Firearms yes or no

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

In a case like your life or his, then I can see that perhaps you have to be brutal, but killing is never right or justified. In the case you describe then I think you would have to be certain that your life was at risk of being lost before you could say, "it was him or me"

A burgler prowling about in your house does not automatically mean you will be killed. In which case you don't have any reason to shoot that person.

How good a martial-artist are you? I'm nearing 60 years of age, and I'm sick a lot of the time. A burglar comes in my house and I should challenge him to an honorable battle? I don't think so.

Or, as a strong trained martial-artist friend of mine said a long time ago, "I have a wife and three small children. My job isn't to win a fight, it's to keep them safe. If someone comes into my home without my permission, I don't care if it's just to ask for directions; if I die there's nobody left for them. Where my family's life is at stake, my job is to protect them any way I can. Period."

You're right; a burglar in my house doesn't automatically mean my life is in danger. How am I to know that until it's too late?

Here is a local story out of Denver. The suspect lives, and more importantly, so does the victim.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=67276

[Fish]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Yes, I do know what I'm saying. Thanks for trying to clarify, though.

Otherwise, you're saying I should just let the intruder have a field day in my home? Not everyone is a MA master, you know. (I know P-G is going to say "And not everyone is a good shot, either)

How big a change do you have (statistically) to find a intruder in your home?
0.00....?
Do we all need to have a gun to defend us for such a minor change?

[Yahoshua]

Look at it from this perspective Penelope:

A burglar who absolutely doesn't want to confront the occupants of a residency would rob the home during daylight correct?

The burglar would have to be an absolute idiot to assume that nobody is in the home if he invades it at night unless he has accurately determined that the occupants will NOT be at home.

Me, if I wake up hearing a strange noise inside my home, and since I live alone I know that it isn't me making that noise. I'm not going to try and interrogate the burglar before pulling a gun on him upon discovering that he's here to kill me. I'm going to pull the gun on him first, and if he obeys my directions he'll be fine. If I believe myself to be in danger of life or limb he's 86'd.

I'm not going to make any assumption other than that the burglar knows I'm in the home and that he intends to kill me. The facts will come out AFTER the confrontation, provided the burglar is still alive.

And contrary to your beliefs, killing in defense of ones' life IS justifiable. Would you stand idly by and do nothing if you were watching a mugger stab a woman to death knowing that you have the capability of killing the mugger to save the womans' life?

[Penelope_Grey]

I am not a martial artist. I have never bothered learning a fighting art, because I have never wanted to, as I don't feel I have any need to use it, nor do I wish to fight. I know you are going to say, what would I do, an intruder in my home, etc etc... I would get out any which way I could or if I was cornered, I would co-operate with the burgler any way he wanted, he is a lot more dangerous if you try to stop him, if you don't, then he is less dangerous. A burgler is there to steal things, therefore, if you allow him to steal, statistically speaking the risk is vastly reduced.

I have tried to answer your questions, but all you do is ask me more again, its like my answers are not registering. You do not have the right to kill people. If you do kill someone then you deserve to be punished for it, self-defence or not. As for the mugger thing, I certainly would not kill the mugger, if I had the ability to kill him (through any means) then chances are I would also have the capability to render him incapacitated till the authorities arrive.

Some of you here frighten me, I will be honest you genuinely scare me with your attitudes, you come over as being so trigger happy and like a bunch of wild west throwbacks. Its almost like you are looking for excuses to kill someone.

[Yahoshua]

I tend to answer questions with questions. It's how I go about making my point by trying to get you to see it from my perspective.

Just giving up and rolling over doesn't guarantee the criminal will let you get out of the situation alive.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5527139?source=rss

I keep Murphys' Law at the forefront in most if not all situations I end up in. And I don't go hunting for problems, but I'm constantly prepared to confront them.

I also take it from your posts that you've never actually been in a life-threatening confrontation. While you have noble ideals of preserving justice without the taking of life, that line of thought just doesn't work in the real world.

And the differences between us are that of only two aspects: The flight or fight instinct (you choose to run, and I choose to resist), and experience. When you're faced with a life-threatening situation, you don't have time to think, but just enough time to act.

Most people who want to run from confrontation are prevented from doing so by the criminal, and aren't willing to resist for fear of making the situation worse. In the end, the criminals will do as they please and ultimately get away with the crime. You however, will have to live with whatever situation that came about as a result of your actions, that is if you're still alive.

I however, will not belly-up and give in. I will resist to the point of using deadly force if I need to. Anyone who has killed a man does suffer the trauma of trying to figure out how they could've gotten out of the situation without killing the opponent, but in the end the simple fact of it is that I consider my life more important than that of the criminal.

[Rykaird]

Gun Pros: Highly effective. Instantaneous elimination of threat. Easy to learn. Works at range. Works well against multiple and/or physically superior attackers.

Gun Cons: In most states, it won't be with you when you need it, since carrying a concealed weapon is illegal - it does you no good in a parking lot at night if the gun is in your nightstand at home. Bullets penetrate walls easily, making killing a neighbor or other family member a possibility as you spray lead at your attacker. Guns are very intriguing to children and cause many accidental deaths - and safety precautions like trigger locks and leaving the gun unloaded reduce its effectiveness in an emergency when you really need it.

Martial Arts Pros: Always with you, in every situation. Great exercise. You'll live longer not because you can defend yourself, but because you'll be in better shape.

Martial Arts Cons: Questionable effectiveness against multiple and/or physically superior attackers. For example, I seriously question that a small woman can take out a large, enraged, drunken and/or drugged male with a few Hollywood judo moves. May give you false confidence when a hasty retreat would have been a better option. Many assailants are armed - that's why they have the confidence to attack in the first place.


Threat defense for the home should be considered as having multiple layers. The lock on your door is a layer. An alarm system is a layer. So is your phone and 911. The gun occupies the final layer - it is the last line of defense in the home. If you don't like guns - or worry about your kids fooling with it - but feel somewhat less protected than you like, beef up the outer layers - better locks, superior alarm system, buy a dog.

There's no one answer here. Statistically, I would imagine the safest people in the world are the ones that live in the best neighborhoods. I grew up in a town where for the 20 years I lived there the number of murders was exactly zero. Probably better to spend four years getting a law degree or an MBA instead of studying martial arts or gun handling and get a better job and live somewhere safer.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Rykaird

Gun Cons: In most states, it won't be with you when you need it, since carrying a concealed weapon is illegal

Little more information on this point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#State_laws

Bullets penetrate walls easily, making killing a neighbor or other family member a possibility as you spraylead at your attacker.

This depends on a number of factors, more information can be found here:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Guns are very intriguing to children and cause many accidental deaths -

Education and parental supervision is the best prevention. Any firearm that you don't use for concealed carry (which the kids must NEVER know about) should be locked up in a safe like this one:

http://www.ftknox.com/safes/index.htm

http://www.browning.com/products/cat...ry.asp?value=F

http://www.libertysafe.com/safegallery.lasso

DO NOT go out to Wallyworld and buy one of their "safes." The best safe weighs about 800 lbs; can withstand at least 1,000 F* of heat, is NOT electronically coded, and is bolted to a concrete floor and to the wall. Even better would be to have the safe in a basement, or sompleace that would make it physically difficult to get out of the home.

and safety precautions like trigger locks and leaving the gun unloaded reduce its effectiveness in an emergency when you really need it.

Trigger locks are worthless, they can still be broken with the right tools.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

I know you are going to say, what would I do, an intruder in my home, etc etc... I would get out any which way I could or if I was cornered, I would co-operate with the burgler any way he wanted, he is a lot more dangerous if you try to stop him, if you don't, then he is less dangerous. A burgler is there to steal things, therefore, if you allow him to steal, statistically speaking the risk is vastly reduced.

You are assuming that an intruder (I use this word instead of burglar) is there merely to steal. What if he doesn't want you to cooperate, what if his intentions are more personal? I know this seems extreme, but there are people in this world who enjoy inflicting pain and worse on others.

I have tried to answer your questions, but all you do is ask me more again, its like my answers are not registering. You do not have the right to kill people.

If someone attacks you he gives up his rights.

If you do kill someone then you deserve to be punished for it, self-defence or not.

Not so. Courts (at least where I live) consistently uphold the right to self-defence, even to the point of killing.

As for the mugger thing, I certainly would not kill the mugger, if I had the ability to kill him (through any means) then chances are I would also have the capability to render him incapacitated till the authorities arrive.

Again, not true. Even police officers are trained to aim at the biggest target, which is the torso. First, you can't be guaranteed to hit anything smaller. Second, There is a good chance that your assailant will be under the influence of some drug which renders injured (or even broken) limbs a non-problem.

Some of you here frighten me, I will be honest you genuinely scare me with your attitudes, you come over as being so trigger happy and like a bunch of wild west throwbacks. Its almost like you are looking for excuses to kill someone.

I'm not trigger-happy at all. In fact, I've never shot - or even shot at - anyone. My friend I talk about who has had three home invasions that I know of has had the same experience every time: most burglars really aren't looking for a fight, and the sound of the slide on a .45 racking into position is enough to set them running as fast as they can. If that doesn't work, the sight of the gun pointing at you will.

I see many here are playin' Hitman...:rotfl:
The good knowledge of martial arts, even Tai Chi Chuan, are crucial of you want to render your attacker incapable of hurting you, and martial arts are for DEFENSE PURPOSES ONLY!!!
It is all right to inflict pain on your attacker, but in a manner to stop him from attacking you...
Sometimes it is quite enough to hit nerve points and to end a fight before it even started.
Another scenario: If your life is threatened with a much larger/heavier/stronger person, use of a firearm I would permit is:
1. Pointing at him and warning him that he's about to get shot
2. Scaring him by shooting a single bullet in the air
3. Targeting legs/arms or/any other non-fatal area
For those who want do-it-yourself, train nunjuitsu...
I trained KyokushiKai for 7 years....
Now, I train at my home several martial arts combinning and developing them into one multi purpose defense ability...
But to kill someone with/without a firearm: NO WAY!!!

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by GakunGak

Another scenario: If your life is threatened with a much larger/heavier/stronger person, use of a firearm I would permit is:
1. Pointing at him and warning him that he's about to get shot
2. Scaring him by shooting a single bullet in the air
3. Targeting legs/arms or/any other non-fatal area.......

....But to kill someone with/without a firearm: NO WAY!!!

1. I agree with.
2. No warning shots, only lethal ones. If you fire a warning shot and then need to neutralize the intruder, the jury is NOT going to be very forgiving.
3. NEVER shoot to wound, shoot to kill the intruder. The prosecutor will twist the situation in every direction he can to get another conviction under his belt.

As for the refusal to kill in defense of your life, have fun trying to keep it up.

Originally Posted by GakunGak

I
Another scenario: If your life is threatened with a much larger/heavier/stronger person, use of a firearm I would permit is:
1. Pointing at him and warning him that he's about to get shot
2. Scaring him by shooting a single bullet in the air
3. Targeting legs/arms or/any other non-fatal area

In the real world all these ideas are bad.
1. If you draw the weapon do not hesitate to use it. If, as a reasonable person, the situation is grave to the point of drawing the weapon, the use of the weapon, once drawn should be used immediately. Delay is to put yourself in greater danger.

2. See the above, and shooting in the air can and will put others at risk. In your home you may injure one of the people you wish to protect, or if in an apartment your upstairs nieghbor. If in the open, all things that go up are subject to earth's gravity and will come down. Unfortunately where the bullet comes down is not predictable and so will put other people at risk for serious injury or death.

3. See number one. In real life, not the films, your use of a firearm in this manner may lead to an assault or criminal negligence charge by the legal authorities. Beyond that in a real world circumstance, as stated in other posts on this thread, an individuals aim will not always be accurate towards the center of mass (torso), much less an extremety.

The upshot is: If anyone is thinking about the use of firearms as a means of self defense, all scenerios must be thought out and rehersed before hand because in the heat of the situation most people cannot and will not think.

[Yahoshua]

Even if you can think you'll be shaking in your slippers too much to be accurate enough to take kneecap shots.

[Penelope_Grey]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

I tend to answer questions with questions. It's how I go about making my point by trying to get you to see it from my perspective.

Just giving up and rolling over doesn't guarantee the criminal will let you get out of the situation alive.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5527139?source=rss

I keep Murphys' Law at the forefront in most if not all situations I end up in. And I don't go hunting for problems, but I'm constantly prepared to confront them.

I also take it from your posts that you've never actually been in a life-threatening confrontation. While you have noble ideals of preserving justice without the taking of life, that line of thought just doesn't work in the real world.

And the differences between us are that of only two aspects: The flight or fight instinct (you choose to run, and I choose to resist), and experience. When you're faced with a life-threatening situation, you don't have time to think, but just enough time to act.

Most people who want to run from confrontation are prevented from doing so by the criminal, and aren't willing to resist for fear of making the situation worse. In the end, the criminals will do as they please and ultimately get away with the crime. You however, will have to live with whatever situation that came about as a result of your actions, that is if you're still alive.

I however, will not belly-up and give in. I will resist to the point of using deadly force if I need to. Anyone who has killed a man does suffer the trauma of trying to figure out how they could've gotten out of the situation without killing the opponent, but in the end the simple fact of it is that I consider my life more important than that of the criminal.

No I have never been in a life-threatening confrontation. I was however present at Liverpool St Station when the July bombing happened, me and my brother and some friends had gone to london for a break. That is about as life threatening as it gets.

No I disagree, we are a lot different than you say, you are prepared to stoop to killing, I am not, and I am proud of that. You and others may be prepared to kill and become killers but I would rather die myself, than stoop so low, I kill someone, I am no better than the criminal I shot, my being better than scumbags like that is what makes me who I am. Thefore for me, its a no no. Always has been always will be. Would I sit back and allow myself to be killed? no way. But I would never intentionally kill somebody, not like what you and the other gunslingers in this thread are saying they are prepared to do.

You are assuming that an intruder (I use this word instead of burglar) is there merely to steal. What if he doesn't want you to cooperate, what if his intentions are more personal? I know this seems extreme, but there are people in this world who enjoy inflicting pain and worse on others.

Well if that is the case, fighting would be futile probably as the intruder would doubtless be prepared for your attempted resistance or fleeing.

If someone attacks you he gives up his rights.

Maybe, but that does not automatically give me the right to blwo his brains out with a gun.

Not so. Courts (at least where I live) consistently uphold the right to self-defence, even to the point of killing.

Glad I don't live there then, because some of the people in this thread have pretty much said they would shoot first and forgo even bothering to ask questions and claim they were in fear for their life, sounds to me like that kind of system lets the killers walk free. Here in the UK we have reasonable force I will find out about what it says when your life is threatened and there is evidence to suggest that how far you can go.

Again, not true. Even police officers are trained to aim at the biggest target, which is the torso. First, you can't be guaranteed to hit anything smaller. Second, There is a good chance that your assailant will be under the influence of some drug which renders injured (or even broken) limbs a non-problem.

A thigh and upper leg area is an easy enough area of the body to hit, drugs or not, you put a bullet or two in someones thigh and they WILL fall down. They may not feel it, but you can't stand without your thighs, its a given fact.

I'm not trigger-happy at all. In fact, I've never shot - or even shot at - anyone. My friend I talk about who has had three home invasions that I know of has had the same experience every time: most burglars really aren't looking for a fight, and the sound of the slide on a .45 racking into position is enough to set them running as fast as they can. If that doesn't work, the sight of the gun pointing at you will.

But not everybody here in this thread would be so lenient as to allow the intruder chance to leave. They would simply shoot him there and then... or so they say... therefore, I am left to assume from what I see here, the majority of pro-gun people are perfectly happy to kill, even whether they realise it or not, are looking for every possible instance where they can be excused for doing so.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

But not everybody here in this thread would be so lenient as to allow the intruder chance to leave.

Next time he breaks in, he might not be so "defenseless". And he might bring 4 of his friends, too. Or it'll be someone down the street that you know, and it'll be their house that gets robbed. Or worse.

He made his call before he came in.



Anything you do can get you shot, including doing nothing.