Three teenage burglars shot dead in Oklahoma. An AR-15 was used

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

There is a simple proof (of sorts), that you can't (currently) make somewhere 100% burglar (home invasion) proof.
The White House is one of the best protected "homes", in America, if not the world.
Yet it has been broken into (or nearby, in its grounds), a number of times. Including recently.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/11/politics/man-breeches-white-house/

So if the White House is not 100% safe, how can normal people be expected to live in 100% burglar (home invasion) proof homes ?

As far as I can tell, their home (the victims), was of the usual normal, type as regards security. I think that is fine.
If everyone had $10,000 security features, then burglars would probably just develop ways of defeating the new security systems/measures.

 

[NetWareHead]

In this sense, I agree with NetWareHead, everybody is responsible for themselves although I am more for preventive measures and he is more for reactive measures

You have me wrong. I am also for preventative measures. Like I said earlier. Having a gun is like an insurance policy. I dont wake up one morning and decide I want to file an auto insurance claim. The best insurance is one you dont have to use. I lock my house, leave lights on, and practice other reasonable security deterrents. I have no issue with preventing a robbery/crime by using common sense to effect a deterrent effect on any would be criminals. I do not leave doors unsecured and rely solely on my guns either.

You do make some good points about upgrading home security but keep in mind that not everyone has the money to install a camera system, build fences, have a monitored security system or even to live in a place that has less crime. A gun is in some cases only a few hundred dollars and is "compatible" with any home. And unlike a security system, you and your gun have a direct connection. With continuing training you and your gun grow closer and your skill level increases too. A gun gives people confidence and the ability to improve their defensive abilities. I cant get the same increasing utility out of my alarm system. And sometimes even with the best security system, you may inevitably end up on someone's target list. The gun should be like the last boss in a video game and used only when absolutely needed.

I just have no issue with keeping firearms in the home for self defense and have made peace with the fact that I may have to, God forbid, one day kill someone to ensure my own survival. My main issue with your previous posts was you demonizing the homeowner and you spouted off about not being a "fair fight". Fuck that

 

[Sheep221]

You have me wrong. I am also for preventative measures. Like I said earlier. Having a gun is like an insurance policy. I dont wake up one morning and decide I want to file an auto insurance claim. The best insurance is one you dont have to use. I lock my house, leave lights on, and practice other reasonable security deterrents. I have no issue with preventing a robbery/crime by using common sense to effect a deterrent effect on any would be criminals. I do not leave doors unsecured and rely solely on my guns either.

You do make some good points about upgrading home security but keep in mind that not everyone has the money to install a camera system, build fences, have a monitored security system or even to live in a place that has less crime. A gun is in some cases only a few hundred dollars and is "compatible" with any home. And unlike a security system, you and your gun have a direct connection. With continuing training you and your gun grow closer and your skill level increases too. A gun gives people confidence and the ability to improve their defensive abilities. I cant get the same increasing utility out of my alarm system. And sometimes even with the best security system, you may inevitably end up on someone's target list. The gun should be like the last boss in a video game and used only when absolutely needed.

I just have no issue with keeping firearms in the home for self defense and have made peace with the fact that I may have to, God forbid, one day kill someone to ensure my own survival. My main issue with your previous posts was you demonizing the homeowner and you spouted off about not being a "fair fight". Fuck that

I agree, I didn't really go against guns being kept in homes, I mentioned it before to keep a gun as last measure.
But I can't reach common ground here either way, because some guys around here will just twist my post and stretch it way out of proportion(like I say lock the doors and have an alarm and the guy over there will increase it's price to 35K, locking doors to 90 minutes and will bring the zoo to the yard when I mentioned a dog previously or I mentioned locking a car and someone will twist that to rape).
I also clearly stated that no one of the measures are completely safe several times but they will go around arguing they are not completely safe anyway.
I just don't understand some people around here who argue that they can behave like dicks just because they can protect themselves because they carry a gun and know how to shoot well. Is having a gun helpful in some dire situations? Yes it is, if you are poor, or live in a bad area when you are not able to move out it is a primary option, that's right, sad part is many are negligent who could do better, but they just buy a gun and will stop to improve their safety after that even when they could have spare money or could live in a better place. Why some people want to defend themselves but don't want to take measures to decrease chance of situations where they would have to do it is beyond any rational understanding. How one's will and desire to prevent becoming a victim is victim blaming is also beyond scope of my thinking.

Although as I previously stated I changed my opinion based on that law and based on testimonies of girl, the guys were going in counting with possibility of being shot, so fuck them too.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

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.

I agree that we should protect ourselves in as many ways as possible. There is always an additional measure we could have taken that we can go back and perform captain hindsight on. Did they have a steel door? Did they have triple redundant deadbolts? Did they have multiple on-premises security guards? At some point it gets ridiculous. If a gun can protect you then use it. The end.

I'm not really a pacifist or anything like that, I am aware that pacifism is nice idea that gets you killed, they were there to do harm one way or the other, but I can't just wrap my head around this case, it's too bizarre.

What is so bizarre? 3 bad guys break into a house with weapons. Good guy with weapon defends himself. This is the classical example of home defense. This is the most UN-bizarre case of self defense possible.

The whole area was overly open, and guys were there second time, area was frequently robbed?

Why don't you think of this from the bad guys' perspectives instead? As in "it is a deadly, asshole move to break and enter into a home with weapons. You could get killed. You shouldn't be a deadly violent asshole. You are in an area that is frequently robbed. You should expect people to arm themselves for protection."

Both sides were asking for it

Shit. You went there. The girl with the mini-skirt was asking to get raped. No, the guy chilling in his own home did not ask for this shit. It was shoved down his throat and he defended himself. Nobody ever asks to get robbed. Only one side asked for this. It was the 4 people who decided to be lowlife scumbags and break into a house with weapons and leave one person outside as a getaway driver.

You are arguing the wrong side here. You are overly empathizing with the wrong people. I agree that there are 2 sides to every story. But you are arguing in the favor of the side who tried to steal shit from someone's house with weapons. That is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS the wrong side.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

But I can't reach common ground here either way, because some guys around here will just twist my post and stretch it way out of proportion(like I say lock the doors and have an alarm and the guy over there will increase it's price to 35K, locking doors to 90 minutes and will bring the zoo to the yard when I mentioned a dog previously or I mentioned locking a car and someone will twist that to rape).

I was being sarcastic/exaggerating to attempt to make a point.

Even though I am generally against a country allowing its citizens easy gun access/ownership. In this case it has helped save a family (the son and his Father), from at least being burglarized and potentially being injured or murdered.
We don't know what would have happened if he had NOT shot at them. It would be speculation.

They may have seen him and said they were very sorry. Then they sat down and said they were waiting for the Police to arrive. But somehow, I doubt that would have happened.

On the other hand it is sad that those three individuals have died like that. Maybe because one or more of them may have seen the error of their ways sooner or later, and led a more normal, crime free life.

 

[momeNt]

Update: The victim will NOT have charges pressed against him.

Also: Each burglar was stuck only once by each bullet. No info yet on if he fired more than 3 rounds, but if he didn't, he only has to worry about his hearing and the emotional trauma from being victimized by the burglars, and doesn't have to deal with property damage caused by his self-defense. Really great news.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Update: The victim will have charges pressed against him.

Also: Each burglar was stuck only once by each bullet. No info yet on if he fired more than 3 rounds, but if he didn't, he only has to worry about his hearing and the emotional trauma from being victimized by the burglars, and doesn't have to deal with property damage caused by his self-defense. Really great news.

Surely you mean WON'T ?

I.e. The son (shooter) is NOT going to be charged.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Update: The victim will have charges pressed against him.

Also: Each burglar was stuck only once by each bullet. No info yet on if he fired more than 3 rounds, but if he didn't, he only has to worry about his hearing and the emotional trauma from being victimized by the burglars, and doesn't have to deal with property damage caused by his self-defense. Really great news.

Not sure where you're getting your news but on Monday it was reported no charges would be filed against him.

http://kfor.com/2017/04/03/oklahoma...harges-in-connection-to-deadly-home-invasion/

POSTED 12:27 PM, APRIL 3, 2017
BROKEN ARROW, Okla. – Authorities say a 23-year-old man who shot and killed three intruders who broke into his home last week will not face charges.
On Monday, the Wagoner County Sheriff's Office and the Wagoner County District Attorney's Office held a news conference to announce that the homeowner's son will not face any charges in the case.
The district attorney ruled that the man's actions were justified as he was forced to defend his home.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Surely you mean WON'T ?

I.e. The son (shooter) is NOT going to be charged.

I think he just messed up typing. I've done that.

 

[momeNt]

Surely you mean WON'T ?

I.e. The son (shooter) is NOT going to be charged.

oh shit sorry. edited.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

oh shit sorry. edited.

No biggie, I think most of us has done that at least once or twice.....wink, wink..........LOL

 

[NetWareHead]

Great shooting!

 

[Leon]

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.

Oh look, we have a Hollywood badass here.

1. Warning shots are illegal in vast majority of jurisdictions and can land you in jail for a long time, not the mention the risk of killing bystanders. You need to fear for your life in order to shoot.

2. Shoot to "wound" only works in your favorite action movies.

 

[Leon]

They were after stuff

They were after stuff too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

 

[momeNt]

They were after stuff too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Gun control advocates would basically blame the father for escaping, and that they did not have enough valuables on hand to appease potential burglars. At that point they are basically asking to get raped, murdered, and set on fire.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They were after stuff
And the shooter seemed to not be afraid
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.

Oh god this is so neckbeard but so be it. You really need to understand the real world.

Someone who knows only a little bit about knife combat can take out someone with an AR-15 in close quarters depending on the situation. Never think "It's only a knife". This is how you wind up dead. Don't believe me? Go to YT and look up Doug Marcaida and karambits

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.

You are too innocent.

Let me tell you what I would do if I decided that I would enter a home armed to rob it.

First, by making the choice of going in armed I am prepared to use it. Getting caught with a firearm is a whole different level than a simple burglary. I know that and the saying is "there's no time like prison time". I'm not going to let you take me and I have the means to prevent it.

If you have the advantage of cover you have the option of yelling a warning. If you do that I might flee. Well obviously that didn't happen with these guys so that's out. These guys might hesitate if they see an AR pointed at them. Now there's two choices the intruder has, fight or flee. They will choose one and time is running out to make a choice. I will tell you that if you fire a warning shot I would kill you without hesitation. You pulled the trigger and didn't hit me. You will not have a second chance since you can fire again before I could turn around. If you did not take me out, the epinephrine in my system will permit me to shoot back. I won't feel the pain just yet.

There is a reason professionals will kill you and that is because a living person can fight back and harm or kill you or a bystander. There is no debate about this.

If I am armed I am prepared to use the weapon and you had damn well better bet on it.

 

[werepossum]

So I'd say this may be an argument for why more guns are good. Who knows what these teens may have graduated to in the future, they were young and participating in armed robbery already. Lives in the future may have been saved, but I guess we'll never know.

This, and well said.

 

[Paladin3]

It's plain to see that Sheep221 has never been in a situation where he stared the wolf in the eyes and had to choose between dying like a sheep or mustering up his inner sheepdog to fight back. That's nothing to be ashamed of because most of us haven't had to either. But he is exceptionally naive and seems to fall into the "violence is never the answer" camp. He's trying to convince himself and others that the wolf doesn't exist, or if the wolf does come prowling around that fighting back is wrong. He doesn't want to see anyone get hurt, including the wolf, because he doesn't truly understand the nature of those who choose to be wolves. He misguidedly values the wolf's life, when the wolf is willing to risk it all by committing violent crimes.

Fact: the world is better off without wolves.

 

[exdeath]

First thing about physics, it takes far more velocity to equal the same amount of kinetic energy than when there is more mass when it comes to force.

AR-15's fire a 5.56 cartridge which is a relatively SMALL cartridge for rifles. Not many smaller except .22lr really. Most of which have around 20-24 grams of gunpowder in the casing. Compared with the average 30-06 rifle which is a much bigger bullet (150-180gr bullet for 30-06 compared to 50-55gr 5.56 round) it also has around 55 grams of gunpowder in the casing. More gun powder adds more force to the explosive which is more gas pressure which imparts more acceleration and thus more velocity.

The kinetic energy output from just about every regular hunting rifle on the market surpasses the AR-15. The AR-15 isn't designed as a "high powered" rifle at all.

As for your second part, I personally would rather be shot clean by a high powered rifle than not. Why? Higher power means the bullet, if not hitting a major vital spot, will more than likely just go clean through. Less powerful shots (that still have enough power to penetrate to a certain point) are going to get stuck inside me, tumble, and cause far more damage to my insides. That is what the AR-15 is designed for. Enough penetration on a human target without over penetration. The bullet is shaped to have enough penetration to get in, go in deep enough without popping out the other side, and to tumble a crap ton. That tumbling is what actually makes the wound channel much bigger.

Another thing people like you don't know about guns is that it takes a lot of damage to kill a target if you don't hit a vital spot like the central nervous system. This is why cops are training to do "mag dumps" when they are required to fire at a target. Shoot center mass of the target (because it's the easiest to aim at), and then unload everything your gun has. Why? It takes that many shots most of the time to put a person down.

The projectile might go clean through, but the 12 inches of tissue around the bullet track will be turned into syrup and nearly every peripheral blood vessel from your toes and fingers to eyes and brain will over pressurize and rupture causing multiple organ failure.

Center fire rifle cartridges are srsbsns. You don't want to get hit by any rifle cartridge. Better off with a handgun.

Rifles destroy the target with shock and turn organs to mush. Pistols which cannot reach shock velocities are about making a big hole and causing blood loss and loss of consciousness via drop in blood pressure.

You can apply first aid to stop blood loss from a handgun wound and potentially recover, but if hit almost anywhere by a rifle, significant unrepairable internal trauma has already been done, and you're more than likely screwed.

 

[HumblePie]

The projectile might go clean through, but the 12 inches of tissue around the bullet track will be turned into syrup and nearly every peripheral blood vessel from your toes and fingers to eyes and brain will over pressurize and rupture causing multiple organ failure.

Center fire rifle cartridges are srsbsns. You don't want to get hit by any rifle cartridge. Better off with a handgun.

Rifles destroy the target with shock and turn organs to mush. Pistols which cannot reach shock velocities are about making a big hole and causing blood loss and loss of consciousness via drop in blood pressure.

You can apply first aid to stop blood loss from a handgun wound and potentially recover, but if hit almost anywhere by a rifle, significant unrepairable internal trauma has already been done, and you're more than likely screwed.

I'm well aware how rifles work versus handguns.

I was making a whole poke fun of the OP's claim of basically super duper powerful and ultra scary AR15 "assault rifle" being used as a self defense weapon that is so powerful it might as well be a nuclear bomb. Well okay I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, but I've heard almost the same literal bullshit from others who are that scared of AR15s like they are some crazy weapon of mass destruction. When in fact that far more rifles fire even bigger bullets at higher speeds with more kinetic energy than an AR15 is capable of. In fact, almost any hunting rifle does so and my lever action 30-30 is way more dangerous to use in a home defense situation than my AR15. It's just not as "scary" as my AR15. Same goes for my shotguns. Hell you even had a former vice president saying to use a "shotgun" through a front door for home defense. Why? Because for some reason shotguns and hunting rifles are seen as less scary.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm well aware how rifles work versus handguns.

I was making a whole poke fun of the OP's claim of basically super duper powerful and ultra scary AR15 "assault rifle" being used as a self defense weapon that is so powerful it might as well be a nuclear bomb. Well okay I'm exaggerating a tiny bit, but I've heard almost the same literal bullshit from others who are that scared of AR15s like they are some crazy weapon of mass destruction.
--SNIP--

The AR15 is just the current target of hate for those who abhor firearms and would love to see them all prohibited. When I was younger it was all about banning cheap, compact handguns, which I'm sure you know are the actual preferred weapon of most criminals. Rifles of any caliber are far less likely to be used in a crime. The AR15 is easy to demonize because it looks militaristic and "scary" to the uninformed and has been used in some high profile shootings. Ballistics, calibers, bullet weight, muzzle velocity, stopping power, all that is only of concern to gun "nuts". Normal folks only need to understand gun=bad, especially the black ones with pistol grips and removable magazines.

Speaking on the gun control debate in general, IMHO, It comes down to the degree of our belief in personal responsibility. Most of us understand that hurting another individual is a personal decision for which the criminal and not the gun is responsible. The anti-gunner would rather blame the weapon, and since there is no legitimate use for one, see it banned wholesale. They don't really believe in personal responsibility for one's actions, because if evil of that caliber (pun intended) could lurk in the soul of a criminal, might it not lurk deep down in their very own soul as well? No, no, no, it must be the guns fault. Mankind has evolved beyond violence. Violence is never the answer under any circumstance. Mankind is a noble, peaceful creature by nature, right? We just have to pass another law and (somehow) get rid of the corrupting influence of guns then everything will be fine.

I've got news for those misguided folks: there absolutely is evil out there. Violent criminals embrace their animal nature and will use violence to get what they want and hurt you and yours. No security system, locked door, gun control, warning shots, shooting to wound or anything else is going to keep you absolutely safe. When our laws and other peaceful means of stopping violent criminals have failed us, we need good people armed and willing to use force to keep our society safe. Yes, that is very scary concept to accept because it means bad circumstances may one day force any of us to stand up and fight back with violence. If you find yourself in that unfortunate situation I guarantee you will want a gun in your hand to protect yourself.

Good folks should be armed and ready to fight back, and not handicapped by ridiculous concerns over hurting the criminal, especially if it is at the possible expense of the victim. That kid did good when he stood up to protect his home, family and himself. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision to take those lives, but he did what felt he had to. To not shoot would have put those he loved and everything he had at the mercy of armed thugs. We need to stop stigmatizing such actions and second guessing how he could have avoided the fight those armed thugs started when they kicked in the door to his home.