# Castle theory of guns and protection **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368 "2009-02-04T03:53:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/181 "2009-02-06T11:37:12Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > There was a post in the other thread where I stated that Birdshot would be sufficient for home defense: I later amended that to state that birdshot would _probably_ be sufficient for home defense, but it does not meet the FBI’s standards for penetration to hit the Central Nervous system as a man stopper (FBI’s criteria is 14 inches in Ballistics Gel bricks). Birdshot’s not sufficient. How about we go look at someone who’s tried all this for you? > **[Firearms and Ammuni Forum](https://www.theboxotruth.com/)** > > A forum community dedicated to all ammunition and firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gear, gunsmithing, shots, slugs, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more! ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/182 "2009-02-06T12:36:44Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Nice dig, and new! It’s not the tried-and-true (but extremely played out)standard “penises” insult. > > Kudos to you for finding a new way to try to insult gun owners. I wonder if you could put that much effort into critical thinking skills, then you wouldn’t need to resort to petty insults to make your case. You can read it as a dig, but it was intended more to point out how the best laid plans can go awry in RL. **Cuckoorex** , let’s have a look at your examples and see if we can learn anything. 1. > [@](#): > > Sources familiar with the investigation tell the Republican-American that Hawke-Petit and Michaela were followed home from a supermarket Sunday by the suspects. The men then went to a Wal-Mart to buy an air rifle and a rope, and then waited about a mile-and-a-half away Good ol’ Walmart! 1. > [@](#): > > They told police they saw the man load two large plastic bags full of firearms and property into the family’s pickup truck and drive off. Those guns were helpful. 1. > [@](#): > > Police were called to 4707 Enterprise Lane on a home invasion. The officer found Franklin ‘Cookie” Bonner bound and unresponsive on the kitchen floor. > > According to a family member, Mr. Bonner was last seen alive around 1:30 p.m. that same day. Vague as hell. 4. > [@](#): > > Harrington’s wife, Laura, escaped harm as the couple ran from Newman’s home after three masked men with assault rifles burst into the house while they were visiting. Harrington was shot six times as he ran and died in Newman’s front yard. > [@](#): > Unless your name was John Rambo, I don’t think being armed would have helped here. 1. > [@](#): > > Lightburn, Smith and another man were accused of killing Rodney Gresham, 36, in a home invasion near Stone Mountain on Sept. 7, 2006. The invaders also engaged in a shootout with Gresham’s fleeing bodyguard, and Lightburn then was shot in a confrontation with police. Not very helpful. 1. > [@](#): > > Police said they think the killers came as a group, possibly four or five people. This type of tragic situation is why I have a gun for self defense. Yes, because a shoot-out with 5 people is definitely the safest approach. 1. > [@](#): > > an Oak Park woman was preparing to take her baby to the doctor when a masked intruder burst into her apartment. A gun MAY have helped here, but guns and babies are a shitty combination. 1. > [@](#): > > According to the sheriff’s office, Perez confronted five men who broke into his home shortly after 2 a.m., and was fatally shot by one of the men, later identified as Holder. Another less than ideal scenario for a shoot out. All we seem to be learning from these links is that ‘Home Invasion’ covers that wide a range of scenarios, it is an almost useless definition. But, they all seem to indicate that security awareness before the fact would serve better than defensive awareness after. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/183 "2009-02-06T12:49:04Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > **Cuckoorex** , let’s have a look at your examples and see if we can learn anything. The entire point of that list was to compare the number of instances where someone was misidentified as a threatening home invader and shot, versus the number of times that a home invasion situation has led to harm or death for the homeowner. Whether or not the homeowner had or used guns or how many assailants there were is not relevant to this point. The point is, IF a home invasion incident appears to be occurring, the potential for the intruder to commit violence against the homeowner is far, far greater than the chance that someone innocent is going to be shot by mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/184 "2009-02-06T12:54:01Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > But, they all seem to indicate that security awareness before the fact would serve better than defensive awareness after. Your record is skipping again. Please indicate the exact quote, and who wrote it in this thread, who ever even HINTED that prevention via various security measures would not be preferred. Show me. Please. I’m begging you. Show me where anyone has suggested that preventive security is unnecessary or foolish or not to be desired. Please show me where someone has stated that they absolutely would prefer to shoot an intruder rather than to have NO intruder thanks to effective preventive security. If you can’t then kindly STFU already about your goddamn preventive security soapbox speeches. Make your own goddamn thread about preventive security if you want to expound on their merits. Otherwise, back under the bridge with you. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/185 "2009-02-06T12:57:53Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Of course no responsible gun owner is going to shoot someone by mistake. If they do, they aren’t a responsible gun owner. This is just a form of the _True Scotsman_ argument. :rolleyes: This is not a No True Scotsman argument, because the status (a person being a responsible gun owner) **is** a result of specific behavours on their part (using due care when wielding a firearm). The NRA appears to agree that this is not an unreasonable standard: [QUOTE=[Home | NRA Explore](http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp)] When using or storing a gun, always follow these NRA rules: ``` * Know your target and what is beyond. **Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt.** Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second. ``` [/QUOTE] (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > Since the SDMB is made up of smart people there may never be a case where they make a mistake, but we have seen that even highly trained people such as a policeman can over react with tragic results. Of all the phrases I would use to describe American police officers, “highly trained” ranks extremely low. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/186 "2009-02-06T13:20:59Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > Your record is skipping again. At least it’s not stuck in a groove whereby a gun becomes the foolproof solution to all “home invasion” problems. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/187 "2009-02-06T13:35:28Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > At least it’s not stuck in a groove whereby a gun becomes the foolproof solution to all “home invasion” problems. Show me where I said that, tro—ivan. Show me. I’ll pay you a billion fucking dollars if you can show me that I said that a gun is a foolproof solution to all home invasion problems. No, a trillion. I’ll pay in steady increments over your lifetime. Show me, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/188 "2009-02-06T13:49:54Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > At least it’s not stuck in a groove whereby a gun becomes the foolproof solution to all “home invasion” problems. Also, you never did address my challenge for you to show where anyone said that preventive measures are not preferred over using a gun in home defense. You completely ignored that part. In this and also the other thread, you completely ignored the fact that the thread was not about how to best prevent home invasions from happening, it was about the proper response WHEN A HOME INVASION HAS HAPPENED. Regardless of how much or how little security measures were implemented, the scenarios were about what happens when those security measures were breached. Either you address this, or you are, in fact, trying to get a rise out of people. You got a rise out of me, congratulations, but either you actually address the issue at hand, or you are just trying to get a rise out of people. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/189 "2009-02-06T14:00:01Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Yep, 50-50 chance that if you see someone in your house they are really home invaders. Sounds like good odds to me, just fuckin’ shoot them and if they are your kids you can apologize in heaven Then I’ll throw the weight on the pro-gun side. You saw my cite above where the guy tried to break in and only the sight of a gun stopped him. That was the FIFTH attempt to break into my house in about 6 years, all stopped only by the sight of a gun. It isn’t just shooting people that is the resolution. Merely having and displaying a gun has been a peaceful resolution for me to those five incidents and one “in the middle of bumfuck nowhere” mugging attempt. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/190 "2009-02-06T14:04:52Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > Also, you never did address my challenge for you to show where anyone said that preventive measures are not preferred over using a gun in home defense. You completely ignored that part. > > In this and also the other thread, you completely ignored the fact that the thread was not about how to best prevent home invasions from happening, it was about the proper response WHEN A HOME INVASION HAS HAPPENED. Regardless of how much or how little security measures were implemented, the scenarios were about what happens when those security measures were breached. > > Either you address this, or you are, in fact, trying to get a rise out of people. You got a rise out of me, congratulations, but either you actually address the issue at hand, or you are just trying to get a rise out of people. Okay, we’ll forget about how the person intent on deadly violence to you and your family has got into your property - are we now to imagine that the homeowner with a gun and the preparedness to fire it, is going to have a significant advantage in most imaginable scenarios, or just some of them? Can you identify which particular scenarios are going to favour the homeowner and not the potential homicidal madmen? Do you want to try and provide me with a few cites where the homeowner has successfully fended off determined armed robbers, or ANY ‘home invaders’, just to see if there are any corroborating factors? ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/191 "2009-02-06T16:15:15Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > At least it’s not stuck in a groove whereby a gun becomes the foolproof solution to all “home invasion” problems. And please point to which poster in this thread has taken such a stance. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/192 "2009-02-06T17:36:51Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > The OP started off by asking whether it was right to shoot the person breaking into what he thought was his own house, with some posters saying that the fact that someone was in your house in the middle of the night is evidence in and of itself that they are up to no good, and therefore are proper targets of a homeowner’s self defence. > > I and others have shown that there are cases where people can be in your house by mistake, where police may be in your house legitimately (searching for a burglar), police may be there mistakenly (serving a no-knock warrant at wrong house), or the home owner my mistakenly identify a loved one as threat. > > To my mind, this raises the bar on when it is prudent to shoot. Since the SDMB is made up of smart people there may never be a case where they make a mistake, but we have seen that even highly trained people such as a policeman can over react with tragic results. Suppose we all promise to open our eyes when shooting? Not only will it allow us to recognize our own children, to notice when people are dressed up as police, and to detect when people have obeyed our command to freeze and aren’t making threatening moves…it will also make our aim better! Just because a homeowner points their gun at someone doesn’t mean they have to shoot it blindly without identifying their target. DUH. Even _with_ the handful of examples of idiots firing their guns off half-cocked (heh), this is still a fantastic strawman when applied to gun owners in general. You might as well argue that because some people have insufficient mental or physical command of vehicles to be able to drive, that nobody should be allowed to drive because they might be one of those people. ---
**Author:** ![achilles\_bogart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@achilles\_bogart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/achilles_bogart)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/193 "2009-02-06T17:54:07Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Just because a homeowner points their gun at someone doesn’t mean they have to shoot it blindly without identifying their target. DUH. Even _with_ the handful of examples of idiots firing their guns off half-cocked (heh), this is still a fantastic strawman when applied to gun owners in general. > > You might as well argue that because some people have insufficient mental or physical command of vehicles to be able to drive, that nobody should be allowed to drive because they might be one of those people. I agree whole heartedly. Knowing when not to shoot is just as important as knowing when to shoot. This was reported yesterday and is a fine example. > **[‘Project Hail Mary’ flies to $54.5 million second weekend, horror reaches a...](https://www.columbian.com/)** > > Clark County Washington's source for local breaking news, business, sports, politics, opinion, entertainment, advertising, real estate, obituaries, classifieds, and more. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/194 "2009-02-06T17:55:26Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > You might as well argue that because some people have insufficient mental or physical command of vehicles to be able to drive, that nobody should be allowed to drive because they might be one of those people. Not to commandeer your post, **begbert** , but I have a sneaking suspicion that the next issue to be raised will be something along the lines of, “Yeah, but we license people to drive!” Yes we do license people to drive. On public roads. Just like we license people to carry weapons concealed, in public. But we don’t (typically; some jurisdictions do) license people to possess firearms in their own home. Depending upon locale and zoning restrictions, we don’t even make it illegal to discharge firearms on our own property. This may cause some folks (urban types) head’s to asplode, but believe it or not, not everyone lives in a crowded city or suburb. I know several people who live “in the wilds” of Missouri with no one living within at least a mile of them. They have set up their own home firing ranges with solid earthen berms for backstops, and we merrily, _legally, **safely** _ “blaze away.” If it weren’t too onerous to commute, I’d dearly love a place “in the country” with sufficient isolation to safely set up my own pistol range. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/195 "2009-02-06T19:32:18Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Do you want to try and provide me with a few cites where the homeowner has successfully fended off determined armed robbers, or ANY ‘home invaders’, just to see if there are any corroborating factors? Thank you. Here’s a [page](http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-example/) chock full of exactly the kind of cites you just asked for. The site that collected these examples is clearly in favor of the use of handguns for self-defense, however the articles that are linked to are from independent sources, as far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/196 "2009-02-06T19:56:38Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > A gun MAY have helped here, but guns and babies are a shitty combination. No it’s not. I was raised in a house with firearms. So were _many_ of my friends. It’s no more a shitty combination than “Cars and Babies.” ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/197 "2009-02-06T19:58:38Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > At least it’s not stuck in a groove whereby a gun becomes the foolproof solution to all “home invasion” problems. No one said that, either. You continue to misrepresent the other side of the argument because you can’t argue your own. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/198 "2009-02-06T20:02:19Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Can you identify which particular scenarios are going to favour the homeowner and not the potential homicidal madmen? There is no situation in which the potentially dangerous madman gains an advantage by you having a firearm to defend yourself, unless you don’t fire the firearm. > [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Do you want to try and provide me with a few cites where the homeowner has successfully fended off determined armed robbers, or ANY ‘home invaders’, just to see if there are any corroborating factors? And now you’ve changed the scenario. Home invasions are not typically done by **armed** rob **bers**. They’re most often done by individuals, occasionally by small groups (two or three), which are typically unarmed, and rarely, or armed with blunt or tipped objects. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/199 "2009-02-06T20:14:41Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > Thank you. Here’s a [page](http://www.learnaboutguns.com/tag/self-defense-example/) chock full of exactly the kind of cites you just asked for. The site that collected these examples is clearly in favor of the use of handguns for self-defense, however the articles that are linked to are from independent sources, as far as I can tell. I think a quarter of them were related to the discussion we are having. The trouble is, the details are so sketchy they are of very little use for determining how best to combat this problem. Let me be more specific then; how many cites have you got in which a homeowner was disturbed by someone after they had locked up for the evening, and was then able to establish control of the situation? I imagine there must be plenty of them for you to be so convinced of the efficacy of such measures? ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368/200 "2009-02-06T20:24:03Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I think a quarter of them were related to the discussion we are having. The trouble is, the details are so sketchy they are of very little use for determining how best to combat this problem. > > Let me be more specific then; how many cites have you got in which a homeowner was disturbed by someone after they had locked up for the evening, and was then able to establish control of the situation? > > I imagine there must be plenty of them for you to be so convinced of the efficacy of such measures? You’re like a creationist that keeps demanding more and more “transitional forms” aren’t you? Please note that at in at least one example listed, an alarm system DID go off, but the armed intruder was not scared away by it. “How best to combat this problem?” Well, of course that depends on your definition of “best” doesn’t it? You seem to keep adjusting your criteria to account for any examples brought up, so could you please take this opportunity to clearly define what to YOU would be a reasonable goal in regards to how home invasion situations should be handled. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/castle-theory-of-guns-and-protection/484368.md?page=11)