i have no respect for anyone that keeps a gun
Then you have no respect for some 40% of the American public.
can you not defend yourself with a bat?
A bat is what we call a 'leverage' weapon that is effective only at long range. In close quarters battle, which is precisely what occurs inside of homes when home occupant meets intruder, long range leverage weapons are an extremely poor choice. You have to swing a bat with vigor in order to effectively use it as a weapon, which means you must have plenty of room to swing it cleanly, you have to be reasonably able-bodied and strong enough to swing it with dedication, multiple times if necessary, which eliminates most women, disabled, and elderly persons.
The thing about leverage weapons is, they're easy to defeat purely by accident, not to speak of facing someone who may know a thing or two about defense. If you miss and momentum carries your swing beyond mid-point, you're screwed. All he has to do is take a big step closer to you so that your return swing is blocked (closing the range), your bat is now useless. If he grabs the bat, he can now toss you around the room hanging from the other end of it..or take it away.
This is also why a shotgun is a poor choice for home defense, you have 18 or more inches of protruding "handle" for an intruder to grab on to, and unless you shoot at anything that moves, or like to believe you are on the highest state of alert and readiness at all times, you cannot be so sure the intruder will never get that close to you.
Defensive close quarters battle demands short-range weapons; the pistol, handgun, knife, or some object which augments the immediate hand as a weapon, presenting little or nothing for the intruder to grab, and does not require gross physical movements (swinging a bat). My grandmother cannot swing a bat, but she can pull a crisp 4lb trigger.
i remember a few years ago, some guy was in his house by himself, when his daughter got home and had locked herself out of the house so she broke in. the man shot her. then he shot himself when he realised what he'd done.
this could have been avoided if the man had not had a gun.
I remember a few years ago this guy stuck his hand under a running lawn mower to clear some clumps of grass blocking the clipping outlet and he cut his fingers off. This could have been avoided if the man had not had a lawn mower.
Notice any similarity to your logic? There are millions of them. I remember a pilot making a mistake causing an airliner to crash...this could have been avoided if there were no airliners.
Your logic is that of a simplistic 5 year-old after having been stung by a bee: "bee = hurt. No more bees = no more hurt". A little embarrassing if you're old enough to use a computer.
This could have ALSO been avoided had the man followed common sense - KNOW what you're shooting at - instead of shooting blindly at whatever moves.
MadRat followed common sense and sound defensive firearm practices. His IS an example of how it is supposed to be done. There is no excuse at all for firing at unknown or uncertain targets through doors or walls. Fortunately, its an uncommon occurrence, just as most people understand not to stick their hands under running lawn mowers, most people can figure out the perils of shooting before you even know what it is that you're shooting at.
everyone seems to think that if someone comes into your house or property it is trespass and you can do what you like to them. as far as i believe you are allowed to use the minimum amount of force neccasary to remove them from your property.
I don't know ANYONE who believes they are entitled to do whatever they please to a tresspasser. I've seen a few people here on AT make some comments to that effect, but that is only so much blustering internet bravado, I doubt they sincerely believe this.
But you are entitled to protect yourself, your family, and your home from malicious criminal intent using reasonable force, including lethal force if it were reasonable under the circumstances.
Listen the kid might not have been there for tea and crumpets, but he was a drunk unarmed KID. All I'm saying is that a bad situation could have been made even worse with the addition of the gun.
Could have been made worse, but it wasn't. It certainly could have been no worse had the drunken unarmed kid with no real malicious intent been a 200lb felon out on parole wanting some cash, valuables, maybe his wife or daughter and MadRat had no gun.
But I know that if it comes right down to it, some people would prefer to see an innocent family brutalized or murdered than to risk the far less likely event of some stupid drunk teenager getting shot for criminally entering a home in which he DOES NOT BELONG.
I'm no law professor, but I think that shooting (killing) a drunk, unarmed kid who stumbled into your house at 4:17AM could send you to a pound me in the ass prison.
The legal standard essentially is, if a "reasonable person" would have, given the circumstances of the encounter, believed their life to be in danger, and they used brute force in response to that belief of danger, they have acted in lawful self-defense, whether or not the danger was actual or merely perceived and without regard to any facts that are revealed only AFTER the encounter.
This standard means that if some guy breaks into your house and points a gun at you, and you shoot him, you acted in lawful self-defense, even if it is later revealed that his gun was unloaded, you cannot be expected to know that without waiting for him to kill you first.
I challenge you to find 12 American citizens in the same jury pool who would not have believed their life to be in danger at the moment they confronted an intruder in their home at 4:00am, even if it is revealed after the fact that the intruder was a drunken unarmed teenager who "claims" he had no malicious intent. Having a gun pointed at your head makes criminals say all kinds of desperate things...."You mean this ain't my house?"