Did you see the chart on the previous page?Unless you talking about a .380 caliber pocket pistol or smaller, most handguns are more powerful than the Ar-15. Any handgun using 9mm ammo is going to be more powerful.
As for the second part of your target, any real gun is going to be effective against a human wearing a tee-shirt. Defending yourself with a BB gun just isn't really effective.
Half of posts in this thread are basically celebrating someone less fortunate died and praising some fucktard with 50 IQ for mass-murder of three teens. Where do you people are becoming so full of shit seriously?
There is virtue in what you say, in that we must learn to tolerate the inevitability of our frailty and of tragedy and of vulnerability to violations. It is wrong to fantasize that we may be able to avoid or (absolutely) control such realities.
But otherwise I could not disagree more. Dehumanizing and assuming that people who have committed such violations are inherently developmentally broken, separate, and deserving of death is precisely the wrong thing to do.
You ask: why prison does not rehabilitate? Why is recidivism so high? The answer is contained within your own statement. These individuals are already separated from society, stripped of human rights and decency, discriminated against in employment, housing, etc. They are treated as less than, as an eyesore, and as dangerous.
If you want to help, then you should be guided back to your morality. To your notion that perhaps their lives are also precious, and that perhaps you are separated more by circumstance than by fundamental belief. And to honor the word rehabilitate which you use. Perhaps you might envision things such as education, work-release, quality mental health and medical care, and personal freedoms like a modicum of privacy.
To do so requires tolerance of the sadness of identifying with those horrors. It requires fortitude to live with an emotional recognition that our interventions to make the world safe don't, which is entirely different than the logical recognition you provide.
You raise valid points and add a reminder of the criminals' humanity that we seem to forget about when many in this thread are obsession about retribution. Unfortunately all of your solutions are not applicable when these people are seconds away from causing grievous bodily harm and are in the middle of invading your home. The fight and will to survive is paramount.
That being said, the solution to deal with these people during a crime in progress while they are in your home is with a gun and willingness to defend one's self. There is no time to think about helping these misguided folks back to morality and rehabilitating them. While both of our lives might be precious as you point out, in this situation it comes down to me vs them. This sort of dehumanization is essential for the good guys to survive and respond with deadly force rather than an olive branch.
According to an analysis of federal government data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, "having a gun provides no statistically significant benefit to a would-be victim during a criminal confrontation" because victims who used a firearm to defend themselves were injured 10.9 percent of the time during a "criminal confrontation" compared to 11 percent of unarmed victims who were injured. Furthermore, the research indicated that 4.1 percent of victims were injured "after brandishing a firearm," compared to just 2.4 percent of victims who were injured after running or hiding.
Problem was, it was NOT a home defense, it was pure attack of fucktard wielding too much power over situation.If you think defending your home is mass-murder then YOU are the one I truly pity.
Third one just might be shot when he was running for his life, not doing anything else.Two of the teenagers died inside the home and one ran outside before dying in the driveway.
Good you mention this because beside 24 states in US, laws like these are not used anywhere else and killing anyone in your home outside these 24 states, would be murder, and for good reason, you don't kill people because they steal things which have barely any value.Im glad we have the right to defend our homes with lethal force. And someone lawfully (and successfully) defending their own home like in this thread is a reason to celebrate. Many citizens of other countries are not so fortunate as we are. What happened here was NOT mass murder of three teens.
It's not home defense, it's kill at will and seems that some guys of AT forums really like the idea of kill at will.
Problem was, it was NOT a home defense, it was pure attack of fucktard wielding too much power over situation.
Third one just might be shot when he was running for his life, not doing anything else.
Where is your home defense? Or you mean by defense also revenge, retribution and punishment, shooting someone from behind? Also, defense is only defense when threat against you is equal or overwhelming depends on how armed opponent is, if your opponent has knife but you have rifle, it's very unlikely they are any high treat to you.
Was what the teens did bad? Yes it was, they should not stick in someone else's place, but I guess at the worst they might steal some rusty bike and some laptop or TV, definitely nothing someone should deserved to be killed for.
Good you mention this because beside 24 states in US, laws like these are not used anywhere else and killing anyone in your home outside these 24 states, would be murder, and for good reason, you don't kill people because they steal things which have barely any value.
Did some people with guns at home save themselves against heavily armed and dangerous recidivist robbers in the past? Yes, fortunately they did, good for them, but that's not what I am talking about.
What I wanted to say is, that these laws do allow using of excess force compared to threat of the intruder, allowing stupid people to stockpile guns and waiting for chance to kill someone legally who was lightly armed or unarmed at all, it gives morons sense of power and control and stupid people do like much power and no responsibility.
It's not home defense, it's kill at will and seems that some guys of AT forums really like the idea of kill at will.
They were after stuffHow do you know what they are going to steal or what they are going to do at all? How can you judge from your position the motives of these three? What if they were there to rape? What if they were there to murder as part of some gang initiation? What were they there for? Surely not to borrow a cup or sugar or ask for directions. Nobody knows. But a homeowner who lawfully defends themselves doesn't need to interrogate them first before exercising self defense. Especially when it is 3 on 1 and they have the advantage of numbers. Any normal homeowner when awakening to these invaders is going to feel threatened and should have the option to use deadly force is he feels so. And you'd be hard pressed to find a prosecutor or even jury who will side with 3 dead hoodlums.
Your mis-characterization of gun owners is insulting. I dont have a gun because I hope to god one night I can blow someone away and pray for a home invasion. Having a gun is like having health or auto insurance. I dont want to make an insurance claim as much as I dont want to legally kill someone in self defense either. But Im not stupid and know what the endgame is when I carry both insurance and maintain loaded weapons at home. The insurance is to make me financially whole when I suffer a casualty. The gun is to keep me and my loved ones alive in a god-forbid situation and give us a fighting chance when the dregs of society who have no qualms about invading the sanctity of my home.
Furthermore you are confusing castle doctrine with stand your ground law. This thread is about a homeowner killing 3 people in his home so stand your ground doesnt apply. This is all about castle doctrine. Most states recognize that man's house is his castle and you dont have a duty to retreat from within your own house. This is not about having a place to run to when confronted on the street and exercising a lawful duty to retreat.
As I said I don't have anything against home defense (castle doctrine law) or guns per se, there are heavily armed dangerous robbers and rapists out there which for sure kill you first or steal everything if you don't act quickly, but I don't understand when cowards are praised for being cowards, shooting someone armed with knuckle, or knife, or being unarmed at all is fucking cowardly thing to do. Whether it is in your house or in porn shop, whether it's legal or not. It's cowardice at its best. The guy is coward.
Although the girl is bitch too, she drove away when last guy was running out, she left him there, also cowardly thing to do.
With high powered rifles it doesn't matter if it passes through you, the wound channel becomes so large that you're dead no matter what. The same cannot be said about ball point pistol ammo.
I'm extremely confused. I hope this is sarcasm. What are you suggesting is the proper course of action when 3 armed people break into your house?
You know what they call people who live their lives by statistics don't you?As I posted in the states earlier. The proper course of action is to run or hide and call the cops. That is your statistically best chance of not being harmed.
As I posted in the states earlier. The proper course of action is to run or hide and call the cops. That is your statistically best chance of not being harmed.
Good question, I tell you what I would do, I would try to avoid situation like this by making my home more secure, following these measures:I'm extremely confused. I hope this is sarcasm. What are you suggesting is the proper course of action when 3 armed people break into your house? Are you saying it is cowardly because the hero had a better weapon than the violent intruders? That's kind of the point. You should never be forced to participate in a fair fight in your own home. The more unfairly the fight is stacked in favor of the innocent person in their own home, the better.
Let's imagine what it would be like for you if you were in this situation. You are asleep and awoken by the violent noise of someone breaking into your front door. You rush out of your bedroom to enjoy beverages and fellowship with these people. They stab you in your face. You die. Your last thought before losing consciousness is the smug condescension that at least you didn't shoot these guys because that's what a coward would do. Then they kill your dad. And steal your shit. The end. Your way sucks.
Making your home more secure depends on your awareness of potential threats in your area. However, believing you would have the ability to rationally make decisions on proper level of force, time to execute those decisions and, the skill to carry them out is laughable. Most people who train for those scenarios fail more often than not. The answer is simple. You need to decide if you're more comfortable being a victim or possible killer ahead of time.Now to your question:
I would order them to leave, if not complying, few warning shots would be shot near them. By that time they would be very unlikely still there or trying to subdue me, but if yes they would be shot to places which would not kill them but would render them incapable of harming me. In any case I would definitely not shoot on sight unless the guy would also have a gun and would start aiming at me.
As I posted in the states earlier. The proper course of action is to run or hide and call the cops. That is your statistically best chance of not being harmed.
Good question, I tell you what I would do, I would try to avoid situation like this by making my home more secure, following these measures:
If you are more wealthy sooner or later someone will want to rob your house so first you:
1. Build a fence around your property, including sliding gate to driveway.
2. Have installed reinforced doors and windows. - Reinforced door with steel frame and no glass in center, it's not penetrable unless using some pretty big axes or lock being destroyed by guns. Reinforced window is still penetrable if glass is broken but cannot be opened from other side by any other subtle means(like pulling, or releasing lever on window slightly opened).
3. Do not leave gate or doors opened/unlocked! Even when you are nearby.
4. Do not leave opened windows on part of house you are not nearby if it is big enough and you would not be able to attend what is going on there.
5. Have motion sensors, cameras might be good option too. Leave alarm armed at parts of property you don't visit much often.
6. Get a dog.
7. Don't leave curtains open all the time on your ground floor, everyone will see your stuff.
8. Do not store money, gold, jewelry and other expensive stuff in your home, period.
9. Then if you have all of that, get guns.
90% of thieves won't come near your house and those few who do will not get in without alerting you way before any physical encounter will take place. Which gives you extra time to call the police or take cover.
Seen in the photos from the scene the guy likely had no security at all, and guys got inside with zero effort, but hey, he did have guns after all.
If you want to actually prevent something you do take measures that will reduce chance of that happening greatly. Once someone is inside it's too late, that's when guns kick in. But guy did just that, he had guns bud did practically nothing else to prevent that situation.
Did you even know that if you have your house insured, and it gets robbed, you will not be able to claim damages if you had door unlocked or windows opened?
Now to your question:
I would order them to leave, if not complying, few warning shots would be shot near them. By that time they would be very unlikely still there or trying to subdue me, but if yes they would be shot to places which would not kill them but would render them incapable of harming me. In any case I would definitely not shoot on sight unless the guy would also have a gun and would start aiming at me.
No one I know uses ball ammo in their handgun for self defense purposes...
You should check out the tests for some of the newer .380 ammo, especially those that use the Hornady 90 gr. XTP bullet.I'll put hardball in a backup .380, but only a .380. All larger calibers get a self-defense specific load.
Tip of the hat to Sheep for the best advice in the thread so far, #6.
Making your home more secure depends on your awareness of potential threats in your area. However, believing you would have the ability to rationally make decisions on proper level of force, time to execute those decisions and, the skill to carry them out is laughable. Most people who train for those scenarios fail more often than not. The answer is simple. You need to decide if you're more comfortable being a victim or possible killer ahead of time.
That's why I said I'd rather secure the house, instead of relying on belief that if someone will really break inside, I will just defend myself because I have guns, that's the problem with all of this, doing critical decisions for short period of time is as you mentioned, unreliable even for highly trained individuals.He didn't get hurt. Why should we re-evaluate his choices?
I really like that you are thinking of ways not to kill. I admire that. It's not always that easy. Given that someone breaks into your house, you are at a huge huge disadvantage. First, you don't know why they are here. Are they here to harm me? Well, if they brought weapons, then they probably mean to harm me. If I warn them, will it give away my location and then will they harm me? Do they have guns that I can't see? There are so many questions you have to answer in such a small time frame. If you get it wrong you might die. And your family might die. Can you shoot them in a place that won't kill them? Where is this place? The leg? No, that's where femoral artery is. Bleed out = death. Lower stomach? That's a slow painful death. In the shoulder? A bullet can ricochet off the clavicle straight into the heart. I know someone who died this way. Literally. What you seem to be demanding is that we should risk our lives at all costs to try and not kill a deadly armed intruder. There are cases in which I can see warning someone. Probably most intruders will run. This doesn't seem to be such an instance. Evidence: there was enough time to kill all 3 before they ran away. None of them was shot in the back. Why is this?
Are warning shots banned for the risk they might hit someone else?To whom it may concern:
Warning shots are highly illegal, often prosecuted, even with a robbery.
The robbers broke through the rear patio doors.
The whole area was being robbed frequently.
These same robbers were there for the second time THAT DAY per the driver.
This is Breitbart, so its probably lies and nonsense:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...her-says-unfair-to-shoot-grandson-with-ar-15/
I have no idea where you get this wives' tale from, but you can put it back there. The standard side arm for a long ass time for the military was a .45 acp round for the 1911 and the standard rifle was the M1 garand. Those two was only toned down for guerilla warfare when fighting in urban environments because of the chance the more powerful firearms would over penetrate and either hit civilians or friendly units.
The other major reason for the smaller ammo is simply weight. Less weight, more maneuverable rifle, easier to carry, and the modularity made it easier to fix. Also, less powerful rounds have far less recoil which allows for better aim and less chance of hitting something you don't want to be hitting.