I am very much in favor “requirement to flee” rather than “castle laws”, the reason being twofold.
First, property is worth less than human life, including criminal life.
Second, the majority of home intruders are not looking for a conflict. They enter hoping that the house is empty, and will flee as soon as there’s an indication that someone’s home. Hence in the typical case, trying to shoot the intruder is unnecessary.
The story in Connecticut does not affect my take on this issue one way or the other.
As for the gun control aspects of your question, I’ve always been one of those who believes that all private ownership of firearms should be outlawed.
This thread, like many others, confirms that most people imagine themselves using their guns to protect some sinister, sophisticated career criminal. You’re more likely to encounter two categories of criminals: desperate people making desperate and poorly-planned crimes, and drunken bums.
As for myself, I’m entirely safe at night because my property has the ultimate security device: a large, stupid dog.
What’s your take on civilians who shoot at US troops while they’re doing residence sweeps for insurgents?
If someone has broken into my house while my family is home, I will assume he has plans for dealing with any members of my family he may encounter. I have no obligation to give him any chance to put those plans into effect.
I don’t have any particular intention to be stealthy or quick, so if his plan was to run away he’ll have a chance to implement it.
If he has other plans, I will stop him.
This is, no matter how you slice it piss poor tactical, behavior. Never surrender any information to an opponent with your life potentially on the line. At most household distances a shotgun is difficult to manuver without serious practice. Why give the hard case a chance to start shooting, we are already talking about someone willing to force entry into your home while you are there.
Not to mention, a gas actuated semi auto shotgun makes a very similar sound when you chamber a round and requires far less coordination to fire multiple shots. Watch a rookie skeet shooter with a pump shotgun sometime and prepare for entertainment.
ITR Champion
I agree that most thieves/criminals don’t want conflict. They just want to take your property and haul it off and sell it. If the owner is either unwilling or incapable of defending it then so much the better. I’m not sure why I should tolerate such behavior.
Couple of points: the gun-related crime over here has mostly been criminal-on-criminal, with some innocent bystanders getting caught in the crossfire (gangstas’ girlfriends and kid sisters and so on); armed intrusions into the home are rare. Similarly, the most recent change in laws on gun ownership concerned handguns, which historically haven’t been used for home defence to any significant extent in many years. It’s a stretch to say “citizens were at a huge disadvantage”; for most Brits, it’s unrealistic to expect to ever be on the wrong end of a gun.
And I’m glad I included that “IIRC” as a waffle, even if it doesn’t quite apply. What stuck in my head was that at least part of the article was about the difficulty the “bobbies” were having in dealing with the crime. Not that that’s really applicable here either, although it would lessen my confidence in the police’s ability to deal with such circumstances.
You are presuming that it’s a criminal. I presume nothing except forced entry.
I myself forced entry into my own home, when locked out of the house and no one inside was responding. Fortunately for me, my father is the kind to challenge, first. And yes, that slide sound is immediately arresting. You call it piss-poor tactical behavior, I call it making certain of the situation and reasonable caution. Had he responded as you suggest, it’s quite possible I’d not be here to argue this point with you.
I, too, was raised in Texas and heard the same story about dragging the body inside the house. I’ve also heard it here in Florida.
In my time in Texas, the assumption was that all men owned at least one gun; men who didn’t own guns were strange, in some undefined way. Boys were given BB guns at around six years of age, moving on to pellet guns at around ten and actual weapons at around twelve. I owned a .22 rifle and a .410 shotgun at thirteen; I learned how to use them by observing others using theirs—there were always guns at hand and someone to tell you about them.
During my younger days in Texas, there was also a pervasive air of violence and it was generally understood that a burglar was fair game.
I’ve often wondered if the availability of guns and a belligerent attitude went hand in hand. Leaving Texas was, for me, the best thing I’ve ever done.
Hey! Until I got my '73 Charles Daly (Miroku) last week, I was shooting a Mossberg 500 28 inch in 20 gauge in trap, and I was doing 16s. Which isn’t great, but it’s not bad. (My first round with the Daly, I got 22. And I had a massive headache)
The Mossberg is now retired to my parent’s bedroom for precisely the reasons mentioned above. Plus, it won’t go through walls so much. (And how hard is it to remember, ‘load up the chute, pump loudly, announce’?)
When I was a young 'un, I watched an old man with a 28ga pumpgun blast every single pigeon lofted. Arrogant* old dude that he was, he told the scorer that if he didn’t powder it, to call it a miss. He didn’t miss a thing.
*Or maybe it was cocksureness. Either way, he backed up his stand with his performance.
Actually, I love watching the competitions, qand when there is a pro there doing demonstrations with blasting asprin and dimes it’s even cooler. I’ve still got a quarter with a hole in it from an event a few years ago.
With a 20 gauge, if you don’t powder it, it’s a miss. Got to be near-dead on… or a lot faster than I am.
(Course, there’s this young girl with a .410 that does scary things.)
Well I would love to agree but am not a kid anymore. With age comes experience and I’ve faced violence many times. Enough that I know better than letting fear control me. An armed intruder would be one thing but burglars aren’t usually armed. To me an unarmed man is just that, unarmed. Killing is still a decision that should be made with the utmost care.
I agree with your sentiments, Omegaman, however I choose to remain in the “give challenge first, shoot if necessary” type, for the most part. I have more knowledge of, and faith in, my own motivation, ethics and judgement, than someone I don’t know at all.
The problem I see are the ‘unfortunate’ incidents created by the stupid. Like the Japanese kid that was killed. I would shoot someone if had I good reason to believe that person was going to kill me or my family. That is, if I had one.
