Reality of Gun Ownership

[PsyOps]

I would eliminate the threat by the most effective and efficient manner which I had available to me at the time.

Assuming you keep a gun available in your bedroom (I mean you are a cop), you hear someone break into your house... do you go for the gun right off or do you first go assess the situation?

 

[PsyOps]

Now I'm curious.
What firearm(s) or other means of defense, do you folks feel are most appropriate in the majority of home defense scenarios (IE: nothing completely outrageous like the guy having a tank or something).

Whatever that homeowner feels is appropriate to own within the law.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Assuming you keep a gun available in your bedroom (I mean you are a cop), you hear someone break into your house... do you go for the gun right off or do you first go assess the situation?

I think he is saying if the gun is what is available at the time, that is what he is using.

 

[PsyOps]

I think he is saying if the gun is what is available at the time, that is what he is using.

Is he?

I do not advocate killing a person because they committed a burglary.

I disagree that someone should automatically be killed because they committed a burglary.

Then you think someone who committs a burglary should get the death penalty. That's your opinion you are entitled to it. I don't.

I value life. I think a person who committs a property crime should not be put to death.

 

[smcop]

I wasn't talking about you, specifically, I was talking about the general public :shrug:

well then perhaps you should phrase it better because this is what you said;

Originally Posted by pcjohnnyb
Wouldn't they have more overpenetration than you'd safely want?
Why do you choose that type of firearm?

You when asking me a question is not the general public.

 

[smcop]

Assuming you keep a gun available in your bedroom (I mean you are a cop), you hear someone break into your house... do you go for the gun right off or do you first go assess the situation?

I have an array of options available for me. I would never go into a situation where I was at a disadvantage in my own home.

 

[smcop]

Is he?

All of those things you quoted doesn't negate the fact that people may use a weapon as a defense. The weapon doesn't have to be fired in order to be used in defense. The U.S. has weapon systems they use as a defense system that are never fired at an opponent! What do you think our nuclear arsenal is.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Is he?

He never once said he would not defend himself by shooting to stop the attack. He only is saying you don't shoot to kill.....you are just shooting to save your life and person from injury.
There is a distinct difference between shooting with intent to kill and shooting with intent to save a life......and remember this if you ever have to and this is what you tell the police.....you were only shooting to stop the threat.

 

[This_person]

I would eliminate the threat by the most effective and efficient manner which I had available to me at the time.

So, you would use lethal force for a non-violent crime?

And.....
You're continueing to not answer the question. Presented with those facts, do YOU feel that the victim is justified in using his weapon?

 

[smcop]

So, you would use lethal force for a non-violent crime?

No, not at all. If the subject is not surrendering, or fleeing, then the crime has changed from non-violent to violent. One doesn't have to be physically touched to be assaulted. The threat of force, with the capability of force, is enough. Assault is not a non-violent crime.

 

[smcop]

You're continueing to not answer the question. Presented with those facts, do YOU feel that the victim is justified in using his weapon?

Presented with what facts? There have been too many posts and I don't want to assume I know which one you are referring to.

 

[Novus Collectus]

So, you would use lethal force for a non-violent crime?

If you reasonably fear for your life, you have a right to defend it using whatever force available regardless of if the other person was only committing a non-violent crime or not. If the facts present show you and a reasonable person would percieve a threat to your life, then you may use deadly force in MD for what you believed was a defense of your life.
I think the only exceptions are for when you are committing a felony, or if it is a fight you started, or if you are outside your house and you could have safely run away without using the deadly force.

 

[This_person]

No, not at all. If the subject is not surrendering, or fleeing, then the crime has changed from non-violent to violent. One doesn't have to be physically touched to be assaulted. The threat of force, with the capability of force, is enough. Assault is not a non-violent crime.

So, a criminal who is NOT fleeing, even if he not aggressively coming towards you, is now assaulting you? (those were the facts presented) By merely "not surrendering, or fleeing, teh crime has changed from non-violent to violent".

So, you would justify lethal force for someone who is not in any way directly threatening you other than stealing your stuff. Burgaling you. You support lethal force for someone in your home not threatening you directly - just stealing your stuff - but not for burglary


Gotcha

 

[PsyOps]

All of those things you quoted doesn't negate the fact that people may use a weapon as a defense. The weapon doesn't have to be fired in order to be used in defense. The U.S. has weapon systems they use as a defense system that are never fired at an opponent! What do you think our nuclear arsenal is.

Don’t they teach you guys that you don’t draw your weapon unless you intend to use it.

Regardless, I am trying to establish what it is you would actually do. You've stated over and over that burglary – a non-violent crime – does not warrant the death penalty (i.e. being killed by the homeowner) yet you just wrote you’d eliminate the threat with whatever means are available. I can interpret this to mean that if you had a gun available you’d shoot the intruder probably killing him. So, in summary, you actually do believe that burglary does warrant the death penalty.

 

[Novus Collectus]

No, not at all. If the subject is not surrendering, or fleeing, then the crime has changed from non-violent to violent. One doesn't have to be physically touched to be assaulted. The threat of force, with the capability of force, is enough. Assault is not a non-violent crime.

A fleeing attacker with a weapons such as a handgun can still be a threat and in many states you can shoot them. In MD it is questionable, but I think it was South Carolina they just had a case where a robber ran out of a liquor store and the owner ran outside after them and shot them in the back. No charges were filed because the robber was armed and they had a new law about this.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Don’t they teach you guys that you don’t draw your weapon unless you intend to use it.

Regardless, I am trying to establish what it is you would actually do. You've stated over and over that burglary – a non-violent crime – does not warrant the death penalty (i.e. being killed by the homeowner) yet you just wrote you’d eliminate the threat with whatever means are available. I can interpret this to mean that if you had a gun available you’d shoot the intruder probably killing him. So, in summary, you actually do believe that burglary does warrant the death penalty.

Some people here have said they will shoot the burglar to kill because a burglar deserves to die. He has never said this. I am sure he is only saying he will shoot to stop the threat......if they die that was not the intent.

Cops in MD are not trained to shoot to kill, they are trained to shoot for center mass which has the most likelyhood of stopping the attack......there is a distinct difference.

 

[PsyOps]

So, a criminal who is NOT fleeing, even if he not aggressively coming towards you, is now assaulting you? (those were the facts presented) By merely "not surrendering, or fleeing, teh crime has changed from non-violent to violent".

So, you would justify lethal force for someone who is not in any way directly threatening you other than stealing your stuff. Burgaling you. You support lethal force for someone in your home not threatening you directly - just stealing your stuff - but not for burglary


Gotcha

I'm not quite certain how you conclude that someone that is in your home, uninvited, is not a threat to you. I mean do you expect a homeowner to just take a seat, have some , and watch the show while INTRUDER robs you? Just stealing your stuff? You've reduce a crime - a serious crime - to nothing more than a TV drama.

 

[This_person]

Presented with what facts? There have been too many posts and I don't want to assume I know which one you are referring to.

Sorry, I was using your phrase.....

Do you believe as the others stated that shooting an intruder for the mere fact that he/she is an intruder is a reasonable defense?

What is the intruder doing at the time I am going to shoot them?

Being in your home, unwanted, taking your things, and not fleeing away when ordered.

Then, presented with those facts, the intruder is not presenting themself as someone who has chosen the fight option rather than the flight option. You should defend your family and home in the best manner suited for you. In my home I would eliminate the threat.

To this, you said you would use lethal force because the crime changed to violent, even though he is not in any way threatening to you.

He is committing burglary. A non-violent crime for which you do not condone lethal force. But, now it's violent burglary, even though he is not threatening you.

In other words, when drawn out in a painful manner, you actually think the opposite of what you said originally, and actually agree with the bulk of people who are arguing with you.

Thank you.

 

[smcop]

So, a criminal who is NOT fleeing, even if he not aggressively coming towards you, is now assaulting you? (those were the facts presented) By merely "not surrendering, or fleeing, teh crime has changed from non-violent to violent".

So, you would justify lethal force for someone who is not in any way directly threatening you other than stealing your stuff. Burgaling you. You support lethal force for someone in your home not threatening you directly - just stealing your stuff - but not for burglary


Gotcha

I said I would eliminate the threat. You sir said leathal force. Please don't put words in my mouth. This is why I am hesitant to engage in silly hypotheticals. Any person, except for you, would naturally assume that a person who is not surrendering, or fleeing is being aggressive.

 

[This_person]

I'm not quite certain how you conclude that someone that is in your home, uninvited, is not a threat to you. I mean do you expect a homeowner to just take a seat, have some , and watch the show while INTRUDER robs you? Just stealing your stuff? You've reduce a crime - a serious crime - to nothing more than a TV drama.

Exactly. This has been my point with SMCop all along. Their existence in your home - whether they are turning to leave, laying on the floor (for the moment), or actively putting Grandma's silver in their bag, is a threat.