Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[Lukie]

She should be able to defend herself, they pose a threat to her. There is a difference.

The majority of confrontations just result in people needlessly getting hurt (mainly on the homeowners part) especially when guns are involved.

Ok so how do you suggest that she defend herself in that situation? Police are 5-10 minutes away at best, and a baseball bat or pepper spray isn't good enough.

The part about being female was mostly for effect. Take a large, strong, adult male who is a skilled fighter. Such a person would destroy the large majority of the population in a fair, 1 on 1 fight. That person would also be a longshot in a fight against 2 men, and hopelessly lost versus 3 or more. Similarly, he would be hopelessly lost vs 1 man with a large knife, crowbar, or gun. That is reality. What you see in movies is fake.

[Savy]

Ok so how do you suggest that she defend herself in that situation? Police are 5-10 minutes away at best, and a baseball bat or pepper spray isn't good enough.

The part about being female was mostly for effect. Take a large, strong, adult male who is a skilled fighter. Such a person would destroy the large majority of the population in a fair, 1 on 1 fight. That person would also be a longshot in a fight against 2 men, and hopelessly lost versus 3 or more. Similarly, he would be hopelessly lost vs 1 man with a large knife, crowbar, or gun. That is reality. What you see in movies is fake.

She should be able to protect herself just as any guy should also be able to protect themselves. There isn't a difference in gender. A threatening position is a threatening position for anyone. I only said she because I was talking about the example you gave.

Realistically though very few burglaries are kicking peoples doors down once again, the idea is to not get caught. In your proposed situation (man or woman) in America someone probably gets shot and seriously injured or dies. In Europe, probably not.

[spoonitnow]

She should be able to protect herself just as any guy should also be able to protect themselves. There isn't a difference in gender. A threatening position is a threatening position for anyone. I only said she because I was talking about the example you gave.

Realistically though very few burglaries are kicking peoples doors down once again, the idea is to not get caught. In your proposed situation (man or woman) in America someone probably gets shot and seriously injured or dies. In Europe, probably not.

Since when are you an expert on breaking into peoples houses? Have you ever broken into someone's house?

[Savy]

Since when are you an expert on breaking into peoples houses? Have you ever broken into someone's house?

All the time.

Feminism and welfare.

But Europe has more of this and is better. Interesting.

I think you are exaggerating this a little bit. Either way though the risk should be on the burglar and not the home owner. That's just the way I see it. Does that mean I'm automatically going to shoot any stranger who walks into my place? No, of course not. Should I have the right to defend myself with a gun or other weapon against an intruder if I feel threatened? Yes I should have that right (and do.) I can't possibly see how anybody would feel differently.

So many judgement calls involved in what you just said. Maybe you can make all them decisions well. Do you really believe the general public can? In fact when the majority of crimes like this happen in places where people are less well off and less educated and less intelligent a lot of the time, do you think the bottom 30% of society has the abillity to make all them judgement calls?

If we want to go back to your woman example, the safest thing she could possibly do in that situation if she has the ability to is run and/or hide. There shouldn't be any materialistic object that she owns that should be more important than her life, or even the people robbing hers life. The one exception which comes to mind is obviously small children, which changes things.

[Lukie]

So many judgement calls involved in what you just said. Maybe you can make all them decisions well. Do you really believe the general public can? In fact when the majority of crimes like this happen in places where people are less well off and less educated and less intelligent a lot of the time, do you think the bottom 30% of society has the abillity to make all them judgement calls?

If we want to go back to your woman example, the safest thing she could possibly do in that situation if she has the ability to is run and/or hide. There shouldn't be any materialistic object that she owns that should be more important than her life, or even the people robbing hers life. The one exception which comes to mind is obviously small children, which changes things.

Run and hide lol... come on man. You are 3 days late with that.

And again it's not about materialistic objects. If somebody breaks into your home and is unfazed by the fact that somebody is actually there, it's not about your 'things' anymore, it's about you.

We're just going to have to chalk this up to an American vs Euro thing.

[Savy]

Run and hide lol... come on man. You are 3 days late with that.

And again it's not about materialistic objects. If somebody breaks into your home and is unfazed by the fact that somebody is actually there, it's not about your 'things' anymore, it's about you.

We're just going to have to chalk this up to an American vs Euro thing.

I never said it was always a viable option, but genuinely the safest thing you can do if there is an intruder in your house is get out of your house.

[kiwiMark]

And again it's not about materialistic objects. If somebody breaks into your home and is unfazed by the fact that somebody is actually there, it's not about your 'things' anymore, it's about you.

We're just going to have to chalk this up to an American vs Euro thing.

Maybe I'm offbase here, but it's starting to seem like the 'American' argument is: "In the worst situations, it will be a positive to have a gun"

and the 'Euro' argument is "In bad situations that aren't these worst situations, having a gun is going to be a negative not a positive"

ie. not really an argument that's coming head-to-head


edit: looks like JKDS might've beaten me while I was typering

[Lukie]

Maybe I'm offbase here, but it's starting to seem like the 'American' argument is: "In the worst situations, it will be a positive to have a gun"

and the 'Euro' argument is "In bad situations that aren't these worst situations, having a gun is going to be a negative not a positive"

ie. not really an argument that's coming head-to-head


edit: looks like JKDS might've beaten me while I was typering

That is a reasonable viewpoint. There are a lot of people out there who shouldn't own a gun. For example those who are hotheaded, chronic drunks, or who otherwise might make extremely poor decisions in stressful situations probably would be better off keeping their cell phone charged and hoping for the best.

In a legitimate life or death situation though I can't imagine that having a gun would actually be a liability more than an asset. I would be curious to see some statistics or related stories to back up that point. I'm open to that possiblity but it would be very counterintuitive. There are countless stories out there of home defense with a firearm, as would be expected in a country of ~300 million people with a generally pro gun mentality.

[daviddem]

Run and hide lol... come on man. You are 3 days late with that.

And again it's not about materialistic objects. If somebody breaks into your home and is unfazed by the fact that somebody is actually there, it's not about your 'things' anymore, it's about you.

We're just going to have to chalk this up to an American vs Euro thing.

No it's about common sense. If three gunmen break into my house, the last thing I want is to start a shooting because my family and I then have very little chance of survival. Besides, it's the night and we're sleeping so if it's after us they are, they'll probably be in our or the kids' room before I even have time to grab the gun.

Best defense imo if you are worried about that is to have a good alarm system linked to a security firm and a strong room with comms where you can lock yourself up while help arrives. That's exactly what companies having offices in high risk countries do. Your strong room doesn't need to be more than say a bathroom with a strong door. That and the alarm system, can't cost much more than a few assault weapons.

OK you can have a shotgun in the strong room as a last resort if you want.

[Lukie]

No it's about common sense. If three gunmen break into my house, the last thing I want is to start a shooting because my family and I then have very little chance of survival. Besides, it's the night and we're sleeping so if it's after us they are, they'll probably be in our or the kid's room before I even have time to grab the gun.

Best defense imo if you are worried about that is to have a good alarm system linked to a security firm and a strong room with comms where you can lock yourself up while help arrives. That's exactly what companies having offices in high risk countries do. Your strong room doesn't need to be more than say a bathroom with a strong door. That and the alarm system, can't cost much more than a few assault weapons.

OK you can have a shotgun in the strong room as a last resort if you want.

I typed up a response to this but seem to have lost it. It seems like we are on the same page though with the inclusion of that last sentence.

I would probably give myself a little more room than just a bathroom though, and if you are going to go through all of that trouble, some motion lights and a dog would probably be helpful too.

[spoonitnow]

No it's about common sense. If three gunmen break into my house, the last thing I want is to start a shooting because my family and I then have very little chance of survival. Besides, it's the night and we're sleeping so if it's after us they are, they'll probably be in our or the kid's room before I even have time to grab the gun.

Best defense imo if you are worried about that is to have a good alarm system linked to a security firm and a strong room with comms where you can lock yourself up while help arrives. That's exactly what companies having offices in high risk countries do. Your strong room doesn't need to be more than say a bathroom with a strong door. That and the alarm system, can't cost much more than a few assault weapons.

OK you can have a shotgun in the strong room as a last resort if you want.

I was cool with what you were saying until you used the term in the bold. It kind of gave away that you don't know shit about guns or gun laws.

[Lukie]

She should be able to protect herself just as any guy should also be able to protect themselves. There isn't a difference in gender. A threatening position is a threatening position for anyone. I only said she because I was talking about the example you gave.

The point was that there really isn't a way for a female to protect herself in that situation without a gun. I'm open to other ideas that don't involve the female being at the mercy of the intruders or getting beat with her own weapon.

And yes the same is more or less true of guys, although I tend to think they have slightly more recourse wrt self defense just on the grounds of being generally bigger and stronger, and probably have a little less to worry about in general (e.g. rape). He/she really wasn't meant to make a big difference. Did you even read what I wrote?

Realistically though very few burglaries are kicking peoples doors down once again, the idea is to not get caught. In your proposed situation (man or woman) in America someone probably gets shot and seriously injured or dies. In Europe, probably not.

I think you are exaggerating this a little bit. Either way though the risk should be on the burglar and not the home owner. That's just the way I see it. Does that mean I'm automatically going to shoot any stranger who walks into my place? No, of course not. Should I have the right to defend myself with a gun or other weapon against an intruder if I feel threatened? Yes I should have that right (and do.) I can't possibly see how anybody would feel differently.

[kiwiMark]

I think you are exaggerating this a little bit. Either way though the risk should be on the burglar and not the home owner. That's just the way I see it. Does that mean I'm automatically going to shoot any stranger who walks into my place? No, of course not. Should I have the right to defend myself with a gun or other weapon against an intruder if I feel threatened? Yes I should have that right (and do.) I can't possibly see how anybody would feel differently.

The standard argument here is that as soon as you have a gun, your chances of getting shot (by the other person, not by yourself as in that bill burr bit) go markedly up rather than down.

I'm not arguing to take away your right, even, but I would not use it myself (and consider myself as defenseless as a small girl + have a tight ass).

I'd also say that while ImSavvy is maybe exaggerating somewhat, everyone on the other side of the argument seems equally unjustifiedly convinced that burglars in your house are definitely there to rape and kill you, rather than wanting to get stuff with as little conflict as possible.