2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[shidobu]

I'm a very cynical person but even I realize that most people are not going to murder someone, much less a mother and her children, over a burglary.

somebody didn't watch batman

on a serious note

robberies take a shit turn all the time. And then "he reached for the gun so i shot him"
yea that never happens on both sides.

If somebody breaks into my home im gonna assume the worst if i can't prevent this from happening.

> Me and my family die
> somebody gets raped/kidnapped ( i have a 4 year old niece with me and ill die before i let this shit happen while im breathing).

[Niiro]

The hiding place part was not to be taken seriously...

As far as the rest? I don't recall, even after rereading what I wrote, ever saying I would kill someone enthusiastically. Nor did I say I would kill them at all. You are right about one thing though. I would more than likely make my presence known and give them the chance to surrender and wait for the cops, but I would not let them go free after intruding into my house unless there were some incredible circumstances involved.

As far as self righteous...see the post Meko made. It is my home and my family. I will defend my family to the death if need be. If I am self righteous for that, then that is as it should be. Sociopathic though? You are trying too hard and listening to too many buzz words.

Think you need to re-re-read your own post.

Consequences are a bitch. Now this guy really gets to understand that his actions were wrong and gets to be reminded of it every day for the rest of his life. He broke into someones home with malicious intent. I would not have announced myself either. I would have shot him as soon as he kicked in the door. I have the advantage of a great hiding place above the entry though.

According to you he got what he deserved, you assumed he had malicious intent (theft does not imply malice in the least), and you state in no uncertain terms that you wouldn't have announced yourself either and shot him dead "as soon as he kicked in the door".

I would certainly call that enthusiasm to end another person's life when there are other ways to handle the situation (better ways for that matter, as I described in my last post).

Either you're backpedaling on pretty much everything you said in your first post or cognitive dissonance comes as a second language to you.

[Niiro]

You're making a very rational point in your comments. But here's your problem. The situation is anything BUT rational. A mother at home with her children and someone breaks in. Her thoughts aren't "well fuck there goes my flat screen." Her thoughts are "protect family protect family protect family protect family." She is no longer functioning as a rational human being at that point in time. Her priority is to protect her family, not give the guy breaking in her house to potentially harm her family a chance to find where she is and attack.

You keep saying she should call out I have a gun police are on the way and that nobody is going to risk a confrontation over a burglary. How do you know? How do you know he doesn't have a gun as well? How do you know he is alone? Are YOU willing to take that chance with your kids cowering in fear clutching at your legs behind you with you being the only line of defense in front of them? As to your comments about it possibly being a 15yo from a broken home, again, how do you know? Last I checked most 15yo's can figure out how to pull a trigger.

Don't want to get shot by a mother protecting her family? Don't fucking break into houses that you don't live in.

Aside from the first bit about not thinking rationally being a great argument against personal gun ownership, it's a piss poor argument. She put herself and her children at greater risk by doing what she did rather than trying to scare him off.

If he was armed or if there were multiple intruders that's even more of a reason to try and scare them off, because otherwise she and her 6 .38 shots which didn't even kill 1 guy would not have been enough to take down 2 (assuming still that after they found the house was occupied they didn't immediately make a break for it).

She's vulnerable, alone with her kids, and apparently not a great shot. It would behoove her to prevent them from coming any closer than the front door rather than count on disabling (apparently) potentially multiple armed men. Never mind the arguments concerning the justification of killing someone looking to steal from a house they thought was empty.

[Brill Weave]

According to you he got what he deserved, you assumed he had malicious intent (theft does not imply malice in the least), and you state in no uncertain terms that you wouldn't have announced yourself either and shot him dead "as soon as he kicked in the door".

I would certainly call that enthusiasm to end another person's life when there are other ways to handle the situation (better ways for that matter, as I described in my last post).

I would not call that enthusiasm to end another person's life. Sorry man, someone breaks into my house he is not walking out under his own power. I will defend myself and my family as I see fit. If you gain entry into my house in the middle of the night with bad intentions, whatever they may be, I will respond in kind. This whole "there's better ways" works fine until you find out he wasn't there to rob you. He's there to rape your wife/girlfriend/sister and murder you and the kids. A threat won't scare that off. I agree with Ace wholeheartedly. Stop the bleeding heart crap and realize in that situation it's you or him because you don't know what his intentions are. And by taking the chance of announcing your presence you potentially put your entire family at risk.

[Acevalefor]

Think you need to re-re-read your own post.


According to you he got what he deserved, you assumed he had malicious intent (theft does not imply malice in the least), and you state in no uncertain terms that you wouldn't have announced yourself either and shot him dead "as soon as he kicked in the door".

I would certainly call that enthusiasm to end another person's life when there are other ways to handle the situation (better ways for that matter, as I described in my last post).

Either you're backpedaling on pretty much everything you said in your first post or cognitive dissonance comes as a second language to you.

I guess I should have added "After thinking about it a little more, this is what I think I would have done." But you are still adding in the dead part. Also, just because there are other ways to handle the situation, that does not make one enthusiastic.

Malice may have been the wrong word. Maybe something like criminal intent would be a better term. He chose to unlawfully enter the house. It is the risk he took and the risk did not end well for him. Sucks for him, but I do not feel sorry for him.

Edit: There is an article from a college journalism class somewhere that tells the story of a horrible murder scene. At no point in the story was there any mention of shooting or guns. Just a description of a bloody mess and 3 dead victims. At the end of the article there was a question about how many people were shot. Most people answered 3 even though there was no mention of guns or shooting. I wish I could remember the name of the exercise. It seems to me that you are doing the same thing with my posts. Reading something that is not there.

[Brill Weave]

Aside from the first bit about not thinking rationally being a great argument against personal gun ownership, it's a piss poor argument. She put herself and her children at greater risk by doing what she did rather than trying to scare him off.

If he was armed or if there were multiple intruders that's even more of a reason to try and scare them off, because otherwise she and her 6 .38 shots which didn't even kill 1 guy would not have been enough to take down 2 (assuming still that after they found the house was occupied they didn't immediately make a break for it).

She's vulnerable, alone with her kids, and apparently not a great shot. It would behoove her to prevent them from coming any closer to her kids than the front door rather than count on disabling (apparently) potentially multiple armed men. Never mind the justification in killing someone looking to steal from a house they thought was empty.

Dude. You're basing your entire argument off the thought that every home invader is there to only steal something. Look at all the recent shootings in this thread alone. The absolutely unhinged people that started them. Do you think the Newtown shooting wouldn't have happened if someone announced they had a gun and the police were on their way? Or the family that was just killed in Colorado? I'm just using those two to point there are some fucked up people out there. Fucked up people who aren't going to change their plans regardless of what you do.

Are you really willing to take that chance by announcing your presence and location to men who are in your house to potentially do you and your family bodily harm?

[Tajin]

Aside from the first bit about not thinking rationally being a great argument against personal gun ownership, it's a piss poor argument. She put herself and her children at greater risk by doing what she did rather than trying to scare him off.

If he was armed or if there were multiple intruders that's even more of a reason to try and scare them off, because otherwise she and her 6 .38 shots which didn't even kill 1 guy would not have been enough to take down 2 (assuming still that after they found the house was occupied they didn't immediately make a break for it).

She's vulnerable, alone with her kids, and apparently not a great shot. It would behoove her to prevent them from coming any closer than the front door rather than count on disabling (apparently) potentially multiple armed men. Never mind the arguments concerning the justification of killing someone looking to steal from a house they thought was empty.

See you had the right idea until the very end. There is no argument for killing someone invading your property (theft and the like, before someone says its ok to shoot a kid picking up his baseball from my backyard).
A less common example would be if they invade my house and I have guardian dogs. I'd let them eat the fucker.

[Xno Kappa]

She had no idea what the intruder's intentions were for breaking into the home. She had no idea what state of mind the intruder was in. She had no idea if the intruder was alone. On top of that, the safety of her family and location was compromised. To say she should've deduced all of this in a span of a few seconds and simply just yelled out "Run cops are coming" is naive at best. You always assume the absolute worst. Plain and simple.

I'll be extremely enthusiastic to put an end to someones life if they were to ever break into my house with my kids there.

[Niiro]

I would not call that enthusiasm to end another person's life. Sorry man, someone breaks into my house he is not walking out under his own power. I will defend myself and my family as I see fit. If you gain entry into my house in the middle of the night with bad intentions, whatever they may be, I will respond in kind. This whole "there's better ways" works fine until you find out he wasn't there to rob you. He's there to rape your wife/girlfriend/sister and murder you and the kids. A threat won't scare that off. I agree with Ace wholeheartedly. Stop the bleeding heart crap and realize in that situation it's you or him because you don't know what his intentions are. And by taking the chance of announcing your presence you potentially put your entire family at risk.

You can make up whatever boogeyman criminals you want in your head, but you're more likely to get killed by your own gun than you are to be attacked in the middle of the night by a random stranger that wants to rape and murder your family and for some reason won't be deterred by the fact that you're armed and the police are already on their way.

Real life doesn't play out like a cliched crime novel.

You're safer threatening an intruder from behind a locked door than letting them come close enough for you to shoot them, because if they were armed and if they were willing to cause you harm then they have the opportunity to shoot you as well, once you're shot dead and this boogeyman now has your family at gunpoint what then? Bet you wish you threatened him and he did what anyone would do when faced with the odds of being shot to death or arrested on the spot and run the fuck away.

[Niiro]

See you had the right idea until the very end. There is no argument for killing someone invading your property (theft and the like, before someone says its ok to shoot a kid picking up his baseball from my backyard).
A less common example would be if they invade my house and I have guardian dogs. I'd let them eat the fucker.

Think you worded it wrong as you seem to be agreeing with me here.

[zoobernut]

I can't be the only one that finds stories like this just a bit methed up. Burglar breaks in after he's satisfied that no one's home and gets shot by inhabitants he doesn't even know are there.

"I've got a gun the police are on their way" from down the hall the moment he got the door open and he would have booked it like 99% of people would. Nobody would fault someone for protecting their kids but it could have ended long before it came to shooting his face off point blank. It's one of those cases where the penalty for breaking and entering an empty house becomes death (guy survived by a total fluke in this case).

You started with the above, and ended up with the argument below. They are two completely different statements. The one above is rather retarded.

You can make up whatever boogeyman criminals you want in your head, but you're more likely to get killed by your own gun than you are to be attacked in the middle of the night by a random stranger that wants to rape and murder your family and for some reason won't be deterred by the fact that you're armed and the police are already on their way.

Real life doesn't play out like a cliched crime novel.

You're safer threatening an intruder from behind a locked door than letting them come close enough for you to shoot them, because if they were armed and if they were willing to cause you harm then they have the opportunity to shoot you as well, once you're shot dead and this boogeyman now has your family at gunpoint what then? Bet you wish you threatened him and he did what anyone would do when faced with the odds of being shot to death or arrested on the spot and run the fuck away.

[Acevalefor]

I am trying to listen to your point of view Niiro. You are making it very difficult to take you seriously though. People come in there and say "This could be a worst case scenario, but we just don't know so we don't take the chance." Then you respond with "We don't know that this is a worst case scenario, so do nothing but threaten them in the hopes that it is not." You call them "boogeyman criminals" when there is story after story after story every month about home invasions on the news that repeatedly confirm that the "boogeyman" is real. After you have threatened them (remember that you don't have a gun because you are scared you might get killed by it) and they don't go away, what then? Are you going to beat them into submission with a rolling pin?

Look, absurdity is fun!

[Xno Kappa]

It's not the intruder's fault he was shot in the face because he may have believed the house he was illegaly breaking into was empty. Is that the jist of it?

[Meko]

In the scenario you are presenting Niiro, yes, 'attempting to scare' the intruder off may be the best recourse but what happens if your scenario is not the actual outcome? Lets not forget this is a woman 'attempting to scare' and while my wife may scare me sometimes, she wouldn't if I were looking to break into a home and the only thing on the other side was a woman. Let me draw this scenario. Guy pounds on door or rings the doorbell a few times and the woman checks out the person through the blinds. She sees a man she doesn't know and feels threatened that if she opened the door, the guy may not be up to any good. She then yells "I have a gun and I'm calling the cops, run away!" yet she is bluffing. The guy forces his way into the house, having already committed to doing so, and now the ante is upped because not only is he going to steal some stuff but now he's possibly going to get a little action while he's at it. As he's doing so, he hears her two 9 year old kids and he proceeds down the hallway to "shut them up" so that they don't identify him when the cops arrive. I'm sure you see the angle I'm going with.

Is that worst-case scenario, sure, but is it unrealistic or unlikely? I cannot say for sure but I don't want to come home (as a husband/father) to my wife having been raped/beaten and my kids bludgeoned or scared to death all because my wife 'attempted to scare' the guy away.

[quannum]

Real life doesn't play out like a cliched crime novel.

both sides.

[Churchill]

This just in, Ambushes aren't fair.

really? no one? makes me sad.

[Niiro]

I am trying to listen to your point of view Niiro. You are making it very difficult to take you seriously though. People come in there and say "This could be a worst case scenario, but we just don't know so we don't take the chance." Then you respond with "We don't know that this is a worst case scenario, so do nothing but threaten them in the hopes that it is not." You call them "boogeyman criminals" when there is story after story after story every month about home invasions on the news that repeatedly confirm that the "boogeyman" is real. After you have threatened them (remember that you don't have a gun because you are scared you might get killed by it) and they don't go away, what then? Are you going to beat them into submission with a rolling pin?

Look, absurdity is fun!

The point was threatening the intruder with violence before resorting to it is the safer course of action even when you do have a gun. The bit about "you're more likely to be killed by your own gun" was more of a point about just how unlikely the hypothetical scenario was.

I'd also ask how suspicious you are of your friends and family, because they're more likely to kill you than a stranger. If there are all these boogeymen running about I'd imagine you don't keep in touch much.

For Meko's post, you seem to be arguing about gun ownership as well rather than what course of action the woman should have taken, which isn't the argument that's going on. Since you brought it up, for someone that doesn't own a gun in the same situation that this woman was in, there's no reason not to do the same thing regardless, make the threat and bar you and your kids in a back room as best you can (escape out a window if possible even). Whether the intruder calls your bluff about the gun or not, there's no reason for him to doubt that you've called the cops (unless he thinks you're bluffing about owning a phone). If possible the best option would have been leaving out the back door and going over to the neighbor's (as she did after shooting him) but that may not always be possible (time and the location of the door permitting).

This topic here wasn't about her having a gun but how she used it, and how one should use it in general. In this situation I felt it was inappropriate, she put herself and her children at greater risk doing what she did. It doesn't mean I think there's no situation where using a gun aggressively against an intruder is reasonable, but a lot of the time it isn't reasonable or necessary.

You started with the above, and ended up with the argument below. They are two completely different statements. The one above is rather retarded.

You're going to have to elaborate.

[Acevalefor]

really? no one? makes me sad.

I got nothin'. Sorry.

[JigglyJam]

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BURGLARS!?

Getting shot is a risk you take breaking into someone's house illegally.

[Meko]

So you're saying she should have found a way out of the house with her 2 kids or she should have hunkered down in hopes that the guy wasn't carrying a weapon? She should have given a guy that was breaking into her house the benefit of the doubt? Hoped he was only there for some electronics or cash? Are you a woman by chance? If no, are you married or do you have a girlfriend or know another woman that has kids? If so, have you ever smarted off to them or tried to put your hands on them to see how their mother would react? If not, give it a shot and see how quickly unglued they become. Also, once you realize that, then try and understand a woman at home with her 2 kids and her husband, the 'natural' protector of the home, being gone and all she has to fend off a possible attacker is a gun. Maybe she has shot the gun before and she's familiar with it or maybe not.

I guess I just don't understand where you are coming from.