Now I really want this to be a real competition so I can go watch. Thanks! :mad:
Unlikely? I agree. And you’re entirely correct to choose the weapon with which you’re familiar, although you hardly need my validation.
Still, I stand by my claims that 1) the rifle is superior in nearly every way and therefore 2) a rifle is an entirely reasonable choice for home defense.
I have been sitting at a crime scene for 15 minutes before the alarm company called in the alarm. I think you are over estimating the effectivness of alarms.
In the Lanza case, she followed all the rules, all was legal and she had the right to own guns. It sadly didn’t protect her, her son, or any of the other 25 who were killed. In my opinion people have a right to have a gun, but they should also be responsible for the gun being used, it should be the responsibility of the owner to make sure their guns did not fall into the hands of someone who is using it to kill other people. If the owner’s gun is stolen, etc. they should report it to the police and also make sure it is not where a thief, or other family member could get at it without the owner’s permission.
I made my husband keep his hunting guns apart and hidden, with the bullets in a different place.
The alarm bell itself is effective at getting the intruder to flee. You don’t have to wait for the alarm company to do anything. Hit the panic button, klaxons go off, and likely the intruder flees at that moment. It’s not that the alarm brings the police who chase off the intruder. It’s that the loud noise and attention cause the intruder to flee.
And you know that how? Do you know the motivations of every intruder just as well as you know the floor plan of the Herman house?
ETA I have been to plenty of burglaries which happened at alarmed houses. The bad guys know how long they have to get in and out. And thats only the sane burglars who are not looking for a confrontation. If someone is battering down my door knowing that someone is inside I would not want to bet my life on if they are rational.
They had pictures of the Herman house in the story. It was a typical suburban house. Fire code requires egress paths from each room. They could have escaped through windows, the garage or back door. Once they went upstairs they had fewer options to leave. Regardless, she had time to call her husband, so she would have had time to get everyone out of the house.
From your comments, are you a policeman or something related? Maybe you have insight on how often they flee versus stay around. My guess is that most opportunistic intruders flee quickly.
Your point about them not being rational is a good one. Why put yourself in front of an irrational person at all? Unless you are trying to defend another person, just get away from the intruder. Even if you have a gun, it can fail. The gun should be the last resort, not the first one.
So no you don’t know the lay out of the house, just that it looks “typical.” You don’t know where they were in the house. You don’t know if they were cut off from the exits. You don’t know how panicky the 2 9 year olds were. In the best of circumstances its like herding cats. But somehow it would not be a problem getting them out a window. You are doing the worst type of Monday morning quarterbacking using baseless guesses and assumptions. The police who investigated the incident have no problem with her actions.
Most burglars are trying to hit houses that are empty. This was not a typical burglar. Home invaders don’t care about that. They are violent and dangerous. She did not put herself in front of an irrational person. He put himself in front of her. He had plenty of time to flee. He had to figure she was already on the phone. He didn’t care. A loud noise was not going to do anything.
Isn’t this case the exception though? Wouldn’t like 99.99% of home invaders run like hell once they heard a gun shot? From their POV, wouldn’t it make more sense to abandon that home and find one where they’re not going to get shot at?
Sorry. I was just wondering how many people were saved by the use of a gun, and if it served it’s purpose. You are right, and I should not have answered as I did. I had the impression that even though the word gun wasn’t in the OP’s thread it was inferring to that.
Perhaps it is because I am an engineer and always consider the “worst case scenario”, but with my Wife testifying I decided the worst thing that could happen was that the guys would be smart enough to know that their mistake was leaving a witness, and stupid enough to not think that if something happened to her the police would come looking for them.
Maybe he is a lost drunk. Maybe he is a thief who will run like hell when the alarm goes off. Maybe he came here to kill us.
A friend of mine was in language school in the army. An acquaintance taught him some of the pidgin English used in Africa. “Give me the elephant gun”. “Giveum shoot shoot big fella.”
“Let me teach you ‘give me the .22’”
“Nope.. I don’t want to screw this up. It might be a rabbit running through the bushes, but he’s going to meet a nitro express.”
So what you are saying when confronted with a madman on the other side of a locked door the smartest move is to remove the locked door from between the two of you.
Riiiiiiight.
What if he has an accomplice out back and he is acting as a flusher?
Oops.
While that is funny, the underlying point still stands - the average person, especially a scared woman huddling with her children in a closet - is not a marksman, or even someone familiar with hostile situations.
If it takes someone a whole thirty rounds, or fast rate of fire weapon to kill an attacker then ..well so be it.
What is the alternative? “Oh well hey, if you didn’t want to get raped or killed, maybe you shoulda gone to gun classes and learned how to incapacitate within six shots or less.”
As to answer your question, guns save the day any day, when you can put down an intruder, trespasser or any threat without fear of reprimand by the same laws that are meant to protect you.
You are confusing real life with movies. In real life, misses are more common than hits, and people can carry on fighting even with bullets in them.
Why do you think that there are always more wounded soldiers in a war than dead ones, and they practice a lot more than the average person?
Probably only one contributory factor among many is that armies (officially) have to use FMJ or similar bullets, which pass through more readily than other types such as hollow point. The latter is encouraged for home defense because it more effective but especially less likely to pass through walls.
