Would you shoot a home invader?

[Colin]

I hope not .
Quite rightly I would find it very hard to justify my owning a gun in UK .
Also his life is precious , invaluable , and there is no need to be trigger-happy . There are ways of dealing with an invader other than shooting him/her .

 

[silence_dogood]

Also his life is precious , invaluable

So why is his life more valuable than the lives of my family, which no less an authority than God Almighty, has charged me with defending?

There are ways of dealing with an invader other than shooting him/her.

OK. Somebody breaks into your home and draws on one of your children. What's your "better way"?

 

[Archivist]

joey_downunder
Do you Americans get your houses broken into so much that that gun ownership is so necessary?!

Rick Otto
Yes.

There are some areas, particularly urban areas, where the burglary rate is high. However, over all that isn't the case. In fact, the burglary rate has been dropping in many places in the US: Rate of home burglaries is dropping - SFGate.

I have never owned a gun, nor have I ever been in a situation where I could have used one. I've owned my house since 1994 and to my knowlege no one has ever attempted to break in, nor have any of my neighbor's home ever been burglarized.

 

[dinonum]

I don't know that I'd be able to, unless I was protecting my children or husband and only then when I shoot them in the leg or something.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There are some areas, particularly urban areas, where the burglary rate is high. However, over all that isn't the case. In fact, the burglary rate has been dropping in many places in the US: Rate of home burglaries is dropping - SFGate.

I have never owned a gun, nor have I ever been in a situation where I could have used one. I've owned my house since 1994 and to my knowlege no one has ever attempted to break in, nor have any of my neighbor's home ever been burglarized.

yay for you.

in detroit, I lived in a parsonage that had been broken into at least five or six times before I even got there. We had two near-break-ins that my husband thwarted, one because he had a gun on him.

Not far away a pastor and his wife were walking home from their church to their parsonage when they were mugged at gun point. The criminal (and let's not forget that's exactly what they are) kicked the pastor's cane away from him, held the gun to his temple and demanded all his cash. The pastor had the offering money in his side pocket because he didn't want to leave it in the church (which had been broken into the week prior). Fortunately, he gave all the money in his wallet and didn't hand over the offering money. The criminal took the money, pointed the gun at the pastor's wife and then ran off.

So yes...guns are necessary in some areas. And, you see, we have this little thing called the constitution that guarantees a law-abiding citizen the right to bear arms.

 

[silence_dogood]

I don't know that I'd be able to, unless I was protecting my children or husband and only then when I shoot them in the leg or something.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Make them mad and leave them with the capability to return fire.

The formula is simple:

1. Two rounds to the chest.
2. Repeat as necessary.

 

[dinonum]

Yeah, that's a good idea. Make them mad and leave them with the capability to return fire.

And that fine, I don't expect some people to understand. You don't have to mock me though, I simply do not feel capable of killing another person.

 

[silence_dogood]

And that fine, I don't expect some people to understand. You don't have to mock me though, I simply do not feel capable of killing another person.

I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out that by shooting him in the leg, all you're doing is antagonizing him and you're putting yourself and your family in more danger than you would by not shooting him at all.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't know that I'd be able to, unless I was protecting my children or husband and only then when I shoot them in the leg or something.

I think this is the same way I approach this. I hope I never have the opportunity to have to make the decision.

 

[silence_dogood]

I think this is the same way I approach this. I hope I never have the opportunity to have to make the decision.

I pray that I'll never have to kill anyone, but I also know that if it comes down to me killing a criminal in my house who poses a threat to my family, or allowing him to harm my family, I would have no problem killing him.

 

[The Penitent Man]

Would I shoot a home invader? No, and not just because I'm a lame anti-gun Canadian. Firing a gun indoors would be pretty loud and I really hate loud noises. (I have Asperger's Syndrome.)

Killing people is bad. No matter the justification, taking a human life is never a good thing. Guns are bad when used to destroy life, but when used to preserve life they're not so bad. Preserving order is good. Destroying order, not so good. Protecting famillies is good, protecting businesses is good. Enforcing the law is good.

 

[dinonum]

I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out that by shooting him in the leg, all you're doing is antagonizing him and you're putting yourself and your family in more danger than you would by not shooting him at all.

I've yet to hear of a man who got shot in the leg suddenly becoming so enraged that he murdered an entire family. Anyways, I'd do what I could and like I said, I think I'd only be able to do something like shoot him in the leg rather than kill him. You can point out whatever you'd like, it doesn't change that I am incapable of even considering killing a person.

I think this is the same way I approach this. I hope I never have the opportunity to have to make the decision.

I feel the same way.

 

[brinny]

Would you shoot a home invader?

if he didn't get his hind parts on the floor and stay prone there with his hands behind his head, face down, as commanded till the police came, i would

 

[Rick Otto]

Make it a head shot; you don't want to make him mad.

 

[silence_dogood]

Make it a head shot; you don't want to make him mad.

Head shots are very hard, particularly when you're not trained and your adreneline is pumping.

Better to go for two rounds in the center of mass (the chest).

 

[dies-l]

Would I do it? No

Do I think it is morally permissble? Possibly, but only if there is a reasonable threat of deadly force to the person doing the shooting or his or her family.

 

[silence_dogood]

I've yet to hear of a man who got shot in the leg suddenly becoming so enraged that he murdered an entire family. Anyways, I'd do what I could and like I said, I think I'd only be able to do something like shoot him in the leg rather than kill him. You can point out whatever you'd like, it doesn't change that I am incapable of even considering killing a person.

Then you shouldn't have a gun for protection in the first place.

 

[dinonum]

Then you shouldn't have a gun for protection in the first place.

Lol, which is why I don't. My husband has a gun which he uses to hunt with, and I am trained to shoot a gun. If the situation came up though and there happened to be a gun nearby, I wouldn't be able to use it to kill a person purposefully.

 

[silence_dogood]

Lol, which is why I don't. My husband has a gun which he uses to hunt with, and I am trained to shoot a gun. If the situation came up though and there happened to be a gun nearby, I wouldn't be able to use it to kill a person purposefully.

If you're not prepare to use it correctly, then you're better off just begging for mercy.

 

[dinonum]

If you're not prepare to use it correctly, then you're better off just begging for mercy.

You are not the end all decider on what is the proper usage of a gun in a defense situation.