Why I carry - even at home.

reply to post by Aazadan


Scenario E: Burglar breaks in, sees your unarmed... Crams you in room and commences to violently beat and rape your mother, takes valuables before he walks out the door.... Was about 4... Only scenario I've ever personally witnessed. Lucky he didn't decide he needed to kill us both to ensure no witnesses.. Guess in your mind the criminal is the one who deserves that choice, and should be free to do it with no risk and little fear of being caught.

-you say "Well...he was reply to post by swimmer15

Sorry. Hey, Its not me...its the laws. You need to research under those conditions, can one "shoot to kill" to protect a generator, a car etc? Shoot to defend ones life or the life of another, not to protect stuff. The courts will not be on your side if after the cops come get you and take away your weapon-you say "Well your Honor...He had broken in an took my pain-killers, daughters asthma meds and my DVD player and ...so I shot him."

You will lose. And that is the point. You cant legally kill over stuff. I assume you havent read anything on "self-defense", but you should.
Its clear many opinioned ATS'rs have not but there..."I'd shoot them if they..."

You just cant shoot someone over stuff. You really should read up on when you can and cant use deadly force. And over stuff...you just cannot without becoming the criminal yourself.

You cant shoot someone over car tires (etc)...or for standing in your driveway or coming out of your house etc....You cant shoot someone over "stuff".

reply to post by mysterioustranger

To clarify...if a weapon is pointed at you...any weapon...it would be different. But a bad guy running the opposite way with "Stuff" from your house...you cant.

The only thing here...the only thing...is as to what it is and when you can use it and what constitutes "self-defense". And I see many here haven't a clue.... by your responses.

That is why its good to learn about it whether in a firearm safety class, on YouTube, Karate, self defense classes, what constitutes it, and how its legally defined.

At the minimum.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


I don't agree with them, doesn't mean i don't know them. I will rot in jail like a common thug before i am at the mercy of a criminal. I don't think its fair that thats my option.. At the mercy of a criminal committing a criminal act or become a criminal myself.
The law dosent even give you a 50:50 chance.

I stopped 3 men from trying to enter my house from my 3 year old daughters bed room window. So Yes I can relate and I too carry most of the time. Funny when people start name calling to people who are self reliant and realize that the police,government,"God" ,more strict laws ,the slow but systemic violations of a persons right to live freely and safe or their awesome coolness will not stop crime from happining. I live in Western Ma and I can tell you first hand that the area is becoming a drug corridor and a majority of the population is on assistance of some type and feel absolute entitlement to everything that they get and everything that you have. Yes I will be moving within a 5yr timeline. Honestly I dont blame these poor lost souls as they are programmed to behave this way by the very nature of the machine. My wife is currently on the Grand Jury shift and what she is finally realizing is what this system is creating ,is monsters. I was never really suprised of the nature of men ,being ex military (Gulf War) and my friends are all city cops. So what I say is ,If you want to defend yourself,it is your human right. If you dont fine but dont try to stop me from protecting myself or mine because if you do ,you are the enemy. For all of those who live in safe areas,have personal body gaurds or live in Ivory towers ,good for you. You are blessed that you have never experienced such events and I honestly hope you never do.

Bill

justreleased
reply to post by zilebeliveunknown

 

I can defend myself without carrying a weapon.

Just saying. It's my point.

I said if weak people feel the need to carry a weapon then it's their right.

Had a friend from the UK attempt to convince me that, even if there was a gun presently on the counter, he'd rather throw knives from the drawer at his attacker. Right...

Not sure i could make the absurd correlation between "being weak" and "carrying a firearm". Who feeds you this crap?

Aazadan
I don't have a gun, a friend of mine has several. There's one in his car, one at the desk he spends 99% of his time at, and one in his bedroom, all handguns. In addition to that he has a shotgun and a rifle, though he doesn't expect to use those for defense due to their placement (he's in a wheelchair so quick mobility is an issue).

I've had this discussion with him before that while those guns make him feel safer, they actually put him in a more dangerous position. I'll go back to the OP's example for this. Lets say the door wasn't locked and the burglar came in. There's a few scenarios that could have played out:

Scenario A: The burglar is armed, knows you are there and proceeds to prevent you from interfering first. The vast majority of these cases don't involve murder. Not only do most people (even criminals) shy away from it, but whether or not you're murdered they're intent on taking your stuff. Most criminals also know that there's a chance they'll be caught. When their expected outcome is the same either way, why take the higher risk path to that outcome? You would be tied up, frightened, and lose some stuff, but you probably wouldn't be killed. The burglar wins.

Scenario B: You're both armed. The burglar is going to come in with a weapon drawn looking for you. You on the other hand are reading a book. You have to react to get your gun, then locate the person, and then fire. The burglar is either going to have a gun on you before you can make a move, or is going to be forced to shoot you to defend himself. Possibly shooting you just due to threat escalation. Here you're harmed/killed, and the burglar gets what they want. The burglar wins 95% of the time.

Scenario C: The burglar isn't armed and you are. A confrontation occurs. They run for it. Do you shoot a fleeing burglar knowing the law isn't on your side (threat of harm has passed)? Either you do and no one wins, or you don't and you each win, the burglar got away and you were protected. Here you tie 50% of the time, and you win 50% of the time.

Scenario D: Neither of you are armed. The burglar comes in, finds you, and a confrontation occurs. Someone wins a fight. I imagine this usually goes to the burglar but I'll say it's 50/50 because a burglar stupid enough to go into a dwelling with lights on probably isn't a talented enough criminal to know they need the ability to win a fight.

So the results:
Burglar - Wins 2.45/4 = 62%
You - Win 1.05/4 = 26%
Tie - 12%

They're more than twice as likely as you to win that outcome. In the scenarios where you're armed the bad guy wins 48% of the time while you win 27.5% of the time. In outcomes where you win, the bad guy gets away. In scenarios where the bad guy wins you die. When weighing the value of events it seems like a losing outcome to get into these situations. You're winning just over 1/4 of the time, and 2/3 of the time you don't win, end up with you being dead.

However in the scenarios where you aren't armed, the burglar wins 75% of the time, and you win 25% of the time. In the scenarios where you win the burglar actually ends up being captured and prosecuted, while in the scenarios where you lose you end up unharmed (physically atleast). The win/loss rate is similar when armed or unarmed, but when unarmed not only is the payoff higher when you do win, but the outcome of losing isn't nearly as bad.

This doesn't take into account scenarios like gang violence, rapists, or so on. Just burglary. It also doesn't account for things like three strikes laws which make the punishment for low level theft and murder equal. Which means they have nothing to lose by killing you on strike 3 (infact it becomes safer for them to do so).

That aside, no condemnation here for you choosing to own a weapon, as I believe you're entitled to defend yourself in any way you see fit (note: this actually goes beyond the scope of just the Second Amendment). I just happen to think that when evaluating the possible outcomes, this is a situation where it's better to be unarmed, escalating a situation isn't doing you any good, the best defense here for your person (though not your property) is to not resist. It's also worth pointing out that locking your door is what kept you safe, not the gun.

edit on 11-1-2014 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

Ehhh I'd rather have a pistol/firearm on or near me and actually have a fighting chance rather than to hope and pray I dont get a crap beat out of me until I die,shot,stabbed etc etc

Im not willing to take chances with Bad apples...I've seen way too many videos on Liveleak..


Anywho heres a link to a great website with news stories/links to some great Self Defense stories...Updated often too!

gunsnfreedom.com...

reply to post by swimmer15

I see you at least get my point here! Here you are talking about SELF DEFENSE. That was my whole point. I too will go to jail DEFENDING myself, my family, neighbors and the store clerk. I will be their best friend and the criminals worst enemy.

But I WILL NOT "rot" because I used bad judgment shooting at a fleeing felon running AWAY FROM ME with "Stuff".

Thanks for the reply! MS

reply to post by Camperguy

You sir, make my point with clarity. You had every right to use force to attempt (and you succeeded) with stopping these guys. Within the law, you had every indication that you or she could be harmed or killed. In that...it would have been self-defense.

Shooting at them running away? That may have been construed as to you guilty of and being charged with "attempted murder".

Ok. Those of you who say you can defend yourself without a gun? Search this info out please.

At 21 yards (3' x 21=63 feet)...a person with a knife can reach you in 3 (THREE) seconds. 3-seconds.

You better be REALLY good when he gets to you to stop him...whereas the firearm owner can get off anywhere from 1-to-6 shots in that time frame...depending on factors.

PS Karate etc and all self defense is great to know of course. But think about that "3-seconds" factor when one crazed individual is running at you.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


Thing is every scenerio is different, as is everyones perception of a threat, as is everones abilities as is everyones preparedness, etc... Judgment is made after the fact, by monday morning quarterbacks.
IMO the deck should be stacked in favor of the lawbiding citizen.. It makes no sense to me how the agrument was allowed to be flipped from the criminals choice to die... They made the choice that it was worth dying for. The responsibilty for that should never shift to me or you.

Again, around 2006 laws were amended as to the use of lethal force. They added the following.

1. Car jacking. (Not car STEALING out of your driveway, store etc.)

2. Home invasion. INVASION. Climbing in a window or finding someone in your home upon entering. (NOT seeing someone in there when you pull up -and with no one home ie: family etc).

3. Rape. Attempted rape (Plain and simple. Nothing needs to be added to that one).

With some of these replies our members have made under what circumstances they'd use force, its clear that they have the wrong legal definition of the "use of deadly force" and when its ok to use it.

Be safe friends. Always be safe!

reply to post by mysterioustranger


So stranger, how would it work? Someone kicks in my door or breaks, then climbs through a window. Do I, gun in hand, politely ask that intruder if he's there to harm or kill me? Or simply there for my stuff. If I come home while the theft is in progress, does the thief, on seeing me with gun in hand, tell me that he's going to calmly walk out, with my tv in his hands, get in his vehicle which already has other items from my home, and I have to let him go?

Point is, whether someone breaks in, or is already there, the armed homeowner doesn't know, nor has the time to determine, what the intruder intends. All to many times the intruder will beat the crap out of the occupants on the dwelling simply for being there. All to many times they're hopped up on drugs or adrenaline, and will lash out without a second thought. All to many times they come in willing to put down any and all opposition to their intentions.





Can't seem to get the word 'window' to show above. Oh well...

reply to post by 2ndthought


I'll retort chronologically in most respects to keep it clean and amiable.. take careful note.

1. I'm unaware of any statement I made that suggests a preclusion of your right to bear arms in consideration of the fact it's sanctioned by your founding document (obviously), however I pointed out unrelated, and quite considered aspects that are hopefully not beyond your scope (something tells me it is). Self defense differs in your nation state by state.

2. BS Thugs being gentle... Obviously not correct, by definition, I have no recollection of heightening thugish actions beyond those of thugs proper?

3. The videos you posted: That is the human condition. Rather generic.

4. Firms, of which distinctly make up lobby groups and influence... I need not explain that one to you... right?

5. The rest of the planet has no freedom? lives in servitude? we're non-deterministic? Non-Americans? That's actually funny. Non Americans?! amazing.. Actually you've made my day.

I would like to say I didn't expect that... but honestly, from my recent travels.. it's no surprise

reply to post by spoogemonkey


As you've now made mine.

It's amazing the number of people, once their argument fails, resort to insults. In other words, people who live by the rule ... 'If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullsh*t.'

Laykilla
Your entire premise is illogical; and all those percent chances are meaningless. If a burgler breaks in, and neither of you are armed and a physical altercation arises; almost certainly it's a fight to the death.

If a burgler comes in armed, and you're armed, and you're alarmed to his presence; you know the lay of the land, the layout of the house, you have advantage everytime; even if they are skilled marksmen. If they entered with a fire arm, you're dead, you aren't getting tied to a chair and beaten if you're discovered. If you have a firearm and a superior position; you can also have the chance to diffuse the situation without a body count, something you cannot do without chucking a very risky bluff; and if he calls you and you're empty handed, you're dead.

If a burgler comes in not armed, and you are armed, chances are he'll turn tail and run; and if he chooses to attack, you put him down.

The home owner is in advantage in EVERY SINGLE scenario listed but only if the home owner is armed; not the other way around. Real world is not a video game; if you aren't prepared and you lose, it's not game over press start to continue; you're dead, pal.

Why would unarmed/unarmed result in a fight to the death? The burglar isn't attempting to kill you (unless they're on strike 3), instead they just want your stuff. In most cases they're fighting to restrain you as you are to them. Seeing as how they're the one acting as an intruder if they're at all prepared for it, they're going to fight better than you.

In the scenario where the burglar is armed and so are you, you skipped over the main factor. You have to be aware of their presence. In the OP the person heard their door rattle and thought nothing of it. Her guard was down, if the burglar came in with a weapon drawn she would not have been in a proper position to fight back. If the burglar saw her going for the weapon, escalation would have happened. As I said, you'll win this a small amount of the time, but the majority of cases involve the burglar winning.

This has nothing to do with a video game, there are 4 armed/unarmed states that can occur. Some actual analysis of those 4 states lets you figure out where the outcomes are best for you. As I pointed out that's for burglary only, there's another set for rape, assault, and so on.

swimmer15
reply to post by Aazadan

 

Scenario E: Burglar breaks in, sees your unarmed... Crams you in room and commences to violently beat and rape your mother, takes valuables before he walks out the door.... Was about 4... Only scenario I've ever personally witnessed. Lucky he didn't decide he needed to kill us both to ensure no witnesses.. Guess in your mind the criminal is the one who deserves that choice, and should be free to do it with no risk and little fear of being caught.

This is actually a variation on scenario A, they're armed and you aren't. As I pointed out in my post however it had to do with burglary only as that's the most common. The rape scenario has a completely different set of outcomes since the motive changes.

ruderalis1
Ehhh I'd rather have a pistol/firearm on or near me and actually have a fighting chance rather than to hope and pray I dont get a crap beat out of me until I die,shot,stabbed etc etc

Im not willing to take chances with Bad apples...I've seen way too many videos on Liveleak..


Anywho heres a link to a great website with news stories/links to some great Self Defense stories...Updated often too!

gunsnfreedom.com...

Most crime outside of gang related activity is non violent in nature. I don't know the exact numbers but lets say it's 90%, the chart I made is relatively accurate in outcome for the non violent activity. When it comes to violent activity however I completely agree that you want to be armed. The problem is that outside of some specific localized activity you can't be certain of the criminals intentions before the crime takes place, which means you can't determine which decision path is correct (going for your weapon or not). So the default becomes going for it, as you wouldn't have it otherwise. That gives you a better chance against the rapist or the murderer in those 10% of crimes where it's a factor, but it also gives you a significantly worse set of outcomes in the other 90% of crime.

So it comes down to what would you prefer? A worse set of outcomes on average with the worst case scenarios being significantly improved, or a better set of outcomes on average with a considerably worse worst case scenario?

reply to post by Aazadan


Oppertunity doesn't change the motive..do you think burglers target homes they think are occupied? Or young people? They enter and if somthing changes the plan, either oppertunity or intervention...... You cant know what a person considers opportunity, or motive or abilities or the plan... So you expect the worst and hope for the best.... What happens during is access and react. No amount of monday morning quarterbacking can change that.

reply to post by mysterioustranger

You better be REALLY good when he gets to you to stop him...whereas the firearm owner can get off anywhere from 1-to-6 shots in that time frame...depending on factors.

Taking into account the time it takes to draw, take off safety etc, the guy will probably have the knife in you about the time you are ready to fire. I'd go for some proper martial arts training in preference to pulling a gun here. I'd also like top point out the exciting possibilities of accidentally shooting a family member instead of the attacker if you miss, and the dangers of leaving firearms around in a house with kids.

I've never been so thankful to live in the UK. Once you get out of the black inner city estates there's very little gun crime. I don't know a case where a burglar had a gun here, barring a few gang linked home invasions (again, black inner city stuff). Even the muggers typically don't have guns. My chances of coming face to face with a gun wielding criminal here are about the same as a five figure lottery win.

reply to post byswimmer15

Youre right. Each is different and a judgment call. Surprising how many would use deadly force under certain circumstances that would lend them in prison...because they thought they could defend their "stuff". And still...these folks say "I don't care so I would do whatever..."

The issue becomes most of those folks will be cuffed, their weapons taken away and they will be jailed. And all because they felt they had the right and "I got the right..." The courts may see differently, or maybe the judge will favor their side.Again, Im only telling it like it is and not what I THINK.
use it
Im taking it like I learned: Carrying a licensed firearm with a permit to carry is not the way most of you are interpreting us. Its not about under what circumstances CAN I shoot....we learn that.

But once you get passed that...Im spending all my carrying time...trying my best not to HAVE to draw my weapon. Its all about how to KEEP from having to. And knowing the laws helps everyone do that as many are badly misinformed.

reply to post by 2ndthought

Youre wrong on almost all points. You cant shoot them for stealing unless they are armed and not running away from you, removing the threat. You could if you and they are in the house at the same time...but not if youre outside because you could get away.

Look at what you wrote and said here. Your reasons for defending is correct. But when to use force...is not. Read my other posts or go online to research when to legally defend yourself.