could you kill someone breaking into your house?

[rdking647]

Poll question: could you kill someone breaking into your house?

someone is breaking into your house.. you have a gun.
could you use deadly force to stop him? and before asking about shooting to wound,that is also included as a shot to the leg could hit an artery

simple yes or no.. could you kill?

[cleanhippie]

1. It would be pointless to have a gun in your home if you wern't prepared for that.

[vi5]

2. Why are they breaking in?

If I just went downstairs to find someone breaking in or trying to take my TV or money or something? No. Why would I. If I had the gun I'd hope it would force them to run or leave.

But if someone was coming at me or my wife or my kids with the intent to harm us? Absolutely.

But there's a big difference in the reasons and scenarios around someone breaking into your house and why.

[cleanhippie]

7. How would you know?

So you are telling us that if you find someone breaking into your house you are gonna ASK them what they want?

[vi5]

14. What do you mean how would I know?

If I walk downstairs and someone is just trying to unhook and steal my TV or going through my wife's jewelry I'm not going to kill them for that. If I confront them (with a gun) and they charge me, then yeah. The difference is that in one instance they are stealing my stuff. In the other they are trying to attack me physically. Big difference. Maybe not to you, but to me.

I think I'm smart enough to be able to tell when someone is physically attempting to attack me versus stealing a set of china or something. I'd have no problem shooting for someone trying to do physical harm to me or my family. I'm not going to shoot someone just for stealing something of mine.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Yes. If he doesn't get scared off by the fact that someone is actually home and awake, then

what choice would I have?

[William769]

4. I am a firm believer that my house is my castle.

Yes I own a gun. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[HopeHoops]

5. I've got a shotgun with a 2-cartridge clip - pop it in and throw the bolt and I'm ready.

I don't keep the clip in the shotgun (for safety), but they're close enough together that it wouldn't matter.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. What kind of shotgun is that?

I don't know of any that use a clip or require "throwing the bolt"....

[SteveM]

75. Mossberg makes a bolt-action, though it takes a detachable magazine.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. Cool....

learn something new every day....

[SteveM]

83. My brother has one. About the cheapest "repeater" on the market. nt

[Poll_Blind]

6. We've got three little boys, all under 13. Hell yeah I could.

Sometimes it gets up to 5-6 kids spending the night on the weekends. If it was just me at the house, though, I would lock myself in the room (this is if I was sure someone had actually broken in) and not go confronting them.

Confronting someone with a gun is the absolute last thing I wanna do. If it's just me there is no way I'm going to defend my home like I would if there were little kids sleeping in the living room.

PB

[RoadRage]

8. With 2 kids sleeping in the next room?

Without even batting an eye. If the guy is armed, I definitely fire. If he's not, I probably tell him not to move and call the cops. If he moves, I shoot.

[Poll_Blind]

30. Same here. On a seemingly unrelated note, I have a dreadful fear of...

...spiders. Always have. I mean, like a deathly fear of spiders. When my son was about 2 years old, he was sitting on the carpet playing and I remember noticing something out of the corner of my eye- it was a big european spider running full-bore right over to him. Before I was even aware of what I was doing I slammed my bare hand right down on that thing as hard as I could.

Kids totally make you do things to defend them that you might not ever consider doing to defend yourself.

I remember getting up with the dawning realization that I had giant spider guts all over my hand. Which, given my aversion, would normally be a situation out of a nightmare. Before the thought had a chance to grow another hand came down just as quickly to quash the thought: "Fuck that, ain't no spider goin' to be bitin' on my baby."

I went into the bathroom and washed it off as calmly as if I was washing off some dirt.

:rofl:

PB

[pipi_k]

43. What you wrote....

"Kids totally make you do things to defend them that you might not ever consider doing to defend yourself."


Is so true


I found the protective instinct even more powerful when it came to my grandkids a few months ago when the three of them (7, 7, and 10) spent the night here when Mr Pipi was visiting his daughter in TX.

They camped out on my bedroom rug, and before I went to bed myself I checked on them a couple of times.

As I saw them sleeping so innocently, my heart was filled with a feeling that overwhelmed me. I had the double duty of protecting them from anything that might happen. Both because they are my grandkids and I love them, and because they are the children of my children, and there would be double hurt for me if something happened. Hurt for my loss, and hurt for my kids' loss as well.

I never knew being a grandparent would be like this...

[quinnox]

9. Other: can't answer that

I wouldn't know for sure until faced with the situation for real.

[SteveM]

76. Good honest answer, I have much the same feeling. nt

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. I think I could.

But unlike certain regulars on a certain other forum here (the one where this thread is probably going to wind up), I wouldn't rejoice over it.

[rl6214]

61. There isn't ANYONE on this forum that would rejoice over it

dispite what some of you like saying. I challenge you to find any posts on here where anyone is rejoicing over a death.

[SteveM]

77. Who are these "rejoicers?" nt

[Ikonoklast]

11. I wouldn't stop to discuss the reason said person was breaking and entering my home.

They'd get ONE warning to immediately stop and leave; if they refuse to do so I assume they will do harm to me and mine.


And you don't 'shoot to wound', it's nigh impossible, you shoot center of mass, period.

[vi5]

16. The point being.....

you wouldn't shoot just for any reason. You wouldn't have to ask, but you'd be able to discern in the situation what was going on. If you gave a warning and that person left without confrontation you'd know they were just looking to steal and not necessarily hurt anyone.

If they didn't leave then clearly they were either actively or situationally ready for violence.

[Fumesucker]

12. That would depend on whether or not it was a family member sneaking in ..

So as not to disturb the rest of the family, for whatever reason benign or not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Heh. Or which family member.

:rofl:

[Euromutt]

59. I believe the question said "breaking," not "sneaking" (n/t)

[Codeine]

13. There are two little kids in my house.

Their mom would kill an intruder long before I had a chance.

[peace13]

15. Didn't vote but wanted to add...

that we can surprise ourselves sometimes. I live back a lane and last week a guy rang my doorbell and I didn't get to it in time. I looked out the window and this semi-beat van was turning around and backing up to my garage door. What the hell, I thought he was going to unload the house into his van. I stepped out of the door on the upper deck and called down to him to ask what he needed. It really was fight or flight for me and I surprised myself. I wanted to give him the chance to get the heck out of there before feeling cornered.

Turned out that Staples has contracted out their deliveries and this guy didn't even have a magnetic sign on the side of his van. Cost cutting efforts yes but at what cost to the consumer. Called Staples and let them know that their delivery folks need to put the sign on the truck or call before they come! This guy was backing in to deliver the cases of paper that I had ordered.

Long story short fight or flight kicks in and that is different for everyone. I do not use guns but my son and his friends are very into shooting at the range and try to encourage dad and I to learn about guns. I have to say that if I had had a gun that I knew how to use at my disposal I would have felt better knowing that I could go get it. I don't think I would have walked out of the house with it but if the dude proceeded to come in, that would have been a different story. If I were going to shoot at an intruder I would shoot like it was my last shot.

[Modern_Matthew]

17. If someone breaks in on me, I will assume the worst...

Don't own a gun, though... would find some way to disable them.

[spin]

51. I'm not advising you to buy a gun ...

But it might be wise to consider just how you would disable an intruder now rather than try to do it when he is inside your house.

Obviously you have a better chance of winning if you are in good shape and have had some training in the martial arts.

It is going to be much harder to disable an intruder if he is armed with a knife or a gun. You may still win, but you can expect to get cut or shot.

One option to consider is a non lethal Taser gun if it is legal in your area.

check out: http://www.taser.com/products/self-defense-products/taser-c2

I agree that anyone who breaks into your home should be considered VERY dangerous. It's not that hard to be sure that a home is unoccupied before you break in. If all you want to do is to steal items, why break into an occupied home?

[Kennah]

69. Phasers on stun

[flamingdem]

18. First make sure it's not Robert Downey Jr. who entered a house in Malibu

when he was drunk thinking it was his.

[LanternWaste]

19. I don't think anyone truly knows the answer to that until/unless they've been in that specific scena

I don't think anyone truly knows the answer to that until/unless they've been in that specific scenario. As it stands, I imagine most answers are merely variations of "this is what I'd like to think I'm, capable of, but I don't really know..."

[madrchsod]

20. if i had to yes but they would have to go through my dog first

[Swede]

21. Probably the only time a civilian should use deadly force.

When their is a real and immanent threat to you or someone innocent,then yes.

[Kennah]

70. Agreed, and I should note ...

... that the people in the blue uniforms, with the shiny badges, the cars with the red and blue flashing lights, the radios, and the guns, are also civilians.

[Rene Descartes]

22. I could, but that does not mean that I would...

If I were home alone and remained undetected by an intruder, I would make an effort hold my fire. However, if as usual, my family is with me, I would not hesitate to shoot to kill.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Have not had to yet, but my wife did

Saved my ass in the process.

[L0oniX]

24. If they ignore the ADT alarm and dont run away I will shoot to kill.

[Ganja Ninja]

25. It depends.

It depends on the circumstances and the state you live in. Generally speaking a person would have to be armed or a clear threat in some way but that also depends on the state. Texas has probably a much lower standard then a state like Vermont. It also depends on who you are and who your attacker is. If your attacker has a clear physical advantage over you then your more likely to get the benefit of the doubt if you shoot him. Or if he's a known local scumbag the cops would probably be much less inclined to press charges.

[Gari]

26. We have had 2 murders in Bryan- College Station recently

A 19 year old student in Bryan and an elderly man in College Station. The elderly man's wife was injured. Bryan and College Station are "twin" cities, sitting cheek by jowl to one another.

I would walk 5 miles after dark to get help before I knocked on a door around here to ask for help. Lots of these folks will be shooting through peephole of the door and asking questions later after these 2 incidents. Fearful + loaded with lots of guns and ammo = lots more unfortunate incidents.

Many, many more people get shot by relatives than actually shoot strangers invading their homes.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

55. You actually have proof for that claim?

Your last sentence: "Many, many more people get shot by relatives than actually shoot strangers invading their homes."

I'd love to see proof if you have it - proof of the implied accidental shooting that is, as intentionally murder is a whole different kettle of fish.

[Gari]

57. Arthur Kellermann study

This study, frequently maligned by the gun owners everywhere:

An excerpt giving some background - "Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann#Kellermann.27s_published_studies_on_gun_ownership

In my own life, I have known one person accidentally killed by his brother when they were horsing around with a loaded gun, my younger sister was killed intentionally by her husband, who then killed herself. I've never known anyone in my circle of family or friends shoot an intruder.

I am not particularly pro or anti gun ownership, in spite of personal tragedies. I see both sides of the issue.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

58. It is maligned....

...for the simple reason that even Kellerman has admitted it was a crap study. He not only cherry picked the data and used a sample size that was way too small but he also lumped suicides in with homicides, and considered someone an "friend of the victim" if they simply knew each other's names.

In other words, it was a study with an agenda and the author himself has admitted to distorting the data. I really wouldn't count on that as factual.

[PurgedVoter]

63. Having weapons handy and having homicides more common go hand in hand.

Since those who would commit homicide will of necessity obtain a gun or other tool convenient for murder, and since those who have a gun or other tool convenient for murder are better enabled to kill on impulse, of course the odds of homicide in homes with guns will be higher.
People who are fearful and combative, are very likely to obtain a gun and they are much more likely to use it inappropriately.

Kellerman did not admit the study was crap or cherry picked. This is a piece of distorted 'common knowledge' pushed by the gun lobbies. All good scientists will recognize that their studies could be better, this in no way invalidates or means the study is worthless.

Lobbyists for the National Rifle Association have pressured Congress to eliminate the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control because it funded much of Kellermann’s research. They have successfully gotten congress to pass laws making sure that the CDC does not perform or publish research that might be used to advocate gun control. In other words, the NRA does not want us to have any knowledge about the dangers that the presence of guns can produce. The statistics must be pretty damning if the NRA is scared of them in this manner.

While having guns available to fear and anger addled people is always a bad idea, I am glad that a lot of responsible people keep guns. My own fear is that Conservative idiots wired on hate speech constitute one of our countries greatest dangers. Kind of like the St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre

[ManiacJoe]

64. You are misquoting the Kellerman study.

What the study showed was that of all the people KILLED with a handgun in the home, the dead were 43 times more likely to be a family member than an intruder. If the suicides are removed from the count of the dead, the number changes to that of "the dead are 6 times are more likely to be a family member than an intruder".
The study did not cover:
- people who were shot but survived (huge number)
- people who had a gun pointed at them but not shot

[gravity556]

72. Yeah, don't think of it as the NRA being "scared" of the CDC,

a more apt analogy would be folks opposing the "Museum of Creation Science" forcing their agenda into science classes.

[SteveM]

79. The Kellerman "study" has indeed been widely discredited...

It's a lot worse than a study which "could be better." Other researchers have invalidated the study.

"In other words, the NRA does not want us to have any knowledge about the dangers that the presence of guns can produce. The statistics must be pretty damning if the NRA is scared of them in this manner."

Whatever actions the NRA has taken regarding the CDC, that does not stop anyone else or any other institution from studying the "dangers that the presence of guns can produce;" the CDC is not the only show in town, and any "damning data" would hardly be kept secret, given the massive network of research universities this country enjoys. Frankly, the CDC should stick to disease control instead of trying to shoehorn a sociological construct into a public health model.

On a somewhat tangential note, you may wish to review this:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[Simo 1939_1940]

65. Would this be the same Arthur Kellerman who measures

the benefit of defensive gun use by counting the number of burglars killed, rather that attempting to determine (roughly) the number of innocent victims protected?

This assinine cost/benefit ratio he dreamed up is cause alone to regard him as a clown.

[SteveM]

78. You have made a claim here seen often. What evidence do you have that...

"Many, many more people get shot by relatives than actually shoot strangers invading their homes."

Some of these claims are made on the basis of grossly-flawed studies about the "safety" of owning guns in one's home, and on the basis of MSM's enthusiasm for showing "gun accidents." BTW, people getting "shot by relatives" can and do include genuine self-defense actions.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. You're incorrect

The standard in TX is much the same as it is in most of the country - a reasonable fear of harm. That's pretty much about it.

I don't know why people insist upon believing Texas is some mythical place where we all walk around with a pair of 6-guns and settle disputes over parking spaces with pistols at dawn, but reality could not be further from the truth.

[hunter]

27. Why would I do that?

Spot welcomes visitors of any sort.



If Spot has eaten any serial murderers come to do my family harm I don't want to know about it. But usually he's quite friendly and a very good judge of character.

Besides, I know I'd feel very bad if I shot a cop, a drunk neighbor, or a dumb-ass teen-ager, which so far in my life's grand adventure are the only sorts of intruders I've ever confronted in my home.

[Luciferous]

28. I have kids to protect, so yes.

[deacon]

29. Hell yeah. n/t

[ThomWV]

31. I certainly would not want to and i would give them a way to escape, but yes.

And I'd bang a bullet or two into the ceiling before I aimed to kill, but indeed if they didn't run I'd shoot them dead.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

56. And the moment you pulled the trigger and shot into the ceiling...

...you have opened yourself up to criminal charges and civil issues as well. By firing a "warning shot" you are demonstrating reckless disregard for the safety of others.

[lumberjack_jeff]

32. Short answer, yes.

Longer answer, introspection suggests that the bigger risk is that I'd wait too long looking for an alternative.

[ManiacJoe]

34. Ability, opportunity, jeopardy, preclusion.

If the robber meets the standard, he is going to get shot until he no longer meets the standard. Die or not, that is his bad luck.

[kctim]

35. Yes. Without batting an eye

Thank you taxpayers.

[OhioChick]

36. Without a doubt n/t

[pipi_k]

37. Other....I honestly don't know...

I do know that even if I ever did kill an intruder (or be killed myself), I would forever be haunted by the question, could I have done something else. That I had taken a human life, even one that would have taken mine otherwise.

[Marrah_G]

38. I voted yes but it would really depend on the circumstances

Unfortunately once you realize that the motive is murder and not just robbery it's often to late to make those decisions. I hope it's not a situation I ever have to face.

[City of Mills]

39. How many respondants have been the victim of a home invasion, whether home or not

I have, and it's a very unsettling, helpless feeling. If someone breaks into your home, you no longer feel safe anywhere.

[pipi_k]

46. Not home when it happened in 1975...

the only thing of value I had was an old console stereo, and that's what was taken.

For a long time afterward I felt completely violated. Just creepy and dirty.

[Katashi_itto]

40. Emptied my clip into the zombies that were breaking in

never felt guilty about that. Call me bloodthirsty.

[hunter]

41. I think this gun porn thread should go in the gungeon.

Sorry to interrupt these violent fantasies.

[a la izquierda]

48. +1

[TheCowsCameHome]

49. Only if it knocks and identifies itself first.

Otherwise it'll get it's nuts blown off.

[PavePusher]

62. "fantasies"? Really? n/t

[SteveM]

80. Since you brought up the subject of "porn," do you equate...

self-defense with "porn?"

[Zorra]

42. If somebody is crazy enough to break into my home,

I would have to assume that they are crazy enough to rape and murder me or anyone and everyone in my home.

They are definitely desperate and crazy enough to knowingly risk getting blown away by breaking into my home.

That's kind of a no brainer.

What do you call a person that "shoots to wound" in a critical life or death situation?

Dead.

[WinkyDink]

44. I would presume they would not hesitate to kill me, so YES. (CT home invasion, anyone?)

[petronius]

45. I believe I could, although I'd do whatever I could reasonably do to avoid it first

Either holding the person for police, or scaring them away. But if I genuinely feel threatened then yes, I hope I'd shoot (or swing blunt or point objects, or use whatever was available if a gun wasn't)...

[RZM]

47. Don't own a gun. If I did I'm sure I would shoot them n/t

[TBF]

50. Our dog isn't the friendliest - my guess is that he would get to 'em before I could.

But my answer is yes, I have 2 children and would do whatever I had to in order to protect them.

[-..__...]

52. Abso-fucking-lutely

And if the first shot didn't kill him, the 2nd... 3rd... 4th... etc, one sure as hell would.

[one-eyed fat man]

53. After several combat tours, in two wars

if I determine there is an intruder in my house, I will, if at all possible, arm myself and get between him and my family. If the intruder shows hostile intent, is armed and/or does not immediately retreat, I will use any and all force legally justified, to include lethal force, to cause him to quit.

I will call the authorities and keep him under observation until they arrive. We are about 30 minutes from town. I am likely to be the only medical attention he may see until the deputies show up.

[Euromutt]

60. Could I? I think so. Would I want to? Not particularly.

My contingency plan, such as it is, consists of setting up a "blocking position" at the end of the corridor where the doors to the master bedroom and my son's bedroom are and preparing to stop anyone who attempts to come down that corridor, while either my wife or I myself get on the cell phone to 911. Preferably while the 911 dispatcher is listening, I will issue a clearly audible warning to any intruder stating my location, the fact that I am armed, that I will interpret any attempt to approach me as a threat and shoot anyone who tries to do so, and that police are on the way.

What happens after that will be pretty much up to the intruder(s). I do know they're not getting near my wife and kid.

[Simo 1939_1940]

66. Sums it up for me. NT

[RSillsbee]

67. I have killed

That said, if you break into my house I am not "shooting to kill" I am shooting to stop the threat. If I hit you in the foot and you run away I'm satisfied.

[S_B_Jackson]

68. By their illegal presence in my home, they represent a threat to my family's physical well-being

Yes, I could and would shoot an intruder into my home that I perceived as a threat to me and mine.

[gravity556]

73. Since I'm disinclined to avail myself of the good graces of a home invader,

yes, I would shoot until I no longer percieved a threat. In AZ, under castle doctrine, the homeowner is presumed to be in the right should lethal force come into play. I would much rather never ever have to shoot someone, but unless they immediately proned out face down on the carpet with their hands behind their head, they are a threat. You don't know if he has a gun of his own or two buddies with him helping him redistribute your wealth. Speed, surprise and, if need be, violence of action.

And for those who say "Oh, but a TV isn't worth someone's life", don't tell that to the lawful gun owner in his home, tell that to the shitbag crook who decided to break in. Actions have consequences. Try to rob someone and they're armed, the robber is risking his own life. Playing golf in an AZ thunderstorm is tempting lightning, trying to pick up a rattlesnake and get bit? No sympathy from me in any of those cases. (obviously, if someone gets snakebit on accident, that's another issue, but most venomous snake bites are inflicted on males between 16 and 35, and alcohol is quite often involved.

I don't feel bad for drunks that have single vehicle accidents and shuffle off the mortal coil, either. But I have a hate that burns with the fire of a thousand suns for drunks that kill innocents, and the same hatred for criminals as well.

[SteveM]

74. Wouldn't want to, and would threaten someone first if I had the opportunity...

If they revealed a weapon or came my way, yes I would shoot to stop the attack; which would likely end the intruder's life.

[slackmaster]

82. Yes, if I interpreted the person's demeanor as indicative of a dire threat.

A drunk aimlessly stumbling in, probably not.