Right, so if some drunk college kid breaks into your house and you shoot him, or shoot at him, or threaten to shoot him, or grab a gun on your way downstairs and he runs off before he even sees it. Most gun owners are going to consider any of those “defensive gun use.” I kinda get that, because some scary shit was going down and the tool was removed from the toolbox, possibly to be used for its intended purpose (killing people). I don’t think you need to fire a gun at someone for it to count as a defensive use.
However, in this example, the gun owner was never in any real danger. Once the dust clears and the cops catch the perp, they’d quickly figure out that the guy was a) unarmed, b) entered the wrong house by accident, c) had urinated himself. At that point, I no longer consider it a defensive gun use. This may seem harsh, but situations where the gun can be replaced with a blueberry bagel and still yield the same outcome certainly shouldn’t count in favor of gun owners, right?
My criteria for defensive gun use would be many of the examples above (fired on target, fired and missed, brandished, announced) with the caveats that the there was an immediate and real threat to life or limb. Note that I said real, threat, not perceived so this is a different standard than the one that would be used for a self-defense defense.
Unfortunately, even after the fact we’ll never know if most threats are “real.” Drunk guy in the house runs off and doesn’t get caught by the cops? Probably harmless. Very tiny chance that he was a TurboRapist. We’ll never know. Which means that DGU stats are basically pointless.
Rather, we’re back to comparing statistical samples (gun owners vs. non-gun owners) like I described in one of the other clusterfuck threads.
If it were a cleverly-carved and painted block of wood, would it still be a defensive gun use, or a defensive paperweight use? So, fair enough: it’s the “gun” part that I have a problem with.
wow, you seem to know how every situation will work out. can you give me next week’s Powerball numbers?
and I note that on most forums I’ve participated in, the anti-gun posters always bring up things like drunken bar brawls and the like. what the fuck is it that you people do that makes you think gun owners do the same things?
you alternately have problems with the “defensive” part, the “use” part, and the “gun” part. Why not tell us what it is you really have a problem with?
People who think that any part of this whole debate is engraved in stone, unchangeable and permanent. People who think that the “opposite” side of the debate are a bunch of loonies. People on opposite sides who quote the exact same thing as supporting their point of view. People who haul out facts and numbers and refuse to explain what they’re based on, and yet still feel that unsubstantiated “survey” results are hard data.
Guns, I don’t have so much of a problem with; they’re pretty simple, really.
I created the poll to see if we have people here who think at least some of all of the things I listed are defensive gun uses and, how about that, for the most part we do. I did not know that.
Sure. If it doesn’t matter whether there was anything like a gun there… it doesn’t matter.
But there it very much does matter that there is something like a gun–cleverly carved and painted to that end, yes? Up until the moment where the ruse is detected, perhaps when the actual firing of a shot would be called for, it is functioning as a gun. If the defense is successful, the aggressor has been deterred by a gun–albeit one in his mind. Certainly if real guns were less common, and replicas more, this ploy would not be as likely to succeed.
I posed my question about the Texas law to a colleague who recently transferred here from Houston. According to him ( and confirmed by **Grey Ghost’s **reply ) it is indeed legal in Texas to use deadly force to stop theft of property, even if it is not your own. He pointed me to a recent incident of a fellow named Joe Horn that was not charged for killing a couple of would be thieves. While I don’t believe penalty meted out by Mr. Horn fit the crime it does appear to be perfectly legal in Texas.
The Joe Horn case is different, and would fall under another section of the Texas Penal Code, §9.43 : PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. Texas makes it more restrictive to defend a third party’s property, than to defend your own property. Note, you have to satisfy all of the conditions of either 9.41 or 9.42 in addition to the conditions in 9.43 for your use of deadly force to be justified. IANAL, but I don’t think Joe Horn satisfied 9.43, as he had no legal duty to protect his neighbors’ property, nor was it publicized that the neighbors requested Horn to do so (so I’m assuming they didn’t); either of which are necessary conditions in order to use 9.43 as a justification.
Bluntly, and IMHO, the Harris County D.A. did not want to indict a man for killing two POS thieves with prior criminal records, caught in the act of burglary. It also helped that, arguably, the thieves may have been approaching Horn as he was in the act of pulling the trigger, and were within sufficient distance that they may have been a deadly threat to Horn. I think it’s very arguable that Horn did not have legal justification to use deadly force. Make the thieves two local neighbor kids screwing around, or otherwise sympathetic, and I don’t think Horn gets no-billed.
In any event, he now has to live with the trauma of taking two lives, the disruption of having his life turned upside down for several months, and some no-doubt hefty legal fees. I believe if he could, he’d have much rather stayed in his house and been a good witness. But Horn’s case is a different situation than the case of someone defending their own property with deadly force. (which has a lengthy list of preconditions that must be fulfilled before one can legally do so)