An Intruder Breaks Into Your Home -- What Are You Gonna Do?

[Zenster]

Probably not have to feed my wolf hybrid for a week.

[SPOOFE]

What would I do?

Shout out “My dad sells women’s shoes for a living!” The intruder will then realize that there’s nothing in the house worth stealing, and he’ll go on to the neighbors.

(My dad doesn’t really sell women’s shoes… he really doesn’t do much of anything, actually.)

[Satan]

While I am all for a person’s right to own a gun for use on an intruder in your house, the statistics all show that a gun placed in a home for this is vastly more likely to never have to do its assigned task and is more likely to take out an innocent child or spouse instead.

This is one of many reasons why I don’t ever plan on excersicing my right to own a firearm for home safety.

[Krispy_Original]

I’d say “get 'em boy!” and instantly my trusty dalmation would leap to my defense…ready to fight till the death on behalf of his beloved owner.

…and if that didn’t work, I’d reach for the Louisville Slugger.

…and if that didn’t work, I’d throw a handful of Mexican fat burner in his eyes.

[Glitch]

When reading this please keep in mind that this is kind of a “general case” answer. Clearly, the exact specifics of any situation have to be a factor in a response to a self protection scenario.

What You Should Do

Preface: If there is an intruder in your home at night (presumed since we are sleeping, if you work graveyard and sleep during the day then things change), we can safely assume that he believes there are people present in the house. This is a bad thing because it means he is almost undoubtedly willing to hurt or kill you. If he isn’t and is simply stupid, the good news is that he is likely to flee as soon as he realizes that there is somebody home, but none-the-less you have to operate on the first assumption.

1. Turn on a lamp preferably on low. Two things. First, stumbling around in the dark is going to get you killed if for no more reason than it will slow you down. Second, you want to get your eyes adjusted to low light. Bright light is fine, but not preferred.

2. Call the police. Although the police have no right to protect, they do have an obligation to respond to a burglary. Try to speak as calmly as you can. State the following “My name is <your name> at <your address>. There is an intruder in my house. Please send the police.” Repeat it a second time. A few things.

First, those of you who failed to call the police are dead (this is definitely the way to think about it, even if the odds aren’t 100% that you will die). Congratulations. And I am not fucking around. Period. The police are NOT going to arrive in time to capture the burglar. That is unfortunately something you are going to have to deal with one way or another (by escape or by conflict); however, if you end up fighting the burglar and lose and you did not call the police then there is no help coming to save you. If you mortally wounded by the burglar, you will die. If you are captured by the burglar, then you are completely at his mercy (and lets us not forget secluded), and stand a very good chance of serious injury or death.

Second, it is VERY important to speak you address CLEARLY. It is equally important to make the fact that there IS an intruder in the house. The police WILL respond to such a call quickly. If they don’t take comfort that your next of kin will be able to sue the pants off them.

3. If you have a weapon, while on the phone get it.

4. Conduct your escape plan. You do have an escape plan from your home, right? If not then you really need to devise one. Not because of burglars, but because of a fire! Not knowing the routes of escape from your home can most certainly kill you. Under adrenal stress, you will not be able to come up with one. That is a certainty.

4a) There are some differences between a fire escape plan, and an intruder escape plan. With a fire escape plan it is safe to make lots of noise, to wake up the kids, etc. With an intruder escape plan, this is not a good thing. You do not want to reveal your position or else the intruder will come to neutralize you right away. You are his biggest threat. But whatever the case may be better to follow your fire escape plan then none at all.

4b) I suggest “Strong on Defense” by Sanford Strong. There is simply too much to cover comprehensively. This book covers the creation of an intruder escape plan very well.

5. If you encounter the burglar. Remember, this is a hot burglary. He likely has no plans for you that you want to be a part of. Continue to escape if you can, if not I suggest attacking immediately simply because statistics show that resisting does not significantly increase the chance of serious injury or death, but this is a decision that must be made by each individual. Attack to the degree that the burglar is disabled and then LEAVE! Escape! Get the hell out of Dodge. There could be more burglars. He might not be fully disabled. You do not want to stick around. Proceed to a neighbour’s phone and call the police again. Tell them “This is <your name> of <your address>. I called earlier about an intruder. I have escaped my home but the burglar is still inside, and he might be hurt. I am now at <neighbour’s address>.” This tells the police something of great value. They do not have a hostage situation. This helps out a lot. It also gives them all the additional information they need, where you are, etc. If you are hurt also add “I have also been injured.”

5a) If you encounter the intruder, you should inform him that the police have been called and are on their way. It may have no effect, but it might make him feel likely getting out as quickly as possible. Do not expect him to immediately flee, but at least if he defeats you he will probably run.

[Freedom]

While I am all for a person’s right to own a gun for use on an intruder in your house, the statistics all show that a gun placed in a home for this is vastly more likely to never have to do its assigned task and is more likely to take out an innocent child or spouse instead.

Cite please.

[Turbo_Dog]

Pretty much what MikeG said. Except the “kids at home” action would be the same for if they weren’t. They will hear the gun being racked, be violently confronted, preferably without physical harm to anyone, and held at gunpoint until the cops arrive.

Confronting an intruder with a bat is okay, as long as he has less armament than a bat himself. Imagine how you would feel being the “black sheik” in Indiana Jones, when the robber pulls out a pistol. If all you have is a bat or golf club, best to call the cops and hide. If his intent is more than robbery, you’ll know soon enough and a surprise attack when he comes into your bedroom gives you better odds than a face off in the hallway. I like the camera idea too, as long as he’s sitting on my couch under cover knowing what is going to happen for the same reason as the bat above. He’ll have to be looking at you to be well blinded, and afterwards, are you willing to risk the odds on whether he will panic and flee, or that he’s a felon and is going to want that camera? My defense weapon has a laser sight, for two reasons: First, lining up sights is not an issue and second, there’s an emotional thing about having a laser on you. (Just use a laser pointer? Again, your call but are you willing to stand against your bluff)? I’m not going to give a robber the benefit of the doubt that he is just gonna boost some silver and leave. I assume that anyone breaking into my home is willing and wanting to do much more, perhaps a result of having lived in some pretty bad areas in the past. Plus, for me personally, it’s more than about just my home. It’s my neighborhood. There is little wonder how I would feel if the robber left my home before the cops arrived, entered the home of the elderly lady next door and hurt/raped/killed her when I had reasonable means and training to have possibly prevented it.

[Satan]

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home
The New England Journal of Medicine – October 7, 1993 – Vol. 329, No. 15

Abstract

Background. It is unknown whether keeping a firearm in the home confers protection against crime or, instead, increases the risk of violent crime in the home. To study risk factors for homicide in the home, we identified homicides occurring in the homes of victims in three metropolitan counties.

Methods. After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy for the victim. The proxies’ answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods.

Results. During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Conclusions. The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. (N Engl J Med 1993;329:1084-91.)

http://www.nejm.org/content/1993/0329/0015/1084.asp

[/quote]

Guns and Homicide in the Home - Correspondence
The New England Journal of Medicine – February 3, 1994 – Vol. 330, No. 5

(On a page with a ton of rebuttals concerning the above research, the authors responded with this:)

To the Editor:

Large-scale cohort studies are usually the best way to explore the relation between a potential risk factor and an outcome of interest. Since this approach was not feasible, we conducted a case-control study. By ascertaining the rate of gun ownership in households where a homicide had occurred and comparing this rate with that noted in a random sample of neighboring households that contained a person of the same age group, sex, and race as the victim, we obtained a good approximation of relative risk (1). This is the same research technique that was used to identify the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer (2).

The exaggerated claim that guns are used in self-defense more than a million times a year has not withstood scientific scrutiny (3,4). If a gun in the home affords substantial protection from homicide (whether it is used to injure, kill, or frighten intruders or simply discourage them from entering), we should have found that homes in which a homicide occurred were less likely to contain a gun than similar households in which a homicide did not occur. The opposite was true.

We restricted our study to homicides in the home because the risk or protective benefit of a readily available firearm should be most plausibly demonstrated where it is kept. All such homicides were included, whether or not they involved a person at high risk for violence because of various behavioral factors. Although we noted a degree of association among several behavioral risk factors, each contributed independently to the risk of homicide. Therefore, we took these effects into consideration in our final model.

A comparable ascertainment of exposure is crucial in any case-control study, which is why we based our analysis on interviews rather than on-the-scene reports. Ninety-three percent of the homicides involving firearms occurred in homes where a gun was kept, according to the proxy respondents. In 8 of the other 14 homicides, the investigating officer specifically noted that the gun involved had been kept in the home.

Although we tried to interview a proxy respondent for each control, this was often impossible. However, the rate of gun ownership reported by the proxy respondents was actually higher than the rate reported by the controls themselves.

We are confident that our findings will be corroborated. The early studies of smoking and lung cancer were confirmed by subsequent studies. Nonetheless, some doctors still smoke. Old habits – and deeply held beliefs – die hard.

Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H.
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30329

Grant Somes, Ph.D.
University of Tennessee, Memphis
Memphis, TN 38103

Frederick P. Rivara, M.D., M.P.H.
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195

References

1. Schlesselman JJ. Case control studies: design, conduct, analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Return to Text

2. Wright JD, Rossi PH, Daly K, Weber-Burdin E. Weapons, crime, and violence in America: a literature review and research agenda. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983:257. Return to Text

3. Reiss AJ Jr, Roth JA, eds. Understanding and preventing violence. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993:255-87. Return to Text

4. Cook PJ. The technology of personal violence. In: Tonry M, ed. Crime and justice: a review of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991:1-71. Return to Text

http://www.nejm.org/content/1994/0330/0005/0365.asp

[/quote]

FIREARM FACTS

Thinking of buying a gun to protect your home? You may want to remember that…

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.9

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.10

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.11

[sub]9Kellermann AL. “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home.” J, Trauma 1998; 45(2):263-67.
10Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1993; 329: 1084-1091
11Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al.Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med.1992; 327: 467-472[/sub]

http://www.handguncontrol.org/research/progun/firefacts.asp

[/quote]

Self-inflicted and Unintentional Firearm Injuries Among Children and Adolescents
*Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine / volume:153 (page: 875)

David C. Grossman, MD, MPH; Donald T. Reay, MD; Stephanie A. Baker, MD*

Context The source and ownership of guns used by children to shoot themselves or others is largely unknown.

Objective To determine the ownership and usual storage location of firearms used in unintentional and self-inflicted intentional firearm deaths and injuries.

Design Retrospective case series.

Setting King County, Washington.

Patients Youths aged from birth to 19 years who sought medical treatment at a level I trauma center for a self-inflicted or unintentional firearm injury between 1990 and 1995 or who presented to the county medical examiner with a fatal self-inflicted or unintentional firearm injury between 1990 and 1995.

Data Sources County medical examiner records, regional police investigative reports, medical records from a level I trauma center, and surveys of victims’ families.

Main Outcome Measures Source and ownership of the associated firearm.

Results Fifty-six fatal injuries and 68 nonfatal firearm injuries that met the criteria were identified. Of these, 59 were intentionally self-inflicted deaths and injuries and 65 were unintentional deaths and injuries. A firearm owned by a household member living with the victim was used in 33 (65%) of 51 suicides and suicide attempts and 11 (23%) of 47 unintentional injuries and deaths. Additionally, a firearm owned by another relative, friend, or parent of a friend of the victim was used in 4 (8%) of the 51 suicides and suicide attempts and 23 (49%) of the 47 unintentional injuries and deaths. Parental ownership accounted for 29 (57%) of the 51 suicides and suicide attempts and 9 (19%) of the 47 unintentional injuries and deaths. More than 75% of the guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

Conclusion Most guns involved in self-inflicted and unintentional firearm injuries originate either from the victim’s home or the home of a friend or relative.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999;153:875-878

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/issues/v153n8/abs/poa8484.html

[/quote]

Now, I am not going to insult your intelligence with the old A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household or a friend, than a burglar or intruder song and dance. I know that the numbers there have been scutinized and that the biggest proponents of gun control back off that statistic (even if the media still does like to trot it out occassionally.)

However, even with the revisions, numbers still show that a gun in your house is more likely to be used in ways which have nothing to do with defending your property, life and family, and more likely to be an accident with your kids, a suicide from your teenager, or even a criminal using your own gun against you.

As I said, you are welcome to keep as many guns in your house as you want. I have no desire to infringe upon that right (and I do believe it is a right, though I am all for testing, wait periods and other things to make it safer). But even without the hyperbole of the “43 times” figure, there is more than enough evidence to convince me that it’s safer without a gun in your house than with one.

[Freedom]

Kellerman has been so thoroughly debunked that I thought I could only wish he would be your cite.

First off, the study has never been repeated. Cherry picking 3 counties does not make a convincing case that this holds true for the nation. Imagine studying murder in NYC, Washington DC, and Atlanta. You could not honestly extrapolate a valid conclusion on the odds of being murdered in Bethlehem, PA from that data.
Second, Kellerman makes it quite clear right here:

. The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home.

That the person and the household in question is much more important in this eqaution than the actual gun. If you are smoking crack and beating your wife, then a gun in the home is a bad idea. If you are going to work everyday, have a wife you love and cherish, and have never been in trouble with the law before, how does this study apply to you?

We just can’t tell from his data.

Third, Kellerman only uses homicides. If someone broke into the house, was shot in the head and is currently on life support, then that person is not included in his study. If someone broke in and the homeowner racked the slide of his shotgun, scaring the intruder off, that person is not included either.

Fourth, suicides are only included when somebody is looking for a way to inflate their numbers so they can throw around impressive statistics.

Fifty-six fatal injuries and 68 nonfatal firearm injuries that met the criteria were identified. Of these, 59 were intentionally self-inflicted deaths and injuries and 65 were unintentional deaths and injuries.

So 47% of these cases are not applicable to an individual who is not suicidal. I know this quote is from your second case study, but Kellerman included suicides in his first study as well.

In the first study, we have NO WAY of knowing how effective a firearm is against an intruder. Even though his statistics get bent into an arguement against defending yourself, this is not a question his study even bothers to look at.
Fifth, how about the “other factors?” Were the individuals involved gang-members? Did any of the victims know they were at risk and THEN bought a gun? How do these numbers apply when dealing with law-abiding citizens?
Sixth, HCI:)

Man, you couldn’t ask for a better enemy. These guys have let facts and reality slip from their grasp in their emotional jihad against firearms.

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.10

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.11

Maybe these guys should learn a little about assuming cause and effect. Are they really implying that if you bring a gun into your home you have just increased your risk of suicide by 5 times? I don’t remember going into a bout of depression because I bought a gun. Have they bothered to see how many suicides aquired a gun for that specific purpose? Have they compared England[sub]few guns[/sub] to Switzerland[sub]many guns[/sub] to see if there is a real correlation?

What about tripling your risk of having a homicide in your home? If I stand in the doorway and wave the gun in and out of my house, does my risk jump up and down? Or could it possibly be that the risk is already present in a particular house/situation and the firearm is not the actual cause?

(and I do believe it is a right, though I am all for testing, wait periods and other things to make it safer).

Oh King of the Underworld…

Would you support these same standards for writers and ministers? Maybe we could license them.

If we can’t even test for literacy at the voting booth, why do you think it is valid to test someone before they can own a firearm? I maintain that a misinformed voter can cause much more damage than a person with a pistol.

[Max_Torque]

Damn, I’m getting tired of saying the same thing over and over and watching it bounce off the skulls of the anti-gun rabble, but what the heck, here we go one more time. Satan, I love ya buddy, and this one’s for you:

The Kellermann study only counted bodies, which is a very shitty way of determining relative safety. By counting only fatal encounters, Kellermann disregarded every single situation where a gun may have been shown but not fired, or was fired but not fatally. In comparing risks and benefits, you should look at lives saved, not lives lost.

On page 1086, states that, of those killed, less than half (209 victims, or 49.8% of the total) were killed with a gun. I fail to see how gun ownership puts a person at an increased risk of being stabbed; if you can make such a connection, please share it with us.

The conclusions drawn from the survey cast doubt upon his methods. Kellermann’s final conclusions assign to guns a “risk factor” of 2.7. In the same chart (page 1089), he concludes that “renting one’s residence” gives a risk factor of 4.4 and “living alone” a risk factor of 3.7. Perhaps some other factor caused people to live alone or rent; if poverty or some other factor were the real “risky behavior”, that factor should have been listed instead of “living alone” or “renting”. If Kellermann’s conclusions are correct, why have bankers not latched onto this study as a means to sell mortgages as tenaciously as gun-control advocates have latched onto it to sell the idea of increased gun control?

That last article you cite, I’m not familiar with; since I can’t get the full text from that website, I’ll make a trip to the library this weekend and see exactly how this survey was performed.

Like I said, Satan, I gots much love and respect for you, but you and I need to go to the shooting range sometime…

[Freedom]

I could just FEEL someone else replying:)

On page 1086, states that, of those killed, less than half (209 victims, or 49.8% of the total) were killed with a gun. I fail to see how gun ownership puts a person at an increased risk of being stabbed;

That’s new to me, and another nice nail in Kellerman’s coffin.

[MikeG]

Thank you Thank you Thank you for the replies.
I do not have the time or feel the need to rebut these fallacies every time I come across them. I probably should but I don’t, (sorry).

Last night on NPR they were discussing some unemployment statistics and one of the pepole made the following comment:

…but for the guy sitting at home without a job, the unemployment rate is 100%…

The only reason I am here typing this, or am able to have made and raise two wonderful children, is due to one simple fact.

I had a firearm, I knew how to use it, and I used it sucessfully.

My experience was not and will never be part of any “study” because I did not and will not report it.

Call me biased, but there you have it. The right to defend yourself and your family is so fundamental, I cannot imagine the motivation behind those who would curtail it.

[Maeglin]

A firearm would not be practical for home defense where I live. My apartment is relatively small and quite narrow, and the walls are not thick. I would have a pretty high probability of accidentally punching through a wall and hitting a neighbor or even accidentally lighting up someone in the street below. Not to mention shooting one of my four cats.

I also don’t know how to use a gun, nor do I own one. But I do know how to use a sword. And I own several. My apartment is small enough that I would not have to confront an attacker unless he moved in to extremely close range. My bedroom doorway is also four inches narrower than the legal minimum: I would have ample time to hide by the time he would enter the bedroom.

One thrust from a Napoleonic smallsword and that’s all she wrote. No noise, no chance of putting down one of my pets, and just a little mess.

[Turbo_Dog]

Interesting reading. But can you actually call this a legitimate study? Saying that “Ninety-three percent of the homicides involving firearms occurred in homes where a gun was kept” makes about as much sense as saying that 93% of traffic fatalities involved a moving vehicle. Did this study involve asking every person who was a victim of burglary if there was a gun in the home and if it played a role? I can make my own study that carries the same amount of weight as these arguments by interviewing everyone in my hometown that has a gun in the home that has NOT reported a firearm incident and say that “In my study, I found that in every home where a firearm was kept and not a single firearm injury was reported, and by using as a control, a sampling of the area of homes that did not have a firearm where cases of a homicide occured, I have proved that firearms make a home safe”. Kellerman is not doing a study, but looking at a small and select group to support his claims which the additional reading from that site along with supporting data shows refutes easily.

Guns kept in a home involving drug use and pre-established violence increases the risk of firearm related violence. Huh?? Well no kidding. Let’s ignore the fact that there is violence in the first place.

75% of guns used in suicides came from the victims home. And what exactly does this prove? That if there wasn’t a gun in the home that the suicide would have been accomplished without a gun. People who want to kill themselves, kill themselves, method irrelevant. Same type of meaningless study here… I’m sure that with very little research I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the majority of suicides/attempted suicides/accidental poisonings involving overdosing on prescription drugs occurs in homes where prescription drugs are kept. Conclusion? Prescription drugs must be banned because it’s proven that having them in the home will increase the rate of suicide by pills.

Also, for what it’s worth, Massachusettes, the state with the most stringent gun control laws, and having recently passes even more gun control laws reported Wednesday that sales of knives and knife related crimes have skyrocketed in the past six months. (USA Today) I suppose there was a study done that determined that most knife related incidents involved people that had a knife at home?

[IzzyR]

glitch et al

The strategies that you advise seem to anticipate a scenario where you are alone in the home. Suppose you have small children sleeping at home, you could not very well run for it and leave the kids to fend for themselves. How do you approach that type of scenario?

[Freedom]

Maeglin

It sounds more like a personal decision than a practical one, which is cool by me.

Your problems could be solved with a 20 gauge shtogun and a light load, or a .38 loaded with Glaser rounds(designed not to penetrate).
Hey Satan,

Confronted with the Kellerman study and the knowledge that someone in your famliy would be the victim of a burglary while they were home alone tonight, would you want them armed?

I know I would want my SO armed.(she is such a bad ass with a shotgun:)) Of course, we have taken the time to learn how to use what we own, and have already taken the time to decide what circumstances warrant what action. I pity the clean-up crew if someone were to break into my house with her home alone.

As always…YMMV

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
**Obviously, you’d have to be very careful about the use of force (especially when you’ve got a firearm). Kids or no, you can’t just jump out into the hallway and open fire. In the first place you have no idea who this person is or why he’s in your house – it could just be a local drunk who really doesn’t understand why his key wouldn’t work on his front door, or where all his stuff went to. Even if we assume that it is a burglar, I can imagine no ethical justification for imposing an arbitrary death sentance for burglary and a perceived possibility of a physical threat. The common rules about self-defense (you have to be in actual fear of imminent harm to yourself or others, etc.) are entirely reasonable.

**

Heh heh heh. You must not live in Texas.

Marc

[Joe_Cool]

*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
…Even if we assume that it is a burglar, I can imagine no ethical justification for imposing an arbitrary death sentance for burglary and a perceived possibility of a physical threat. The common rules about self-defense (you have to be in actual fear of imminent harm to yourself or others, etc.) are entirely reasonable…

Looks like I’m going to have to be the bad guy and disagree with you here. Maybe it’s a consequence of growing up in vastly different regions or circumstances, but I feel that any unwelcome intrusion of my living space justifies my assumption of danger. Walking into somebody’s house uninvited is, in itself, a threat and I’ll be damned if I cower in the bedroom with my gun while giving some guy free reign to walk safely around my house taking my things.

Think about it. If a [russian|iraqi|chinese|whatever] armored column rumbled up through Mexico into California, or down from Canada into Washington or New York, would we sit back and wait until they made a threatening move?

NO! The invasion is, in and of itself, the threatening move. They intentionally infringed on your space, or territory, or whatever you prefer to call it. Once your safety zone is violated, you are already in danger, and it is a reasonable assumption.

This would go even more so if I had a family, and their lives were at stake as well. So I guess I’m the odd one out in that I would risk stalking the intruder in my home instead of waiting for him to come to me (within reason, of course. every situation is different, but I would most definitely be the aggressor).

ExTank:
I’ve fired my mini-14 many times without hearing protection. Never in a closed space, though, so never mind. heh.

Satan:
I was shocked at first to see you quoting the Kellerman study, piece of crap that it is…but then I realized you’re not a part of the usual gun control debate crowd. It’s been ground under pretty thoroughly on several threads. Freedom and Max Torque have pretty well covered some of the major flaws. If you want more, you can use your handy-dandy search page, or you can get started by looking at Come one, come all: Gun control revisited, revisited.

[Maeglin]

t sounds more like a personal decision than a practical one, which is cool by me.

                     Your problems could be solved with a 20 gauge shtogun and a light load, or a .38 loaded with Glaser rounds(designed not to penetrate).

That might not kill my neighbors, but that still leaves my cats at risk, especially in the dark. My apartment is narrow, and I’m afraid that anything other than a slug would ding at least one of them.

[bashere]

Here’s what I would do…

wake up.

Call the cops.

Decide that, while I like my mini-14, I am uncomfortable firing high-velocity rounds in a crowded neighborhood. Plus, mine doesn’t have the ultra-cool folding stock.

Send my wife down our fire escape route (we owe a house, but the bedroom is on the second floor. There is a rope ladder on the balcony ), holding the portable phone. I would refuse to give her the firearm, even though she is a better shot, because we are expecting LAPD to show up, and the can be a little trigger happy. Instruct her to beat feet for the neighbors.

Go down stairs.

Pull the 3 150-pound Great Danes off the intruder. Mop up the blood. Start coffee, and start calling attorneys.

My puppies are the sweetist dogs in the world, but, having walked through bad areas and watched their reactions to people, I’m quite certain that they would, between them, destroy anyone who walked through the door unannounced and uninvited, even if the intruder was loaded for bear.