Why is it a reasonable expectation that you wait until an unknown threat with unknown intent and unknown capacity has a chance to take a shot at you or your family first before defending yourself?
Defending yourself doesn't have to mean shooting and killing.
Say you taze a crazed intruder. He's out for a few minutes. When he wakes up, HE'S STILL IN YOUR HOUSE. Should you have zip ties handy to go with your tazer that may not work if he's wearing flannel? How big should your self defense kit be, and what should it contain?
You just made me laugh at the thought of someone tazing an intruder and then sitting back down to watch TV while the intruder spasms around for a couple of minutes.
The odds of a "crazed" intruder are practically zero in most places.
Since you like anecdotes, I'll tell you that there was a high profile case involving a doctor and his family in a town only a few miles from mine a few years ago. Two guys broke in, took the women hostage, beat the man (doctor) nearly to death and left him for dead in the basement. They tied the girls to their beds, raped them all (including a 9 and 16 year old), killed them, and burned all the bodies (and a chunk of the house) even though the mother paid the ransom they demanded. The police came when the doctor came to and crawled to a neighbor's through a window.
Even though the odds were low, I'd like to have seen the doctor pull a gun and shoot those fucks instead. Or the mom. Or either of the daughters. They actually let the mom leave the house to go withdraw money while they held the girls. With lots of firearm training she may have had the confidence to take the bastards out when she came back.
In your version of the hypothetical, she inevitably panics and shoots herself in the head, I'm sure.
Why is it a reasonable expectation that you wait until an unknown threat with unknown intent and unknown capacity has a chance to take a shot at you or your family first before defending yourself?
Defending yourself doesn't have to mean shooting and killing.
Say you taze a crazed intruder. He's out for a few minutes. When he wakes up, HE'S STILL IN YOUR HOUSE. Should you have zip ties handy to go with your tazer that may not work if he's wearing flannel? How big should your self defense kit be, and what should it contain?
They're out for more than a few minutes, and I would assume that you would call the police after a situation like that.
They're out long enough for police to arrive? Want to bet your kids on that? Are you going to have time to load your kids and pets in the car and get far enough away that they're not going to find you? Depends on the neighborhood, I guess.
SHOULD you have to abandon your property rather than kill a malevolent intruder? Texas says no.
If I beat the odds and somehow incapacitated an intruder, you betcha I'd run outside screaming bloody murder like a chicken with its head cut off in order to alert everyone for help while the police arrive.
I don't know why I keep posting in this thread :-P
They're out long enough for police to arrive? Want to bet your kids on that?
zip-ties actually sounds like a great idea... definitely keeping that in mind next time there's an intruder in my place. also booby-traps, home-alone style. *makes note to stock up on shovels*
Just bust some kneecaps, not that hard. Now they can't move anywhere fast, they have to fight through the pain to do anything, AND you didn't commit murder!
Why is it a reasonable expectation that you wait until an unknown threat with unknown intent and unknown capacity has a chance to take a shot at you or your family first before defending yourself?
Defending yourself doesn't have to mean shooting and killing.
Say you taze a crazed intruder. He's out for a few minutes. When he wakes up, HE'S STILL IN YOUR HOUSE. Should you have zip ties handy to go with your tazer that may not work if he's wearing flannel? How big should your self defense kit be, and what should it contain?
You say that like I don't have handcuffs, right there on my desk. And zip ties. And 550 cord, and duct tape. It's not self defense kit, it's just stuff I have around the house.
Shit, worse comes to worse, just lash them up with an extension cord, and keep an eye on them. You only have to hold them till the cops arrive, it's not like you live in Folsom prison.
You know what? You tase the intruder and then keep a baseball bat handy in case he/she comes to before the cops arise. As soon as the intruder starts stirring, whack him a couple times with the bat -- preferably the legs or something in order to immobilize him without killing him like a whack to the head may do. However, if necessary, whack him on the head. Nearly as effective as a gunshot with far less chance for collateral damage.
It's not like keeping a bat handy is that odd anyway. My dad used to keep one handy in his shop in case someone threatened to rob him.
While I am pro-gun, it's not like there aren't other, safer alternatives you could use to defend yourself for just long enough until the cops come.
Why is it a reasonable expectation that you wait until an unknown threat with unknown intent and unknown capacity has a chance to take a shot at you or your family first before defending yourself?
Late getting to this, but it seems you've answered your own question. "Unknown" intent and threat level is insufficient for shooting someone without warning.
Why is it a reasonable expectation that you wait until an unknown threat with unknown intent and unknown capacity has a chance to take a shot at you or your family first before defending yourself?
Maybe to actually assess whether or not it is a clear and present danger or not. Sorry, but "shoot first, ask questions later" is not a reasonable position to take. You know, so you don't shoot your son or daughter who returns late from a party and tries to sneak into the house unnoticed or some such circumstance.
That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to be ready to defend yourself while inspecting what is actually going on, but I find the castle doctrines which essentially permit the use of deadly force without any assessment of actual danger is in itself dangerous and ridiculous.
Maybe to actually assess whether or not it is a clear and present danger or not. Sorry, but "shoot first, ask questions later" is not a reasonable position to take.
Yep. If you're shooting without identifying your target first, then you're a tragedy waiting to happen. Turn in your guns till you can be more responsible with them.
Edit - Not even being sarcastic. If that's the case, you should not have firearms in your possession.
You know what? You tase the intruder and then keep a baseball bat handy in case he/she comes to before the cops arise. As soon as the intruder starts stirring, whack him a couple times with the bat -- preferably the legs or something in order to immobilize him without killing him like a whack to the head may do. However, if necessary, whack him on the head. Nearly as effective as a gunshot with far less chance for collateral damage.
It's not like keeping a bat handy is that odd anyway. My dad used to keep one handy in his shop in case someone threatened to rob him.
While I am pro-gun, it's not like there aren't other, safer alternatives you could use to defend yourself for just long enough until the cops come.
Or I could keep a 12 gauge loaded with #4shot. I announce myself, and if they don't respond, I shoot. If I hit him/her then they are no longer a threat, (and they can't sue me for assault). If I miss then I'm still good because #4 wont go through more than 1 layer of drywall.
That way I don't have to risk the taser not working, or having to get within arms reach where he/she could hurt me. I am not putting my self at any risk, no matter how slight, to preserve the safety of anyone who invades my home.
That's the point really, tasers and other 1/2 way measures put me at more risk that my 12 gauge or a .45 does. If I'm shooting at someone then it's because my body is in danger. If my physical body isn't in danger then I shouldn't be engaging them, whether it's with a firearm or a taser, or anything else.
A firearm need to used with consideration and judgement, just like any other tool.
And in at least one state it's now legal to shoot police conducting unidentified no knock raids. Nobody should he caving my door in without expecting me to defend myself. You can all offer YOUR intruders tea if you want to. How silly.
Not saying that someone who knows what they're doing with a firearm should instead be using a taser and baseball bat. Just that the average person is probably safer with a taser and bat because they don't know how to use a firearm. Hell, my dad fought in the Portuguese colonial wars in Africa (so yes, he knew how to properly use guns -- as he demonstrated to me at a later date) and he chose a bat instead of getting a CCP to protect himself (although I'm not sure if it's because getting a CCP was too much of a pain in the ass or he just felt a bat was overall a safer alternative).
Heck, I have no gun experience and thus I'd go with the taser/bat route out of safety considerations. While I'm pretty sure I'd be just fine with the appropriate training, I'm just not so secure that I'd be able to competently wield a firearm when something goes bump in the night.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about someone bodily breaking into my front door or sneaking in at night. We're not talking about gunning down Jehovah's Witnesses here. "Can I tell you about your Lord and Sav--" BLAM BLAM BLAM
Just to clarify, I'm talking about someone bodily breaking into my front door or sneaking in at night. We're not talking about gunning down Jehovah's Witnesses here. "Can I tell you about your Lord and Sav--" BLAM BLAM BLAM
Don't be silly, they're like vampires, you have to INVITE them in.
I'll probably use a 12 gauge for home defense loaded with either birdshot or maybe shells filled with rocksalt. Eventually I'll probably get a CCW but mainly so that I can get a Taser permit, and so that I don't have to get a purchase permit when I want to buy a pistol. There really is no self defense tool that fits every situation, and a gun is no exception. Lethal options should only be a last resort.
I'll probably use a 12 gauge for home defense loaded with either birdshot or maybe shells filled with rocksalt. Eventually I'll probably get a CCW but mainly so that I can get a Taser permit, and so that I don't have to get a purchase permit when I want to buy a pistol. There really is no self defense tool that fits every situation, and a gun is no exception. Lethal options should only be a last resort.
And that, sadly, is the problem. There are too many action hero wannabes out there with itchy trigger fingers who just can't wait to unload lead into someone, no questions asked. Castle doctrines and stand your ground laws only make things worse.
Comments
edited for context
Even though the odds were low, I'd like to have seen the doctor pull a gun and shoot those fucks instead. Or the mom. Or either of the daughters. They actually let the mom leave the house to go withdraw money while they held the girls. With lots of firearm training she may have had the confidence to take the bastards out when she came back.
In your version of the hypothetical, she inevitably panics and shoots herself in the head, I'm sure.
SHOULD you have to abandon your property rather than kill a malevolent intruder? Texas says no.
I don't know why I keep posting in this thread :-P
Shit, worse comes to worse, just lash them up with an extension cord, and keep an eye on them. You only have to hold them till the cops arrive, it's not like you live in Folsom prison.
It's not like keeping a bat handy is that odd anyway. My dad used to keep one handy in his shop in case someone threatened to rob him.
While I am pro-gun, it's not like there aren't other, safer alternatives you could use to defend yourself for just long enough until the cops come.
That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to be ready to defend yourself while inspecting what is actually going on, but I find the castle doctrines which essentially permit the use of deadly force without any assessment of actual danger is in itself dangerous and ridiculous.
Edit - Not even being sarcastic. If that's the case, you should not have firearms in your possession.
That way I don't have to risk the taser not working, or having to get within arms reach where he/she could hurt me. I am not putting my self at any risk, no matter how slight, to preserve the safety of anyone who invades my home.
That's the point really, tasers and other 1/2 way measures put me at more risk that my 12 gauge or a .45 does. If I'm shooting at someone then it's because my body is in danger. If my physical body isn't in danger then I shouldn't be engaging them, whether it's with a firearm or a taser, or anything else.
A firearm need to used with consideration and judgement, just like any other tool.
Heck, I have no gun experience and thus I'd go with the taser/bat route out of safety considerations. While I'm pretty sure I'd be just fine with the appropriate training, I'm just not so secure that I'd be able to competently wield a firearm when something goes bump in the night.
Edit - didn't see your clarification.