Somewhere in Gotham, Bruce Wayne is gnashing his teeth in silent, steely-jawed fury.
Absolutely. We didn’t see the successful criminals in prison. We got the guys who failed at crime.
Fair enough. And I certainly think this kid did “right,” based on available info.
But being proud is one thing. Parading one’s pride, particularly when it’s pride in committing a (hopefully) difficult and unwanted act that one was forced into . . . that’s not an admirable character trait, IMO.
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that a study had been done.
If you are aware of any gun owners going around hoping to use their gun, I suspect that you may alert the police. If you are aware of any shooting anybody, please notify the police, irrespective of whether they shoot one or three.
I, personally, am unaware of any gun owners, responsible or no, that fit your profile. I have, however, seen the link from the OP, which is what I was referencing.
The headline (and the OP) says that 3 gunmen broke into the home. But the article says nothing about the three young men being armed. The push the dad down. The “go after” the mom and the son shoots them.
There is noting the article about the intruders being armed. Were they armed? Not that it makes a huge difference. Home invasion, I think the shooting is justified.
Do I know any personally? No, at least none that have said as such. Have I read a lot of shit online about people posting things like,
“Man, I just hope someone tried to rob the bank while I’m in there today…they’ll get a taste of JUSTICE, AMERICAN STYLE!!!”?
Or,
“The instant anyone breaks into my home, no matter WHO YOU ARE, for ANY REASON, I will shoot you dead!”?
Yes.
Now, I realize most of that is just chest-pumping, “rah rah” bravado, but it’s still a little scary to read, and some of those people are serious. It’s how you end up with accidents where someone gets killed because they have the wrong home address, or something. The home-owner, rather than assessing the situation, just shoots first and asks questions later/never.
I agree with statement two but not statement one. If someone tries to rob a bank chances are they’re just going to take the money and leave, and it’s not even my money. If someone breaks into my house some dark night they are going to get shot dead. By the time I properly “assess the situation” and conclude round 1 of "What’s my line"with the intruders I’d probably be the one dead.
I’m curious about the little boy who knocked on the door too.
In our area, when people break into occupied homes (three in last 5 years) it has been drug dealers who are unhappy with recent transactions and are looking to either get their drugs back or their money.
Nonsense.
Most home invaders are unarmed, and death or injury to the homeowner is rare. (cite) The idea that you have no time to assess the situation and determine that (1) there’s definitely someone in your home, (2) that person shouldn’t be there, and (3) you are at risk by their presence, is irresponsible in the extreme, and is the cause of many gun accidents.
If someone breaks into your home, I believe you have the right to defend yourself and your property. But gun owners have a responsibility to ensure they are only discharging their weapon when it is absolutely necessary. Remember, being afraid is NOT the same thing as being in danger.
That’s why most of the castle doctrine rules are written in the form of “fear of your life or someone else’s”. By the time you’ve determined whether the three thugs that just pushed into your house are or aren’t armed it may well be too late.
Breaking into someone’s home forfeits the benefit of the doubt.
Was the dead guy shot in the bathroom? Just curious.
No. Studies are bad. We don’t want any studies. Might reveal answers we don’t want to hear. Better to simply rely on anecdotes and stories.
This demonstrates the false sense of security from guns. A person must operate the gun for it to be effective. If the son had not been there or had been incapacitated, the gun would not have helped at all.
If instead they had a dog and alarm system, likely the intruders would have not even tried or quickly fled. And even if they didn’t flee, the alarm will bring help quickly from the police or neighbors. Another advantage to an alarm is that you can have panic buttons in clear view in every room for easy access. You can’t do the same with guns.
Guns can be used for home security, but it should be the last line of defense. The intruders should have had to go through other active defense systems. In many of these “saved by gun” stories, it doesn’t appear there were any such systems in place.
I’m not sure I understand the OP; how exactly did the family fight back? I really only see the 21 year old man fighting back, at least as the news article describes things.
And I think the story and it’s quotes are being (possibly deliberately) somewhat deceptive. The son was a 21 year old man, and I doubt if any of his friends are 8-10 year old boys, as the quote from the father seems to imply.
And I love the added touch that the family was baking a cake, as if this were some kind of team effort that families participate in.
I’m glad the intruders were fended off, tho.
I am replying the idea that:
I agree that a person breaking into another’s home with ill intent forfeits the benefit of the doubt, as to whether or not they will cause harm. But what about pulling into someone’s driveway? That man was afraid for his life, apparently. Do you think maybe he should have slowed down and assessed the situation a little better?
What about if you hear a noise in your bathroom during the night*? Do you think it would have been a good idea for him to make sure that what he heard was indeed a home invasion? Do you believe either of those stories represent responsible gun ownership?
I repeat:
The idea that you have no time to assess the situation and determine that (1) there’s definitely someone in your home, (2) that person shouldn’t be there, and (3) you are at risk by their presence, is irresponsible in the extreme, and is the cause of many gun accidents.
If someone breaks into your home, I believe you have the right to defend yourself and your property. But gun owners have a responsibility to ensure they are only discharging their weapon when it is absolutely necessary. Remember, being afraid is NOT the same thing as being in danger.
*I realize he may be lying, but there are many cases like this
False.
Like alarms and barking dogs, a gun can scare an intruder away before it is fired. Or, are you also claiming that a dog must bite for it to be effective?
I forgot to mention in my last post, but I don’t recall reading anything about the inturders having guns except in the headline. Did they actually have guns (or weapons of any kind)?
Are you claiming that a gun, by itself, without a person wielding it, is an effective deterrant?
Or was there some other conclusion that should be drawn from your determination of “false” in response to the assertion that “a person must operate a gun for it to be effective”?