Homeowner shoots, kills intruder

[Hot Mega]

Yes because all criminals got to a "criminal bootcamp" where they learn the fine art of trick shooting.




Most criminals simply don't know how to shoot, they hold the gun sideways (which is the incorrect way to handle a handgun) and fire off multiple shots(if the gun is loaded or operable) without hitting anyone.

A friend of mine does the IPSC matches. With his 9mm Glock 19 he could drop a criminal(s) before that guy had a chance to respond.


Criminals are stupid.

It takes very specific practice and training to effectively use a firearm against someone in a close quarter situation...no matter who you are.

You see cops time and time again empty clips at people on the side of some road and hit nothing.

It's sad that allot of people have a false perception of how easy (they think) it is for the average person to handle a situation like this. That said, it's better to be aiming the barrel of your firearm at some jackass criminal than staring down the barrel of his.

 

[ForumModeregulator]

 

[Ulysses31]

Yes because all criminals got to a "criminal bootcamp" where they learn the fine art of trick shooting.




Most criminals simply don't know how to shoot, they hold the gun sideways (which is the incorrect way to handle a handgun) and fire off multiple shots(if the gun is loaded or operable) without hitting anyone.

A friend of mine does the IPSC matches. With his 9mm Glock 19 he could drop a criminal(s) before that guy had a chance to respond.


Criminals are stupid.

A certain South Korean born student managed to shoot dead 32 people pretty easily and he and he couldn't even talk or spell properly. I'm just saying is all :dunno:

 

[Ulysses31]

In this case, innocent people ought not be left defanged and defenseless by the g'ment.

If this is the case then does the government allow you to have your 'legal' gun with you at all times, inc in public buildings, educational establishments and your workplace :dunno:

 

[ForumModeregulator]

If this is the case then does the government allow you to have your 'legal' gun with you at all times, inc in public buildings, educational establishments and your workplace :dunno:

There is no Federal law generally prohibiting the carry of firearms by citizens for protection or other lawful purposes, with limited exception in the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 which prohibits the carry of a functional firearm within one-thousand (1000) feet of the property line of any K-12 school. A carry permit may exempt persons from this Federal restriction in the State which issued the permit, depending on the laws of the State. Some other Federal statutes concerning military installations and other Federal property also address the carry of firearms. By tradition and as defined in the Constitution, laws describing the bearing of arms are exclusively the business of state legislatures.

 

[ikizido]

They are both wrong but the homeowner is more wrong.

 

[ThatRedWing]

How much do you want to bet that the dumb dead fuck's family files a lawsuit for wrongful death? Stupid fucking criminals.

If you break into my home and threaten my family, you will be shot. That will be the least of your worries because I won't kill you. While you're waiting for medical attention my wife will be bitching at you for bleeding all over everything and making a mess.

 

[larss]

To me Ulysses makes the most sense here, but I may be biased because I live in the UK where guns have NEVER been allowed by the general citizenry without a license. This even extended back to crossbows before guns were available.

To my mind, it seems most likely that a home owner with a gun is more likely to be shot by an intruder with a gun than the other way around. Not because one is a better shot than the other, but purely by the reason that the intruder is most likely to have his gun either in his hand or readily available.
Picture this - an intruder breaks in to the house and the householder (as in this case) is alerted to the fact by the dogs barking. The householder carefully gets out of bed and retrieves his gun (assuming that it is stored in the bedroom), creeps downstairs and confronts the intruder. The intruder, nervous and jumpy (most burglars are) veins pumping with adrenaline, sees a man with a gun. The intruder is more likely to shoot for that reason AND that it takes a certain type of person to be able to pull the trigger, and the intruder is more likely to be that sort of person that the householder.
Another problem is that a conscientious gun owner will keep his weapon locked up, so if the burglar was to enter the bedroom, waking the householder there, what use is the gun?
What use is a gun on the street when you are not allowed to carry it (unless you have a license to do so, which I am led to believe is not that easy to get hold of without showing cause).
It is not much use in the home, unless you sleep with it under your pillow, which is just plain stupid (and probably uncomfortable).

 

[Ulysses31]

To me Ulysses makes the most sense here, but I may be biased because I live in the UK where guns have NEVER been allowed by the general citizenry without a license. This even extended back to crossbows before guns were available.

To my mind, it seems most likely that a home owner with a gun is more likely to be shot by an intruder with a gun than the other way around. Not because one is a better shot than the other, but purely by the reason that the intruder is most likely to have his gun either in his hand or readily available.
Picture this - an intruder breaks in to the house and the householder (as in this case) is alerted to the fact by the dogs barking. The householder carefully gets out of bed and retrieves his gun (assuming that it is stored in the bedroom), creeps downstairs and confronts the intruder. The intruder, nervous and jumpy (most burglars are) veins pumping with adrenaline, sees a man with a gun. The intruder is more likely to shoot for that reason AND that it takes a certain type of person to be able to pull the trigger, and the intruder is more likely to be that sort of person that the householder.
Another problem is that a conscientious gun owner will keep his weapon locked up, so if the burglar was to enter the bedroom, waking the householder there, what use is the gun?
What use is a gun on the street when you are not allowed to carry it (unless you have a license to do so, which I am led to believe is not that easy to get hold of without showing cause).
It is not much use in the home, unless you sleep with it under your pillow, which is just plain stupid (and probably uncomfortable).

Couldn't have put it better myself larss. And if you can't take your gun into work with you, school with you or any other public building how can you protect yourself from a nutter who comes in with a legally owned gun to do as much damage as posssible :dunno:

 

[vodkazvictim]

I don't get that. Does British citizenry come with a cop in every home or something?

How are they supposed to be there to protect you from an intruder coming in the middle of the night to make you watch your wife and daughter be raped while you wait to be butchered afterwards? All the while poor Ulysses sits there bound by law against defending himself.

Do the bad guys tip the cops off over there before they do crimes and see if they can pull it off before the cops show up?

Criminals have a bit of a Meccah in Britain. Our piss-poor-police-force operates so poorly that a guy who sexually assaulted an underage girl got off with a warning while a guy who got angry when asked for ID for (non-alcoholic) ginger beer got community service.
Because prisons cost money criminals don't go to prison for anywhere near as long as they should. In fact, there is such a shortage of prison space that we decided to let some prisoners go early. Of course, it was deemed rather unfair to release the prisoners into society when they had no work to support themseles; so the British government decided to pay (tax payers money of course) these poor prisoners for the horror of being released early from jail.
A certain judge; Lord wolf is famous for passing leniant sentences on male sex offenders, particularily those who assault under-age victims.

Something go wrong in the NHS? Know it's wrong for a fact because you're a doctor? Notify the authorities! Only thing is that you will then be bullied by NHS management unhappy at how you've expoed them as over-payed under-working frauds. This has resulted in suicides.
I honestly felt safer when I lived in Moscow. And here's the best bit: STATISTICALLY I WAS!
:rofl:

If it's in self defence under current UK law it would be perfectly justifiable to wound or even kill an individual who enters your home unlawfully with the intent of stealing or harming those within.

You would expect to be investigated in order for those dealing with the case to get an overall picture of how the incident occurred. For example, if you were found to have shot this individual in the back as they were fleeing the scene you would be prosecuted. But if the case could be made that they were coming at you (entry wound from the front by either a gun shot or a knife wound) or anyone else living within your home then you should expect to not be prosecuted.

At least I think that's how it works currently.

Yeah right. Put barbed wire up and the guy who tries to burgle you will sue you. And win.

 

[BlueBalls]

Yeah right. Put barbed wire up and the guy who tries to burgle you will sue you. And win.

Indeed, they probably will. I'm only quoting current law as it stands on paper, how it's spun once the deed has been carried out is anyone's guess.

 

[larss]

Something go wrong in the NHS? Know it's wrong for a fact because you're a doctor? Notify the authorities! Only thing is that you will then be bullied by NHS management unhappy at how you've expoed them as over-payed under-working frauds. This has resulted in suicides.
I honestly felt safer when I lived in Moscow. And here's the best bit: STATISTICALLY I WAS!
:rofl:

What statistics. Don't just say the word without backing it up with the figures.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
Where do you live now?

 

[vodkazvictim]

What statistics. Don't just say the word without backing it up with the figures.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
Where do you live now?

I live in the UK. I don't have the sources off hte top of my head but I'm sure you could google the stories from British papers.
The guy in the British embassy in London told all us students that if we didn't mess with Russian gangsters we were less likely to get violent crime than England. The Moscow metro is also much safer from terrorism because the Moscow metro police are thoroughly racist and allways pull over dark people to mug them. The police in fact are the worst aspect of the Moscow metro 90% of the time.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you how common NHS shooting of whistleblowers is?

I forgot to mention: I encounter chavs frequently in the UK. Never had any such troubles in mother Moscow.

 

[Hot Mega]

If this is the case then does the government allow you to have your 'legal' gun with you at all times, inc in public buildings, educational establishments and your workplace :dunno:

To me Ulysses makes the most sense here, but I may be biased because I live in the UK where guns have NEVER been allowed by the general citizenry without a license. This even extended back to crossbows before guns were available.

To my mind, it seems most likely that a home owner with a gun is more likely to be shot by an intruder with a gun than the other way around. Not because one is a better shot than the other, but purely by the reason that the intruder is most likely to have his gun either in his hand or readily available.
Picture this - an intruder breaks in to the house and the householder (as in this case) is alerted to the fact by the dogs barking. The householder carefully gets out of bed and retrieves his gun (assuming that it is stored in the bedroom), creeps downstairs and confronts the intruder. The intruder, nervous and jumpy (most burglars are) veins pumping with adrenaline, sees a man with a gun. The intruder is more likely to shoot for that reason AND that it takes a certain type of person to be able to pull the trigger, and the intruder is more likely to be that sort of person that the householder.
Another problem is that a conscientious gun owner will keep his weapon locked up, so if the burglar was to enter the bedroom, waking the householder there, what use is the gun?
What use is a gun on the street when you are not allowed to carry it (unless you have a license to do so, which I am led to believe is not that easy to get hold of without showing cause).
It is not much use in the home, unless you sleep with it under your pillow, which is just plain stupid (and probably uncomfortable).

Couldn't have put it better myself larss. And if you can't take your gun into work with you, school with you or any other public building how can you protect yourself from a nutter who comes in with a legally owned gun to do as much damage as posssible :dunno:

So the natural extension of this position would be why have cops if they can't be there to protect you at every hazard? Further, since police are at times prone to illegality and misconduct, why even have them if they can't protect you at every turn?

Using that analogy you can see it's a pretty lame argument and amounts to reaching at best.

You guys are trying woefully to make the perfect be the case against the best or good.

In no circumstance is everyone safe from every threat but at least they can stand a chance in their own homes...your endless "what if" scenarios notwithstanding.

 

[meesterperfect]

all this debate.
the guy had reasonable cause.
he was attacked.
justifiable.
the end.

 

[jvice]

Odds of a person being killed by someone with a gun each year. Better odds than the lottery!
USA = 9484 deaths / 307,006,550 population == 1 in 32,371
Canada = 200 / 33,311,400 == 1 in 166,557
Germany = 194 / 82,110,097 == 1 in 423,247
Spain = 60 / 45,555,716 == 1 in 759,262
England/Wales = 39 / 52,903,085 == 1 in 1,356,489
Australia = 35 / 21,431,800 == 1 in 612,337
Finland = 17 / 5,313,399 == 1 in 312,552
(source: bradycampaign.org)
Winning the MegaMillions Lotto in the USA with all numbers == 1 in 175,711,536
(source: wiki)

Looks like USA is #1 again!!! Sad to say, but even in countries with strict gun laws (England/Wales) there is still a chance your ass is gonna get capped!!

Regardless of these facts though, nothing can change the fact that the main reason the USA only has the rights to bear arms is because the founders wanted us to have them to protect ourselves from governmental tyranny. It was all part of their checks and balances system they tried to install in early US government.

Helps to do some research to find out why we have these laws in the first place. For these reasons I believe everyone has a right to own a gun. People just need to take this responsibility seriously and make sure they use them and store them in a safe manner.

A 2009 study by Charles C. Branas, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health, 99(11)(2009), published online ahead of print, Sep 17, 2009 and found that people in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault:

"Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

So when it comes down to it, it's not gun control, but gun safety that needs to be addressed.

P.S. And this is coming from what most people would consider a damn hippie liberal :thumbsup:

 

[monicasilver]

I'm sure this isn't the first time....just the first one you'll cop to.:lovecoupl

To quote Peter Griffin, "Who hurt you?"

 

[Hot Mega]

To quote Peter Griffin, "Who hurt you?"

Hmmm...well, Windows Vista was a bit of a disappointment and my gardener didn't do as consistent a job on my landscaping last time as he normally does which sparked a bit of introspection on my part but aside from that...:dunno:

 

[bustybbwlover]

sensationalism in the media :shock:

 

[Roughneck]

I'll agree with you dirk and so does probably 99% of the British public. Although I respect all views on this matter I personally feel gun ownership should be a privelege held by the police and the army and maybe school campus/bank security guards

(empasis mine) This ALONE is enough to 'indict' you amongst 'the Statist followers of philosophy'. Meaning - you believe that "agents of the State are possessed with greater intellect, understanding, training and morals than mere Citizens".

What you really meant by your statement above is: "Self protection is a privilege that belongs to the Government". In other words - It is ILLEGAL to protect myself, my loved ones or my property by MY SELF should the need arise! How many times do people have to repeat it for you: "When SECONDS count, the Police are MINUTES away"??

In the UK it's extremely rare for an innocent person to get killed by a gun

Stop believing the media hype - especially when it comes to "innocent person killed by gunfire".

those that wish to go through the lengthy and risky process of acquiring one (normally a crappy modified one at that) are normally bank robbers or gang members who wish to take out other gang members, people caught with guns face lengthy jail terms so criminals think twice about whether they want one or not.

BUT you still have gun violence in the UK...

I know I or my friends/family might get beaten or in a rare case stabbed over here (there has also been a clampdown on knive ownership) but virtually no chance of being shot.

The sad fact is that you do not consider the "threat" factor of yourself or your loved ones owning a firearm when it comes to a knife/club wielding criminal! If you were a criminal bent on harm - would you bring a knife to a gun fight?

Secondly I don't see much case for it being a defensive mechanism, this is only the case if you draw your gun first and take out the robber before he gets you. The guy in this story was lucky and he woke up, but how often does a homeowner shoot dead a robber in comparison to how often a robber/serial killer shoots dead an innocent victim, I think you'll find more innocents die than criminals when guns are legally available.[.quote]Sorry to be blunt - but you have no FUCKING idea as to how often guns are used as a means of defense - OFTEN without a SHOT BEING FIRED! Even the FBI has concluded that "the mere presence of a firearm dissuades crime". One just has to look through the plethora of cases on: http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

Lastly people here say ...[/url]

So just because other people chose to violate the rights of still OTHER people - that gives YOU the RIGHT to violate MY RIGHTS??
If you'll notice - the people who committed those "crimes" were already doing so - the firearm being present is a "NON ISSUE".
Your whole argument of "well if he only had a knife instead of a gun to kill people with, he could only have killed 2 or 3" is balanced by my argument of "well, if only ordinary folks were allowed to carry arms, well maybe the person wouldn't have killed a single person because they'd been shot ... instead of standing around helplessly like sheep waiting for the 'authorities' to arrive and 'save them' ..."

... to continue...