any further. And you think you're going to "sharpshoot" an intruder? You mean like a flesh wound to the leg or shoot the weapon out of their hand? Calmly shooting extremely accurately on a gun range is different than having to react immediately when you're scared and in a highly tense situation. You think you're Jason Bourne or something?

You may be more concerned with feeling morally superior, I'm more concerned with the safety of my family. It's not my intent to just find an excuse to gun someone down. For some reason you see it that way. And it's not murder to protect yourself in your own home. Thinking that it is, is a frightening mentality.

Edit: As Stein pointed out, there is a big difference between burglary and home invasion. I specifically used "home invasion" in the thread title for a reason.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jan 29, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> The part where you're talking about living in the US and having firearms and using your 'sharpshooting skills' made me laugh uproariously, so thanks for that. You're talking about the above scenario, where you were dead asleep...wife next to you, kids in the next room, and you hear breaking glass. The next 25-30 seconds are going to be the most stressful of your life up to this point...the fact that you think you're going to be able to control the enormous adrenaline dump that takes place *immediately upon awakening* and 'sharpshoot' someone in the leg, in the dark is nothing short of hysterical. Green Berets, Force Recon troops, Delta Force, Rangers, cops, everyone in a high stress situation like this trains for years to be able to function under that kind of stress and they still fvck it up on a daily basis. Anything you've learned at a range is not going to help you at this point....there's no leg shooting going on. This is why EVERY SINGLE FIREARM CLASS YOU'LL EVER TAKE teaches you to shoot center mass...it's a large target, easier to hit when your hands are shaking, and has a greater chance of stopping the encounter. Which is my point. I want to stop the encounter, the fastest way possible. The fastest way possible is to kill the guy running at you in the dark, regardless of what you think you know.



A wise man in a movie once said this...



> Now, remember: you don't aim a gun at a man unless you intend to shoot him. And, you don't shoot a man unless you intend to kill him. No warning shots. ...Hey, you listening to me? No warning shots. Warning shots are bullshit. You shoot to kill, or you don't shoot at all.


----------



## The Q (Jan 29, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Wrong. Guns aren't going to cause the chaos of a home invasion, the intruder brought the chaos, *my* gun is going to end it before it goes any further. And you think you're going to "sharpshoot" an intruder? You mean like a flesh wound to the leg or shoot the weapon out of their hand? Calmly shooting extremely accurately on a gun range is different than having to react immediately when you're scared and in a highly tense situation. You think you're Jason Bourne or something?
> 
> You may be more concerned with feeling morally superior, I'm more concerned with the safety of my family. It's not my intent to just find an excuse to gun someone down. For some reason you see it that way. And it's not murder to protect yourself in your own home. Thinking that it is, is a frightening mentality.
> 
> Edit: As Stein pointed out, there is a big difference between burglary and home invasion. I specifically used "home invasion" in the thread title for a reason.


I never said I'm going to sharpshoot anyone, so I don't see where you got that with Bourne and all. I said that I like sharpshooting and that would be a reason to have firearms, not that I'd be Bullseye.
I'm commenting on the fact that the first reaction from some people here was "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!" which, as Edika mentioned already, is scary, to me it's frightening to see people that are so easy on killing, even if it's an intruder. Yeah, I don't know how would I react had I owned a firearm and stored in the house, but I'd certainly opt for non-lethal rounds (as someone else commented) and probably something of a smaller calibre. And depending on the moment, I'd probably shoot at the centre of mass as well, but at least a 22LR round would probably be less devastating than 5.56 or 7.62 rounds that some A.R. owners would use.

And not only that, but you mention that killing someone in your own home is not murder and that the reverse is fiightening (in a rather failed attempt to reply to me with my own words). Yeah it is. You may be acquitted later, but if you kill someone in your house and you claim that this is not murder just because it's not illegal then we have a serious disagreement on ethics. 



steinmetzify said:


> I'm not going to debate it either and to me, NOT having pride for the country you live in is excessively stupid.


No. Just no. You can't feel proud for achievements you had nothing to do with. You didn't choose where you were born, you didn't had anything to do with the state of your country before you were born and feeling proud to be a Whateverian just because you were born there makes no ....ing sense. Even if you were to become someone who achieved greatness for your compatriots or even for your whole country, you'd still wouldn't be justified in feeling proud to be a Whateverian, but you'd have absolute right to feel pride in your accomplishments.



steinmetzify said:


> That being said, the term 'home invasion' has a different meaning here in the US than a simple burglary...you stated that someone said above that most burglars try to be stealthy, and that's true....in fact, most *burglars* in this country will actually try to come into your home while you're not there, lessening the chances of getting caught or shot, but the Wiki definition of 'home invasion' reads:
> 
> 'In the United States, a *home invasion* is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with violent intent to commit a crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping. Home invasion differs from burglary in that its perpetrators have a violent intent apart from the unlawful entry itself, specific or general, much the same way as aggravated robberypersonally taking from someone by forceis differentiated from mere larceny (theft alone). As the term becomes more frequently used, particularly by the media, "home invasion" is evolving to identify a particular class of crime that involves multiple perpetrators (two or more); forced entry into a home; occupants who are home at the time of the invasion; use of weapons and physical intimidation; property theft; and victims who are unknown, but sometimes known, to the perpetrators.'


That's interesting. It sounds kinda like a certain Charles Bronson movie, but I'll accept the term. If I had to live in a place that home invasion was more than a statistic glitch, I'd probably move.



steinmetzify said:


> As far as the 'frightening mentality' you described above where someone is ready to murder the intruder instead of averting the robbery? I'm much less concerned with a home invader's well being than I am of the well being of my family. Read the definition. In a 'home invasion' here, these people aren't here to take your television and leave quietly....they're there to terrorize first, rape and murder second, and steal things LAST. There's no 'fighting one guy and taking him down' and having that be it....*there's only taking out as many as I can so my wife has less people to shoot.*


Wow.



steinmetzify said:


> The part where you're talking about living in the US and having firearms and using your 'sharpshooting skills' made me laugh uproariously, so thanks for that. You're talking about the above scenario, where you were dead asleep...wife next to you, kids in the next room, and you hear breaking glass. The next 25-30 seconds are going to be the most stressful of your life up to this point...the fact that you think you're going to be able to control the enormous adrenaline dump that takes place *immediately upon awakening* and 'sharpshoot' someone in the leg, in the dark is nothing short of hysterical. Green Berets, Force Recon troops, Delta Force, Rangers, cops, everyone in a high stress situation like this trains for years to be able to function under that kind of stress and they still fvck it up on a daily basis. Anything you've learned at a range is not going to help you at this point....there's no leg shooting going on. This is why EVERY SINGLE FIREARM CLASS YOU'LL EVER TAKE teaches you to shoot center mass...it's a large target, easier to hit when your hands are shaking, and has a greater chance of stopping the encounter. Which is my point. I want to stop the encounter, the fastest way possible. The fastest way possible is to kill the guy running at you in the dark, regardless of what you think you know.


Jeez, again with the sharpshooting. Read what I write, not what you think I did, please. I said that sharpshooting would be an excuse for me to have guns at home, not that it's a skill that I'd use on a home invasion scenario. 
If I had to resort to a gun (remember, no guns here nor many legal ways to get one, much less use it) I'd probably shoot at the center of mass too. But I'd at least try to make it non-lethal beforehand, by using a smaller calibre and non-lethal rounds.



steinmetzify said:


> To me, it's not 'you're wrong and I'm right' or vice versa. I get where you're coming from, believe me. I don't want to kill anyone either, and it's something I hope never happens. It's just a choice I made a long time ago....I can see how you might be appalled by that choice, given the disparity of crime in our respective countries, the fact that a lot of us are brought up with guns and maybe in Greece you aren't.


Due to the difference of upbringing and with guns not really being part of the culture, it's usually a choice of right and far-right wingers here. There are quite a lot of them in the shooting club as well, but most people there are at least responsible, unlike golden dawn (neonazi) pricks that get black market guns and use them against immigrants.



steinmetzify said:


> The fact that you disagree with my choice doesn't make you right or morally superior, regardless of what you think about people that will shoot home invaders. If that's not your stance then right on, but the people here that disagree so violently and use words like 'frightening mentality' and 'therapy' somehow seem to come across that way...like those of us who have made this choice have something fundamentally wrong with us because we don't feel the same way you do.


As I said, I'm not against guns necessarilly, but that's because I like sharpshooting. For me it's a hobby based on dexterity, the same way carom pool is. But when it comes to home protection, reading quotes like "I have an A.R. in my bed... I'm going to greet you with a shotgun... If you enter my house I will kill you", yeah, I find this frightening.



steinmetzify said:


> Statistically speaking, the choice that you say you'll make in this scenario is likely to get you killed along with your family. These people aren't entering your home to do anything nice to you or your family, and any kind of day to day consideration that we all make about the sanctity of life goes out the window in this type of situation for me.
> 
> Between having a dead family I barely bothered to try to save or disagreeing with people that want to down my moral choices because they don't understand them, I'll take disagreeing with people like you all day every day.
> 
> Have a nice evening, sharpshooter.


If that ain't a strawman argument along with a false dilemma, I don't know what is.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jan 29, 2015)

The Q said:


> ...If I had to live in a place that home invasion was more than a statistic glitch,* I'd probably move.*



Not gonna lie... that's pretty funny. 

Almost like asking a poverty stricken family if you should get the new X game system or Y game system for Christmas while Mr. and Mrs. Putzenschmuck are trying to put together enough money for a Christmas dinner and a tree. 



> But when it comes to home protection, reading quotes like "I have an A.R. in my bed... I'm going to greet you with a shotgun... If you enter my house I will kill you", yeah, I find this frightening.



Unless you commit B&Es regularly, then you should have nothing to worry about. I find the fact that some guys have a thing for what amounts to a 500 pound woman with a body like a waterbed to be pretty frightening too [which, before you try to point out "isn't as dangerous", can lead to death as well], but I'm not gonna try and stop it when it probably doesn't affect me at all. I say "probably" cuz I could have a friend or two who is a closet plump bumper. Never know.


----------



## The Q (Jan 29, 2015)

I've moved once. Did my research and applied for a job in various places before I settled on a place and I lived quite a few years there. So you wouldn't have the money or the means to move, but you would be able to afford a gun or two? Would this be a better option for your family compared to moving and how?


I'd still avoid some people from here in real life based on the thoughts they've expressed so far, without needing to be a criminal to do so.


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 29, 2015)

The Q said:


> I never said I'm going to sharpshoot anyone, so I don't see where you got that with Bourne and all. I said that I like sharpshooting and that would be a reason to have firearms, not that I'd be Bullseye.
> I'm commenting on the fact that the first reaction from some people here was "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!" which, as Edika mentioned already, is scary, to me it's frightening to see people that are so easy on killing, even if it's an intruder. Yeah, I don't know how would I react had I owned a firearm and stored in the house, but I'd certainly opt for non-lethal rounds (as someone else commented) and probably something of a smaller calibre. And depending on the moment, I'd probably shoot at the centre of mass as well, but at least a 22LR round would probably be less devastating than 5.56 or 7.62 rounds that some A.R. owners would use.
> 
> And not only that, but you mention that killing someone in your own home is not murder and that the reverse is fiightening (in a rather failed attempt to reply to me with my own words). Yeah it is. You may be acquitted later, but if you kill someone in your house and you claim that this is not murder just because it's not illegal then we have a serious disagreement on ethics.



It's not that people are so easy on killing, it's that it's such an offense to have someone break into your home with absolutely no idea of what they came there to do. You act like no one has thought this through....that we all just bought guns and sit around polishing them waiting for someone to break in so we can kill them, yeehaw Murrica! We're trying to tell you that that's not the case, and is nowhere near what we mean when we say what we'd do in this situation. As far as killing someone in my own home? Self defense is not murder. I'll say it again. *Self defense is not murder. *Not here, not anywhere else. Morally speaking, I have a divine right to defend my own life and the rights of my family. Nothing that you ever say or do will change that. 

Technically speaking, it's not murder at all, no matter what you say or how you feel about it...your feelings don't change the definition. 

Murder as a chargeable offense is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being. Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations *that would otherwise have been murder*. It's always been this way, because the civilized world realizes the need for it. In the case of self-defense it is called a 'justifiable homicide'. How can you argue ethics of something like murder when you so clearly don't understand the definition of the word? 



The Q said:


> No. Just no. You can't feel proud for achievements you had nothing to do with. You didn't choose where you were born, you didn't had anything to do with the state of your country before you were born and feeling proud to be a Whateverian just because you were born there makes no ....ing sense. Even if you were to become someone who achieved greatness for your compatriots or even for your whole country, you'd still wouldn't be justified in feeling proud to be a Whateverian, but you'd have absolute right to feel pride in your accomplishments.



Again with the opinions. I can feel proud of anything I choose to. I'm proud of my country and the people within it, and I'm proud to be an American citizen. Although I do get irked at the people that act like they're on the football team on Sundays, so I get where you're coming from and can see why it could annoy you. Oh well.



The Q said:


> That's interesting. It sounds kinda like a certain Charles Bronson movie, but I'll accept the term. If I had to live in a place that home invasion was more than a statistic glitch, I'd probably move.



It happens here on a daily basis; you know the term, if you doubt me feel free to look it up. There are numerous eyewitness accounts, news stories, etc...and there's no moving. I doubt you could find a decently sized city in the US that hasn't had this happen, anymore.



The Q said:


> Wow.



Yeah, I know; I feel exactly the same when I read your posts in this thread because the fact is *your* viewpoint would be in the minority in most of my country, not mine. By people from all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers, CEOs, convenience store workers, nurses, truck drivers, independent business owners...the list goes on and on. Most people here have either been the victim of a violent crime or know someone who has, and has decided it won't happen to them, either again or ever.



The Q said:


> Jeez, again with the sharpshooting. Read what I write, not what you think I did, please. I said that sharpshooting would be an excuse for me to have guns at home, not that it's a skill that I'd use on a home invasion scenario.
> If I had to resort to a gun (remember, no guns here nor many legal ways to get one, much less use it) I'd probably shoot at the center of mass too. But I'd at least try to make it non-lethal beforehand, by using a smaller calibre and non-lethal rounds.



It's not a skill you COULD use on a home invasion scenario. LTL rounds would probably work, I don't know about smaller caliber rounds though. The point of the entire thing is the quick successful engagement and conclusion. I'm not willing to trust my life to a round that's not been repeatedly shown to stop most people. I also get that you'd be in a serious amount of trouble were you to respond the way we would, so that's a consideration for you that I don't have to think about.



The Q said:


> Due to the difference of upbringing and with guns not really being part of the culture, it's usually a choice of right and far-right wingers here. There are quite a lot of them in the shooting club as well, but most people there are at least responsible, unlike golden dawn (neonazi) pricks that get black market guns and use them against immigrants.



These are the kind of people we're talking about here. The people like your neo-Nazis that just want to hurt people because it's fun. They break into your house, terrorize you, rape your wife while they make you watch, then kill you and your entire family. It happens here with increasing regularity.



The Q said:


> As I said, I'm not against guns necessarilly, but that's because I like sharpshooting. For me it's a hobby based on dexterity, the same way carom pool is. But when it comes to home protection, reading quotes like "I have an A.R. in my bed... I'm going to greet you with a shotgun... If you enter my house I will kill you", yeah, I find this frightening.



Like I said before...different strokes. We grew up differently. I grew up in a very depressed economic area, where it was quite common to see a dead body in an alley on the way to school, usually someone beat to death or shot for their clothing or jewelry. I saw my first one at 8. This is a common occurrence in certain areas of the US. There were numerous times in my life when the fact that I had a gun ensured my survival. If you haven't had those experiences, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. I would think that your mind would change confronted with 2-3 of these situations, if only for your peace of mind. Maybe not.



The Q said:


> If that ain't a strawman argument along with a false dilemma, I don't know what is.



Call it what you want. Your advice earlier in the thread was to "Get the jump on the burglar if you can and you are somewhat fit but don't fatally wound him, unless you want to go through the ordeal of proving that you acted on self defense and *legally".* 

First of all, in the scenario outlined in the OP, that plan of action is very simply going to have a much better chance of leading to your death than mine will. 

Second of all, the fact that this person is in my house surround by broken glass, I don't know him, and he entered by force is enough to *prove to any court of law that I acted in self defense. It's completely legal. It's justified in my neighbors' minds, the responding officers' minds, the newspapers' stories, and most importantly MY mind. The second he broke into my house, it became about self defense and the defense of my families' lives. *And as I stated earlier in the post, *self defense is not murder, not in this country.*

If I shoot the guy and he stops, that's all I care about. If he dies, he dies. If he lives, he lives. I don't care. What I care about is ensuring my survival and the survival of my family, whatever the cost, whatever the price.

I realize that we have very different morals regarding what we would and wouldn't do in the defense of ourselves and our families. You're never going to change my mind regardless of your moral standpoint and I'll never change yours. I say good day, sir.


----------



## Dooky (Jan 29, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Manslaughter charges for killing someone that entered your home and could possibly kill you. Is it like that in all of Australia? We have ridiculous laws like that in some states in the US, but thankfully not mine.



There have been instances of it. 
I remember not too long ago there was a news story about a guy who shot an intruder. The intruder was in the process of smashing the glass at the front entry and was determined to gain entry. The home owner warned the guy from inside saying: 'I have a gun and I will shoot'. The intruder kept trying to get in and had a crowbar (or something of the sort). So the guy shot him. Can't remember if the intruder died or not, but the home owner was charged for the shooting.


----------



## The Q (Jan 29, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> It's not that people are so easy on killing, it's that it's such an offense to have someone break into your home with absolutely no idea of what they came there to do. You act like no one has thought this through....that we all just bought guns and sit around polishing them waiting for someone to break in so we can kill them, yeehaw Murrica! We're trying to tell you that that's not the case, and is nowhere near what we mean when we say what we'd do in this situation. As far as killing someone in my own home? Self defense is not murder. I'll say it again. *Self defense is not murder. *Not here, not anywhere else. Morally speaking, I have a divine right to defend my own life and the rights of my family. Nothing that you ever say or do will change that.
> 
> Technically speaking, it's not murder at all, no matter what you say or how you feel about it...your feelings don't change the definition.
> 
> Murder as a chargeable offense is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being. Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations *that would otherwise have been murder*. It's always been this way, because the civilized world realizes the need for it. In the case of self-defense it is called a 'justifiable homicide'. How can you argue ethics of something like murder when you so clearly don't understand the definition of the word?


That's why I preempted you on the legality of it and why it was unrelated to the killing (better term?) itself, but that's OK. Not feeling bad because something is not illegal feels wrong, "divine" or not.





steinmetzify said:


> Again with the opinions. I can feel proud of anything I choose to. I'm proud of my country and the people within it, and I'm proud to be an American citizen. Although I do get irked at the people that act like they're on the football team on Sundays, so I get where you're coming from and can see why it could annoy you. Oh well.


I am not annoyed by the "greeks gave the lights of the civilisation to the world, re" people here (to use a similar example), I'm at their lack of response to my follow up question "even if they did, what part did you have in that?". 





steinmetzify said:


> It happens here on a daily basis; you know the term, if you doubt me feel free to look it up. There are numerous eyewitness accounts, news stories, etc...and there's no moving. I doubt you could find a decently sized city in the US that hasn't had this happen, anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I know; I feel exactly the same when I read your posts in this thread because the fact is *your* viewpoint would be in the minority in most of my country, not mine. By people from all walks of life, including doctors, lawyers, CEOs, convenience store workers, nurses, truck drivers, independent business owners...the list goes on and on. Most people here have either been the victim of a violent crime or know someone who has, and has decided it won't happen to them, either again or ever.


It sounds like a dangerous place.





steinmetzify said:


> It's not a skill you COULD use on a home invasion scenario. LTL rounds would probably work, I don't know about smaller caliber rounds though. The point of the entire thing is the quick successful engagement and conclusion. I'm not willing to trust my life to a round that's not been repeatedly shown to stop most people. I also get that you'd be in a serious amount of trouble were you to respond the way we would, so that's a consideration for you that I don't have to think about.


That's an interesting consideration, especially after I read how the .38 rounds were proven ineffective against Filipinos on the American-Phillipines war, but I suspect that some research can provide proper guidelines. Though I do understand that you cannot take risks when you have a small window of time.





steinmetzify said:


> These are the kind of people we're talking about here. The people like your neo-Nazis that just want to hurt people because it's fun. They break into your house, terrorize you, rape your wife while they make you watch, then kill you and your entire family. It happens here with increasing regularity.


Thankfully the neonazis are little whiny bitches that wouldn't scare a cat, much less break and enter. But they do amass pistols and assault rifles.





steinmetzify said:


> Like I said before...different strokes. We grew up differently. I grew up in a very depressed economic area, where it was quite common to see a dead body in an alley on the way to school, usually someone beat to death or shot for their clothing or jewelry. I saw my first one at 8. This is a common occurrence in certain areas of the US. There were numerous times in my life when the fact that I had a gun ensured my survival. If you haven't had those experiences, I wouldn't expect you to understand this. I would think that your mind would change confronted with 2-3 of these situations, if only for your peace of mind. Maybe not.


Agreed, I do not envy you.





steinmetzify said:


> Call it what you want. Your advice earlier in the thread was to "Get the jump on the burglar if you can and you are somewhat fit but don't fatally wound him, unless you want to go through the ordeal of proving that you acted on self defense and *legally".*


Yeah. Most people aren't though.



steinmetzify said:


> First of all, in the scenario outlined in the OP, that plan of action is very simply going to have a much better chance of leading to your death than mine will.


That's why you probably shouldn't get the jump on them if you're most people.



steinmetzify said:


> Second of all, the fact that this person is in my house surround by broken glass, I don't know him, and he entered by force is enough to *prove to any court of law that I acted in self defense. It's completely legal. It's justified in my neighbors' minds, the responding officers' minds, the newspapers' stories, and most importantly MY mind. The second he broke into my house, it became about self defense and the defense of my families' lives. *And as I stated earlier in the post, *self defense is not murder, not in this country.*


Yeah I never argued the legality of it and you'd probably be acquitted, but are you certain that the cops can do that and you won't have to appear in front of a judge, no matter how run of the mill such cases are?



steinmetzify said:


> If I shoot the guy and he stops, that's all I care about. If he dies, he dies. If he lives, he lives. I don't care. What I care about is ensuring my survival and the survival of my family, whatever the cost, whatever the price.
> 
> I realize that we have very different morals regarding what we would and wouldn't do in the defense of ourselves and our families. You're never going to change my mind regardless of your moral standpoint and I'll never change yours. I say good day, sir.


On the contrary to you, I've never stated that you'll never change my mind. If it were, I wouldn't bother participating into this (or any other) discussion; there's always things to (re)consider and new information to be had.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 29, 2015)

*The Q* and *steinmetzify*, you both need to chill out. Got it?


----------



## Steinmetzify (Jan 29, 2015)

Chilled dude. I was done anyway.


----------



## musicaldeath (Jan 29, 2015)

Living in Canada it makes it hard to defend yourself with any sort of weapon in this situation (at least as far as I understand the laws to work here in AB). So grabbing a gun is likely to land me in as much trouble as the guy breaking into my house.

Luckily, I think I could get the kid and barricade him in our bedroom as he is just across the hall (3 steps?) and we have a heavy dresser and a desk that could pin the door shut. Also have mine and my wife's cellphone in the bedroom. Cops take less than 5 minutes to respond (as has been the case in the past with drunk guys fighting in the street). So the robber/home invader may get away with something, but all of it is insured. And my family is safe.

If they managed to get through the door of the bedroom (family would be locked in the bathroom at that point). Well, hopefully can take him down before the cops get here? Lol.

That's probably the extent of what I would do. Having gone through combat training etc (ex Military), I may handle the stress of that kind of situation well enough to think clearly, but I can't say for sure. Just hope I would be able to keep the family safe.


----------



## narad (Jan 29, 2015)

You are woken up in the middle of the night as your alarm system sounds. It's a good one because you invested all the money that could have been frivolously invested in a gun collection was used to fund it. The entire perimeter of your house lights up, a loud siren sounds, lights flash as the police are alerted to the intrusion. You huddle with your wife and children and apply your basic understanding of human reasoning and motive to ponder why anyone would waste valuable escape time digging themselves further into your home.


----------



## Grief (Jan 29, 2015)

^ In my (limited) experience in the US, those things are on interrupted autodial so as soon as the alarm goes off you get a call from the monitoring station and if you don't supply the correct code and stand them down they send the police. Of course it depends where you live as to how fast they will get there. A good rule of thumb would be so say 'afterwards.'

But the motive point is interesting.

Statistically your husband/wife is more likely to kill you than an intruder.
You insured yourself for a couple of million to give them the motive.
You filled the bedroom with guns to give them the means.
You are fast asleep and now they have the opportunity....


----------



## narad (Jan 29, 2015)

Grief said:


> But the motive point is interesting.
> 
> Statistically your husband/wife is more likely to kill you than an intruder.
> You insured yourself for a couple of million to given them the motive.
> ...



Slow down there, M. Night.


----------



## loqtrall (Jan 29, 2015)

Well, since I have yet to participate in this thread and have so far had two intruders enter my house uninvited (even though they weren't trying to rob me, both instances had very odd reasoning), I'll take a crack at the original scenario in the OP.

Well, first, this scenario is incredibly specific, as I do have 4 dogs, I don't have kids or a wife, and my house is extremely quiet at night, to the point that I could recognize each individual door opening throughout the house, no matter how hard you tried not to make noise opening it.

That being said, I live in what some would call an "undesirable" neighborhood, even though I live directly at the end of it and well out of the worst part of it. So I own a gun, and have yet to use it on anyone or anything. I've had people ENTER my house (not break in) twice without my consent. One guy was being chased by a group of people who were accusing him of stealing an iPad from them, and he ran in my house as the others ran in after them, and I beat the shit out of all 3 of them with a metal chair sitting in my kitchen. The second time was from a man who had just gotten back from a long leave from his job, and he didn't know that the person that had lived there before me had moved, as they and I both own a white Ford F150, and he walked in the house thinking they still lived there and immediately explained himself and apologized.

But I do own a gun, and it stays beside me while I sleep along side a flashlight, my cell phone, and a knife inbetween my matresses (having those 3 people run into my house screaming really put me over the edge).

So what would I do if I heard someone break through one of my windows? I'd pull out my pistol, open my door, and yell out "I've got a gun, leave now, I'm not afraid to use it", then I'd close and lock my door, sit across the room pointing my pistol at the door, and call 911 and tell them someone broke in (I live within walking distance of the police station).

At no point if I thought someone was breaking into my house would I think to go investigate. I'd rather them steal my Xbox One and TV than them steal my life. I guess it could be taken differently if I actually had a wife and kids. In that situation I think I'd try at least to get the kids into my room and lock the door. Obviously the person had enough balls to break your window in the middle of the night and enter your home, it wouldn't take much to push him to the point of seriously injuring or killing someone to prevent themselves from being caught.

Eh, just my take on the situation.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 29, 2015)

^ yeah shooting without investigating the situation can cause unfortunate outcome.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 30, 2015)

steinmetzify said:


> I'm not going to debate it either and to me, NOT having pride for the country you live in is excessively stupid.



Oh... so it's one of those "teaching kids esteem without them actually earning the right to it" arguments. In that case, enjoy! 



steinmetzify said:


> That being said, the term 'home invasion' has a different meaning here in the US than a simple burglary...
> 
> OP stated in the thread title 'HOME INVASION', not burglary. Given the different definitions, I tailored my response to the definition of home invasion.



I'm confused as to how you'd be able to distinguish between a home invasion and a burglary if the OP isn't around to let us know which is happening. 

"I was talking about my realistic reaction, based on the limited information I would have, *and* taking away factors like my having a dog for just this kind of scenario."

"Well, it's a magic scenario, with no doubt at all... except that I magically decree that not only is it a home invasion, but I'm also going to shut down any avenue except firearms!" 

Is that what you mean?

Because that reasoning sounds stupid.

Sorry if pointing out the obvious diminishes anyone's sense of entitlement to unwarranted esteem.


----------



## loqtrall (Jan 30, 2015)

7stg said:


> ^ yeah shooting without investigating the situation can cause unfortunate outcome.


 
Breaking and entering someone's home with intent to commit crime can cause an unfortunate outcome. 

I have a few glasses I use for beer drinking, but that's it. So I know it's not my dog snooping around and knocking down a glass. My dogs sleep with me either way. So nobody I know personally would be breaking through my window. Even so, they'd announce themselves when I yell that I have a gun. 

If you feel the need to break into my house and steal my stuff, be prepared to be shot if you don't drop everything and leave when I tell you too.

Of course I'm not going to just run out of my room firing willy nilly in the dark. I'd damage more than they were trying to steal.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 30, 2015)

Dooky said:


> There have been instances of it.
> I remember not too long ago there was a news story about a guy who shot an intruder. The intruder was in the process of smashing the glass at the front entry and was determined to gain entry. The home owner warned the guy from inside saying: 'I have a gun and I will shoot'. The intruder kept trying to get in and had a crowbar (or something of the sort). So the guy shot him. Can't remember if the intruder died or not, but the home owner was charged for the shooting.



That's just crazy to me. Defending himself and faced charges. What do you think about that?




Grief said:


> Statistically your husband/wife is more likely to kill you than an intruder.



Says what statistics? Maybe if someone is a moron that wakes up and starts

 pulling the trigger, regardless of the situation. Not saying that you think that, but certain individuals in this thread appear to believe that.



Explorer said:


> I'm confused as to how you'd be able to distinguish between a home invasion
> 
> and a burglary if the OP isn't around to let us know which is happening.



Thanks for confirming

 that you wouldn't know what the intruders intentions are. Because most of us would have no idea either. We could always wait and see, huh? But maybe *you* have a way of knowing whether or not they want to murder or rape, that escapes the rest of us? But regardless we can always break out our sharpened pencils.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 30, 2015)

The Q said:


> I have a knack for sharpshooting - if I were forced to use one against an intruder I'd *always* try to go for the non-lethal option.


*
So what exactly did you mean by this, then?* *That you'd sharpshoot them with a bean bag?* 



> killing someone in your own home is not murder Yeah it is. You may be acquitted later, but if you kill someone in your house and you claim that this is not murder just because it's not illegal then we have a serious disagreement on ethics.



*No, you're wrong. It's not murder. Look up the definition. And actually think about it.* *If you think it is, we have a serious disagreement on logic.

*


> I'd probably shoot at the center of mass too. But I'd at least try to make it non-lethal beforehand, by using a smaller calibre and non-lethal rounds.


*Smaller caliber rounds can be just as lethal, so that statement makes no sense. Bullets are meant to kill, not wound, no matter what caliber.*


----------



## BornToLooze (Jan 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> *
> No, you're wrong. It's not murder. Look up the definition. And actually think about it. If you think it is, we have a serious disagreement on logic.*


*

Let's see if I can make this easier.

According to dictionary.com,

noun

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)


18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.*


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 30, 2015)

The Q said:


> I've moved once. Did my research and applied for a job in various places before I settled on a place and I lived quite a few years there. So you wouldn't have the money or the means to move, but you would be able to afford
> 
> a gun or two? Would this be a better option for your family compared to moving and how?
> 
> ...



There's a big financial difference between moving away and being able to afford a firearm. Hilarious statement though. 

And as to the second part of you're post, about "needing to be a criminal" I'm going to ask you to elaborate on that part before I respond to avoid any confusion as to what you honestly mean.


----------



## Nick (Jan 30, 2015)

i'd be interested to see statistics on the number of intruders that decide to attack the occupants of the home they are in rather than just flee the scene when they are discovered.

I'd imagine flight is the preferred option over 90% of the time!


----------



## Randy (Jan 30, 2015)

Incredibly narrow set of circumstances. You're poor enough you can't live in a nicer area (as indicated by the break-in itself, as well as the expectedly slow response of the police department), but you apparently do have enough money that you own things a person is interested in taking and you've got enough money to purchase weapons, ammo and the required permits and registration.

This is essentially the NRA equivalent of the 'what would you do if you only had one day to live", which is a fun hypothetically but most people focus attention on checkups and preventative medicine such that the scenario will likely never play out that way.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Jan 30, 2015)

Randy said:


> Incredibly narrow set of circumstances. You're poor enough you can't live in a nicer area (as indicated by the break-in itself, as well as the expectedly slow response of the police department), but you apparently do have enough money that you own things a person is interested in taking and you've got enough money to purchase weapons, ammo and the required permits and registration.
> 
> This is essentially the NRA equivalent of the 'what would you do if you only had one day to live", which is a fun hypothetically but most people focus attention on checkups and preventative medicine such that the scenario will likely never play out that way.



In what way is someone breaking into my home a "narrow set of circumstances"? 

I'm really glad you live somewhere that you don't have to worry about criminals, but some of us actually do. Nothing fun about this situation. Nothing hypothetical about it.

How wealthy do you have to be before someone can want to take something from you? Got a figure for me?


----------



## Randy (Jan 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> In what way is someone breaking into my home a "narrow set of circumstances"?



By definition, breaking into 'your home' is as narrow set of circumstances because nobody's house or living situation is exactly like yours. Posing the question as 'what would you do if somebody broke into 'your' (meaning the reader's) house' is different then 'what would you do if you were in my shoes and somebody broke into my house'; because the degree to which we've contemplated these scenarios and prepared for them prior to the night in question make a significant difference in what we would do.

Assuming the question was genuinely open-ended and based on real concerns and issues you're facing as a forum member and home owner(first of all, if that is the case, that was not a great way of framing your question), then fair game. Forgetting any of our feelings about guns, nobody here would want to hear your life endangered. If you know you're in a high risk area and you're already talking to your neighbors about it, take preventative action. Form a neighborhood watch, talk to the police commissioner about extra surveillance of the neighborhood, get a guard dog, reinforce your windows on the ground floor (if that's not enough, get bars), get a security system (not as expensive as you'd think) and/or get security cameras (way cheap, I bought some to spy on my pets when I'm not home). These are all options that significantly decrease the likelihood of a burglar gaining access to the inside of your home regardless of if you're packing a gun, effectively increase any chances you have if things go south and cost fairly little to implement.

That's the extent to which I'm willing to buy into your post being a genuine question to solicit advice. The way the actual post read in the context of the rest of your posts in here was more like you spoon feeding us a litany of qualifiers to walk us down the path where shooting a person is our only option, and then disingenuously offering it to us as a question. If the circumstances you outlined are real and you've thought about it this much but haven't taken measures to fix any of these condition, you're essentially asking us for validation of your choice to live in an insecure situation and shoot a person blindly at your first possible opportunity and I won't endorse that, so you're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Nick (Jan 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> In what way is someone breaking into my home a "narrow set of circumstances"?
> 
> I'm really glad you live somewhere that you don't have to worry about criminals, but some of us actually do. Nothing fun about this situation. Nothing hypothetical about it.
> 
> How wealthy do you have to be before someone can want to take something from you? Got a figure for me?



Its a narrow set of circumstances because how often does this actually happen to people?

Break ins occur, but how often does the offenders 'fight or flight' kick in when they are discovered, and 'FIGHT' is what they choose? Very rarely.

Also, how often are break ins conducted with the sole intention of doing harm to the home occupant? Very rarely.


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 30, 2015)

Randy said:


> If the circumstances you outlined are real and you've thought about it this much but haven't taken measures to fix any of these condition, you're essentially asking us for validation of your choice to live in an insecure situation and shoot a person blindly at your first possible opportunity and I won't endorse that, so you're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## The Q (Jan 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> *
> So what exactly did you mean by this, then?* *That you'd sharpshoot them with a bean bag?*
> 
> 
> ...


1. Read my previous reply on sharpshooting. I've answered twice; you missed it probably, but the gist of it is that sharpshooting would be a reason to have firearms in the house, not to use it as a skill against an intruder.

2. Again, we discussed this. It's killing - I'm not arguing the terms here. If killing doesn't bother you we have a serious disagreement on ethics, as I said before. Sure if it's legal to kill an intruder, you'll be acquitted depending on where you live - the question is whether you find the action shocking or you can shove it off as if it never happened.

3. This is a case I might be wrong, but I'd imagine that a 22LR causes much less damage compared to a 45 round or something from an assault rifle. Just because bullets are meant to kill it doesn't mean they can achieve that with the same capacity (read about why the 45 calibre was invented - I mentioned that before) or with the same success rate.


----------



## 7stg (Jan 30, 2015)

College Student Says She&#8217;s Glad Her Dad Gave Her The Gun She Used To Fight Off Armed Home Invaders | The Daily Caller


----------



## Grief (Jan 30, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Says what statistics? Maybe if someone is a moron that wakes up and starts
> 
> pulling the trigger, regardless of the situation. Not saying that you think that, but certain individuals in this thread appear to believe that.




They are one page back but here again are the stats that suggest that filling your house with guns and putting one next to your sleeping partner might not be a good idea:

FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

108 husbands murdered by wives
534 wives murdered by husbands
but only
94 people killed during burglary (and 27 of those by someone they knew)

So that leaves us with 67 stranger burglary homicides in a year per 316 million people.

Take out the planned high-value homes and the bad neighborhoods with high crime (both of which I would argue have an established need for enhanced security) and what are you left with in average houses in average neighborhoods?

But maybe someone has some better stats?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Feb 3, 2015)

Randy said:


> By definition, breaking into 'your home' is as narrow set of circumstances because nobody's house or living situation is exactly like yours.
> 
> That's the extent to which I'm willing to buy into your post being a genuine question to solicit advice. The way the actual post read in the context of the rest of your posts in here was more like you spoon feeding us a litany of qualifiers to walk us down the path where shooting a person is our only option, and then disingenuously offering it to us as a question. If the circumstances you outlined are real and you've thought about it this much but haven't taken measures to fix any of these condition, you're essentially asking us for validation of your choice to live in an insecure situation and shoot a person blindly at your first possible opportunity and I won't endorse that, so you're barking up the wrong tree.



I didn't post this to solicit advice. You're right, guard dogs and home security systems would help to prevent an individual gaining access to my home. But not everyone has those things. Several people have responded and not brought those options up, so obviously they don't have them. Yet they could still be presented with such a situation. I wanted to see what others here would honestly do if presented with a home invasion. Face to face. It does happen. Whether a high statistic or not. I don't *want* to shoot anyone. I would gain zero satisfaction from doing so, other than protecting my family. It seems that you and others here seem to have this view that gunning someone down would be enjoyable to me. It indeed would not be, trust me Randy.

Reactions so far have been pretty unrealistic. At least to me. Hiding until it's over? Physically confronting an intruder doesn't seem to have a favorable outcome. Maybe 50/50? I'd rather take the advantage of a firearm over just hoping they take what they want and leave.



The Q said:


> 2. Again, we discussed this. It's killing - I'm not arguing the terms here. If killing doesn't bother you we have a serious disagreement on ethics, as I said before. Sure if it's legal to kill an intruder, you'll be acquitted depending on where you live - the question is whether you find the action shocking or you can shove it off as if it never happened.
> 
> 3. This is a case I might be wrong, but I'd imagine that a 22LR causes much less damage compared to a 45 round or something from an assault rifle. Just because bullets are meant to kill it doesn't mean they can achieve that with the same capacity (read about why the 45 calibre was invented - I mentioned that before) or with the same success rate.



No, killing someone would be something that I couldn't just shove off as though it was nothing, but I would feel justified. Again there is a big difference between murder and justified homicide. You seem to present the 2 as equal. I do not.

Smaller caliber rounds can kill very easily. To believe the contrary is a mistake. They can be very nasty. 22's have a tendency to ricochet around inside the body. I carry a 45 caliber 1911 with hollow points. So I already know why it was invented.


----------



## Grief (Feb 4, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Reactions so far have been pretty unrealistic. At least to me. Hiding until it's over? Physically confronting an intruder doesn't seem to have a favorable outcome. Maybe 50/50? I'd rather take the advantage of a firearm over just hoping they take what they want and leave.



If you are accepting the stats I quoted your odds of facing a deadly home invasion each year are something in the order of one in five million. More people win the lottery and it might be more cheerful if we all think about that.

Without evidence your assertions quoted above are hard to give meaning to. The evidence is what makes things 'realistic'. What is the difference statistically speaking between the different potential responses?

But here's a better question. If the evidence told you that running away or hiding or even not having a gun at all was safer for your family would you do it? Is your family's safety more important than owning a gun?


----------



## JeffKill (Feb 4, 2015)

Regardless of any statistics, there are a lot of sick people in this world. And a lot of them get enjoyment out of hurting others for no good reason. I really don't think there's anything wrong with preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. 

My friends 75 year old grandmother was just attacked in her home by 3 people about a month ago. They tied her up, smashed a vase over her head, and beat the hell out of her. I don't feel the situation would have been any better for her had she been armed, but when something like this happens to someone you know, it hits a little closer to home. 

I currently only keep 1 pistol in my house. I have an alarm, and hope that it would be enough to scare away a common burglar. If not, I would at least give fair warning before neutralizing a threat on my own. Will it ever happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Yes.


----------



## Explorer (Feb 4, 2015)

I think one could reasonably conclude that the OP had his conclusion, asked for data to back it up, and then the data didn't go the way he expected.

Therefore, the data was wrong.


----------



## asher (Feb 4, 2015)

I don't know what's remotely unrealistic about hiding from an intruder until they leave and trying to avoid confrontation.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Feb 4, 2015)

asher said:


> I don't know what's remotely unrealistic about hiding from an intruder until they leave and trying to avoid confrontation.



Maybe because bedrooms are where the "good shit" is... ie, jewelry/gold, shit that'd get them more than a couple bucks from their dealer/local pawn shop.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Feb 5, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I think one could reasonably conclude that the OP had his conclusion, asked for data to back it up, and then the data didn't go the way he expected.
> 
> Therefore, the data was wrong.



The data was wrong? Not really. This thread is pretty much peoples opinions on what their reactions would be in a ....ed up situation. That's all I wanted to hear. Different people's responses. Some people put their hopes in hiding and hoping the threat goes away, some would have preventative measures, some would use firearms(gasp), others have sharpened pencils and go fo the ankles.  That still makes me laugh, Explorer, thanks.



asher said:


> I don't know what's remotely unrealistic about hiding from an intruder until they leave and trying to avoid confrontation.



Just hiding from an intruder, cowering in the corner while they loot my home or worse is not an option for me. Just waiting to see what they *might* do(I've stressed this a few times in this thread) is not an option for me. That's not going to happen. If that's acceptable to you, ok. Different strokes, man. 



Spaced Out Ace said:


> Maybe because bedrooms are where the "good shit" is... ie, jewelry/gold, shit that'd get them more than a couple bucks from their dealer/local pawn shop.







JeffKill said:


> Regardless of any statistics, there are a lot of sick people in this world. And a lot of them get enjoyment out of hurting others for no good reason. I really don't think there's anything wrong with preparing for the worst and hoping for the best.
> 
> My friends 75 year old grandmother was just attacked in her home by 3 people about a month ago. They tied her up, smashed a vase over her head, and beat the hell out of her. I don't feel the situation would have been any better for her had she been armed, but when something like this happens to someone you know, it hits a little closer to home.
> 
> I currently only keep 1 pistol in my house. I have an alarm, and hope that it would be enough to scare away a common burglar. If not, I would at least give fair warning before neutralizing a threat on my own. Will it ever happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Yes.



Thank you. I don't care about all these "statistics" that everyone here keeps quoting. Statistics can reflect whatever people want them too. Is it extremely likely that someone is going to come into my home and try to murder, beat, or rape, someone. No, but the fact remains, whether those here want to admit or realize, that is is possible. No one expects terrible things to happen to them, until it does. Better to be prepared for the circumstances than not.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Feb 5, 2015)

7stg said:


> College Student Says Shes Glad Her Dad Gave Her The Gun She Used To Fight Off Armed Home Invaders | The Daily Caller



Whoa there man, hold on. People here don't want to hear those kinds stories. Doesn't fit their, "guns never help" mentality.


----------



## Grief (Feb 5, 2015)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Whoa there man, hold on. People here don't want to hear those kinds stories. Doesn't fit their, "guns never help" mentality.



There's no mentality about it, that's the thing. I would absolutely fill my house with guns if it could be proven to have a positive safety benefit. I'm using the data to 'prepare for the worst', so taking the least-less-safe course of action. Here's some stats on a conservative website that give a rate of accidental death from guns at around 10 times greater than deaths from home invasions. It's absolutely not 'guns never help.' It's more a question of why, when all the events/stories are collected together, the big picture seems to be that in the scenario posited in the OP guns seem likely to make you less safe?

But to consider the story about the students you refer to, here's the critical thinking approach I would take to see if it had any relevance to me:

Where did it take place? _Nowhere I've been or am planning to go. So I'm unlikely to meet those assailants._

What was their motive? _It's unknown entirely._

Is the victims demographic, location, security measures anything like my own? _Not really._

How does this story impact on my personal safety? _It doesn't._

Need I take action or change my behavior as a result? _No._

Guns are a part of American culture. It's legal and fine if you want to have them. I'm not against guns and will probably go out and do some firearms training myself later this year. I might even buy one if I can find a safe place to keep it. But I'll understand that just like drinking, smoking or even driving, gun ownership carries a level of risk. And I probably wouldn't keep it in my home.


----------

