FA sear Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Remember that guns are Four times more likely to be used in self defense, than in a crime. I'm not challenging you... I just want to know the source on this so I can use this figure! No problem Ruin, you SHOULD question any stats that a person states. I was going to look for the article (it was a while back), but I see Parabellum has already posted a good source to get the info. I think I read the article on the NRA website a year or two ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militiaman Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Now compare that with the staggering fact that in fourty percent of all violent crimes, the offender is intoxicated. Just thought I'd throw that out there. I work at a place where people drink and it makes me glad I don't drink! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcinko Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Meanwhile in other places someone breaks in your place of residence with no intent of harming you, just to rob you of your belongings, and your some gun-ho ###### like me, you gun him down, i get sued by his family... I love the system i fight soo hard to hold hold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Meanwhile in other places someone breaks in your place of residence with no intent of harming you, just to rob you of your belongings, and your some gun-ho ###### like me, you gun him down, i get sued by his family... I love the system i fight soo hard to hold hold Well isn't that just the problem. I know someone who has about 70 machine guns, but when he is in the house, he pretty much relies on body armor, a Tazer and pepper spray. All those guns and he is deathly afraid to use them. Sick society we live in today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pz3 Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 (edited) Meanwhile in other places someone breaks in your place of residence with no intent of harming you, just to rob you of your belongings, and your some gun-ho ###### like me, you gun him down, i get sued by his family... I love the system i fight soo hard to hold hold Depends on the state. I know a handicapped man somewhere saw a man climbing in his window and shot him dead. No charges filed. keep at it though marcinko. You take on the bad guys where ever you go so I can take on the idiots here in the states. Edited February 12, 2007 by Prozac360 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snared_gambit Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Is stuff really worth killing someone for? I can't think of a single thing I own that someone could run off with that's worth killing someone over. A lot of those self-defense stories really sound like a burglar that made too much noise trying to make off with the person's stuff. I'm just curious, because the thought of capping someone that's running off with my TV had never honestly occurred to me. I'd probably just end up calling the cops, if it was something kind of important. That being said, keep the guns in the hands of the people. All guns. I ascribe to that thought for a vastly different reason then self-defense, and not for the use in crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 My thought has always been... that any unwanted person in my home (ie: an intruder) is there to do me harm. That is my assumption. I don't know that he's going to come in and just make off with my TV. I assume that because he broke into my house, he's there to do me and my loved ones harm, especially if he has ANY kind of weapon. Because of that, I'm willing to pull the trigger. I will take his life before I even consider risking my own or the lives of those I love. NC law allows me to think like this. They allow for "worst case scenario." I think I went over this already in this thread, but NC law says I can shoot you dead in my house, if you have broken the plane of my doorway and I believe you there to cause harm. It's self-defense (which is not limited to "self" but those you are responsible for as well). It's easy really. I wont ever point a gun at you, unless you give me a reason to. But be warned, the moment I do, I'm serious. No goofing around. Thankfully, I've never been in this situation, but I've given it A LOT of thought (especially once we got guns in the house). My conlusion; my life and my family's life is worth more to me than a stranger's who is willing to do us harm; I'll do what I have to, to protect that. Just a way of attempting to explain my line of thinking. People may not like it, and may think it wrong, but I plan on living past 54 (which is the oldest any man on my dad's side of the family have ever lived - and I have his genes). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Militiaman Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 North Carolina law allows me to think like this. They allow for "worst case scenario." I think I went over this already in this thread, but North Carolina law says I can shoot you dead in my house, if you have broken the plane of my doorway and I believe you there to cause harm. It's self-defense (which is not limited to "self" but those you are responsible for as well). It's easy really. I wont ever point a gun at you, unless you give me a reason to. But be warned, the moment I do, I'm serious. No goofing around. Thankfully, I've never been in this situation, but I've given it A LOT of thought (especially once we got guns in the house). My conlusion; my life and my family's life is worth more to me than a stranger's who is willing to do us harm; I'll do what I have to, to protect that. Just a way of attempting to explain my line of thinking. People may not like it, and may think it wrong, but I plan on living past 54 (which is the oldest any man on my dad's side of the family have ever lived - and I have his genes). I believe that if a man of the house does not do what he can to defend his family when they are in mortal physical danger he is not a man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 I believe that if a man of the house does not do what he can to defend his family when they are in mortal physical danger he is not a man. Ah, but is there not also a difference between that and a boy being gung-ho with a weapon and so putting himself, his family and possibly innocent people in danger in an over-zealous attempt to attain this mystical 'manliness'? Slightly off-topic but the fact that so much emphasis placed on 'manliness' is very much responsible for a lot of problems with young men in society IMO, in a similar way to the media's obsession with unhealthily slim women that is fuelling problems with eating disorders with young women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pz3 Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 It would be nice to discuss with crooks what they are going to take and make them tea while they do it.... but... thats rediculous. ANY ONE in your HOME uninvited even friends or family who pose as a hostile threat where you fear bodily damage or death you have every right to control the situation... It is your home. Now it may be different how people handle that. For me it would be a firearm. It depends on the hostile how far the situation escalates from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 It would be nice to discuss with crooks what they are going to take and make them tea while they do it.... but... thats rediculous. I don't think anyone was suggesting that. Yes, you have every right to defend yourself and your home in law (and so you should), but that doesn't answer the moral question about what is worth killing for. I still think there is a difference between someone who is responsible with using deadly force, and someone who is not responsible or who is really just looking for an excuse to shoot somebody (for whatever reason) and so is an equal danger to innocent people and themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ick Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 There are way too many idiots out there to run the risk of a "peaceful solution" when a guy breaks into your home. I agree, a homeowner has every right to shoot an intruder. Two things on this. 1. The person knows they are violating the sanctity of someone's home. They clearly know the risk they are taking even if they are high drugs at the time. As far as I am concerned, they put THEMSELVES at risk when the break in to my home. 2. I know there are examples of people that would just as well destroy your entire life to ensure they can "continue their habit". There are plenty of examples where guys broke into homes to steal things...for drug money.....and ended up killing a witness so that "they couldn't get caught." I know of one case where a guy broke in and stoll a bunch of stuff from his own parents....set fire to the building to eliminate evidence...and killed a nephew sleeping upstairs in the ensuing blaze. Imagine burning your nephew alive trying to continue your drug habit. No, the sad truth is that Man is inherently sinful and decadent. Granted we need to temper our response in the proper manner and be compassionate and forgiving.....but when it comes down to harmful intention we are allowed to defend ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pz3 Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Morals are different for every person... Its not my place to decide for someone else. If they use force they must make sure they have a good enough reason that a jury will side with their argument. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Now my personal morals... Any one in my house uninvited that is hostile will have exactly 2 heartbeats to think about what is being pointed at him. If he choses to run or follow commands it will end better for everyone. If he continues to approach me It is clear that if he is not fazed by the show of force and possibly death I am not going to want to find out what he does next. imminent dangers.... If he is within a couple feet or has a firearm... --------------------------------------------------------------- The same argument has used countless times before.... What if some gung ho idiot just wanted to kill some one with an excuse.... Well.... It doesn't work that way. It is still treated as a homocide... if police find any flaw in the stories or evidence to the story arrests may take place.... Eventually it is turned over to the attorney generals office and additional charges may be pressed for unlawfull use of force public endangerment etc... Edited February 22, 2007 by Prozac360 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 There are way too many idiots out there to run the risk of a "peaceful solution" when a guy breaks into your home. I agree, a homeowner has every right to shoot an intruder. Two things on this. 1. The person knows they are violating the sanctity of someone's home. They clearly know the risk they are taking even if they are high drugs at the time. As far as I am concerned, they put THEMSELVES at risk when the break in to my home. 2. I know there are examples of people that would just as well destroy your entire life to ensure they can "continue their habit". There are plenty of examples where guys broke into homes to steal things...for drug money.....and ended up killing a witness so that "they couldn't get caught." I know of one case where a guy broke in and stoll a bunch of stuff from his own parents....set fire to the building to eliminate evidence...and killed a nephew sleeping upstairs in the ensuing blaze. Imagine burning your nephew alive trying to continue your drug habit. No, the sad truth is that Man is inherently sinful and decadent. Granted we need to temper our response in the proper manner and be compassionate and forgiving.....but when it comes down to harmful intention we are allowed to defend ourselves. What happens if following a car accident someone is looking for a phone with which to call an ambulance, they try several houses but there's no answer at the door but one door is ajar or clearly unlocked, so they go in and look for a phone there. You've been working in your garage (or whatever) and come in from the back just in time to see someone frantically searching your house - so you shoot them simply for entering your house? I have no problem with someone defending themselves and their home against burglars and the like, but an 'always assume the worst so shoot first and ask questions later' policy worries me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ick Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) I have no problem with someone defending themselves and their home against burglars and the like, but an 'always assume the worst so shoot first and ask questions later' policy worries me. Come on now, that is not what we (or I) am talking about here. Unfortunately this discussion does not lend itself well to "generalities"...but rather specific examples of real-world cases. There are always examples of "valid excuse to be in my home" that would preclude a shoot first, ask questions later scenario.....but I bet for every ONE example where that happens....I bet there are 100 examples of: [smash.....Crash....tinkle, tinkle] [climbs into window...crunch, crunch] Enter intruder who will do anything to get money for drugs Edited February 22, 2007 by Ick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Innocent until proven guilty ring any bells? You're right, generalisations never help along with the fact that assumptions are the mother of all ****ups - that's the point I'm trying to make. There is a difference between finding someone wearing a balaclava who is picking up your TV to simply finding an unknown person in your hallway or coming through your front-door who is dressed normally (as a random comparisson). You need to judge every situation as it comes using some intelligence and common sense in order to decide on the correct response. Basically, 'shoot first and ask questions later' should never happen. It's simple, obvious things you should be asking yourself. Take your example, if you hear glass breaking and find someone going through a cupboard then it's logic (and reasonable) to assume they're not up to anything helpful. You've asked a question and engaged your brain before taking action, which is the responsible thing to do. Quite simply if you are incapable of following such a simple train of logic, you should on no account be in possession of anything more dangerous than a potato peeler in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ick Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 What happens if following a car accident someone is looking for a phone with which to call an ambulance, they try several houses but there's no answer at the door but one door is ajar or clearly unlocked, so they go in and look for a phone there. You've been working in your garage (or whatever) and come in from the back just in time to see someone frantically searching your house - so you shoot them simply for entering your house? I have no problem with someone defending themselves and their home against burglars and the like, but an 'always assume the worst so shoot first and ask questions later' policy worries me. There is a new invention called the doorbell that would wake up the homeowner first, and for those who have not invested in said invention, there were door knockers which preceeded the doorbells, and even before that some guy named God created something called a hand so that you could roll it up into a fist and try banging on the door. I heard God even created something called a voicebox that would allow you to call out for help. The "anti" establishment will come up with the craziest of scenarios to try and prove you wrong. Sorry, but even the one scenario will not justify the STATISTICAL FACT that in America guns that are discharged in self defense save well over 100,000 lives every year. Why is it that people are willing to say that they will sacrifice one life to save thousands, but when it comes to guns, one "innocent" life if too much of a price to pay. GIVE ME A BREAK. Hypocrites, plain and simple, use an argument only when it suits you. Innocent until proven guilty ring any bells? You're right, generalisations never help along with the fact that assumptions are the mother of all ****ups - that's the point I'm trying to make. There is a difference between finding someone wearing a balaclava who is picking up your TV to simply finding an unknown person in your hallway or coming through your front-door who is dressed normally (as a random comparisson). You need to judge every situation as it comes using some intelligence and common sense in order to decide on the correct response. Basically, 'shoot first and ask questions later' should never happen. It's simple, obvious things you should be asking yourself. Take your example, if you hear glass breaking and find someone going through a cupboard then it's logic (and reasonable) to assume they're not up to anything helpful. You've asked a question and engaged your brain before taking action, which is the responsible thing to do. Quite simply if you are incapable of following such a simple train of logic, you should on no account be in possession of anything more dangerous than a potato peeler in the first place. That is pretty much where people here stand, nobody said anything about going hog wild and shooting anything they see in the house. Gun ownership means being responsible, and guess what? If you are irresponsible with it, a little orgainization called the ATF will not approve your paperwork to own one. People simply said they would err on the side of caution on account of the fact that many here have families to protect. Would you risk the life of your wife (if you are married) for the possibility that the said intruder is innocent? Imagine what the guy will do to her if you hesitated and he took you out. Dickie, quite simply, if anyone wants to kill for the sake of it, they probably are some thug and they are probably the one breaking into your home. Opps, yes, that sounds like a guy I would shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickie Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) What happens if following a car accident someone is looking for a phone with which to call an ambulance, they try several houses but there's no answer at the door but one door is ajar or clearly unlocked, so they go in and look for a phone there. You've been working in your garage (or whatever) and come in from the back just in time to see someone frantically searching your house - so you shoot them simply for entering your house? I have no problem with someone defending themselves and their home against burglars and the like, but an 'always assume the worst so shoot first and ask questions later' policy worries me. There is a new invention called the doorbell that would wake up the homeowner first, and for those who have not invested in said invention, there were door knockers which preceeded the doorbells, and even before that some guy named God created something called a hand so that you could roll it up into a fist and try banging on the door. I heard God even created something called a voicebox that would allow you to call out for help. The "anti" establishment will come up with the craziest of scenarios to try and prove you wrong. Sorry, but even the one scenario will not justify the STATISTICAL FACT that in America guns that are discharged in self defense save well over 100,000 lives every year. Why is it that people are willing to say that they will sacrifice one life to save thousands, but when it comes to guns, one "innocent" life if too much of a price to pay. GIVE ME A BREAK. Hypocrites, plain and simple, use an argument only when it suits you. In my example re: somebody trying to find a phone in an emergency (specifically "they try several houses but there's no answer at the door"), I was implying that they had knocked and rang the bells as well as shouting for help, sorry if that wasn't clear. Losing an innocent life is never acceptable, sometimes it's simply the lesser of two evils. I accept that the majority of times when a firearm is used in self-defence the victim was not 'innocent' (or at least, I hope that's the case), and that on the whole lives are probably saved, but that doesn't mean the status quo is acceptable. You can always improve the situation, people could be more educated, better trained to deal with the situations, you could also address the causes of crime to prevent criminals being produced by society in the first place. Maybe even legislation to keep guns out of the hands of those who are not responsible enough to have them (and I'm including criminals in that category). Just to be nitpicky, there is no such thing as a statistical fact, only conclusions drawn from the way you interpret statistical data. That said I agree with you that guns in the US are used for self-defence by some people, and that some lives are saved through that. [edit] No, I'm not married, although I do live with my family. Supposing we moved back to the USA and I owned a firearm, then I happened across someone in my house, what would I do? I'd use my head. If he's bailing through the door or a window, armed and/or being aggressive towards me or members of my family then yes, the logical thing to do would be to get the firearm (if need be) and confront them, either chasing them off or pulling the trigger. However, if I came downstairs and found someone unexpected, calmly walking down the hallway? Again, I'd use my head. Another member of my family may know them and have invited them in, so I'd go and take a look. If they're talking to someone and it's clear they're welcome, then fine. If however there appears to be nobody about to have invited them in, then I'd ask them who they were and what they were doing and take it from there. Like I said, common sense. Edited February 22, 2007 by dickie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ick Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 You know how sometimes you think your dog is over by the food dish and you go into, say, the laundry room and there the dog is...surprising you? Every time that happens to me I get surprised and my first recation is to fire off a round from my 380 handgun. She has no business scaring me like that. Good thing I am a poor shot. Imagine the mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FA sear Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Like I said, common sense. Exactly. I just got the sense that somehow you were looking at the people in this forum as being too "trigger happy". This is where NV comes in VERY handy. You see them, but they don't see you. You know how sometimes you think your dog is over by the food dish and you go into, say, the laundry room and there the dog is...surprising you? Every time that happens to me I get surprised and my first recation is to fire off a round from my 380 handgun. She has no business scaring me like that. Good thing I am a poor shot. Imagine the mess. LOL, careful there Ick, your dog may develop a "bladder problem" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ick Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) LOL, careful there Ick, your dog may develop a "bladder problem" Everything I own has a bullet hole in it. Guess I should start taking my meds again. Edited February 22, 2007 by Ick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Innocent until proven guilty ring any bells?............................Quite simply if you are incapable of following such a simple train of logic, you should on no account be in possession of anything more dangerous than a potato peeler in the first place. That is pretty much where people here stand, nobody said anything about going hog wild and shooting anything they see in the house. Gun ownership means being responsible, and guess what? If you are irresponsible with it, a little orgainization called the ATF will not approve your paperwork to own one. People simply said they would err on the side of caution on account of the fact that many here have families to protect. Would you risk the life of your wife (if you are married) for the possibility that the said intruder is innocent? Imagine what the guy will do to her if you hesitated and he took you out. Dickie, quite simply, if anyone wants to kill for the sake of it, they probably are some thug and they are probably the one breaking into your home. Opps, yes, that sounds like a guy I would shoot. I agree, entirely. We all appear to be reasonably intelligent gentleman... Ick, holes in almost everything? I don't know... Anyway, it's an implication (and dare I say, assumption) that you ask questions first and give verbal warning before EVER pulling the trigger. This goes to JChung's point of responsible gun ownership. That you're not a trigger happy thug. But, because you're in my house, unwanted... I assume you're there to hurt me. So I bring my gun out first, ask questions, and hope I never have to pull that trigger, and that you'll have the sense to leave (all the while taking a mental picture of you to give as a description to my local PD). However, if you take more than one step towards me, or pull a weapon... well, I hope that day never comes. [edit] No, I'm not married, although I do live with my family. Supposing we moved back to the USA and I owned a firearm, then I happened across someone in my house, what would I do? I'd use my head. If he's bailing through the door or a window, armed and/or being aggressive towards me or members of my family then yes, the logical thing to do would be to get the firearm (if need be) and confront them, either chasing them off or pulling the trigger. However, if I came downstairs and found someone unexpected, calmly walking down the hallway? Again, I'd use my head. Another member of my family may know them and have invited them in, so I'd go and take a look. If they're talking to someone and it's clear they're welcome, then fine. If however there appears to be nobody about to have invited them in, then I'd ask them who they were and what they were doing and take it from there. Like I said, common sense. Not sure about how big your family is... but when I'm home visiting, I'm well aware of who's in my home and why. There's never any surprises. I think we all have to agree that Common Sense is your first form of self defense. But, like I said... we're all reasonably intelligent ( ), I'm sure all of us here would be able to tell, while staring at someone in their house, "wait a second, something isn't right here. This isn't a person looking for help, and they're sure as hell not lost... what are they doing in my house? Especially at this hour!" I suppose too, my perspective is a bit different. There's no accident scenario for where I live. I'm one of two homes on my mountain. If you're up there, you're visiting the Judge and her husband, or my family. And if you're in my house, and I don't know you.... something is awry. Especially late at night. Again, my $0.02 to the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snared_gambit Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 That's really all I meant. Defend your stuff and yourself, but putting a bullet in another person should not be your first thought. Find the gravity of the situation and try to resolve it without capping someone. Leaves a mess anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrester Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I'm glad I'm Dutch, not that many guns around here. In the States, most people killed by guns are victims of accidents, kids finding dad's gun and such. And I can tell you your gun is never hidden well enough, I was a very curios young lad and always knew what Santa had in store for me, no way my parents could hide somethingw ell enough. BAd for me I am no good liar, so my mom could tell by my exitement I had found something I wasn't supposed to..... And my mom would know what to do....give the present to my little brother instead of me...... OUCH! But back on the guns. Over here burglary is scarce, and most burglers are scared to hell when they hear anything, and almost all burglers over here don't cary a gun, so all they do is whet their pants when they hear someone spotted them. The only people to watch out for are drug addiccts since they can behave different, they know not what they do..... (and one attack in Amsterdam by a drug addict is the only thing ever happened to me exept for stolen bicycles) OK we don't have that many ghetto's, but even there guns are scarce...... so less harm is done. Most people killed in gunfights here were crooks themselves. And that is why I am agains guns in public, with or without license, the only people to wear guns in public should be cops (or robbers....lol) If you see how many kids are killed in the states by gun accidents you cannot be in favor of the right to have em..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.