Why do people think it's okay to keep trying to rob me?

[lvl 1 fighter]

They haven't got into my apartment yet, but that's not for lack of trying. First time was about 2 months ago, I woke up around 1AM to what felt like the whole house shaking (it's a small house, I have the top half) as they tried to kick down my door.

They're stupid, and don't know how to kick in doors. All they did was scuff it up and make some dents near the bottom. But their efforts knocked loose a window screen which fell and made lots of noise, which I presume scared them off.

I called the police later that day, though I expected what the officer would say. They didn't actually get in, so the most they could charge the people with (if they found them) would be some form of vandalism. Figured that. I just wanted there to be a record of an attempted home invasion while I was home. Bastards.

I felt I wanted a little better protection than what I currently have, so I went to my families house and brought back my great-grandfathers Browning A5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Auto-5), 12 gauge. It still works great. Since that night I haven't had the reason to use it, which I'm thankful for.

Last night around 2AM "they" came around again. They didn't try and kick the door in; I think they were just testing my defenses. I was inside and clearly heard the sound of my screendoor being opened. It makes a very distinctive noise, and at 2AM there wasn't anything else going on for me to confuse the noise with.

I didn't hear anything after that, though I stayed up for a while. I wish these bastards would just leave me alone. Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions about it being the same guys last night, or whoever it was having the purpose of robbing me, but....why do you come up my outside stairs at 2 in the morning and all you do is open and close the screendoor?

[Yarram]

It's probably not a personal thing you know? They probably test every house on one street each night, hoping to get lucky. And of course they must sometimes.

[Dallas-Dakota]

First of all, do you have a big neon sign saying: Rob this place!

If yes, then it might be good to remove it.

Also keeping the light on in a room(which is clearly visible from the outside) in the night might deter them.(If you're willing to add that to your electricity bill)

Also, you say you live in the top of a house? Any idea why they take your place instead of taking the easier lower place?

[Crispy Dave]

They haven't got into my apartment yet, but that's not for lack of trying. First time was about 2 months ago, I woke up around 1AM to what felt like the whole house shaking (it's a small house, I have the top half) as they tried to kick down my door.

They're stupid, and don't know how to kick in doors. All they did was scuff it up and make some dents near the bottom. But their efforts knocked loose a window screen which fell and made lots of noise, which I presume scared them off.

I called the police later that day, though I expected what the officer would say. They didn't actually get in, so the most they could charge the people with (if they found them) would be some form of vandalism. Figured that. I just wanted there to be a record of an attempted home invasion while I was home. Bastards.

I felt I wanted a little better protection than what I currently have, so I went to my families house and brought back my great-grandfathers Browning A5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Auto-5), 12 gauge. It still works great. Since that night I haven't had the reason to use it, which I'm thankful for.

Last night around 2AM "they" came around again. They didn't try and kick the door in; I think they were just testing my defenses. I was inside and clearly heard the sound of my screendoor being opened. It makes a very distinctive noise, and at 2AM there wasn't anything else going on for me to confuse the noise with.

I didn't hear anything after that, though I stayed up for a while. I wish these bastards would just leave me alone. Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions about it being the same guys last night, or whoever it was having the purpose of robbing me, but....why do you come up my outside stairs at 2 in the morning and all you do is open and close the screendoor?

Set up a camera or something and see if you can get their faces. Then show your neighbors so they know to look out for them.

[lvl 1 fighter]

No, no neon sign. Good call though.

"They", or other people, have broken into the bottom half of the house before. Thankfully the two women that live there weren't home at the time.

While a camera might be a good thing to have to show the police their pictures, in all honesty it's probably my neighbors (people on my street), that are the ones doing it. I don't live in the best of neighborhoods.

[Crispy Dave]

No, no neon sign. Good call though.

"They", or other people, have broken into the bottom half of the house before. Thankfully the two women that live there weren't home at the time.

While a camera might be a good thing to have to show the police their pictures, in all honesty it's probably my neighbors (people on my street), that are the ones doing it. I don't live in the best of neighborhoods.

then get a picture and find out where the guys who are doing live. Then do with that info what you wish.

edit:grammar fail but too lazy to fix

[lvl 1 fighter]

then get a picture and find out where the guys who are doing live. Then do with that info what you wish.

I'd rather have the law on my side if anything like that happens. In my state it's legal to use lethal & deadly force if someone breaks into your house.

[Crispy Dave]

I'd rather have the law on my side if anything like that happens. In my state it's legal to use lethal & deadly force if someone breaks into your house.

you could leave them a note.

[Keld Denar]

Big sign is big


NO TRESPASSING
Forget the damn dog
Beware of owner
If you are found here at night
You WILL be found here in the morning


On a side note, what kinda shells are you packin in your A-5? I wouldn't pack anything bigger than a 00, and I certainly wouldn't use a solid slug. The wall piercing capabilities could be...unfortunate. Something like a 3" shot used for goose or similar would be idea.

[Faulty]

Even if someone breaks in, don't kill them. Seriously. The click-click should be enough to get them on their knees while you call the cops.

[lvl 1 fighter]

I've got 00 loads. It's standard, and what the police officer recommended.

Faulty - I don't see the point in having a gun in the house for self-defense/protection if it's not already locked and loaded. Course, I live alone (no small children or otherwise) so I don't have to worry about someone playing with it.

[Keld Denar]

Movies are a joke. Dramatic gun ***** (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDramaticGunCock) don't exist in real life. There is only "safe" and "fire". Anything else means you are not prepared. You should never touch a firearm in that situation unless you are willing and able to fire it at another human, because when you escalate to that level, its deadly serious. If you aren't prepared to fire that weapon, you shouldn't be carrying it, because if the other guy has one too, he's probably not gonna have the same hesitation. Its not TV or a movie...its real life.

And that ratchet sound that you always hear on TV when anyone has a shotgun? Yea, thats the sound that a pump action shotgun makes when you rack a shell. A) Mr lv1fighter's firearm is NOT a pump action, its a semi-auto, which means that the inertia of the weapon ejects the spent cartridge and racks a new one, rather than under manual power like a pump. B) The "Dramatic Shotgun Pump" means either prior to the pump, your chamber was empty and you were not prepared to fire or you just ejected one of your 5 precious shots.

EDIT:
he he he, silly forum automatic censorship...

[KilltheToy]

I'd rather have the law on my side if anything like that happens. In my state it's legal to use lethal & deadly force if someone breaks into your house.

First off, I know how annoying it is to have someone break into your house and take your things. Bugger egged the inside of our house and took my $60among other things and broke my computer :smallmad:.

I assume the state you speak of the Texas. In that case, make the sign Keld suggested, mentioning that you WILL use the Castle Law to its full extent if you feel the need to.

[lvl 1 fighter]

Yeah, DGC are for the movies.

Nope. Tennessee - the patron state of shootin stuff (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822854/quotes). [profanity on page]

This isn't the first time someone's tried to break into my place. At my previous residence they actually got inside and stole my roommates cash. Busted down the kitchen door. We weren't home at the time.

[KilltheToy]

Yeah, DGC are for the movies.

Nope. Tennessee - the patron state of shootin stuff (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0822854/quotes). [profanity on page]

This isn't the first time someone's tried to break into my place. At my previous residence they actually got inside and stole my roommates cash. Busted down the kitchen door. We weren't home at the time.

Ah, never mind then. I only know of the Castle Law here. Still, feel free to tell them that you'll make full use of the law if you feel so inclined.

[Faceist]

Do you look robbable? Do you have a robbable face?

[Shadowbane]

Big sign is big


NO TRESPASSING
Forget the damn dog
Beware of owner
If you are found here at night
You WILL be found here in the morning


On a side note, what kinda shells are you packin in your A-5? I wouldn't pack anything bigger than a 00, and I certainly wouldn't use a solid slug. The wall piercing capabilities could be...unfortunate. Something like a 3" shot used for goose or similar would be idea.


...That's brilliant.

[Keld Denar]

Does TN have provisions for that like TX does? I know MI does. I'd never even think about breaking into a house in the Upper Penninsula. Those guys are armed to the teeth (you know, in case the Canadian's launch an amphibious assault across Lake Superior...) just as much as TX is.

I've actually been thinking about buying a sidearm. WA has pretty easy CCW laws, and I have a friend who knows a guy who makes REALLY nice handcrafted custom moulded leather back holsters. Plus, they are fun as all heck to shoot at the firing range.

I have a 20GA Pump and a .30-06 for hunting, but those aren't really good home protection weapons, especially the rifle, since I can't hit anything close range with any degree of accuracy because of the scope.

Keep out sign means keep out:
http://szucspetya.com/No_Trespassing_Sign-788555.jpg

Uncomfortable sign feels uncomfortable:
http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/MES1877.jpg

Canibal Homeowners Association of America
http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww332/aintnoyooper/blognosolicitors.jpg

On the plus side, they'll be so busy looking up the regulation that they won't see you load your weapon.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Defense_of_Habitation_citation.JPG

[Vmag]

These sound to be like some pretty dumb folks, if they're actually kicking down doors and making all that noise. Sure, a window makes just as much noise, but you hear the shattering of breaking glass and your mind tries to dismiss it a bit easier than the thump of someone actually trying to break your door.

Have you tried arming your door at night? Pulling some explosive charges? One good thump and -boom-, problem solved.

[lvl 1 fighter]

Do you look robbable? Do you have a robbable face?

Maybe. I dunno.
Yesterday at the park:
http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu210/thekingdomrpg/park002.jpg

Perhaps if I went around dressed like I used to this might not happen...http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu210/thekingdomrpg/iraq12.jpg

Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39-11-61 (http://www.tennessee.gov/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf)
Paragraph (c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

I don't think explosive charges are...um...legal. Nor would I employ such measures. You can't be sure who's going to be hurt by them.

[RS14]

Personally, I'd be wary of putting up most of the funny signs. They could be plausibly presented in court as evidence that you had a violent mentality, and used excessive force, e.g. by shooting survivors who were otherwise incapacitated. Personally I'd go with a simple "homeowner is armed" or "protected by 00 buck."

You say you live in an apartment? 00 will penetrate reasonably well, from what I understand, and you may want to consider what angles you'll likely be shooting from, lest you kill or injure neighbors.



I have a 20GA Pump and a .30-06 for hunting, but those aren't really good home protection weapons, especially the rifle, since I can't hit anything close range with any degree of accuracy because of the scope.

The 20 gauge is probably adequate if loaded with buckshot. The Box O' Truth did some tests with one that you might want to look at (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot22.htm).

[lvl 1 fighter]

Personally, I'd be wary of putting up most of the funny signs. They could be plausibly presented in court as evidence that you had a violent mentality, and used excessive force, e.g. by shooting survivors who were otherwise incapacitated. Personally I'd go with a simple "homeowner is armed" or "protected by 00 buck."

You say you live in an apartment? 00 will penetrate reasonably well, from what I understand, and you may want to consider what angles you'll likely be shooting from, lest you kill or injure neighbors.


Yeah, Wal-Mart might have a simple sign like that. Courts do take things like that seriously.

It's technically an apartment. In reality it's the top half of a small house. The nearest other house is a good 20ft away. 00 won't penetrate their stone walls from 20ft.

[Vmag]

I don't think explosive charges are...um...legal. Nor would I employ such measures. You can't be sure who's going to be hurt by them.

That's half the fun.
الانفجار يكون المفاجأة مناسبة لكل مناسبة
:smallamused:

[Keld Denar]

Honestly, you can use a smaller gauge shot and not loose any stopping power. #6 is plenty big enough to stop a man and have a lower chance of colateral damage. 00 is a big freakin load.

Something in a 2.75" or 3" would be ideal. Probably 2.75".

I'd also make sure you don't have an aggressive choke installed. You don't want a super tight pattern, and you aren't exactly shooting long range.

[Fawkes]

I would suggest investing in a home security system, or, if you don't have the cash available, putting up a Brinks sign. It's not the best option, but it may convince potential thieves to pass you over.

[Icewalker]

I think your best option is probably to find a way to make it clear to them that you do in fact have a shotgun with you next time they come around the house. If DGCs aren't actually reasonable/existent/wrong gun, then find something else, but if there's a way to concretely make a sound that says 'shotgun' that'd be best. If you just say so or put up a sign they might think you're bluffing.

[RS14]

So far, both attempts have occurred at night, when he's at home anyway. A monitored security system can be a useful supplement if you're away, but is expensive (~$400/yr) and inferior to a shotgun in its ability to actually stop a burglary.

[Keld Denar]

If DGCs aren't actually reasonable/existent/wrong gun, then find something else, but if there's a way to concretely make a sound that says 'shotgun' that'd be best. If you just say so or put up a sign they might think you're bluffing.

Maybe cut the top off the box of shells and tape it up in the window? Where did you you get a sign that says Federal Premium? Why, from the box of Federal Premium shells that are loaded in the shotgun pointed at the window with the sign that says Federal Premium.

Also:
http://www.decalsnsigns.com/DSCN2317.JPG
and
http://home.comcast.net/~massbackwards/notice2.JPG

[Lerky]

oh wow I know I shouldn't do this but...
it's 'cause your only a lvl 1 fighter:smalltongue:

and now for something actually helpful:



I didn't hear anything after that, though I stayed up for a while. I wish these bastards would just leave me alone. Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions about it being the same guys last night, or whoever it was having the purpose of robbing me, but....why do you come up my outside stairs at 2 in the morning and all you do is open and close the screendoor?
well a list of things could've happened. One of the guys could've gotten cold feet and begged the others to just turn back, they could've though they were breaking into someone else's house 'cause they needed something specific and realized they had the wrong address, maybe they looked around quietly but found nothing of extreme value (no jewelry or money out in the open), or they could just be some punk kids who have a grudge against you for some reason and just wanna scare you.

But usually 2 failed attempts will usually result in them not wanting to go back for 3rds since they know you must be prepared at this point.

[lvl 1 fighter]

oh wow I know I shouldn't do this but...
it's 'cause your only a lvl 1 fighter:smalltongue:

Ha! Nice.

I'm pretty sure the shotgun hasn't been modified any, so whatever the original choke was when it was made (late-1920's) is what I'm working with.

[xPANCAKEx]

next time you hear something, call the police straight away - and tell them there is an attempted break in IN PROGRESS - then when its done and dusted, get a police report. That way you can show in future (if needed) that all this has happened before, and is documented. It will help you defence if needed in court.

i don't know enough about TN law to say whether posting a sign like that would help or hinder

What i can say is letting them know you're armed can make you a target. People rob houses for guns, and also if they think you're that worried about being robbed, they will think you've got something worth taking and going to the effort of breaking in for

do you have a local neighbourhood watch at all?

[Xsesiv]

As above. If you go creeping towards them armed, or making them aware you are, they may also be, and the robbery could very well turn into a murder. Get all your security updated and try to make yourself less of a target, and in the meantime ensure the police know what is going on.

[Pyrian]

Is it possible that one or both incidents were drunk people "returning" to the wrong home? Happens a lot in one place I used to live.

[lvl 1 fighter]

do you have a local neighbourhood watch at all?

Ha. I suspect it's people from my neighborhood.

[EleventhHour]

Big sign is big


NO TRESPASSING
Forget the damn dog
Beware of owner
If you are found here at night
You WILL be found here in the morning





Tresspassers will be shot.
Survivors will be shot, again.

:smalltongue:

[Trog]

why do you come up my outside stairs at 2 in the morning and all you do is open and close the screendoor?
The majority of thefts happen because the owner did not secure his belongings. Not that it is their fault for being robbed but people looking to break into some place will go for the easiest target that still looks promising. In this case it is the place that forgets to lock the door the night they check it. I had a camera stolen that way.

I've had the same late night door trying scenario happen to me but then they knocked shortly afterward. It turned out to be the police. A bunch of them. They searched the house (I let them come in as I had nothing to hide). I think they were after the previous occupant because they were looking for someone I had never heard of before. It was surprising but they didn't have guns out or anything. Still, a bit freaky at 3 a.m. :smalleek:

[Coidzor]

Your area badly needs a neighborhood watch...

And less stupid-overt criminals.

And worse comes to worst, now would be the time to be planning for moving out of a crap for crap hole.

What kind of area is this anyway?

[Keld Denar]

Tresspassers will be shot.
Survivors will be shot, again.
Pssst. Check the spoiler in my edited post. Its there.

And to check the choke on your shotgun, either pull up the OM specs, call Browning, or simply take the gun apart. Guns should be taken apart semi-regularly anyway, ESPECIALLY older weapons. Thoroughly lubricate any metal parts with 3-in-one oil and put back together. Make sure you wash your hands thoroughly with soap before taking it apart though, since the oil from your hands can cause delicate parts to rust. After clearing the breach (ALWAYS CLEAR THE BREACH!!!!!!! WHEN IN DOUBT, CLEAR IT AGAIN!!!!!!), you can feel around the muzzle of the weapon. Usually you'll find some kind of ridge or lip around. If you only find smooth bore, you don't have a choke installed. If you feel something, look online for information on how to remove the choke. Don't just monkey with it with a pair of channel locks, you could damage the barrel.

Its pretty simple. Guns are actually really simple. They really only have 3ish moving parts. The trigger, the bolt/firingpin/chamber mechanism, and if a pump/semi, the cartridge ejection system. Everything else is solid metal and/or springs. Once you are done putting it back together, lubricate any metal parts with more 3-in-one oil and you may want to apply something like a furniture polish to any wood surfaces such as the stock.

[Faulty]

Faulty - I don't see the point in having a gun in the house for self-defense/protection if it's not already locked and loaded. Course, I live alone (no small children or otherwise) so I don't have to worry about someone playing with it.

I'm just sayin'... I'd use it for intimidation to get the guy/girl to freeze. Just don't kill anyone.

[lvl 1 fighter]

Pssst. Check the spoiler in my edited post. Its there.

And to check the choke on your shotgun, either pull up the OM specs, call Browning, or simply take the gun apart. Guns should be taken apart semi-regularly anyway, ESPECIALLY older weapons. Thoroughly lubricate any metal parts with 3-in-one oil and put back together. Make sure you wash your hands thoroughly with soap before taking it apart though, since the oil from your hands can cause delicate parts to rust. After clearing the breach (ALWAYS CLEAR THE BREACH!!!!!!! WHEN IN DOUBT, CLEAR IT AGAIN!!!!!!), you can feel around the muzzle of the weapon. Usually you'll find some kind of ridge or lip around. If you only find smooth bore, you don't have a choke installed. If you feel something, look online for information on how to remove the choke. Don't just monkey with it with a pair of channel locks, you could damage the barrel.

Its pretty simple. Guns are actually really simple. They really only have 3ish moving parts. The trigger, the bolt/firingpin/chamber mechanism, and if a pump/semi, the cartridge ejection system. Everything else is solid metal and/or springs. Once you are done putting it back together, lubricate any metal parts with more 3-in-one oil and you may want to apply something like a furniture polish to any wood surfaces such as the stock.

I know the basics of weapons maintenance. I was cross-trained as my companys armorer for a year. I never worked with shotguns though.

I can't afford to break my lease, but it's up in a few months and I am definitely moving. It's just a low-rent low-expectations neighboorhood. There are a few rows of government houses a couple streets down. ::shrugs::

[THAC0]

I'm just sayin'... I'd use it for intimidation to get the guy/girl to freeze. Just don't kill anyone.

Well, if they actually do freeze, that's well and good. But what if they don't freeze?

[RS14]

Well, if they actually do freeze, that's well and good. But what if they don't freeze?

Indeed. From the annals of stupid last words, "F*** you and your high powered rifle!"

[Faulty]

Well, if they actually do freeze, that's well and good. But what if they don't freeze?

Unless they try to kill you (pull a gun, charge you, whatever), I'd still at the most shoot them in the legs.

[RS14]

Yeah, a lot of people, my family included, have objections to killing in self defense. I don't personally understand it, but I'm not going to try to argue that you're wrong for doing so.

Edit: Just understand the potential ramifications for your safety. A shot to the leg will never be as easy or as effective as one to the center of mass, unless perhaps the assailant is wearing a ballistic vest.

[Alteran]

Unless they try to kill you (pull a gun, charge you, whatever), I'd still at the most shoot them in the legs.

There are a few issues with that. The first one is that it's not nearly as easy to hit someone in the leg, especially if they're moving. I seem to remember that a government official somewhere in the US was going to try to get a bill passed that would require police officers to shoot for the extremities (arms, legs, etc.). There was an outcry from law enforcement everywhere, because it's often hard enough to hit someone centre-mass. Not taking the easier shot is unnecessarily endangering yourself.

Second of all, it might not be enough to disable them. If you manage to hit someone in the leg while they charge you, then they might fall over. However, if they're standing still and drawing a gun, I can't imagine that's enough to stop them from shooting you back.

So while it's reasonable enough to not want to kill anybody (even in self-defense), it's not always going to be practical. Guns are meant to kill people, injuring somebody with a gun will be more difficult and usually less effective.

[THAC0]

Toften hard enough to hit someone centre-mass. Not taking the easier shot is unnecessarily endangering yourself.

And others. Cause if you miss, that bullet is not just going to stop and drop to the floor.

If you aren't comfortable with killing someone in self defense, don't carry a gun. Bottom line.

[Faulty]

I'm OK with killing in self-defense. I'm talking about if the guy runs.

[Alteran]

I'm OK with killing in self-defense. I'm talking about if the guy runs.

I don't know what situation you're in legally if the guy runs. If he's no longer in your house, then you probably don't have the right to follow and hurt him. Even if he's still inside, a jury probably won't look as favourably at you if you shoot someone in the back.

[RS14]

If he runs and you shoot him, it is a crime.

[THAC0]

If he runs and you shoot him, it is a crime.

With the possible exception of Texas. ;)

[RS14]

Only if he is running away with your property. And then probably still only in Texas.

Edit: Just do what @V says; even if it's legal to shoot somebody in the back in the above-mentioned case, you probably don't have any piece of movable property worth more than a serious murder trial will cost. Even if you win.

[Renegade Paladin]

I'm OK with killing in self-defense. I'm talking about if the guy runs.
See, I was about to take exception to the idea of not shooting if necessary, but then you posted this, so I'll take exception to your qualifier instead.

If the intruder attacks and you use a gun in self-defense, you'd best be willing to use the gun.

If the intruder, upon being presented with the muzzle of a gun, turns and runs, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SHOOT HIM OR AT HIM, IN THE LEG OR OTHERWISE. It stops being self-defense the very second you're no longer defending yourself against attack; if the guy is running away then he is obviously not attacking.

[THAC0]

Only if he is running away with your property. And then probably still only in Texas.

Or your neighbor's property! :smalleek:

..aren't laws fun?

[Hannes]

It's hard to hit legs, inside a building, with a shotgun?

(If it is, I am terribly sorry, I have never seen or touched a real gun in my life.)

[RS14]

Shot doesn't spread as much as you may have been lead to believe. This is particularly pronounced at short ranges, such as inside your home. The only advantages of shotguns for home defense are stopping power and a relatively low tendency to overpenetrate through exterior walls.

It's a common misconception; nothing to be sorry about.

[Faulty]

Oh, alright, thanks for the elucidation. I meant in a "still in your house" situation.

[DOOM2099]

Let me give you some actual, usable advice.

First, get yourself a camera with a flash. Rig the camera with a remote, wait for the bad guys, whatever, but make sure you can pop a flash bulb in their face and that they can CLEARLY see that they have been photographed/filmed (even if you didn't get a photo, although you really should). If they are as dumb as they sound, they will want the evidence back, even though it is actually almost useless in court.

Once they decide they need those pictures at all costs, they will be more determined to get in. Once they get in, you meet them with your shotgun, featuring the shortest barrel legally allowed in your state, no choke whatsoever and an ample supply of rock salt rounds.

If you can get photos, post them all over your area with a note that clearly states their crime. If the whole neighborhood knows they are thieves, they will very likely ''get what they deserve'' in short order.

If you manage to shoot a few of them, point blank, with rock salt... Well, that is you doing your civic duty, not for yourself, but for those who are unable to defend themselves at all. How many people have these punks robbed, raped or possibly even murdered?

Long story short, it is not enough to feel ''safe.'' You need to end the little bastards, any way you can and rock salt won't kill them. Probably. And you will actually help others in the same situation. Win/win for everyone, even the punks who DON'T get killed.

FYI: The choke and the length of the barrel control the spread. The reason bad guys saw the barrel off is for a wider spread, so they can blow people to bits. The reason the good guys do it is so they don't miss with their rock salt :)

[Renegade Paladin]

Rock salt loads? Please. (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm)

[Coidzor]

Those box of truth guys are not rigorous enough for my standards.

They didn't even test to see if the slug breaking was a fluke or not. Or even do multiple firings. I mean, what the hell?

[Faulty]

Let me give you some actual, usable advice.

First, get yourself a camera with a flash. Rig the camera with a remote, wait for the bad guys, whatever, but make sure you can pop a flash bulb in their face and that they can CLEARLY see that they have been photographed/filmed (even if you didn't get a photo, although you really should). If they are as dumb as they sound, they will want the evidence back, even though it is actually almost useless in court.

Once they decide they need those pictures at all costs, they will be more determined to get in. Once they get in, you meet them with your shotgun, featuring the shortest barrel legally allowed in your state, no choke whatsoever and an ample supply of rock salt rounds.

If you can get photos, post them all over your area with a note that clearly states their crime. If the whole neighborhood knows they are thieves, they will very likely ''get what they deserve'' in short order.

If you manage to shoot a few of them, point blank, with rock salt... Well, that is you doing your civic duty, not for yourself, but for those who are unable to defend themselves at all. How many people have these punks robbed, raped or possibly even murdered?

Long story short, it is not enough to feel ''safe.'' You need to end the little bastards, any way you can and rock salt won't kill them. Probably. And you will actually help others in the same situation. Win/win for everyone, even the punks who DON'T get killed.

FYI: The choke and the length of the barrel control the spread. The reason bad guys saw the barrel off is for a wider spread, so they can blow people to bits. The reason the good guys do it is so they don't miss with their rock salt :)

Just because they tried to break into a guys house doesn't immediately mean they're rapists or murderers or deserve to die. That's a tad extreme. :smallconfused:

[Hannes]

Those box of truth guys are not rigorous enough for my standards.

They didn't even test to see if the slug breaking was a fluke or not. Or even do multiple firings. I mean, what the hell?

Or do human testing... That works also, you know. Especially if it's as ineffective as they say it is.

[Faulty]

They do use news resporters to test tazers...

[Renegade Paladin]

Those box of truth guys are not rigorous enough for my standards.

They didn't even test to see if the slug breaking was a fluke or not. Or even do multiple firings. I mean, what the hell?
What slug breaking? Considering that they were testing rock salt, there was no slug involved.

No, the methods are not very rigorous, but if rock salt can't penetrate cardboard, it's not going to do much to a man.

[Hannes]

No, the methods are not very rigorous, but if rock salt can't penetrate cardboard, it's not going to do much to a man.

Are you going to stand by that statement? *whips out shotgun, loads rock salt*
:smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Faulty: Um, what is this about reporters and police brutality?


Just because they tried to break into a guys house doesn't immediately mean they're rapists or murderers or deserve to die. That's a tad extreme. :smallconfused:

On the other hand, home invasion is pretty damn traumatic and can easily lead to bad times, especially since, if one is invading a house while the occupants are there or even have a chance of being there, one has to be prepared for such an eventuality.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that anyone who will break into one's home while one is there has the means and the will to do harm. Unless it's a bad comedy movie in which case it's just them being stupid and doing property damage. But the capacity for violence is still there.

And that is a question. What sort of shock/pain/disorientation is experienced from a less than lethal hit from rock salt?

And I would've sworn by now that there were rock salt rounds available to some extent for them to obtain to compare their jury-rigged shells with.


What slug breaking? Considering that they were testing rock salt, there was no slug involved.

No, the methods are not very rigorous, but if rock salt can't penetrate cardboard, it's not going to do much to a man.

There was an earlier posted link to a comparison between 20 gauge and 12 gauge shotguns for blowing holes in people.

Also, just because it doesn't cause lacerations doesn't mean it won't knock someone on their ass. Then again, maybe it does. I'm no firearms expert after all. Though, it did concede that 12 feet would probably cause a burn which is within the range they estimated for within a home and near it.

Because the only rubric of a shotgun's capability is actually tearing people apart so they die messily. Because blunt force trauma is nothing. :smallconfused:

I mean, if you're getting into a gunfight, then yeah, rock salt rounds are a serious limitation, but for purposes of trigger happy intimidation ratchetting things down to wounding and stunning upon a misfire (except for at very close ranges, of course) from quite likely killing could be preferable in some cases.

[Hannes]

^: Um, what?


Well, if he's so confident they won't work, well, then he can be brave enough to let people test it on himself, you know.

[Coidzor]

Hannes: was actually replying to faulty's reporters quip, sorry.


The 20 gauge is probably adequate if loaded with buckshot. The Box O' Truth did some tests with one that you might want to look at (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot22.htm).

Here's that link I was talking about comparing 20 gauge with 12.

[Keld Denar]

2 things. Doom2099, please, for the love of everything, go read. This isn't an attack, but I can't find a single thing in your post that I agree with, or is truthful.

2nd thing, Renegade Paladin

Under Castle Law, and similar property protection laws, as written, you, as a home owner being invaded, have just about every right in this country to fire upon ANYONE who doesn't properly identify themselves as on official person* REGARDLESS of what direction they are facing. Think about it. If you get caught by surprise by an armed homeowner and need a second to bring your weapon up to bear, you are gonna scramble like mad to get out of the sight of that weapon. Front, back, side, whatever, you will probably twist, turn, or leap in any direction to get to cover so you can return fire. If I was that homeowner and an unidentified invader so much as flinched, I'd fire, probably at least twice if not more, until the invader stopped moving. He lost his right to not get shot at when he entered my home and endangered my family. I'm not gonna risk MY life and the lives of MY family on the chance that I can identify whether the movement is fight or flight before he can bring a weapon to bear on me. I'm a good shot, and I have relatively quick reflexes, but those aren't dice I'd be willing to roll on ANY day.

If the roles were reversed and I were invading someones home and they leveled a shotgun on me, I'd do my darnedest not to make any sudden movements. I'd accept that I'm caught and that any sudden movements will likely make him show me what my insides look like on the outside. Unfortunately, if someone's breakin into my home, I couldn't be garunteed that they would have the same common sense that I do. Therefore, I'm gonna assume that any sudden movements are hostile, regardless of intent. You'd have a really hard time finding a judge that would even HEAR a case of excessive force against a home invader unless the home owner did something completely out of line like locking the invader in his basement for a weeks while beating him. Your chances of going to prison for emptying your magazine against a home invader are near zero.

*Police and other officials are required to identify themselves as such clearly and often when lawfully entering private property for their OWN protection. No identification, no protection.

** Keld is not a lawyer. If you have any questions about anything I've said, don't take my word for it, GO LOOK IT UP! or contact a BAR certified lawyer.

[Faulty]

Haven't you ever seen reports on tazers where the reporter offers to get tazed?

[RS14]

There is a difference between firing upon an invader who happens to have their back to you, but is otherwise hostile, and an invader who has expressed a desire to retreat or surrender.

Castle Laws, as I understand them, generally require that the occupant has a reasonable belief that the intruder intends to inflict harm or commit some other felony. While that is reasonable for an arbitrary intruder, it is probably not true for someone who turns and runs, unless they are firing wildly behind them.

[Faulty]

That makes sense.

[Pyrian]

Castle Laws, as such, vary dramatically from country to country and are even different from state to state inside the U.S.. Generally speaking, Keld is correct within the bounds of most of the states (and in Texas a neighbor famously shot to death an unarmed burglar running away from someone else's house and IIRC wasn't even charged), but in the U.K. for example, it's an entirely different story.

[Coidzor]

Well, aren't you not allowed to own fire arms in the UK to begin with? :smallconfused: I thought they were famous for being one of the first developed nations to do that.

[Keld Denar]

At the point IF it even comes to court, its pretty much a case of your word against theirs, plus or minus some forensic evidence such as bullet patterns, blood patterns, timing of events, etc. Who's gonna have a more likely chance to be believed, the invader? Or the defender?

I mean, unless their is evidence that you ran up on them after dropping them and finished the intruder executioner style to the back of the head, I'd have a hard time believing that a judge in the US would have a problem with an empty magazine.

I've even heard stories* of people in high tension situations such as home invasions, where the defender has been known to empty entire 20 shot magazines before they even realize they've pulled the trigger. When adrenaline takes over, mentally you're just along for the ride.

*Haven't personally verified accuracy, coworked mentioned having read a psych study to this degree.

[RS14]

Castle Laws, as such, vary dramatically from country to country and are even different from state to state inside the U.S.. Generally speaking, Keld is correct within the bounds of most of the states (and in Texas a neighbor famously shot to death an unarmed burglar running away from someone else's house and IIRC wasn't even charged), but in the U.K. for example, it's an entirely different story.

Do you mean Joe Horn? Because he shot unarmed burglars leaving the house with stolen property; Texas law expressly permits the use of force to protect property. Had they been retreating following a confrontation, and not taking property with them, his actions probably would have been criminal.


Well, aren't you not allowed to own fire arms in the UK to begin with? :smallconfused: I thought they were famous for being one of the first developed nations to do that.

I'm pretty sure you can own shotguns in the UK.

[Coidzor]

non-hardened people do seem to at least coloquially possess this tendency to unload very easily.

[Pyrian]

Well, aren't you not allowed to own fire arms in the UK to begin with? :smallconfused:Yeah. Even the bobbies go around without firearms (unless specifically called for). But it's not just guns; in the U.K. simply hitting someone who's broken into your house could get you charged with assault if you can't prove that it was a proportionate response to a violent threat.

EDIT: Basically, I'm just trying to make the point that virtually any statement to the effect of "the law is X" is almost certainly relative to your location on these particular issues.

[Renegade Paladin]

Well, if he's so confident they won't work, well, then he can be brave enough to let people test it on himself, you know.
I'm a firm believer in animal testing prior to human trials. :smalltongue:

More seriously, I'm quite sure it would hurt, and God help him if it hits his eyes, but stinging skin and stopped are two entirely different things. If someone is going to attack me, you'd best be damned sure I want something that's going to stop him from doing so, not something that's just going to piss him off. Salt is crystalline and therefore by definition less dense than a normal solid of the same volume, and the material is light to begin with. Knowledge of basic conservation of momentum should tell you what that will do with a few moments' thought.

[Keld Denar]

simply hitting someone who's broken into your house could get you charged with assault if you can't prove that it was a proportionate response to a violent threat.

But how accurately can ANYONE judge the "threat of violence" at the moment that someone is breaking into your home? Someone bigger than me breaks into my home and I grab a kitchen knife. I'm not allowed to use that kitchen knife to protect myself against a bigger man because hes not equally armed? No thanks. If he wants trouble, I'm gonna stab first and ask questions later. How do I know he doesn't have a boot knife? Or maybe brass knuckles under a long coat sleeve? Or carries a blackbelt in 6 different martial arts? I just can't see that being prosecutable. Maybe thats just the American in me, but it just seems too ludacris to be believeable...

I'm reminded of the case in Shreveport, LA about 8ish years ago where 2 police officers gunned down a man outside of a 7-11. Video from the cruiser's camera showed the man pull something silver and reflective from his pocket WHILE THE OFFICERS HAD WEAPONS TRAINED ON HIM. The officers preceived a weapon and shot the man 5-6 times between the 2 of them. He was likely dead before he hit the ground. The item he pulled out was a cell phone, and the man was otherwise unarmed. The officers were put on trial and it was a glorious media sensation, but IIRC, they were both aquitted. If I ever met those officers, I'd buy them both a beer (off duty) because I'd have reacted the same way. I'm not gonna wait until his "intent" is pointed at me to open fire. Any action I can't immediately identify as non-hostile is automatically considered hostile.

EDIT:

Salt is crystalline and therefore by definition less dense than a normal solid of the same volume
Fun fact: Steel is ALSO crystaline. Those with more disorderly grain structures tend to be more ridged, yet brittle (Pearlite), while those with more orderly crystaline structures tend to have a higher Young's Modulus and resistance to deformation (Austenite).
And now you know, and KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE! GI JOE!

[Renegade Paladin]

Yes, I know, but I'm trying not to complicate things. :smalltongue: Salt forms a much larger crystalline structure than steel does, to the point where the crystals are visible to the naked eye. It's hard to argue that salt is not much less dense than steel because, well, it is.

[THAC0]

And this is why knowing the laws in your state/country inside and out is a very good idea.

Not just when it comes to firearms. I believe some states even take issue with pepper spray. I know some countries do.

And this is why I like living in Alaska.

[Berserk Monk]

They think it's okay because it's easy money.

[Pyrian]

Look, discussion of what laws are is one thing, passionate argument of what they should be is politics and not allowed on this forum.

[Fawkes]

it just seems too ludacris to be believeable...

http://www.vibe.com/images/celebs/ludacris.jpg
BELIEVE IT!

[Phaedra]

Thats retarded. No offence to anyone, but how accurately can you judge the "threat of violence" at the moment that someone is breaking into your home? Someone bigger than me breaks into my home and I grab a kitchen knife. I'm not allowed to use that kitchen knife to protect myself against a bigger man because hes not equally armed? No thanks. If he wants trouble, I'm gonna stab first and ask questions later. How do I know he doesn't have a boot knife? Or maybe brass knuckles under a long coat sleeve? Or carries a blackbelt in 6 different martial arts? I just can't see that being prosecutable. Maybe thats just the American in me, but it just seems too ludacris to be believeable...



The law takes these things into account when deciding whether your response was reasonable - it's based on what you believed could happen (disregarding any mental issues of the defendant which might make them perceive a threat to be greater than it is). We don't expect people to make intricate probability calcuations when faced with a burglar.

There's a fair amount of leniency involved, from what I remember of my criminal law (which I'll be the first to admit is a bit vague, it's been three years since I took it). It's mostly to avoid the kind of shooting unarmed people situations described here.

[Renegade Paladin]

Look, discussion of what laws are is one thing, passionate argument of what they should be is politics and not allowed on this forum.
By the broad definition you are using, threatening enforcement of the rules is politics as well, because it is an attempt to influence another's behavior. Just sayin'.

[RS14]

By the broad definition you are using, threatening enforcement of the rules is politics as well, because it is an attempt to influence another's behavior. Just sayin'.

Wait, what?

[Mystic Muse]

By the broad definition you are using, threatening enforcement of the rules is politics as well, because it is an attempt to influence another's behavior. Just sayin'.

let's not get into this discussion again.

like other have said. make sure you know your state's laws. you don't want to go to court if you don't have to over a misconception and because you didn't know your state's laws.

[Renegade Paladin]

Wait, what?
Consulting Mr. Webster's reliable book, one finds the following:
Main Entry: pol·i·tics
[Snip pronunciation guide and other definitions which pertain to governance.]
5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience
If he's defining discussion of opinion as politics, this must be the definition he's using because the others don't apply, which includes, ironically, his own opinion about politics. :smalltongue:

[Keld Denar]

What hes saying is that vigilante moderation is discouraged. Proper form according to this forum's rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) is:



Vigilante Modding
If you’re not a Moderator, don’t act like one. Rich has selected a few people he trusts to keep an eye on conversations here. Please refrain from chastising other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things. The proper response when you see someone breaking these rules is to report the post as discussed above or to a PM to the local Moderator. At most, you may courteously link to this thread. But whatever you do, do not tell other posters what to do, what rules they have broken, that they are "spamming", etc. Posters who do so excessively will be issued an Infraction for their actions.


That said, I don't believe what Pyran stated is modding of any sort other than a friendly suggestion that we don't slide any further in that direction. I apologize for anything that I may have caused trending in that direction.

<3 you guys!

[Pyrian]

:smallconfused: Renegade Paladin, I completely fail to see how you construed laws to be unrelated to governance. I would posit, instead, that laws (and their relative merits!) are the very meat thereof. Anyway, I merely meant to explain why I was not going to follow that particular avenue of discussion, regardless of my own opinion on the merit of the laws involved.

[Faulty]

Does posting the rules count as vigilante modding?

[Keld Denar]

Read them. It says you are allowed to link them, which I did. "At most, you may courteously link to this thread."

Anyway, I'm done here. See y'all in another thread! <3

[KilltheToy]

http://www.vibe.com/images/celebs/ludacris.jpg
BELIEVE IT!

Kudos, sir.

I think you may deserve an internet for that.

[Anuan]

Let me give you some actual, usable advice.

First, get yourself a camera with a flash. Rig the camera with a remote, wait for the bad guys, whatever, but make sure you can pop a flash bulb in their face and that they can CLEARLY see that they have been photographed/filmed (even if you didn't get a photo, although you really should). If they are as dumb as they sound, they will want the evidence back, even though it is actually almost useless in court.

Once they decide they need those pictures at all costs, they will be more determined to get in. Once they get in, you meet them with your shotgun, featuring the shortest barrel legally allowed in your state, no choke whatsoever and an ample supply of rock salt rounds.

If you can get photos, post them all over your area with a note that clearly states their crime. If the whole neighborhood knows they are thieves, they will very likely ''get what they deserve'' in short order.


Up to this point, that's fricking terrific and I support it wholoeheartedly. I can't really support blowing through'em with a shotgun (maybe a 9 mil. in the kneecaps...) but this? This is gold.

[Zeful]

Unless they try to kill you (pull a gun, charge you, whatever), I'd still at the most shoot them in the legs.

Which in some states, can land you in far more trouble than killing them. Killing an stranger in your own house after he broke in is Justifiable Homocide (aka manslaughter). Crippling the same home invader is Assault with a Deadly Weapon and could mean you paying his medical bills for the 20+ because of the "great physical distress" you put him through.

[Mystic Muse]

Which in some states, can land you in far more trouble than killing them. Killing an stranger in your own house after he broke in is Justifiable Homocide (aka manslaughter). Crippling the same home invader is Assault with a Deadly Weapon and could mean you paying his medical bills for the 20+ because of the "great physical distress" you put him through.

he's right about this.

[Fawkes]

Up to this point, that's fricking terrific and I support it wholoeheartedly. I can't really support blowing through'em with a shotgun (maybe a 9 mil. in the kneecaps...) but this? This is gold.

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage them to enter your house. That plan will get you killed faster than you can say "cheese".

[Mystic Muse]

I don't think it's a good idea to encourage them to enter your house. That plan will get you killed faster than you can say "cheese".

cheese...................

nope not dead yet.:smallbiggrin:

[Mr.Moron]

I think If I heard someone breaking into my home I'd just exit the nearest window, get away from the building and call the police from an outside phone. My stuff isn't worth putting a life om danger not mine or theirs.

[Keld Denar]

Eh, most of those charges get dropped when they actually go to trial, but that isn't very well reflected by the media.

When I lived in West Virginia, a girl in a school outside of Charleston cut class, went to a place she wasn't supposed to go, forcefully removed a paddle lock from a door CLEARLY marked as dangerous, and was playing around in the attic of the school when she fell through the drop ceiling about 12 feet before hitting her head and suffering some pretty substantial brain injuries.

Her parents sued the school for medical expenses she would be expected to accumulate over the course of her vegatative life.

Guess what? They were thrown out. The school was not shown to be negligent, the danger was well marked and the area was locked off. The fact that she had to break the paddle lock is evidence that she wasn't supposed to be there.

So yea...GL winning that case. GL even getting to trial. I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, but a goodly number of those sensational cases that are soooooo outlandish that you think "wtf?", die a quiet death that the media almost never covers.

[Yrcrazypa]

Up to this point, that's fricking terrific and I support it wholoeheartedly. I can't really support blowing through'em with a shotgun (maybe a 9 mil. in the kneecaps...) but this? This is gold.

One rule about firearms is this. NEVER shoot to wound, only shoot to kill. Wounding someone will just cause far more trouble than killing them will. Pretty much everything else has been covered. Though I will repeat that if you own a firearm, be prepared to use it to kill someone, if someone calls your bluff when you don't intend to kill, he will likely kill you.

[SDF]

With a gun in a home invasion situation you are going to get one shot off before the assailant reaches you. In a high stress, high adrenaline scenario you probably won't have the presence of mind to aim low at a leg. A shotguns spread is minimal at close range (despite how inaccurately just about every video game ever portrays it as) so you might miss the legs if you do go for that. Also, buckshot might not even stop a man if you shoot him in the legs when his adrenaline is high, too. If he reaches you after that you are in a fight to the death, no doubt. You don't screw around with guns like that, period, end of story. You aim center of mass, and you aim to kill. It isn't supposed to be a deterrent, it is supposed to kill. So your best bet is to avoid the entire situation entirely. Do whatever you can to deter the criminal and make your house safe. A gun, if employed at all, should be the extreme last resort. If it, for whatever unlikely reason, comes down to that you give him a verbal warning and if he does anything but book it out your front door then you use the gun. But, from the sound of it you don't really need to be considering this much at this point.

[Zeful]

Eh, most of those charges get dropped when they actually go to trial, but that isn't very well reflected by the media.

When I lived in West Virginia, a girl in a school outside of Charleston cut class, went to a place she wasn't supposed to go, forcefully removed a paddle lock from a door CLEARLY marked as dangerous, and was playing around in the attic of the school when she fell through the drop ceiling about 12 feet before hitting her head and suffering some pretty substantial brain injuries.

Her parents sued the school for medical expenses she would be expected to accumulate over the course of her vegatative life.

Guess what? They were thrown out. The school was not shown to be negligent, the danger was well marked and the area was locked off. The fact that she had to break the paddle lock is evidence that she wasn't supposed to be there.

So yea...GL winning that case. GL even getting to trial. I'm not saying it has NEVER happened, but a goodly number of those sensational cases that are soooooo outlandish that you think "wtf?", die a quiet death that the media almost never covers.

Winning cases like this happen about as often as they don't. I remember hearing about a criminal trying to get into a house, he fell through the kitchen skylight on to a butcher knife. He sued the homeowner for damages caused by his fall and the knife and won.
So if your going to shoot a home invader, make sure they die after the first shot (as a second shot could be labeled as murder if the person in question was no longer a credible threat).

[Trixie]

Am I the only one who finds these warning signs (on the first page) somewhat... disgusting? :smallconfused:

I mean, people who made them joke about killing, seem to have "me"-point-of-view, and (if it is not the case of armchair Rambos) seem to have no qualms about killing other humans.

Yeah, that was meant as a "joke", but I doubt I'd feel comfortable around such men, even if the topic never came up in discussions. :smallsigh:

[Mystic Muse]

if somebody intends to kill you you should have no qualms about doing the same to them. one of you is going to die either way so it might as well be them since it can end right there or they can keep on killing people.

[SDF]

It becomes a problem because not everyone willing to burgle is willing to murder.

[Mystic Muse]

that's true. I'm not saying shoot anybody that enters your house even illegally but if it's clear they have the intention to harm you or your family it's better to shoot them first.

[Kallisti]

I make no pretense of being an expert on this, but I think your best bet is to post a sign warning them you will use lethal force, then if they come back anyway, aim the gun at them and tell them they'd better get down on the floor, face down, with their hands on the back of their head, and not do anything stupid. If they cooperate, disarm them if they have a weapon then call the police. If not, shoot them. Don't own a gun if you won't use it, or you'll just end up in worse danger. I, personally, would not own a gun because I would not be willing to shoot someone, but if you threaten them with lethal force, you better not be bluffing.

[Erloas]

It becomes a problem because not everyone willing to burgle is willing to murder.

Not to get too political about it, but my belief is that if someone is willing to rob others then it is in everyones best interest if they just died. They are not a productive member of society and likely never will be. They might not be willing to murder, but its not like you are removing a great potential from the world.


I've always heard shoot to kill. A lot of the law suits that come up after someone breaks into someplace is always the burglar's word vs the owner's. Its easy enough to claim excessive force if the home owner was more prepared the the burglar expected, however a dead burglar can make no claims at all.

[Trixie]

Self-defense? Sure, I'd probably shoot myself. Major economic damage/large theft done to someone who can't easily cope with it? Well, disputable, but still reasonable.

But these "joking" people seem to be able to kill another human not just over trivial thing (like, say, 10$) - they try to produce aura of killing without any good reason at all, which I personally find disgusting. Frankly, to me a normal burglar (that is, one doing it solely for personal gain) is probably a better human being than someone willing to kill over trivial or no reason at all, as these guys.

Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?

[Supagoof]

If you are going to use it. USE it. If not - then you will be better off to take other preventative steps.

A motion light does well to detract would be thieves.

As do alarms - even those cheap little window alarms that are available in packs at wall-mart will do the trick nicely. Door gets kicked open - alarm sensor is moved away from magnet, small loud beep goes off. Thieves are interested in getting in and out without being caught - making it more difficult for them to do that will mean less hassle from them in the future.

Obviously right now the only thing they are waiting for is for you to not be home and mistakenly leave your door unlocked. Putting up other means of deterrent which don't involve any action on your part (such as waiting up late into the night) will make them consider twice before trying again.

Perhaps a sign warning them gunplay is involved.

Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

And if they keep at it - well keep the shotgun close and loaded. Hopefully you won't have to use it, but if you do. USE it. Your life or theirs - and we like having you here on the forums. :smallamused:

[RS14]

Self-defense? Sure, I'd probably shoot myself. Major economic damage/large theft done to someone who can't easily cope with it? Well, disputable, but still reasonable.

But these "joking" people seem to be able to kill another human not just over trivial thing (like, say, 10$) - they try to produce aura of killing without any good reason at all, which I personally find disgusting. Frankly, to me a normal burglar (that is, one doing it solely for personal gain) is probably a better human being than someone willing to kill over trivial or no reason at all, as these guys.

Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?

No, you're not the only one. I generally find it distasteful when people are too eager for a violent solution. Explain what is wrong with their bad suggestions and keep a level head yourself and people generally respond well.

[lvl 1 fighter]

No, you're not the only one. I generally find it distasteful when people are too eager for a violent solution. Explain what is wrong with their bad suggestions and keep a level head yourself and people generally respond well.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Violence is a tool to be used, if necessary, not something to rush towards.

Given that, I feel that if someone is breaking into my house then it's probable that violence will be necessary. Probably stay away from the signs though. I'd rather just be left alone then draw attention.

[Mystic Muse]

Self-defense? Sure, I'd probably shoot myself. Major economic damage/large theft done to someone who can't easily cope with it? Well, disputable, but still reasonable.

But these "joking" people seem to be able to kill another human not just over trivial thing (like, say, 10$) - they try to produce aura of killing without any good reason at all, which I personally find disgusting. Frankly, to me a normal burglar (that is, one doing it solely for personal gain) is probably a better human being than someone willing to kill over trivial or no reason at all, as these guys.

Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?


oh okay. then I agree with you. taking a life should never be necessary and even though
sometimes it is it should never be taken lightly.

[Trixie]

If you are going to use it. USE it. If not - then you will be better off to take other preventative steps.

A motion light does well to detract would be thieves.

As do alarms - even those cheap little window alarms that are available in packs at wall-mart will do the trick nicely. Door gets kicked open - alarm sensor is moved away from magnet, small loud beep goes off. Thieves are interested in getting in and out without being caught - making it more difficult for them to do that will mean less hassle from them in the future.

Obviously right now the only thing they are waiting for is for you to not be home and mistakenly leave your door unlocked. Putting up other means of deterrent which don't involve any action on your part (such as waiting up late into the night) will make them consider twice before trying again.

Perhaps a sign warning them gunplay is involved.

Until the last sentence, I agree fully.


Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

Sorry, Supagoof, but while this sounds funny now, I sort of doubt it will look like this in the court. The Judge will probably not laugh. Police can easily tell if the second (or later) shot hit someone still capable of fight.

Really, an advice that amounts to (this part is not aimed at you, but I feel some posts in this thread were like this) "kill, and if he survives (humans are durable, after all) simply put a gun to his head so he won't" reads like an instruction manual from Sachsenhausen :smallsigh:


And if they keep at it - well keep the shotgun close and loaded. Hopefully you won't have to use it, but if you do. USE it. Your life or theirs - and we like having you here on the forums. :smallamused:

Yeah, but we also like him not serving behind the bars or too traumatized to post any more.

[Keld Denar]

but if you threaten them with lethal force, you better not be bluffing.
This. This is the most apt description of the average home protection gun owner. Don't buy one for intimidation, because when you escalate to that level, you better not hesitate. Otherwise its better to be unarmed, make it clear you are unarmed and don't interfere. Cooperate, don't be aggressive, and hope your insurance is good.


Hell, I sort understand reasoning behind it, not to mention the fact it might be for the better in some cases, but still, even the light talk about emptying entire magazines into others, luring bandits into the house, or shooting already defenseless people is... well, disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks it is an excellent way to commit a huge mistake, one that will haunt the shooter for the rest of his/her life, even if they are "technically" right?

The empty magazine part was about something I had read. It was a case study on women who were involved in high-stress firearm incidents. Most of them emptied the weapon. When asked afterwards, they though they had only fired once, and were horrified to learn that they had completely emptied 12 bullets or whatever the magazine was. Its not a consious decision...just an instinctual reaction. The gun was empty before she even realized, in most cases.

And like I said, you'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury of self defense if there was evidence you did something quite as extreme as "finishing" a fallen intruder, but if you hit them multiple times in a burst, that just adrenaline and all those other mind chemicals.

[THAC0]

The empty magazine part was about something I had read. It was a case study on women who were involved in high-stress firearm incidents. Most of them emptied the weapon. When asked afterwards, they though they had only fired once, and were horrified to learn that they had completely emptied 12 bullets or whatever the magazine was. Its not a consious decision...just an instinctual reaction. The gun was empty before she even realized, in most cases.

And like I said, you'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury of self defense if there was evidence you did something quite as extreme as "finishing" a fallen intruder, but if you hit them multiple times in a burst, that just adrenaline and all those other mind chemicals.

Indeed.

My self defense class taught us to fire in bursts of at least two. Despite what some people think, a bullet is not necessarily incapacitating. Or, more to the point, immediately incapacitating or fatal.

I can shoot someone, and they might die in two minutes, but in that two minutes they can also kill me.

[Erts]

If this becomes to much of a problem, I suggest you get a dog. And put up a "Beware of Dog" sign. Generally seen as the best form of intimidation is a huge, barking dog.

[RandomNPC]

first of all I'm on board with the only kill if you've got to band-wagon.

Second, let's say you do have to. heres a scenario: someone kicks down my door while I'm down the hallway or otherwise towards the back of the house, Get a crossbow. Everyone's so fond of the shootgun loading sound, unless you're a crossbow hunter you probably don't know any of the sounds they make, and if it's not an instant kill shot it's going to be a lot more confusing than "ow, pain, im shot!" because of the whole bolt sticking out of you thing.

on the other hand, there is no good way to reload a crossbow if you miss. That's what target practice is for.

My advice: stay up late if you can, and move out soon.

Another note for the castle laws: Ohio says if they are inside and are not actively surrendering open fire. A man was shot in a fenced in backyard recently, I beleive the judge is still trying to decide if thats "in home" because of the being fenced in part of it.

[Keld Denar]

Second, let's say you do have to. heres a scenario: someone kicks down my door while I'm down the hallway or otherwise towards the back of the house, Get a crossbow. Everyone's so fond of the shootgun loading sound, unless you're a crossbow hunter you probably don't know any of the sounds they make, and if it's not an instant kill shot it's going to be a lot more confusing than "ow, pain, im shot!" because of the whole bolt sticking out of you thing.

Except...you know...that crossbows are even harder to obtain and WAY more expensive than a regular firearm. I know in Michigan you need a special permit to buy one, and you can't hunt with it unless you get a different permit that requires disability status.

You can get a Remington pump shotgun at wal-mart for ~$200 and in most states you don't need ANY permit.

[Pyrian]

I'm pretty sure nobody's ever been convicted of "allowing" their dog to bite a burglar. :smallamused:

[THAC0]

I'm pretty sure nobody's ever been convicted of "allowing" their dog to bite a burglar. :smallamused:

No, but afterwards you frequently have to get a new dog...

[SDF]

Not to get too political about it, but my belief is that if someone is willing to rob others then it is in everyones best interest if they just died. They are not a productive member of society and likely never will be. They might not be willing to murder, but its not like you are removing a great potential from the world.

Theft as a capital offense? Holy spoon, I hope you don't own firearms. :smalleek:

[Stormthorn]

Even if someone breaks in, don't kill them. Seriously. The click-click should be enough to get them on their knees while you call the cops.

And if it isnt he could load the shell with rocksalt and candle wax.

Unlikely to kill at even pretty close ranges, but very painful.


They are not a productive member of society and likely never will be.
Thats a HUGE assumption on your part. They might steal because of kleptomania and still have a normal job. They might be children who are in school.


if somebody intends to kill you you should have no qualms about doing the same to them. one of you is going to die either way so it might as well be them since it can end right there or they can keep on killing people.
Thats a really good reason to NOT defend your home with a firearm. Most burglers dont want to kill you (at least, not where i live) so if you dont try to hurt them your less likely to get shot.

Dont get me wrong. I would kill someone in defense of life and limb. But my Xbox is, contrary to popular belief, not my life.

[Keld Denar]

Theft as a capital offense? Holy spoon, I hope you don't own firearms. :smalleek:

In Texas and a few other states, depending on who catches you, where, and how accurate they are. If you are lucky, the police get to you first. See entire first 3 pages of discussion for details.

I have heard of cases of dogs savagely attacking intruders who have filed lawsuits against the dog owner. I've never seen their success/failure ratio or any verdicts from them, or even if they made it before a judge, but I have heard of them being filed. I'm thinking, though, if you have Beware: Dog signs posted, the intruder forfeits as many rights as they do for ignoring No Trespassing signs and getting shot up a man protecting his family and property.

EDIT:

And if it isnt he could load the shell with rocksalt and candle wax.

Unlikely to kill at even pretty close ranges, but very painful.

Urban myth. Go have a read around the interwebs...many times you are better off turning the shotgun around and clubbing someone with the stock than expecting a rocksalt load to "disable" them to the point where they can't fight back and the police can collect them. I wouldn't risk my life, or the lives of my family, on anything less than lethal. If you say I don't value life, my rebut is that I value my own life, and those of my loved ones, over those of someone who willfully enters my home, regardless of reason, unless said enterer is a well identified official.

[Stormthorn]

Rock salt loads? Please. (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm)

I just noticed htis post. 12 feet is pretty reasonably if you rin your home.

And the objective IS just to deter the attacker, so a cloud of salt hitting your face at high speeds works even if it doesnt tear you open.

But like i said. Wax works too, i have heard.

Specificly a guy i know told me that when he was a kid living in a rural area a friend of his was shot with a wax bullet after sneaking onto a farmers property. It left a burn mark and a big giant welt. Putting those hard wax pellets form candle making kits for children into a shotgun might be the sort of firepower escalation you need.


If you say I don't value life, my rebut is that I value my own life, and those of my loved ones, over those of someone who willfully enters my home, regardless of reason, unless said enterer is a well identified official.
I value my life more than an invaders too. I just value the invaders enough to not want to shoot some punk kid.
I think my actual response if someone where to break in would just be to hide in a closet.

[nothingclever]

No, but afterwards you frequently have to get a new dog...
I doubt that frequently happens when the burglar is actually inside your house especially with a "Beware of Large Dog" sign.

There are plenty of cases where a dog cripples an intruder by tearing apart his arm and the dog and its owner have zero problems with any charges filed against them afterwards.

[Mystic Muse]

Thats a really good reason to NOT defend your home with a firearm. Most burglers dont want to kill you (at least, not where i live) so if you dont try to hurt them your less likely to get shot.

Dont get me wrong. I would kill someone in defense of life and limb. But my Xbox is, contrary to popular belief, not my life.

yes but I wasn't saying shoot them if they're stealing something. I was saying shoot them if they're going to kill you or somebody else.

if they brought a gun it's probably because they're prepared to kill you to get what they want, just to kill you or things we're not allowed to discuss on this site

[Stormthorn]

I doubt that frequently happens when the burglar is actually inside your house especially with a "Beware of Large Dog" sign.

There are plenty of cases where a dog cripples an intruder by tearing apart his arm and the dog and its owner have zero problems with any charges filed against them afterwards.

True. But if dogs are anything like the Big Cats they might bite again. I wouldnt know tho, since i steer clear of dogs.

[Keld Denar]

And the objective IS just to deter the attacker, so a cloud of salt hitting your face at high speeds works even if it doesnt tear you open.


No...

That attitude is likely to get you killed. I'm serious on this one. Its misconceptions like that that are DANGEROUS. Think about this:

That intruder has a pistol tucked in his belt. He breaks into your home and starts grabbing armloads of electronics and anything else he can fit. You hear him, and step into the room leveling a shotgun at him. He flinches and you fire. He hits the ground in agony, only to realize that while it hurts A LOT, he's still consious and can still move. He pulls the pistol from his belt and fires blindly in your direction. Maybe he hits you, maybe he doesn't. Maybe the bullet goes past you, splinters the thin sheetrock behind you and goes through the next room. Maybe there is someone in that next room that you care deeply about, and that bullet pierces a vital. Maybe it strikes you. Now you are down with REAL damage and are bleeding out. The intruder recovers from being dazed, realizes he's made a lucky break, and runs out. You only HOPE that someone hears the gunshots and calls for help, and that that help gets there in time.

THATS how real life works. Maybe you get lucky. Maybe you die. If you had hid in the closet, the intruder would have gotten your DVD player and your Xbox, but you'd probably still be alive. The second you step into that confrontation, you had BETTER mean business, because you don't know if he does or not. And if he does, the outcome of that die roll is dire.

I play D&D. I roll dice for my character's life all the time. I make morally difficult choices for him, and accept the consequences because hey, its just a game, and if Torg dies, I'll roll another one and call him Toregar. You can't roll up another life, another child, another wife. I don't gamble with my life. Its the only one I have, and dang it, I like being alive!

I hope I'm never in that situation. I hope you aren't either. I pray NOONE is. But if it did happen, I'd hope whoever it happens to isn't disillusioned by something they read on the internet.

[Stormthorn]

And thats your opinion. You are welcome to it. I am welcome to mine.

[Erts]

And thats your opinion. You are welcome to it. I am welcome to mine.

So how do you defend against his point?

[billtodamax]

*really doesn't like gun legality*
*will argue anyway*

I agree with Trixie on this one, it's pretty depressing how you can calmly talk about ending someone else's life. Get a good lock, an alarm system, and a couple video cameras if you want, then call the police the moment someone starts breaking in.

[Lord Seth]

They haven't got into my apartment yet, but that's not for lack of trying. First time was about 2 months ago, I woke up around 1AM to what felt like the whole house shaking (it's a small house, I have the top half) as they tried to kick down my door.


I called the police later that day, though I expected what the officer would say. They didn't actually get in, so the most they could charge the people with (if they found them) would be some form of vandalism. Figured that. I just wanted there to be a record of an attempted home invasion while I was home. Bastards.My apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but if someone was trying to kick down your door at 1AM, why did you wait until later that day to call the police? Wouldn't it have made more sense to call them right then in the hopes they'd show up and catch them?

[snoopy13a]

Honestly, I think there are two options when it comes to a gun for home protections:

1) If you have a gun, shoot to kill. I know this sounds a bit barbaric but if you pull a gun on a burglar, the %#%# has hit the fan. He (or in a rare case she) may be armed themselves so aiming for the legs or a warning shot is not a wise option. If you are going to bring out a piece, it becomes you or them. Shoot to kill, if this bothers you then don't own a gun (I don't and I don't plan to)

2) Don't own a gun and call the cops or comply with an armed burglar- This is my personal method as I wouldn't want to actually kill someone (even if justified). I don't believe in guns and I'm willing to give an armed burglar whatever they want if it comes to that.

However, if you carry a gun and plan to confront a burglar you can't go by half-measures. The reason is that the burglar has a very good chance of being armed themselves. If you start a gunfight, it becomes a life or death situation. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of shooting to kill in this situation, then do what I do and don't own a gun.

[Renegade Paladin]

*really doesn't like gun legality*
*will argue anyway*

I agree with Trixie on this one, it's pretty depressing how you can calmly talk about ending someone else's life. Get a good lock, an alarm system, and a couple video cameras if you want, then call the police the moment someone starts breaking in.
When you need help in seconds, the police are only minutes away. By all means, call the police, but being able to help yourself is far more useful. The same applies to other emergency services as well; just as I advocate responsible gun ownership, I also advocate the possession of fire extinguishers and first aid kits, and competency to use them.

Besides, philosophically speaking, what is the difference between defending yourself with force and having someone else (i.e. the police) do it for you? If the offender is going to respond in a manner that requires you to shoot him, he will likely respond to the police in a manner that requires them to shoot him.

[billtodamax]

With good security measures, you shouldn't need help in seconds. It'll take them a bit to get past them, hopefully allowing time for the police to arrive.

[Keld Denar]

I agree with Trixie on this one, it's pretty depressing how you can calmly talk about ending someone else's life.

My point isn't "shoot the mofo and be done with it". The signage I posted earlier was ment for humor. You can see from my previous posts, my point is thus: IF you are going to confront someone, carry no false illusions with you. Shooting someone with "less than lethal" force under the pretense that it'll solve your problems is likely to INCREASE your problems. I'd highly advocate to a person who isn't comfortable with firearms to do exactly as others have stated. Hide. Let them take your stuff then file a police report and collect your insurance money. You get new stuff, and you aren't dead. IF you confront the intruder, however, do not do so with anything less than deadly intent. The scenario I posted above is only one outcome. There are lots of others, but most of them are bad.

I just have a problem with someone giving advise to others thats liable to get someone killed. Less-than-lethal force is a lie. Is your life worth banking on that?

[billtodamax]

My point isn't "shoot the mofo and be done with it". The signage I posted earlier was ment for humor. You can see from my previous posts, my point is thus: IF you are going to confront someone, carry no false illusions with you. Shooting someone with "less than lethal" force under the pretense that it'll solve your problems is likely to INCREASE your problems. I'd highly advocate to a person who isn't comfortable with firearms to do exactly as others have stated. Hide. Let them take your stuff then file a police report and collect your insurance money. You get new stuff, and you aren't dead. IF you confront the intruder, however, do not do so with anything less than deadly intent. The scenario I posted above is only one outcome. There are lots of others, but most of them are bad.

I just have a problem with someone giving advise to others thats liable to get someone killed. Less-than-lethal force is a lie. Is your life worth banking on that?

My post wasn't aimed directly at you rather at most people in this thread. At you last paragraph: advising someone to kill, is in fact, liable to get someone killed. I also disagree with "Less-than-lethal force is a lie." There are plenty of ways to stop someone without killing them. Even a taser would be better than a gun, IMO.

[Keld Denar]

Even a taser would be better than a gun, IMO.

Would you bet your life on that? I wouldn't.

[billtodamax]

Yes. Yes I would.

[Mystic Muse]

You should of course make it clear that if they don't put their hands up and if they make any sudden moves you will shoot them rather than just outright shooting them. unless of course you're already out there and they've pulled a gun on you. Then they're going to shoot you and you should shoot first.

[Mystic Muse]

Yes. Yes I would.

Taser's work on burglars. not Murderers with guns who want to blow your head off.

[SDF]

Tasers work on everyone. They are just way more expensive than a gun.

[billtodamax]

Edit button.
And, why not, exactly?

[THAC0]

Tasers are either ineffective against a large subset of the population, including many criminal elements, for the same reason mace is (namely, high pain tolerance and familiarity), OR incredibly difficult to use effectively, and require you to get much too close.

[billtodamax]

You know what electricity does to a body, right? High pain tolerance isn't going to help you if you can't move because your muscles are constantly taught.

Re: Expensiveness: I'm going to pay extra to not have to kill. If I were to get a taser. I'd still prefer to find more non0violent methods to stop someone from robbing me blind or killing me, apparently.

[Mystic Muse]

they can still fire the gun before they go down and if they're wearing a heavy coat the taser won't even hit them.

[Jack Squat]

I just noticed htis post. 12 feet is pretty reasonably if you rin your home.

And the objective IS just to deter the attacker, so a cloud of salt hitting your face at high speeds works even if it doesnt tear you open.

But like i said. Wax works too, i have heard.

Rock Salt and Wax are horrible. Lets be honest, if you're in the position that you need to fire a gun at someone, you want them dead (although, yes, you only shoot to stop). If you're against killing them, don't point a gun at them, it's that simple. There's plenty other less-lethal options available. RAID works pretty well, and is already available in most dwellings; same with Baseball bats or 4D cell mag lights.

In regard to the ammo load, military issue is #4, a lot of people recommend 00, which will work, but it is a little harder on your shoulder, takes a little longer to realign your sight picture, etc. I'd say you're good if you don't use bird/target shot. Also, I've got basically the same gun as you (Remington 11), and if it's been running bird shot, you'll need to make sure you swap out the metal disk up against the spring to set up for the heavier recoil of buck shot.

@ Billtodamax: Lethal options are the best at stopping threats. Tasers aren't bad, but if you miss you're in trouble, and they're not guaranteed to work - especially if someone's drugged up. If you meant a stun gun, I wouldn't want to go up into melee range with someone that may be armed if I can help it.

Personally, if someone is willing to get into my house and threaten my safety, I'm not going to go out of my way to make sure they're as unharmed as possible. I'm going to use what I have to ensure my safety, even if I hope that I never have to.

[Alteran]

Electric stun weapons are either one-shot weapons or melee weapons. You could miss with your one shot, they could be wearing a heavy coat or other protective clothing, or they might just not be as thoroughly impaired as they should be. If that happens and they're armed...well, you're going to be in a lot of trouble.

If it's a melee weapon, then it could be very dangerous to use. It's not a good idea to charge an invader who might not share your qualms about killing, especially when their lethal weapon might have superior range to yours.

[SDF]

A modern air taser uses a shaped charge mechanism that causes an involuntary disruption of the CNS. It doesn't matter how big you are, or what drugs you are on. You are going down and you can't do ANYTHING after you've been hit. Shaped pulse also ensures that regardless of thick clothing it's still going to work. All claims to the contrary I've ever heard stem from a lack of familiarity and understanding of the weapon.

[THAC0]

You know what electricity does to a body, right? High pain tolerance isn't going to help you if you can't move because your muscles are constantly taught.


Assuming that you can get them with it in the first place.

Personally, I've never experienced anything along those lines. The instructor in my defense class has, so I'm taking his word on its effectiveness.

[Stormthorn]

they can still fire the gun before they go down and if they're wearing a heavy coat the taser won't even hit them.

And if their wearing a bulletproof vest the bullet wont hit him. And if he is driving a tank....



Besides, philosophically speaking, what is the difference between defending yourself with force and having someone else (i.e. the police) do it for you? If the offender is going to respond in a manner that requires you to shoot him, he will likely respond to the police in a manner that requires them to shoot him.

Philosophicly speaking a guess not much. But i dont want to deal with possible criminal liability and being shot at.


There's plenty other less-lethal options available. RAID works pretty well, and is already available in most dwellings; same with Baseball bats or 4D cell mag lights.
Yea. I have a cane for that. It even fits int he closet with me, but if he tries to come in the closet after me im probably upgrading him from "threat to property" to "Threat to life" in which case i now have my attacker in an inclosed space with me and my knives.

[billtodamax]

I'm pretty sure I mean taser. They're the ones that fire two metallic thingies attached to wires, right?
@Kyuubi: Actually I'm pretty sure they couldn't. Electricity tends to move pretty fast. :smalltongue:

Oh hey, and apparently it doesn't matter if they're wearing thick clothing.

[Mystic Muse]

And if their wearing a bulletproof vest the bullet wont hit him. And if he is driving a tank....

If he's driving a tank you run away,

also they're more likely to have a heavy coat than to have a bulletproof vest. also a vest leaves more spots open to hit and kill. another thing to keep in mind is they can sue you for tazing them. they may not win but others have won and so could they. it's hard to convict somebody when you have a bullet in your brain. If the police find a gun on the person and you can prove that you don't know the person it's going to be almost impossible to sue you.

as others have said. either hide or co-operate or be willing to kill. it's nice to be an idealist but sometimes it just doesn't work out.

[billtodamax]

If someone manages to sue me for tasing them when they come into my house with a gun, I am going to hold a funeral for common sense.

[Mystic Muse]

If someone manages to sue me for tasing them when they come into my house with a gun, I am going to hold a funeral for common sense.

you should be holding a funeral for common sense already. There are so many beyond stupid things happening nowadays it's not even funny.

[SDF]

The mentality that it is better to shoot and kill a person(even a criminal) than incapacitate them with a less than lethal weapon because you might somehow get sued strikes me as insanity.

[Erloas]

Tasers work on everyone. They are just way more expensive than a gun.

Actually they don't always work on people that are drugged up. They also only work with a good direct hit, if only one lead makes good contact they are useless.

My brother asked a cop about it when they went to investigate a business that was broken into while he was at work next door. (it was 10-12 at night) The cop had a taser out instead of a gun. He said the first time he saw them used was against someone that was loaded on meth or something similiar and the taser didn't even really affect them. He said he was very skeptical of them after that, but has since saw them used in a lot of other situations where they worked fine.
One thing about a cop using a taser though is that there are generally a few cops around, and some of them have normal guns. Backup isn't something most people will have in a home invasion sort of situation.


Theft as a capital offense? Holy spoon, I hope you don't own firearms. I own a .50cal black powder rifle and a single barrel break action 12gauge that was very old before I was born. Neither of which would do any good in these sorts of situations.
However I wouldn't have any issue with shooting someone that broke into my house, some punk 16 year old or not. Its not like there aren't 6 billion other people in the world to take their place, 99.9% of which would never even think about breaking into someone elses house as an option, let alone actually do it. I'm sure there are some exceptions to kids breaking into houses then going on to do better things, but most often the case is they go from breaking into houses when they are young to breaking into more houses when they are older and doing all sorts of other worse stuff as well.

[Mystic Muse]

if they're willing to kill you then yes it's better to kill them first. if you miss or the distraction shots don't do anything and they have a gun what do you think is going to happen? They are going to end your life because you weren't willing to protect yourself.

[billtodamax]

Okay... I'm going to stop now before I end up insulting someone. You all presumably know my views by now.

[Jack Squat]

A modern air taser uses a shaped charge mechanism that causes an involuntary disruption of the CNS. It doesn't matter how big you are, or what drugs you are on. You are going down and you can't do ANYTHING after you've been hit. Shaped pulse also ensures that regardless of thick clothing it's still going to work. All claims to the contrary I've ever heard stem from a lack of familiarity and understanding of the weapon.

It's entirely possible to power through a taser hit. It's not common, but it has happened, quite possibly reliant on where you're hit (COM is going to be much harder -ok, impossible- to fight, but arm or leg could, since it's just completing a circuit, not running course through your entire system). Also, the new one can only punch through up to an inch of clothing, which I'm positive depends on weave. While you're not likely to come up to someone padded enough, it's not impossible; especially not at 2AM in the middle of winter.

My main concern with tasers however is they're effectively one shot. In a stressful situation your accuracy goes to hell (2-4x worse). Civilians only get the 15ft length on top of that, so if you miss, you don't have time to do much anything before they're on top of you. And what if there's more than one person? You're not guaranteed they'll run off when they see their friend drop.


EDIT:

The mentality that it is better to shoot and kill a person(even a criminal) than incapacitate them with a less than lethal weapon because you might somehow get sued strikes me as insanity.

Yeah, even if you kill someone, you can still be sued by their family for funeral costs, emotional distress, etc. Probably won't win, but you can still be sued -just like if you wound them (though you have a weaker case if you did something you knew would only cause significant harm without killing, such as rock salt, wax, flares, or other "specialty" ammo.)

[Mystic Muse]

Okay... I'm going to stop now before I end up insulting someone. You all presumably know my views by now.

we can continue this discussion through PM if you want. or AIM if you have it. however I kind of doubt either of us will change the other's mind.

[billtodamax]

No, I think it's just best if I left it alone for a while and calmed down.

[Pyrian]

I think Kyuubi is having a subtly different discussion than everyone else. Kyuubi's talking about the situation where you already know the intruder is trying to kill you. That's a pretty small subset of the situations described. The nightmare scenario isn't necessarily the murderer out for your blood. The nightmare scenario is your own daughter coming over in the middle of the night because she forget her own house keys and knows you have a spare. Bang!

[Zeful]

The mentality that it is better to shoot and kill a person(even a criminal) than incapacitate them with a less than lethal weapon because you might somehow get sued strikes me as insanity.

Welcome to Capitalism!

Sarcasm aside, robbers have won court cases for being injured whilst robbing someone. If the criminal's particularly nasty, it can be a suit for everything you have and more. Meaning by exercising mercy, you could be thrown out on the street.

[Mystic Muse]

I think Kyuubi is having a subtly different discussion than everyone else. Kyuubi's talking about the situation where you already know the intruder is trying to kill you. That's a pretty small subset of the situations described. The nightmare scenario isn't necessarily the murderer out for your blood. The nightmare scenario is your own daughter coming over in the middle of the night because she forget her own house keys and knows you have a spare. Bang!

that's exactly what I'm saying Pyrian.

sorry. guess that means I de-railed the thread.

[Anuan]

Tasers -can- be ineffective. In some cases they can even be lethal. Imagine thinking you're oh-so-innocent and nice cause you tried the 'non-lethal' method and the guy died. You'd be a lot more messed up.

That being said, most robberies (in my country, at least) don't involve the burglar being armed, especially if it's just some **** of a kid, or if they're stupid enough to be bunglers and leave scuff-marks all over your door. Twice. So, non-lethal but restraining force.

Like a very large dog.
Or, if you happen to be a martial artist, whatever martial art(s) you practice.
Also, I know from experience that holding a very intimidating weapon can scare a burglar off. It was a trident, in my case. He didn't come back, nor did any of his mates.

A baseball bat or sjambok or similar is good, too. I would have no qualms against beating an invader into submission with my bare hands or a blunt weapon.

[Jack Squat]

I think Kyuubi is having a subtly different discussion than everyone else. Kyuubi's talking about the situation where you already know the intruder is trying to kill you. That's a pretty small subset of the situations described. The nightmare scenario isn't necessarily the murderer out for your blood. The nightmare scenario is your own daughter coming over in the middle of the night because she forget her own house keys and knows you have a spare. Bang!

That's why you identify targets and keep your finger off the trigger until you have. If everyone did that, accidental/negligent shootings would be much, much rarer. Seriously, everyone, if you've got a gun for self defense, strap a light to it, and bounce the light off the ground when walking around. A good flashlight will even bounce light off of carpet. This way you can see who it is, and still have the advantage of them not knowing exactly where you are (shooting at the light).

[Pyrian]

Right; in most cases an ordinary burglar doesn't want a confrontation at all and can be chased off fairly easily. I think Keld is arguing that he's unwilling to risk the chance that the intruder will simply open fire immediately. I do also think there's a level of bloodthirstiness at which you start risking "friendly fire" - mistaking your own family members for an intruder. Also, all of this ignores the fact that having a gun in the house in general tends to make domestic violence turn lethal much more quickly than it otherwise might (nevermind stupid accidents, which I'm sure we can all agree ought to be avoided).

[lvl 1 fighter]

My apologies if this has already been asked/answered, but if someone was trying to kick down your door at 1AM, why did you wait until later that day to call the police? Wouldn't it have made more sense to call them right then in the hopes they'd show up and catch them?

Good question. There were a number of reasons, presented here in no particular order.

1) They didn't actually get in, so it wasn't a burglary, there wasn't any stolen property, and no one got injured. So about 5-10 minutes after the fact there wasn't an emergency, so no need to have the police come over in the middle of the night. I called in the afternoon and reported the crime.

2) I didn't even think to call the police at the time. The shock of the situation put me on autopilot, referring me to past experiences when I felt my life threatened, and my behaviors that I learned in those situations. In those situations calling the police was not an option, and when I get threatened and feel that way it doesn't even cross my mind.

[Hell Puppi]

The nightmare scenario is your own daughter coming over in the middle of the night because she forget her own house keys and knows you have a spare. Bang!

A good thing that I heard is to carry a small flashlight in one hand and a handgun in the other, that way you can visually identify who is breaking in and what threat they pose.
I heard of one man who had a neighbor's son (the kid was mentally handicapped) break into his house and stand in the hallway. The man was able to identify the person. I've had cases where someone walked into my apartment and left immediately because they thought it was someone else's place. Mistakes happen.
By carrying the handgun you can also essentially tell a robber "Hai, I has lethal force" and hopefully resolve the problem by getting them to back off and leave.
I don't advocate having a gun unless you know how to fire it, how to hit a target and know how to clean and maintain it. You also have to be calm and level-headed about things. You don't blow someone away because they made a mistake but you also take every precaution necessary to make sure your home and family are protected should the infamous masked villain arrive.
*shrugs* That's how I see it.

[SDF]

Actually they don't always work on people that are drugged up. They also only work with a good direct hit, if only one lead makes good contact they are useless.

My brother asked a cop about it when they went to investigate a business that was broken into while he was at work next door. (it was 10-12 at night) The cop had a taser out instead of a gun. He said the first time he saw them used was against someone that was loaded on meth or something similiar and the taser didn't even really affect them. He said he was very skeptical of them after that, but has since saw them used in a lot of other situations where they worked fine.
One thing about a cop using a taser though is that there are generally a few cops around, and some of them have normal guns. Backup isn't something most people will have in a home invasion sort of situation.

If he was using a new model taser, I don't see how. (http://www.taser.com/research/technology/Pages/NeuromuscularIncapacitation.aspx)

Most of this speculative failure applies just as much, or more to firearms. What if the gun jams? What if an unarmed burglar gets to you before you can get a shot off, and now he has a gun? An armed robber may or may not use whatever he is carrying, but pull a gun on him and it quickly turns into a fight to the death scenario. None of these situations are likely to happen, but they are possibilities all the same. Adding a firearm into most situations rarely results in a better outcome.

If the tc really wants to have a shotgun as a possibility go out to the range and try different loads to see what you are most comfortable with, and weight that against practical over penetration possibilities. Don't take the word of what you read here. If you have a gun lying around that you don't know how, or never practice with you have no business bringing it to bear in a home invasion situation, and it most likely will make things worse.

[nothingclever]

If he was using a new model taser, I don't see how. (http://www.taser.com/research/technology/Pages/NeuromuscularIncapacitation.aspx)

Sounds like you just believe everything the taser website says.
Surely a website called taser.com that sells tasers isn't the slightest bit biased!

[Jack Squat]

Right; in most cases an ordinary burglar doesn't want a confrontation at all and can be chased off fairly easily.

Yes, and in this case, with the would-be intruders running at the falling of a screen; they're obviously looking for an empty house and are very jumpy. With them, Angry Nekkid Man would be a good defense, but you don't know what type of people are coming in, so it's better to be over prepared. You don't have to shoot.


I think Keld is arguing that he's unwilling to risk the chance that the intruder will simply open fire immediately. I do also think there's a level of bloodthirstiness at which you start risking "friendly fire" - mistaking your own family members for an intruder.

Training should solve both of these. I do recommend anyone who keeps a gun to do some sort of training - even if it's as low-budget as calling over a friend and going through with a $9 airsoft gun from Wal Mart. Practice different situations ad nauseum, and you should be able to react atleast somewhat responsibly. Though as I said before, just keeping your finger off the trigger solves most of these. A lot of times your fingers will twitch when surprised. When you've got a finger on the trigger and safety off, that's not always a good thing.



Also, all of this ignores the fact that having a gun in the house in general tends to make domestic violence turn lethal much more quickly than it otherwise might (nevermind stupid accidents, which I'm sure we can all agree ought to be avoided).

This isn't the argument. The thread's about home defense, not whether a gun should be in every household. However, I'll point out that a kitchen knife or hammer can make domestic violence lethal much more quickly than if they weren't there. Should we remove these from households?



EDIT:


Most of this speculative failure applies just as much, or more to firearms. What if the gun jams?

You clear it and continue. Practice malfunction drills.


What if an unarmed burglar gets to you before you can get a shot off, and now he has a gun?

Why'd an unarmed burglar charge you when you had a gun pointed at them? Why'd didn't you fire until he stops or it's dry? Why did you give it up without a fight? There's a lot that has to go wrong for this to happen.



An armed robber may or may not use whatever he is carrying, but pull a gun on him and it quickly turns into a fight to the death scenario.

What happens if you pull a taser on him? Or pepper spray? Does it come out any better?


None of these situations are likely to happen, but they are possibilities all the same. Adding a firearm into most situations rarely results in a better outcome.

I'd argue that, so long as the person is trained in their use. If they're not, there probably not going to train enough with anything else to make it effective.


If the tc really wants to have a shotgun as a possibility go out to the range and try different loads to see what you are most comfortable with, and weight that against practical over penetration possibilities. Don't take the word of what you read here. If you have a gun lying around that you don't know how, or never practice with you have no business bringing it to bear in a home invasion situation, and it most likely will make things worse.

I'll agree. The OP said that over penetration's not an issue, due to stone walls, and that's what I'm going off of. If one was in an apartment complex, I'd advise against it for obvious reasons (drywall doesn't stop shot as well as, brick or stone).

[Erloas]

Most of this speculative failure applies just as much, or more to firearms. What if the gun jams? What if an unarmed burglar gets to you before you can get a shot off, and now he has a gun?

A well maintained gun will almost never jam, that is the point of maintaining them. Dud rounds do happen, but how often depends a lot on what quality of bullets, I've seen it happen with .22 rounds a fair amount, and very rarily with my brothers AK-47 (with the cheapest rounds we could find to target practice), but not with any of the other rounds I've seen shot much.

The biggest difference between most guns and a taser of any sort is that a taser is a 1 shot weapon. It is very easy to miss a shot, especially with something you don't shoot a lot, and I bet almost no one gets to practice much with a taser. Its not like you can really take it down to your local range and practice.
Any sort of confrontation around a door, which is very likely to happen in these situations, means that there are a lot of potential obsticales between you and what you are shooting at. Glancing off a door frame will make a taser useless, but won't with something like a shotgun or a lot of handguns. You also have more then 1 shot, most handguns have about 6-12 rounds.
Which is also why I would never think about using either of my guns for self defense, because they are both 1 shot (the black powder is also way too slow to load and not really practical to keep loaded) and even with a fair amount of practice I don't really trust 1 shot to be enough.

[Erts]

Generally, people who break into homes are easily scared off. Really. Most robbers run away as soon as they know someone else is in the house, and grab the first valuable thing they see, or else dogs and alarm systems wouldn't be as a effective. (Yes, the police get there in minutes, but how long does it take to grab something valuable and run?)
This all depends on what area one is living in as well. In the suburbs, it is probably a bad idea to immediately engage in a gun battle when someone bursts into your home (they are not expecting immediate lethal force, or else they would not do this.)
These neighbors, what are they like? That is important on how you should act.

[SDF]

Sounds like you just believe everything the taser website says.
Surely a website called taser.com that sells tasers isn't the slightest bit biased!

Yes, clearly thats what I'm doing. I'm ready to pound my head against the keyboard trying to explain how the wombating thing works. (http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=520&issue_id=22005) I'm not making outrageous claims, or even endorsing it... If you shoot someone not dressed like Ralphie Parker with a taser they go down, even on (wow) substances. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[Alteran]

The nightmare scenario is your own daughter coming over in the middle of the night because she forget her own house keys and knows you have a spare. Bang!

Presumably your daughter would knock on the door instead of kicking it down. However, you should still be sure to get a look at a target before you shoot it, the suggestion of a light is a good one.

[nothingclever]

Yes, clearly thats what I'm doing. I'm ready to pound my head against the keyboard trying to explain how the wombating thing works. (http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=520&issue_id=22005) I'm not making outrageous claims, or even endorsing it... If you shoot someone not dressed like Ralphie Parker with a taser they go down, even on (wow) substances. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
A bullet can be lodged in a man's brain and he can keep functioning yet you think tasers are flawless. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Stormthorn]

that's exactly what I'm saying Pyrian.

sorry. guess that means I de-railed the thread.

And thats what the spirit of the internet is all about. :smallsmile:





The mentality that it is better to shoot and kill a person(even a criminal) than incapacitate them with a less than lethal weapon because you might somehow get sued strikes me as insanity.
Im from California. We are all insane.


And to the man with the highly club-able avatar: The guns still have one advantage. You can fire more than once. Specificly, you can fire twice at the torso and once at the head.

[Jack Squat]

Yes, clearly thats what I'm doing. I'm ready to pound my head against the keyboard trying to explain how the wombating thing works. (http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=520&issue_id=22005) I'm not making outrageous claims, or even endorsing it... If you shoot someone not dressed like Ralphie Parker with a taser they go down, even on (wow) substances. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

Taser's site puts the X26 up to two inches of cumulative penetration, or up to 1 inch per probe. So, at best you get 1 inch penetration. Now, make it winter, and have the person dress in layers. For me, in TN, my thickest is a t-shirt, polar fleece, and ski shell. Not terribly difficult to go through. However, I've seen people in in undershirt, overshirt, carhartt overalls, and decently thick parkas. When you get at best one inch of penetration (in a lab, where everything's set up to best work), I fail to see how it's hard to see how it's entirely possible that out in the field, in winter, a probe can fail to go through clothing. Even is advanced as they are, they aren't perfect, and can and do fail.

[SDF]

A bullet can be lodged in a man's brain and he can keep functioning yet you think tasers are flawless. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I never said such a thing, I don't even know what you are arguing.

[Jack Squat]

I never said such a thing, I don't even know what you are arguing.

You never said it directly, but arguing that there's no way someone can fight through it/be drugged enough for it to not effect, nor that they can stop it with reasonable clothing doesn't exactly put you up for being in the position that they can fail to work if the probes don't miss.

[nothingclever]

I never said such a thing, I don't even know what you are arguing.
Yeah buddy, you pretty much did. According to you they're just as good if not better than guns. According to you they always work when they hit and hitting is easy and they're all around just as reliable as guns. Are you experiencing amnesia or something?

Your argument fails to fully account for penetration but you apparently don't think that's so because you're content with saying all you need is 1 highly variable inch of penetration. I've seen plenty of young wannabe tough guys and they have a habit of wearing very baggy thick jackets whether it's winter or not. I highly doubt your taser would work on them.

[Mystic Muse]

and like I said. one inch penetration will be ineffective against pretty much any coat.

[Trog]

On a related note I actually know a guy who has been tasered by the police. He's a BIG guy and well known to be pretty stoic and pain resistant in most situations. He did so as the willing guinea pig for a on-camera demonstration (lord know why) of the police taser.

He buckled immediately. Those prongs stuck into his flesh deep enough to leave bleeding wounds and he described the sensation as "it felt like my whole body was on fire and it was the worst pain I have ever felt in my life". After hearing that testimony my opinion is that the only downside of the taser is the one shot part and the fact that you may miss. EDIT: And the coat thing, if it is a heavy leather one.

As to using it in your home, you better also be able to do as the cops do once they have tasered someone and that is to be able to wrestle them into handcuffs and detain them. Personally for home defense I'd go with the old stand-by, the bat. If the bat and the announcement that you have just called the cops (regardless of whether you have yet or not) doesn't scare them away then you are likely in a much worse situation than your typical robbery anyway. And good luck with all that.

Realistically though you likely have someone in your house who fears the police, fears getting caught (or even identified), and just wanted to make a quick haul of your possessions and made the poor choice of doing so while the house had occupants.

[EleventhHour]

You could do it the old fasioned way for tresspassers ; shotgun shell full of salt.

[Mystic Muse]

You could do it the old fasioned way for tresspassers ; shotgun shell full of salt.

this has been discussed to death. general response is that it plain doesn't work.

[Jack Squat]

Trog: Not to demean your friend in any way, but it is indeed possible to fight through a taser (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/fight-science/all/Videos#tab-Videos/03296_09)

[Mr.Moron]

If you hear someone breaking in, why confront? Unless they're using a door right in front of you there immediacy of the situation isn't going to be measured in seconds. If you've got time to grab a gun find the target and shoot them, you've time to use a back door or window and flee.

Why escalate a situation into a lethal showdown when it doesn't have to be? Hell, putting aside shooting someone when you don't have to, what if they have a weapon? What if they're faster than you? What if you miss? Better to get you and yours the hell away from the potential danger rather running headlong into it.

Flight before Fight.

[Jack Squat]

If you hear someone breaking in, why confront? Unless they're using a door right in front of you there immediacy of the situation isn't going to be measured in seconds. If you've got time to grab a gun find the target and shoot them, you've time to use a back door or window and flee.

Why escalate a situation into a lethal showdown when it doesn't have to be? Hell, putting aside shooting someone when you don't have to, what if they have a weapon? What if they're faster than you? What if you miss? Better to get you and yours the hell away from the potential danger rather running headlong into it.

Flight before Fight.

What if it's your only way out? And why should you allow them to control you? Why not just stick all your stuff out on the sidewalk and save them the inconvenience of getting past your locked door?

[lvl 1 fighter]

If you hear someone breaking in, why confront? Unless they're using a door right in front of you there immediacy of the situation isn't going to be measured in seconds. If you've got time to grab a gun find the target and shoot them, you've time to use a back door or window and flee.

Why escalate a situation into a lethal showdown when it doesn't have to be? Hell, putting aside shooting someone when you don't have to, what if they have a weapon? What if they're faster than you? What if you miss? Better to get you and yours the hell away from the potential danger rather running headlong into it.

Flight before Fight.

That's the only door to my apartment. There are plenty of windows I could open and go out, and I wouldn't hurt myself getting down. Second story house, lots of roof overhangs.

But the deal is I don't even consider that option. I could say now, sitting here and typing on the keyboard, "Yeah, I'll try and think clear when it happens and consider my options." But I know from experience that it doesn't work like that, at least for me. It's one of the scariest things to me, and I freak out on the inside.

Without going into details, this type of situation (someone breaking into my house when I'm there) is almost exactly the same situation as one of my worst nightmares. It triggers a lot of different feelings and memories, and I react to it on a very basic level, with the Flight option removed.

That's another reason I wish they would stop trying. I give a crap about the stuff in my house. It's just stuff. But them doing this freaks me the **** out, and I hate that.

And I am worried about shooting and killing someone. I really don't want to hurt anyone, would like to avoid it if at all possible. But if someone breaks into my house, it's most probable that I'll shoot them.

[Pyrian]

This isn't the argument. The thread's about home defense, not whether a gun should be in every household....For home defense. I don't see an important distinction, here, and the question of whether or not a gun should be in the OP's house was very much the topic of discussion in the first place.


However, I'll point out that a kitchen knife or hammer can make domestic violence lethal much more quickly than if they weren't there. Should we remove these from households?Not adding a gun to your household is a reasonably practical alternative to adding a gun to your household. Removing all blunt and sharp implements from a household leaves you with a nearly empty house and is highly impractical. Also, they're a fair bit less deadly: sure, it's possible to kill someone with a thrown knife (or vase...) at a dozen feet or so, but the odds just don't stack up; there are solid reasons why firearms replaced more primitive weaponry in military forces. The distinctions are enormous.


Presumably your daughter would knock on the door instead of kicking it down.I was thinking she would open the door with her own key and try not to wake her parents 'cause its late.

Note that this is specifically in response to some of Keld's earlier posts in which he argued that firing right away was necessarily the more cautious response. It is quite possible that pointing a light and checking who it is rather than firing on sight could get you killed if the intruder simply opens fire before you've figured out they're up to no good. There's a risk either way.

[Mr.Moron]

What if it's your only way out?

This seems unlikely or at least uncommon. I've never been in any home that had only one entrance or exit. Hell if only because of fire safety issues I'm not even sure that a home with only one exit would be up-to-code for occupancy. If there is only one way you can get out of your home or the only ways out are tightly clustered you should change that.



And why should you allow them to control you?

Confronting them requires putting two or more lives on the line. At minimum, mine and theres. More if my confronting them puts them in a violent mood or if they have accomplices.



Why not just stick all your stuff out on the sidewalk and save them the inconvenience of getting past your locked door?

My stuff isn't worth a human life. Not my own, not theirs. Violence especially the lethal kind is a tool of absolute last resort. Honestly I can't even really comprehend this question, it just seems like such alien reasoning to me. If the harm they could cause me or the people I live with could be otherwise prevented, there is no reason to take their life.

If I killed over material possessions I don't think I could live with myself. Just the though of it terrifies me.

[Alteran]

I was thinking she would open the door with her own key and try not to wake her parents 'cause its late.

That's also fine, if she has a key. That would be another clue that it's not a break in.

[Jack Squat]

...For home defense. I don't see an important distinction, here, and the question of whether or not a gun should be in the OP's house was very much the topic of discussion in the first place.

Was domestic violence even brought up by the OP? I didn't read the entire thread, but as far as I can tell, he's alone.


Not adding a gun to your household is a reasonably practical alternative to adding a gun to your household. Removing all blunt and sharp implements from a household leaves you with a nearly empty house and is highly impractical. Also, they're a fair bit less deadly: sure, it's possible to kill someone with a thrown knife (or vase...) at a dozen feet or so, but the odds just don't stack up; there are solid reasons why firearms replaced more primitive weaponry in military forces. The distinctions are enormous.

I wasn't advocating removing them from households, I was saying that not having a gun won't really stop lethality from happening in a domestic dispute. You can always just grab something else, and most of the times they're within close enough ranges for it not to matter.


I was thinking she would open the door with her own key and try not to wake her parents 'cause its late.

If she lost her key, what are the chances she'd still have a key to her parents place? While not always the case, most people I know keep all their keys on one ring.


This seems unlikely. I've never been in any home that had only one entrance or exit. Hell just because of fire safety issues, I'm not even sure that one would be up-to-code for occupancy. If there is only one way you can get out of your home, only the only ways out are tightly clustered you should change that.

The OP just stated that he only has one way out. It's quite common for apartments. Not everyone lives in a house.



Confronting them requires putting two or more lives on the line. At minimum, mine and theres. More if my confronting them puts them in a violent mood or if they have accomplices.

But it also solves the situation. A criminal won't stop their life if there's no resistance to it. Running does nothing except make it likely that you'll be targeted again.




My stuff isn't worth a human life. Not my own, not theirs. Violence especially the lethal kind is a tool of absolute last resort. Honestly I can't even really comprehend this question, it just seems like such alien reasoning to me. If the harm they could cause me or the people I live with could be otherwise prevented, there is no reason to take their life.

If I killed over material possessions I don't think I could live with myself. Just the though of it terrifies me.

I'll give up my stuff instead of kill someone as well. What I've got can be pretty easily replaced. However, if someone threatens me, I'm going to protect myself. You can still get killed when running away, at least take the chance to defend yourself.

[SDF]

You never said it directly, but arguing that there's no way someone can fight through it/be drugged enough for it to not effect, nor that they can stop it with reasonable clothing doesn't exactly put you up for being in the position that they can fail to work if the probes don't miss.

Nothing is a 100% effective, thus my examples of guns jamming, ect. Failure for both is not likely to happen. My entire point was that it is a viable alternative if you want it.


Yeah buddy, you pretty much did. According to you they're just as good if not better than guns. According to you they always work when they hit and hitting is easy and they're all around just as reliable as guns. Are you experiencing amnesia or something?

Your argument fails to fully account for penetration but you apparently don't think that's so because you're content with saying all you need is 1 highly variable inch of penetration. I've seen plenty of young wannabe tough guys and they have a habit of wearing very baggy thick jackets whether it's winter or not. I highly doubt your taser would work on them.

According to me? Never said they were better than guns. According to me? Never claimed hitting was easy, or even mentioned anything about it. There is no need to be so hostile or start making a strawman out of what I was saying.

I suppose I could have clarified and said the shaped pulse extends the range of the probe, but I thought it was common sense. I wasn't even trying to touch on the clothing/thickness thing, just mentioning the shape pulse technology. But, there is always this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43oegXwW3k) So, I wouldn't really doubt it would work on them.

[Keld Denar]

I think Keld is arguing that he's unwilling to risk the chance that the intruder will simply open fire immediately.

Keld is doing no such thing. Keld IS mearly admitting that as good as he is, he's not confident that hes better than the guy across from him. That guy gets a warning to freeze, then raise hands slowly. Thats all. Any sane person assesses the situation, realizes they might die if they move, and complies, explaining why they are intruding. Anyone who makes sudden or sharp unidentified movements after being told not to gets to meet with my self-preservation instincts. I'm not gonna wait till I see a weapon. I already mentioned 2 pages ago that I don't roll those dice. A person there on accident isn't gonna make sudden movements when confronted by an angry shotgun toting homeowner. I don't want to take a life, and would give a warning, but I WOULD keep my finger on the trigger and the safety disengaged in such a situation. I lock my doors. If a person is inside of my home, they bypassed my locks. Normal people don't bypass locks and break into a strangers home. That was the first warning. Second warning is verbal. There is no third warning.

I'm not saying this to be cool, or to shock you guys into thinking "man, Keld would kill a man, how badass is that". I'm saying that my life, my family, in my own home, are more valuable than anything else. I will defend my life with my every last breath. Honestly, thinking about it scares the hell out of me! That fear is the very same reason I wouldn't hesitate. Whoever it is had their chances. I'm not gonna play cowboy shootout at high noon with a prefect stranger in my own living room when I already have the advantage. I'm not gonna risk my life to see if I can identify his threat before he can wield it. I couldn't imagine the pain my family would feel to lose me because I hesitated. Thats just how I feel.

[Trog]

Trog: Not to demean your friend in any way, but it is indeed possible to fight through a taser (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/fight-science/all/Videos#tab-Videos/03296_09)
It doesn't demean him at all. You take a shot with one and let me know how that goes for you. :smallamused:

I'm sure that fighting a taser can be done. However, they also seem to work fairly well on police shows such as COPS the few times I've seen them used (and they actually hit). And again you'd have to be able to restrain a robber afterward which typically is not an easy task even for the police. So it's a messy solution at best for home defense. I'm not deluded into thinking a taser is some magical freeze ray that will stop every possible assailant in his tracks and be the be-all-end-all. Hence my not having one. But they are damn painful.

As I said, I'd sooner go for a bat and the threat of the police in the event of a break in.

[Pyrian]

That's also fine, if she has a key. That would be another clue that it's not a break in.Not much of one. Break-ins are frequently pretty quiet.

[Mr.Moron]

You can get a Remington pump shotgun at wal-mart for ~$200 and in most states you don't need ANY permit.


Frankly, that's horrifying. I'm going to have to be sure to research these kinds of things before I move anywhere. Thanks for the warning.

[lvl 1 fighter]

Not much of one. Break-ins are frequently pretty quiet.


First time was about 2 months ago, I woke up around 1AM to what felt like the whole house shaking (it's a small house, I have the top half) as they tried to kick down my door.

They're stupid, and don't know how to kick in doors. All they did was scuff it up and make some dents near the bottom. But their efforts knocked loose a window screen which fell and made lots of noise, which I presume scared them off.

Maybe smart robbers don't make noise. Not mine though, thankfully.

[Stormthorn]

Taser's site puts the X26 up to two inches of cumulative penetration, or up to 1 inch per probe. So, at best you get 1 inch penetration. Now, make it winter, and have the person dress in layers. For me, in TN, my thickest is a t-shirt, polar fleece, and ski shell. Not terribly difficult to go through. However, I've seen people in in undershirt, overshirt, carhartt overalls, and decently thick parkas. When you get at best one inch of penetration (in a lab, where everything's set up to best work), I fail to see how it's hard to see how it's entirely possible that out in the field, in winter, a probe can fail to go through clothing. Even is advanced as they are, they aren't perfect, and can and do fail

Im from California. Depending upon how the seasons go we might be lucky to be wearing half that during the winter. Of course, i know people who wear trenchcoats all time sof the year.

[THAC0]

There's another problem with just jumping out the window when someone comes in that arises when you have, say, children sleeping in another room.

[lvl 1 fighter]

Frankly, that's horrifying. I'm going to have to be sure to research these kinds of things before I move anywhere. Thanks for the warning.

Gun laws by State. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)) Double check with the official regulations, but this is a good start.

I'm in Tennessee. You only have to register a concealed weapon (and get a CW permite).

[Mr.Moron]

Gun laws by State. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)) Double check with the official regulations, but this is a good start.

I'm in Tennessee. You only have to register a concealed weapon (and get a CW permite).

Wow. Scary stuff. Glad my own state seems to be fairly reasonable. Dang. I think that's about the most I can without getting political. Still though, :smalleek:.

[Pyrian]

Was domestic violence even brought up by the OP?No, but the amount of people killed by the firearms in their own household is high enough that I think it's worth mentioning.


I wasn't advocating removing them from households, I was saying that not having a gun won't really stop lethality from happening in a domestic dispute. You can always just grab something else, and most of the times they're within close enough ranges for it not to matter.And I'm saying that having a gun in the household DOES make domestic disputes escalate to lethal violence much more quickly. Also, this is not a particularly disputed or controversial statement; it's a well-known fact. http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm "Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner."


If she lost her key, what are the chances she'd still have a key to her parents place? While not always the case, most people I know keep all their keys on one ring.I feel like I'm talking to people in some alternate universe who've never snuck into their own parents house at night on one errand or another. A quick survey of five friends revealed that every single one of us had done so at some time or another, often more than once.


A person there on accident isn't gonna make sudden movements when confronted by an angry shotgun toting homeowner.I think rather that people who don't realize they're creating any kind of threatening vibe when suddenly confronted by a shouting shotgun-weilder might very well panic and duck.

[Jack Squat]

Nothing is a 100% effective, thus my examples of guns jamming, ect. Failure for both is not likely to happen. My entire point was that it is a viable alternative if you want it.

Yes, guns jam, but that can be cleared in under a second. If a taser doesn't work, it takes a bit longer to get back into action. I'd say that for the range, Bear spray/RAID is better than a Taser, as you don't have to be accurate first time around.



It doesn't demean him at all. You take a shot with one and let me know how that goes for you. :smallamused:

Oh, I know I'll go down. I was stung by a bee today and was jumping around in pain :smalltongue: (admittedly, the jumping was because I was wearing sandals and trying to kick the thing out from between my toes)


I'm sure that fighting a taser can be done. However, they also seem to work fairly well on police shows such as COPS the few times I've seen them used (and they actually hit). And again you'd have to be able to restrain a robber afterward which typically is not an easy task even for the police. So it's a messy solution at best for home defense. I'm not deluded into thinking a taser is some magical freeze ray that will stop every possible assailant in his tracks and be the be-all-end-all. Hence my not having one. But they are damn painful.

As I said, I'd sooner go for a bat and the threat of the police in the event of a break in.

I'd choose the bat first as well (actually my current choice is a hockey stick), and it's worked great for my dad in the past; but if I've got tools up more for the job I'm not going to leave them behind.


Frankly, that's horrifying. I'm going to have to be sure to research these kinds of things before I move anywhere. Thanks for the warning.

In all of the US, people are allowed to own guns. In most of it, you don't need a permit to, just clear a background check showing you aren't a convicted felon or involuntarily committed. I don't want to go into the political issue of gun rights, but there is an inverse correlation between how freely one can keep guns and frequency of violent crimes.



No, but the amount of people killed by the firearms in their own household is high enough that I think it's worth mentioning.

And discounting suicides, most of the injuries by their own or a family member's gun is because of stupid mistakes; most notably not checking to see if it's unloaded before handling it.


And I'm saying that having a gun in the household DOES make domestic disputes escalate to lethal violence much more quickly. Also, this is not a particularly disputed or controversial statement; it's a well-known fact. http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm "Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner."

Yes, most people are killed by people they know, and guns do a pretty good job of killing people. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that if there isn't a gun, it's not really a stretch of the imagination that they'll head into the kitchen and grab a chef's knife instead. Violent people will be violent no matter the circumstances.


I feel like I'm talking to people in some alternate universe who've never snuck into their own parents house at night on one errand or another. A quick survey of five friends revealed that every single one of us had done so at some time or another, often more than once.
.

In the original scenario you posted, a daughter was going into a house because she forgot her keys to her place. All I was saying was that if she lost her keys, how likely is it that she would she have the keys to her parents place? If I lost my keys, I'd either use the garage door (which is fairly noisy) or knock. Neither is really "sneaking in"; of course, our house also gets locked up at night, so I need a key to sneak in. If you want to change the scenario fine, but my answer will still be identify the target before putting your finger on the trigger and you won't have any problems.

[Renegade Paladin]

Wow. Scary stuff. Glad my own state seems to be fairly reasonable. Dang. I think that's about the most I can without getting political. Still though, :smalleek:.
How is permitting firearms ownership unreasonable or frightening? Someone with intent to break the law and kill will be perfectly happy to break the law to get a weapon to do it with.

[Mystic Muse]

Nothing is a 100% effective, thus my examples of guns jamming, ect. Failure for both is not likely to happen. My entire point was that it is a viable alternative if you want it.



According to me? Never said they were better than guns. According to me? Never claimed hitting was easy, or even mentioned anything about it. There is no need to be so hostile or start making a strawman out of what I was saying.

I suppose I could have clarified and said the shaped pulse extends the range of the probe, but I thought it was common sense. I wasn't even trying to touch on the clothing/thickness thing, just mentioning the shape pulse technology. But, there is always this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43oegXwW3k) So, I wouldn't really doubt it would work on them.

A. that's what's more commonly known as a stungun and B. you'd be lucky to get that close if the other person had any form of self defense. If the person isn't running they probably have some form of it and you'll be lucky to get away with just a knife wound. of course there is the possibility that they're just that stupid but a taser is a lot safer than one of those.

[SDF]

Okay? The point was the end result, not the method of delivery.

[Trog]

I was stung by a bee today and was jumping around in pain :smalltongue: (admittedly, the jumping was because I was wearing sandals and trying to kick the thing out from between my toes)
Stung between the toes? Ow. >.<

[Jack Squat]

Stung between the toes? Ow. >.<

Tell me about it. I swear those things are out to get me. Must've been payback over that hornet I killed a couple days ago.

[Mystic Muse]

Tell me about it. I swear those things are out to get me. Must've been payback over that hornet I killed a couple days ago.

I swear my brother is on "bees most wanted" because they always seem to target my family. must be all the hornets and wasps nests we've killed.

[Trog]

Perhaps the real culprit in the OP was a gang of delinquent bees. >_>
http://varifrank.com/images/snl_killer_bees.jpg

[Jack Squat]

I swear my brother is on "bees most wanted" because they always seem to target my family. must be all the hornets and wasps nests we've killed.

I've been stung by just about everything on land that can (save scorpions). Even had them attack me in other ways (wasp flew straight into my eye then just flew off). I'm stepping up my game now so that my life will be like that Inglorious Basterds movie, but replace the Nazis with bees/wasps.


EDIT: @Trog :smallbiggrin: I completely forgot about that skit. Even if I'm too young to remember it :smallwink:

[nothingclever]

Nothing is a 100% effective, thus my examples of guns jamming, ect. Failure for both is not likely to happen. My entire point was that it is a viable alternative if you want it.



According to me? Never said they were better than guns. According to me? Never claimed hitting was easy, or even mentioned anything about it. There is no need to be so hostile or start making a strawman out of what I was saying.

I suppose I could have clarified and said the shaped pulse extends the range of the probe, but I thought it was common sense. I wasn't even trying to touch on the clothing/thickness thing, just mentioning the shape pulse technology. But, there is always this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z43oegXwW3k) So, I wouldn't really doubt it would work on them.
You implied those things at the very least. Why backtrack if you spoke so confidently before? If the taser isn't equal or better than a gun why did you bring it up over and over again as an alternative to one and make a big deal out of its stopping power?

Are you going to tell me next that you never actually said the exact words "a taser is a good alternative to a gun"? If so, you're just nitpicking. If you bring up the use of tasers and make comparisons to guns to defend them then you might as well have said exactly that. You definitely never said "Silly me, why did I bother mentioning tasers? Guns are clearly superior." Heck, "viable alternative" implies just as good or at least close to being as good. It's not much of a viable alternative if its effectiveness is vastly lower.


Okay? The point was the end result, not the method of delivery.
And yet you defended and continue to defend its penetration capabilities as if the delivery method was part of the point.

[Trixie]

Besides, philosophically speaking, what is the difference between defending yourself with force and having someone else (i.e. the police) do it for you? If the offender is going to respond in a manner that requires you to shoot him, he will likely respond to the police in a manner that requires them to shoot him.

Simply: if the general populace has difficult access to handguns, it means there are far less guns to steal. It means there are far less gun stores carrying handguns and their ammo to break into (note that doesn't say anything about shops with rifles and shotguns, as those aren't used for crime, usually) - and you cannot do it casually. With small legal market, the black one will be also much smaller and the guns much more expensive.

You're all casually talking about armed robbers, shooting to kill, and gun duels, but these happen only because bandits can arm just as easily as the legal guys, as the guns are plentiful on both markets. Where I live, and armed burglar is an extremely unlikely occurrence (unless he is a part or a large gang, and these don't deal in petty thefts, usually) - simply, getting a gun is difficult, and even if he had it, pulling weapon of any kind during a burglary or robbery automatically means much harsher sentence. They are not out to kill, as they don't want to turn into hunted animals, all they seek is (ill) profit.

Okay, what about rare madmen who are after your life, then? Yeah, in that case it would be nice to have a gun, but would it be enough? I shoot many guns in my life, from airsoft replicas to full powered soviet assault rifles, and I know that I wouldn't want to even touch a gun until I had a hew minutes to calm myself (otherwise, I'd shoot at shadows, and that isn't going to help) and accept the fact I have to shoot other human. Obviously, the night robbery would be as different from these circumstances as possible.

There is also another factor to consider - madmen in my country don't have guns, either. Yeah, I know things like Columbine are rare, but they simply don't happen here. In two of our neighboring countries, Finland and Germany, massacres did happen - they have access to guns. Here? Never, despite a much larger percentage of depressed and ill fitted people. In fact, there was lately one similar occurrence - but since the mad student in question had access to (only) a knife, he managed to (only) slash one woman colleague in the arm before he was beaten, overpowered, and handed to the police. If he had a gun, he would have killed at least a few people, as there was access to a nice shooting position he could have took there.

Frankly, I don't see guns as a solution. It is part of the problem. Yes, I agree, if you draw a gun you have to be prepared to kill - but escalating the arms race between people obscures the fact, that without this arms race, there might not be a big problem at all.

[Trixie]

Yes, guns jam, but that can be cleared in under a second. If a taser doesn't work, it takes a bit longer to get back into action. I'd say that for the range, Bear spray/RAID is better than a Taser, as you don't have to be accurate first time around.

What.

If it is simple case (ahem) of spent case lodging somewhere, sure. If not, in most cases gun becomes unusable without being picked apart and/or being given to gunsmith.

With taser, if range electrodes fail, you still have close range ones available immediately.


In all of the US, people are allowed to own guns. In most of it, you don't need a permit to, just clear a background check showing you aren't a convicted felon or involuntarily committed. I don't want to go into the political issue of gun rights, but there is an inverse correlation between how freely one can keep guns and frequency of violent crimes.

Nope. Unlike what NRA tries to sell, there is direct correlation. Look at countries where guns are absolutely forbidden, like Japan and Singapore - lowest crime rates in the world. Next, ex-Soviet zone (where people had difficult access to guns) - in most places (where mafia does not have access to, say, a corrupted police official) violent crime rates are small. Admittedly, where they had access to corrupt police is was higher, but still not that bad, and things are steadily improving since 1991. After that, comes most European Union states (medium access, medium to low crime rate), then US (high access, high crime rate, a big % of population behind the bars) and finally states (usually failed) where you can own guns freely - Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Afghan, etc. Guess what crime rates they have?

You know, according to NRA, these should be the happiest and safest countries on the planet, right?


And discounting suicides, most of the injuries by their own or a family member's gun is because of stupid mistakes; most notably not checking to see if it's unloaded before handling it.

Yeah, let's add dangerous objects into a household, there is no way they could backfire. Let's give every responsible citizen a bar of TNT, or a vial of anthrax - they, arguably, too, can be used for self-defense :smallwink:


Yes, most people are killed by people they know, and guns do a pretty good job of killing people. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that if there isn't a gun, it's not really a stretch of the imagination that they'll head into the kitchen and grab a chef's knife instead. Violent people will be violent no matter the circumstances.

Except killing people with a knife is difficult, and you can run/defend from one. Also, there are almost no instances of minors killing adults with knives. With guns? Easy.


In the original scenario you posted, a daughter was going into a house because she forgot her keys to her place. All I was saying was that if she lost her keys, how likely is it that she would she have the keys to her parents place? If I lost my keys, I'd either use the garage door (which is fairly noisy) or knock. Neither is really "sneaking in"; of course, our house also gets locked up at night, so I need a key to sneak in. If you want to change the scenario fine, but my answer will still be identify the target before putting your finger on the trigger and you won't have any problems.

I seem to remember things like "shoot as fast as you can, to not give them chances", "shoot to kill", "shoot anything that enters your turf, they forfeited the right to be humans" being said in this thread - not exactly advocating caution and double checking :smallamused:

[Dracomorph]

@Trixie:

Several of your points on gun control are valid, e.g. that madmen having less access to firearms is a good thing. But, and I'm not trying to start a fight here, Europe is not the US. Things that work there would not always work in the States, especially gun control policies.

One simple reason is that there are quite a few rural households that need firearms either for protection from wild animals, or to hunt game for food. Sure, these people could use other methods for hunting, but when mountain lions or bears are a significant threat to your home, a gun quickly jumps from "not needed but helpful" to "if there isn't one in the house, you are much more likely not to survive."

I'm going to stop there, to avoid getting political. Apologies that this doesn't really address the OP in any way; you seem to understand your situation fairly well already.

[Trixie]

Several of your points on gun control are valid, e.g. that madmen having less access to firearms is a good thing. But, and I'm not trying to start a fight here, Europe is not the US. Things that work there would not always work in the States, especially gun control policies.

One simple reason is that there are quite a few rural households that need firearms either for protection from wild animals, or to hunt game for food. Sure, these people could use other methods for hunting, but when mountain lions or bears are a significant threat to your home, a gun quickly jumps from "not needed but helpful" to "if there isn't one in the house, you are much more likely not to survive."

Um, while what you say is valid, I can say I happen to live less than 90 km from one of the most wild and rural areas in the whole European Union. Bears, wolves, wisents, lynxes, wild dogs - name it, they're all over the place. In fact, I went to a few of these remote places during my vacation, two weeks ago - if you remind me I'll post a few photos you could find fairly interesting tonight.

But, you know, while my impression is that populace in these areas isn't heavily armed (save for a few odd members of hunting clubs) and we don't have mountain lions to take care of, the general consent here isn't to happily shoot animals - in fact, shooting most of these animals is illegal (in fact, killing a bear can result in sort of national outrage). If wolves happen to catch a sheep or cow, too bad, all you can count on is a compensation from a state wolf saving fund - people here instead keep good fences and take a wide berth around wild animals, not treat them like a resource to be exploited. Sure, if you have enough money, you can buy a permit to kill a single wolf or bear, but these are expensive, and you'd be asked to stay away from the best specimens.

In fact (I'll keep this short, to not sound political) I think while an animal that wounded a human should be hunted down (but put into zoo, preferably), the "normal" animals, especially rare ones, like lynxes, wisents or wolves have right to live as well as we do, and actually people should do everything they can to preserve them, including marking their land as national parks. Encroaching their lands, especially in large countries, then shooting animals that only defend their territory as pests or killing them for meat (or worse, leisure) without regard for the state of entire species strikes me as just... wrong.

And no, I'm not a vegetarian, and I hate Greenpeace (for personal reasons and their plain greed and stupidity).

[Dracomorph]

@Trixie

Generally, I agree. And it isn't common for any wild animal to be a threat to a human, even in the most dangerous parts of the States. It does happen, though, and I would hesitate to take a rifle from someone who is more easily the victim of an attack.

Also, although the States does have similar laws about killing wild animals, the attitude is very different from what you describe, along with some of the ecology.

There are probably far fewer large predators in the continental US, even discounting urban areas, than there are near you. Oddly, this means that human intervention is required to keep deer population down because they have basically no predators. Deer hunting in the States helps to keep an already ludicrous deer overpopulation from getting worse faster. Rifles are a requirement here for all but the most skilled stalkers.

On the attitude note, I've known farmers, and if they don't strongly suspect they'll get caught, they will likely hunt down or trap a coyote that's killing chickens, permit or no.

I would like to see those photos; I'm always interested to see wilderness areas, especially ones I might never get to visit.

[Jack Squat]

What.

If it is simple case (ahem) of spent case lodging somewhere, sure. If not, in most cases gun becomes unusable without being picked apart and/or being given to gunsmith.

With taser, if range electrodes fail, you still have close range ones available immediately.

Guns jam 99% of the time because of a spent casing or because of a faulty magazine. Given, the latter cannot be changed in under a second, but it's not a deal breaker. If a gun breaks, it needs to be be taken to a gunsmith, but if a Taser breaks, you're not exactly out of the woods.

I know about the close electrodes, but the advantage of a taser is the range. However, if you have to use those, the taser's purpose has failed, and you're at a much higher chance to be attacked in melee range. It's about as effective as pistol whipping them.




Nope. Unlike what NRA tries to sell, there is direct correlation. Look at countries where guns are absolutely forbidden, like Japan and Singapore - lowest crime rates in the world. Next, ex-Soviet zone (where people had difficult access to guns) - in most places (where mafia does not have access to, say, a corrupted police official) violent crime rates are small. Admittedly, where they had access to corrupt police is was higher, but still not that bad, and things are steadily improving since 1991. After that, comes most European Union states (medium access, medium to low crime rate), then US (high access, high crime rate, a big % of population behind the bars) and finally states (usually failed) where you can own guns freely - Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Afghan, etc. Guess what crime rates they have?

You know, according to NRA, these should be the happiest and safest countries on the planet, right?

The comparison, I believe, is normally limited to inside the US, with places like Chicago, (north)New Jersey, New York, LA, etc. having much, much higher crime rates than say Knoxville, Seattle, or Portland. The comparison can also be driven to the UK, where violent crimes have gone up in the past 20 years, about the time guns became heavily restricted there.

With Japan, my personal theory is that they're too busy defending against giant radioactive monsters to go after eachother :smalltongue:




Yeah, let's add dangerous objects into a household, there is no way they could backfire. Let's give every responsible citizen a bar of TNT, or a vial of anthrax - they, arguably, too, can be used for self-defense :smallwink:

How would a responsible citizen use these for self defense? Besides, HD is not the only purpose for a gun. You've got hunting and target shooting at the very least. I don't see anthrax faring too well as a sporting good.




Except killing people with a knife is difficult, and you can run/defend from one. Also, there are almost no instances of minors killing adults with knives. With guns? Easy.

Killing someone with a knife isn't difficult; it was the longtime friend of assassins. It's just harder than a gun. You can run and defend from a gun as well, much like my argument against the Taser, they're not some magic device.

Why limit yourself to minors killing adults? While I'm sure it happens more than you're willing to admit (with an average of 400 knife crimes in England and Wales per week, I'm sure several result in adults being killed, plenty of which involve minors). Children kill other children plenty with knives, and adults kill children plenty with knives. Doing a google for child kills parent with gun, it seems much rarer. However, there are plenty of minors killed with guns. I'm willing to bet most of them are from gang activities rather than home disputes.




I seem to remember things like "shoot as fast as you can, to not give them chances", "shoot to kill", "shoot anything that enters your turf, they forfeited the right to be humans" being said in this thread - not exactly advocating caution and double checking :smallamused:

And as you can clearly read, I've been fighting against those - well, except "shoot to kill". While the technical term is "shoot to stop", you're more likely to do that with a shot to the chest than one to their leg. So you do shoot to kill, just until the threat has stopped (they run off, surrender, slump to the ground, etc.)

[Erloas]

Nope. Unlike what NRA tries to sell, there is direct correlation. Look at countries where guns are absolutely forbidden, like Japan and Singapore - lowest crime rates in the world. Next, ex-Soviet zone (where people had difficult access to guns) - in most places (where mafia does not have access to, say, a corrupted police official) violent crime rates are small. Admittedly, where they had access to corrupt police is was higher, but still not that bad, and things are steadily improving since 1991. After that, comes most European Union states (medium access, medium to low crime rate), then US (high access, high crime rate, a big % of population behind the bars) and finally states (usually failed) where you can own guns freely - Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Afghan, etc. Guess what crime rates they have?

That is taking a lot of situations well out of context though. Sure Singapore has a lower crime rate and doesn't have access to guns, but it is also illegal there to litter and can get huge fines and jail for it. And as for the last countries, I don't think its really legal to own guns in most of them either, but there really isn't any one to enforce those laws. The fact that they are generally controlled by local gangs is why they have the levels of violence they do, not because the normal citizen does or does not have access to guns.

Even in the USA things change a lot from one place to the next. When I lived in Phoenix I don't think I knew anyone that had a gun. Where I live now I don't know anyone who doesn't own a gun or 3. Guess which one has more crime and more violent crime? It isn't where I live now.


As for killing wild animals without cause or a license... The Game and Fish seem to be a lot more aggressive about that sort of thing then the police are about various crimes. In fact the Game and Fish have more rights then the police do when it comes to searching people. If you shoot a wild animal in self defense you had better be able to show you were in imminent danger. Even in the case of them attacking livestock, with the exception of coyotes, you have to call the Game and Fish to have the wild animal dealt with and can't shoot them on your own. (legally at least, people do though because there is just too much space for the G&F to patrol)

Although even in terms of self defense of yourself and your house, even if no one had guns that wouldn't stop someone from breaking in. And at that point any confrontation between home owner and burglar would probably go to the advantage of the burglar. Guns in this case give the advantage to the homeowner because the homeowner has the advantage of initiative and cover. If all you had to defend yourself was a knife or bat you have to give up your cover and give ample warning time to the burglar that you are acting against them. Then it comes down to who is better at using a knife or bat or unarmed and I'm going to guess that 99% of the time the burglar is going to have had more practice and is more comfortable with their weapon then the homeowner.
Someone who makes a (partial) living at robbing others is going to have a lot more experience dealing with those situations and is going to have the advantage in any situation where both parties are aware of the other.

The original poster would probably have a good advantage since he has went through basic training and was a soldier for a while. However that is not going to be the case for most people.

[Cyrano]

That is taking a lot of situations well out of context though. Sure Singapore has a lower crime rate and doesn't have access to guns, but it is also illegal there to litter and can get huge fines and jail for it.

lolwut does that have to do with anything?

[Erloas]

lolwut does that have to do with anything?

If you want to compare gun laws and crime rate you have to have a base crime level to compare to. To say Singapore has less violent crimes just because they ban all guns is ignoring so many other variables to make the statement meaningless.

[Cyrano]

If you want to compare gun laws and crime rate you have to have a base crime level to compare to. To say Singapore has less violent crimes just because they ban all guns is ignoring so many other variables to make the statement meaningless.

But...Littering isn't violent crime anyways, so doesn't it's status as "illegal" matter not a whit when comparing these base crime levels of which you speak? I mean, I guess I just don't understand that well, but okay.

Regardless, out of curiosity, what exactly makes individual U.S. states have the same "basic" crime level? What differentiates the comparison of Texas to New York from the comparison of Texas to Singapore?

[Surfing HalfOrc]

But...Littering isn't violent crime anyways, so doesn't it's status as "illegal" matter not a whit when comparing these base crime levels of which you speak? I mean, I guess I just don't understand that well, but okay.

Regardless, out of curiosity, what exactly makes individual U.S. states have the same "basic" crime level? What differentiates the comparison of Texas to New York from the comparison of Texas to Singapore?

The difference is overall governmental control and differences in social attitudes.

In Singapore (very pretty city, BTW), there are many police, and they ticket people for just about everything. Gum, littering, spitting on the sidewalk, on and on and on. Singapore is well known for being a "Fine" city. But the people accept that level of official interference in their lives. The same goes in Japan, where the police come talk to parents on a regular basis, and usually have a good idea who's getting good grades and who isn't. So with this level of involvement in personal lives, people are less likely to commit crimes, because the cops do know who you are and where you live.

In New York and Texas and other places in the U.S, people follow the American concept of Freedom, which is usually held on the basis of "If I ain't actively causing problems, leave me and mine well enough alone!" People are much more independant, for good or for ill, and that's the way it is. So comparing Singapore to the U.S. is not even Apples to Oranges, it's more like Apples to 18 Wheelers.

One country that is often left out of the no guns=no crime is Switzerland. The Swiss have (or at least had) a manditory gun ownership law as part of their "We're neutral, and we plan on staying that way" policy. The Swiss have very low violent crime rates, but is that because you don't want to start trouble with an armed Swiss, or because of their social attitudes against crime?

There is no simple solution. Washington D.C. once had the strictest gun control laws in the country, and was the Murder Capital. My little home town allowed the students a week off in the fall for hunting season, and we had very few violent crimes even though most people were armed.

This does not necessarily equal that...

EDIT: Although everyone has been polite and courtious on what is usually a highy inflamitory topic, expect this thread to be shut down soon. We seem to be straying into politics... Of course the methods of defending one's self is always political, so I'm suprised this thread has lasted eight pages!

[Erloas]

But...Littering isn't violent crime anyways, so doesn't it's status as "illegal" matter not a whit when comparing these base crime levels of which you speak? I mean, I guess I just don't understand that well, but okay.

Regardless, out of curiosity, what exactly makes individual U.S. states have the same "basic" crime level? What differentiates the comparison of Texas to New York from the comparison of Texas to Singapore?

Littering isn't a violent crime, but it is illegal in a lot of places anyway. Here it isn't enforced much because its really difficult to. It was maybe 10ish years ago though where there was some big international incident about someone getting thrown in jail in Singapore for discarding gum or something like that. (I think it was about the same time as the caning thing for the minor vandalism)
Since crime of all sorts is very much related to social and economic situations its not possible to take two places of vastly different social settings and economic conditions and compare them to try to find the effectiveness of the laws in the area.
Crime is also a risk vs rewards thing, and if the risk of something very minor like littering is fairly high it makes it very clear that the risk for something major like robbery is going to be very very high, to the point where it isn't worth even trying for most criminals.

As for comparing levels across states, I don't think that works either for the same reason. Which is what I was trying to reinforce with my other example, the fact that one place and a much higher percentage of gun owners and also had lower crime and both have similar gun laws shows that the correlation between the two isn't that great.

Of course that is getting away from home defense and gun control is very political so I'll stop there.

[Erts]

This has really gotten off topic.
This is not a debate on gun laws, it's someone asking for advice.

[Supagoof]

Right.

So rather then debate the ethics and other aspects of him using a gun, let's turn it into - what clever ways can he make his abode less of a target for these thieves.

I've been thinking about this, and it may be worth it to just trick them. Though I'm not certain how much you want to inconvienence yourself.

My thought is why not show them you have nothing worth taking? I'd say go so far as bring your place down to the bar minimals. Take everything that has any value to you, and see if you can't borrow some space from a relative or friend to store it for awhile (since you mentioned you'd be moving in a few months anyway). Bring it so if they break in - the only things they could steal would be like - a bed, clothes, and food in the fridge.

Now - there is some hiccups to that, one of which is how you post here (laptop or desktop?) - If laptop - great. Then you can carry that with you when you leave and keep it locked in your car (assuming you have a car and it's got a trunk.) If you have a desktop - well then it gets trickier.

Then when you have your place down to the just the bare essentials - leave your door unlocked. If they come in (and they'll probably leave the door open when they leave), there will be nothing worth it to them so they'll stop trying.

Just another thought on a different tactic to take. :smallwink: Again not certain of all the details, but thought I'd throw it out there. What else can the playground think of?

[Kcalehc]

Er ok. So someone bangin' on the door leads directly to get a gun and shoot em? Crazy people you all are.

How about, turn on the light, and shout loudly; preferably mentioning that you are very heavily armed and have just dialed 'IX I I' on your telephonic device. Seriously. Possibly you might also enquire as to their identity, it may be someone you know or some other innocent person in the wrong house. You could also open a window and exclaim to the wider world (assuming there are homes/people nearby) that your domicile is under attack.

There's no need to go into another room with a potentially unknown number of indeterminately armed intruders before at least attempting to give them the opportunity to exercise the better part of valour thus possibly avoiding commencing a confrontation. Most home intruders do not want to get caught and will bolt before you can leave your room - especially when they know they have been discovered and that law enforcement may be on the way.

Sure, after that walk out with yer gun and do all the stuff mentioned before. Or buy a dog - as a bonus they are much more fun when not being broken in to as well.

[Umael]

Er ok. So someone bangin' on the door leads directly to get a gun and shoot em? Crazy people you all are.

*sigh*

Please re-read the OP's post.

The attempted break-in happened twice. The OP got the shotgun after the first attempt, but didn't use it on the second attempt.

Why? Didn't need to use it.

You listed a lot of good alternatives, and that's helpful, but the things is, they are alternatives. Getting a gun is a valid form of defense in certain situations.

Me, I won't get a gun. Why? I don't live alone and accidents happen. If I lived alone, I would be more willing to risk an accident as it is only me I endanger.

Still, if I had a gun, and someone tried to break into my home, I might be inclined to greet them with a warning gunshot while they were in the process of breaking in but not yet inside. If that slim window was closed, I would assess the situation as best I could, and if necessary, defend myself and my loved ones with lethal force.

For the record, I don't have a gun, but I do have a number of knives and associated melee weapons. I wouldn't want to get into a fight with someone who might be armed with a gun, but to protect my loved ones, I'm willing to take the risk.

Do I like this idea? No. Most definitely not.
Do I think this is a bad idea? By itself, definitely.
Would I try to avoid it? Yes. Most definitely so.

I happen to be lucky in that I do not live in a bad neighborhood. I have never had a confirmed instance of someone attempting to break into any residence, my own or someone else's, in which I was. I feel no need to have a gun in my home, do not want a gun in my home, feel that guns are too easy to obtain, and frown upon the gun culture here in America.

That said, if anyone said they wanted to get a gun for home protection, all I would say is train, maintain, and refrain unless necessary. Then go with my blessings and aim true.

[GoC]

I'd rather have the law on my side if anything like that happens. In my state it's legal to use lethal & deadly force if someone breaks into your house.
Just make sure you don't have to. Killing someone is not something you should do. Especially not for a robbery.
Here's a question: Do you think they would kill you while robbing your home if you did not resist?
If the answer is no then just install some hidden cameras and contact the police afterwards. You'll have your stuff back, they'll be in jail and noone will be dead. Even if they did get away your possessions aren't worth their life.
Guns in general seem an unneeded escalation but you know the rules of engagement in your town better than I do.

Also: tasers

EDIT: Am I just sympathetic because I happen to know the kind of people who'd break in and also know they're not particularily unpleasant people and would beopposed to killing (if making off with your money requires killing you they're not going to try it but if they think you'll kill them then it's just "self defenc" on their part)?
Also added bolded part.

EDIT2 for great justice:

I don't want to go into the political issue of gun rights, but there is an inverse correlation between how freely one can keep guns and frequency of violent crimes.

IIRC US has the highest murder rate (and a high violent crime rate) of any developed country.