Your Home is being Robbed!

[chadn]

Or disable.

 

Trickier maybe, but better for everyone if you pull it off.

 

And if you dont pull it off? Better them dead than me. Go ahead if you wish, Im either running or killing.

[YT2095]

considering that it`s actualy harder to kill someone than you`de think in many instances!

 

the chances are that any attempt to "Kill" them would probably just end up with them being disabled anyway.

[chadn]

considering that it`s actualy harder to kill someone than you`de think in many instances!

 

the chances are that any attempt to "Kill" them would probably just end up with them being disabled anyway.

 

Of course, but if you shoot tokill and only end up disabling them, chances are they're going to be shot in a way that doesnt over them much opportunity to counter. Shoot to maim means shooting at the hand or leg or some stupid crap like that. To easy to miss.

 

Of course I would only attack if I am armed with a gun or if cornered. Far to risky to do some stupid crap and attack with a knife or you fists.

[Sayonara]

And if you dont pull it off? Better them dead than me. Go ahead if you wish, Im either running or killing.

The possible outcomes of your actions do not change the fact that you do have other options.

 

Maybe you think that the risk to yourself if you fail outweighs the benefits of you succeeding, so you would choose to flee or murder someone, but other people aren't so banal in their thought processes.

[YT2095]

Of course' date=' but if you shoot tokill and only end up disabling them, chances are they're going to be shot in a way that doesnt over them much opportunity to counter. Shoot to maim means shooting at the hand or leg or some stupid crap like that. To easy to miss.

 

Of course I would only attack if I am armed with a gun or if cornered. Far to risky to do some stupid crap and attack with a knife or you fists.[/quote']

well in reverse order, the fact is that NO-ONE knows what they`de actualy do until they come up against it, untill that point it`s only really guesswork or what you`de like to THINK you`de do (realistic or not).

 

as for shooting to kill and targeting etc... I recon some of the farmers I knew In Canada had the right idea when I was a kid living over there, basicly you`de have a normal 48 duck shot shell opened up the lead shot poured out and then packed with rock salt

 

you get shot in the pants with that at 20 yards or so and you Know about it!

 

no-lethal, but gets the message across quite nicely

[chadn]

as for shooting to kill and targeting etc... I recon some of the farmers I knew In Canada had the right idea when I was a kid living over there, basicly you`de have a normal 48 duck shot shell opened up the lead shot poured out and then packed with rock salt

 

you get shot in the pants with that at 20 yards or so and you Know about it!

 

no-lethal, but gets the message across quite nicely

 

interesting.......*eyes drift towards reloading bench....*

[YT2095]

interesting.......[i']*eyes drift towards reloading bench....*[/i]

sure, It`s easy enough to do, depending on the shell type

 

paper disc wax sealed or crimpped plastic sealed? the latter is the hardest to undo but not impossible.

 

for the plastic crimp sealed just cut the end off with a scalpel re-load, and card disc with wax seal it as with that type of round.

 

you do still have to be carefull of firing distance though, as the plastic shot cup and rock salt load can still kill up close, but it beats an ass full of buck shot at a distance! )

[chadn]

paper disc wax sealed or crimpped plastic sealed? the latter is the hardest to undo but not impossible.

 

I have a hard time finding the paper disc wax type of shells, so most of mine are the crimpped type, although I do have a few lying around. Their filled with like #OOO buckshot anyhows and so dont get used, might as well do something with them

[Mokele]

Then you are psychotic, I suggest you seek medical help.

 

I disagree that anyone who is capable of killing another person in such a circumstance is psychotic or somehow unhinged.

 

For instance, joking aside, I strongly suspect I could or would if I felt threatened enough, not because I'm some sort of psycho, but simply because I know I am willing to harm others in self defense, and if my only self defense item around is lethal, I'll use it.

 

I'm not gonna shoot them in the head from behind or something, but, given a situation in which they posed a definite threat which could potentially be lethal, I see no reason why I wouldn't respond with lethal force, if that was my best option.

 

I am probably *more* than skilled enough in martial arts to take out an unarmed opponent, but not nearly stupid enough to try, because a guy with a gun hidden on him looks unarmed. I do feel a purely ornamental sword my folks gave me could be of use, but simply because it's a 3 foot long piece of metal. Damascus steel or a chunk of rebar, it'll still hurt someone if you clobber them with it.

 

Also, to be honest, their life is not as important as mine, because it's mine. If they die, I feel bad. If I die, well, I'm dead. Yes, it's selfish, but that hardly makes me any worse than any other person, merely more honest about what motivates me.

 

I recon some of the farmers I knew In Canada had the right idea when I was a kid living over there, basicly you`de have a normal 48 duck shot shell opened up the lead shot poured out and then packed with rock salt

 

I've heard of this too, and I'm partial to it myself, enough that it's be my prefered means of home defense (strong deterent and likely incapacitating without being lethal or even strongly damaging).

 

However, while I've heard of it before, I'm skeptical. Does it really work? Is it really non-lethal? Is it a truly effective deterent?

 

I know it *should* be, in theory, but I know enough not to trust purely theoretical designs without testing them. Especially when it could be my life on the line; I don't want to find out that it's an urban legend when someone's coming at me with an axe.

 

So, does anyone know of any hard evidence that it works in practice as well as theory?

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

I disagree that anyone who is capable of killing another person in such a circumstance is psychotic or somehow unhinged.

I think what atm finds psychotic is not that yourdad thinks he is capable of killing, but that he is planning for it.

[chadn]

I think what atm finds psychotic is not that yourdad thinks he is capable of killing, but that he is planning for it.

 

Then whats the point? He does realize that this entire point of this thread is hypothetical, doesnt he? Nobody here is planning to kill someone, rather they merely saying that given the situation described, they would kill.

[iglak]

I'm not sure a jury is going to look on a slit throat as being caused by someone defending themselves, so you can hardly see it as "minimum necessary force".

hmm...

good point.

meh, i don't know what i'd do anymore

maybe i'd just aim to disarm him.

 

[edit]

wow... i just realized that i completely forgot about things that can render a human hindered and in intense pain without having the ability to kill...

i guess it was just the mood of the thread that made me feel like that, and whatever mood i was in (no, not killing, being powerful).

 

i was thinking what i'd do if i had my own house (currently i'm 17, in highschool, living with parents). but now i realize (if i were planning ahead), i would buy a stun gun and some pepper spray (or make that home-made pepper spray YT posted somewhere a long time ago).

 

i have no doubt that i could kill someone. all it takes is the ability to have apathy, which i have. but now that i think about it, i probably would avoid killing someone at all costs (eg: if they moved, i wouldn't slit their throat, but i'd attack with the sword if they looked like they were gonna attack me). i also have no doubt that i would attack with full force to protect myself and make sure that there is no way for the person to get me back.

 

and considering i don't have my own house right now, and we don't have a stun gun or pepper spray (nor small swords on display)... i'd (if i were home alone, and the guy was doing more than just grabbing one or two small items.) grab something bashing - looking around all i see are books and SoBe bottles, and a small chair - and throw it at the person (from behind), then attack with full force immediately with my limited knowledge of martial arts (which is maybe about the level of the 3rd color of belt [in the self-defence aspects, not patterns or history or anything])

[tu.dents]

Realy now minimum required is what we all would do. What ever stops the threat. Regard for consequence is a marker for how well one is prepared to stop the threat. If snoring-yelling-grabbing-threatning force-using force- excalating force until it is stopped finitely.

[r1dermon]

Some people who haven't read the fine print think the law allows them to shoot anyone trying to enter their home without permission. This is not the case. As a rule, the law still demands some action to have taken place to cause the armed defender to reasonably perceive immediate physical danger before pulling a trigger is authorized.

 

As any bodyguard (or "executive protection specialist") can tell you, the best fight is the one that's prevented. Shooting it out with the intruder is a last-ditch option, an act of grave desperation that should be avoided if reasonably possible.

 

Every gun owner concerned with home security should practice what those executive protection specialists call "target denial," a series of strategies that thwart the intruders before they ever come close enough to physically harm you or your family.

 

The first line of physical defense of your home should be solid doors in solid frames with good locks. While deadbolt locks are superior to spring-bolt locks, you want one of each on every major door. The spring-bolt lock can be "loided," or opened with a piece of celluloid like a driver's license, a trick that won't work on a locked deadbolt.

 

this was coppied from an article on looksmart.com (yeah yeah yeah....i did it to look smart.)

 

though this is a general overview, and never actually states the law, which IS in the fine print when you apply for a gun permit(which some states dont require, so a lot of people aren't aware of this), it states the fact, that you can't just blaze your gun away like you're in the old west. there are certain proceedures that must be followed. this is why everyone who owns a gun must be trained....IMO.

[atinymonkey]

Then whats the point? He does realize that this entire point of this thread is hypothetical, doesnt he? Nobody here is planning to kill someone, rather they merely saying that given the situation described, they would kill.

 

Why don't you ask me, rather than asking a proxy who's interpriting what I may mean?

[Coral Rhedd]

If I were home alone I would use lethal force. Providing the dog did not kill the intruder first. Providing I could get the dog to let go of his leg so I could shoot the intruder. Providing I could find the damn gun. Where did I put that thing?

 

I would assume my person as well has my possessions would be at risk. If I could get to the gun and shoot straight from not too far a distance, I would kill.

 

But don't worry. ADD here. Probably couldn't find the gun. In which case I would run.

[Aspirin]

If I were home alone I would use lethal force. Providing the dog did not kill the intruder first. Providing I could get the dog to let go of his leg so I could shoot the intruder. Providing I could find the damn gun. Where did I put that thing?

 

I would assume my person as well has my possessions would be at risk. If I could get to the gun and shoot straight from not too far a distance' date=' I would kill.

 

But don't worry. ADD here. Probably couldn't find the gun. In which case I would run.[/quote']

 

If your dog has the intruder by the leg just kick him in the balls or a nice punch to brake his nose.

 

He would be in toooo much pain to even move.

 

I really see no reason to kill the poor bastard.

I mean he's got a wounded leg and squashed balls and/or broken nose. Damn

......even twist his arm to make him feel even more misserable.....or for you to let off some steam

[Coral Rhedd]

Ah well . . . I am not exactly sure my dog would attack an intruder. He might just growl. I do know one thing. He's a guy and he just loves to show it. He has peed on one guest, one delivery man, and one friend while we were innocently chatting outdoors. All these people were men (and still are!) but my dog sees them as competition for territory.

[zaphod]

extreme bordering on lethal.

[Nave]

hell id blow them away if they came into my house

[JohnB]

I would submit that the true answer for all persons in this debate is;

 

"Whatever I deem at the time is best for my and my families continued survival."

 

If there is one unarmed intruder coming in the door, showing him the gun or just yelling will probably suffice. If there are 4 guys armed with shotties, then running is a bloody good idea.

 

If the intruder is (God forbid) bending over your child's bed, then "temporary insanity" is probably a good defense. I say this because in that situation there would be no stopping a parent.

 

The fact is that no-one knows what they would do in the situation as it would depend entirely on the circumstances. "Minimum force" is a fine concept when discussing theory, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that if it was your child, you would not think of consequences or anything else until the intruder was a bloody, broken mass on the floor. It's not that you would intend to kill, you just wouldn't care if you did.

[Rasori]

I say minimum force, but sometimes the minimum force would include lethal force- of course, you might get the person knocked out first, but that's where John's temporary insanity comes in.

 

But honestly, if it's 4 guys with shotties (as someone mentioned earlier) and the only way to run brings me into their sight, minimum force would be lethal force. How else do you save your a... butt?

[ed84c]

Anybody seen Pulp Fiction?

 

Muhahahaha

 

to quote a dead ringers imperonation of David Blunkett;

 

'If you f*** with me, Im gonna f*** with you right back again (mild chuckling)'

[ffsjoe]

"Whatever I deem at the time is best for my and my families continued survival."

 

This is what i found on the web in a bill that I think was passed.

 

 

"The question to be asked in the end is simple. It is whether the defendant believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal."

[Sayonara]

Stating whether or not the law agrees ex post facto with your actions in [insert random country/state here] is not answering the question.