Gun Controll Glock 9

[Jon Sprunk]

Breaking into a home, at night, in a country where so many homes have firearms, is an incredibly risky proposition. People engaging in such activity are well aware of the possibility of violence, yet decide to do it anyway. From the perspective of a homeowner, that places a great deal of question in my mind as to their intent, and I don't believe that myself and my family should have to roll the dice and just hope that these people are after nothing other than property. That's particularly true for those of us who live in a single family home where the presence of a car or cars in the driveway strongly suggests that someone is home. Why would someone break into a home when the residents are inside?

I really don't want to run that risk, nor -- if a person or persons unknown are actually heading the the stairs or already upstairs -- do I think I owe anyone the obligation of a warning that will cause me to lose whatever advantage I may have. You break into my house and come up the stairs, and you're getting shot. Period. And I'm not waiting for you to point a weapon at me or someone in my family first "just to be fair"

You realize that you're describing Mutually Assured Destruction, right?

[Sturn]

Serious question here -- are you saying you let him take the first shot, just so you know he's a "really" bad guy before you shoot?

No of course not. I'm a, "Han shot first!", fan and don't need Greedo to shoot at me, just point a gun at me in a threatening manner.

Edit: To clarify with more detail, I suppose just have a gun in his hand and refuse to immediately drop it, raise it towards me instead of dropping it, etc. If you have a gun, are in my home, keep it pointed at the ground while I'm telling you to drop it, even if you don't move at all but still keep the gun in your hand, I'm going to be forced to shoot you.

Police training has shown me that you can't realistically react to someone moving to shoot you and get the first shot off. The reacting person always loses no matter how much of a badass he may be. There's a simple example I used when an FTO. I tell a rookie to point a finger at my head and say, "bang", when I try to slap his hand/gun away. You can't even say, "bang", quick enough let alone pull a trigger. The person reacting is at a huge disadvantage time wise. If you wait for a person to draw on you Old West style, he WILL get the first shot even if you have a gun pointed at him and are waiting for it.

[Sixshells]

At the risk of sounding incredibly silly: is shooting any intruder coming into your home, without warning, without knowing if he's armed or not, even legal in at least parts of the US?

[Sturn]

Yes.

[Sixshells]

Under what cause? Self defence? Property defence? What happens if the intruder dies?

[Sturn]

Castle Doctrine in some states allows you to shoot someone you believe is in your house only to burglarize it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.

[Robin Of House Hill]

At the risk of sounding incredibly silly: is shooting any intruder coming into your home, without warning, without knowing if he's armed or not, even legal in at least parts of the US?

Given the conditions in your question, no.

ETA: It appears I am wrong. Who would have thought.

[peterbound]

ETA: It appears I am wrong. Who would have thought.

Me

[Centrist Simon Steele]

At the risk of sounding incredibly silly: is shooting any intruder coming into your home, without warning, without knowing if he's armed or not, even legal in at least parts of the US?

in Colorado if anyone enters inside my house without permission I can legally shoot and kill them. Make My Day Law is what it is called around here.

Of course I find it ridiculous.

[peterbound]

in Colorado if anyone enters inside my house without permission I can legally shoot and kill them. Make My Day Law is what it is called around here.

Of course I find it ridiculous.

Ha, and of course I find it lovely. I was raised in the AZ though, so even the laws up here seem tame compared to the wild west of my youth.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Edit: To clarify with more detail, I suppose just have a gun in his hand and refuse to immediately drop it, raise it towards me instead of dropping it, etc. If you have a gun, are in my home, keep it pointed at the ground while I'm telling you to drop it, even if you don't move at all but still keep the gun in your hand, I'm going to be forced to shoot you.

Police training has shown me that you can't realistically react to someone moving to shoot you and get the first shot off. The reacting person always loses no matter how much of a badass he may be. There's a simple example I used when an FTO. I tell a rookie to point a finger at my head and say, "bang", when I try to slap his hand/gun away. You can't even say, "bang", quick enough let alone pull a trigger. The person reacting is at a huge disadvantage time wise. If you wait for a person to draw on you Old West style, he WILL get the first shot even if you have a gun pointed at him and are waiting for it.

Honestly, I'm confused by this. It sounds in the first paragraph like you're saying you'd tell him to "freeze", and then shoot him if he doesn't. But in the second paragraph, you're saying that if he decides to move, you'd be the "reacting" person, and therefore would lose. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said, but that's how I read it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I understand that. But if I hear something go bump in the night, I'm not going for my gun. The situation you described is such a remote possibility that I am completely okay with 'rolling the dice.' I just feel that if I did reach for my gun, 9 times out of 10 (if not more) it's going to make the situation worse. And for that other 1 time, the once in a million time, I've got a dog that'll be all over the intruder.

I agree that it is a remote possibility, which is why I have yet to do it. Closest I even got was someone who specifically said he was coming over to our house that night to do some harm, and he had a crazy enough history (arrests, restraining order) that I thought it was a possibility. Wouldn't have lost any sleep dropping him, either. Not after the shit he already had pulled.

That's not to say that aren't violent people out there somewhere breaking into homes, and I'm not questioning you're right to defend your family, I'm just saying that to me it would be reckless to keep a gun for that purpose. That might be because I would not be comfortable shooting someone only to find out it was some junkie going for the silverware. I agree that someone would have to be incredibly stupid to break into a house, given the arsenal of the populace, but I don't think I should be able to kill someone just because they are stupid or breaking the law.

I think the odds of a junkie breaking into my house are probably even more remote than the other explanations. It's a different thing if you're living in a city, perhaps. But as I said, I would not just shoot anyone who came in my house. If I just heard noises (the breaking glass type of shit) downstairs, it's yell for identification, cock shotgun if necessary, tell them they have a good chance of dying if they don't get out of my house right now, and call cops. It's only shoot if they are coming upstairs where my family is. At that point, I'm not taking any chances they are a junkie.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So yes, the size of the US absolutely makes a huge difference.

I also think there is a core political/social difference in the way we view governments. The question asked by the average peasant in Europe over the past few thousand years is "I wonder who will rule/be in charge". The existence/right to rule of that higher authority -- whether just a tribal chief, local lord, king, or whatever, was taken as a given.

We're a much newer country, founded by a fair number of political/religious refugees and others with a mistrust of central authority. So to many Americans, the first natural question to ask wasn't "what is the government going to do about 'X'?", but rather "what should we/I decide to do on our own about this?" And while we're no longer as much that country as we once were, there are still a lot of people who see the government very much as a "them" to be mistrusted rather than a "them" that we accept because there has always been some group of another in charge.

I mean, no matter who is President, I've always viewed that position and the authority it represents as having less moral authority than we all retain as individuals. They're inherently the "bad guys", even if it is someone I like. So having individuals retain weapons for self-defense seems like an utter given to me, sort of the core of what we are.

[TrueMetis]

I also think there is a core political/social difference in the way we view governments. The question asked by the average peasant in Europe over the past few thousand years is "I wonder who will rule/be in charge". The existence/right to rule of that higher authority -- whether just a tribal chief, local lord, king, or whatever, was taken as a given.

We're a much newer country, founded by a fair number of political/religious refugees and others with a mistrust of central authority. So to many Americans, the first natural question to ask wasn't "what is the government going to do about 'X'?", but rather "what should we/I decide to do on our own about this?" And while we're no longer as much that country as we once were, there are still a lot of people who see the government very much as a "them" to be mistrusted rather than a "them" that we accept because there has always been some group of another in charge.

I mean, no matter who is President, I've always viewed that position and the authority it represents as having less moral authority than we all retain as individuals. They're inherently the "bad guys", even if it is someone I like. So having individuals retain weapons for self-defense seems like an utter given to me, sort of the core of what we are.

Do a lot of people in the US still believe this? Your country was founded by rich white slave owners.

[Sturn]

Do a lot of people in the US still believe this? Your country was founded by rich white slave owners.

What does your first sentence have to do with your second sentence?

I'll try answering the first sentence. Yes. We still believe in indepedence, freedeom, and self-determination.

[Sturn]

Honestly, I'm confused by this. It sounds in the first paragraph like you're saying you'd tell him to "freeze", and then shoot him if he doesn't. But in the second paragraph, you're saying that if he decides to move, you'd be the "reacting" person, and therefore would lose. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said, but that's how I read it.

If you have a gun, are in my home, keep it pointed at the ground while I'm telling you to drop it, even if you don't move at all but still keep the gun in your hand, I'm going to be forced to shoot you.

In my second paragraph I was explaining this sentence in my first paragraph. Re-reading it I think it still says what I intended, but yes it was rambling and confusing.

I didn't say I would tell him to freeze. If he remains in my house and doesn't immediately drop the gun, he gets shot. I was foreseeing the counter-argument of, "Oh my you shot a person with a gun who didn't even threaten you with it!", and so went on to explain how a person just holding a gun can easily kill you even if you are waiting to shoot him at any notice of movement.

[TrueMetis]

What does your first sentence have to do with your second sentence?

I'll try answering the first sentence. Yes. We still believe in indepedence, freedeom, and self-determination.

I was asking about the bolded.

Though you response does lead to another question, just what the hell does individual gun rights have to do with any of that?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Do a lot of people in the US still believe this?

Not as many as it used to be, but my guess is you'd find gun owners -- particularly those who aren't just "I happen to have a gun in my house" people, to more strongly identify with the individualist political line of thinking.

Your country was founded by rich white slave owners.

The vast, vast majority of people who founded this country, settled it, fought in the the Revolution, etc.., were not rich white slave owners, and it is their POV that is at the core of the idea that the "little man" is morally and legally the equal of his "societal betters".

But I will say the fact that you classify the founding of the country by looking only at it's wealthiest, most prominent people rather than considering the vast majority of individuals who actually hacked a living out in a new land sort of exemplifies the different perspectives.

[Jon Sprunk]

I would not just shoot anyone who came in my house. If I just heard noises (the breaking glass type of shit) downstairs, it's yell for identification, cock shotgun if necessary, tell them they have a good chance of dying if they don't get out of my house right now, and call cops. It's only shoot if they are coming upstairs where my family is. At that point, I'm not taking any chances they are a junkie.

And I don't think many people would have a problem with this. It pretty much lines up with my thinking on home defense (minus the firearm).

The problem lies primarily with people who (A) don't think the way you and I do, for whom guns are a cool toy that they don't properly respect, and (B) those who provide guns (via straw purchases, theft, smuggling) to criminals.

[Guest Raidne]

I've never heard or read anyone in the military say anything like that - the closest would be Chris Kyle's book American Sniper and that was more "No, I don't feel bad" not "oh I loved it."

On the other, enjoying killing a deer with a single clean shot is a hell of a lot more well-adjusted than whatever I'd have to tell myself to feel good about that last Burger King burger I ate, or even the locally raised hanger steak I ate last Friday. That deer isn't going to taste as good though...