Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Number 8 bird... What a complete dumbass...

That wouldnt do anything but sting like hell and make the intruder spend 2 hours picking it all out from under his skin....

Buckshot on the other hand... 10 pellets the size of gravel.... Now that will rip a limb off!

Frazzled wrote:in close the spread pattern's less than the size of your fist. But man what a fist.

I can't imagine the wound caused by a very close range 12g bird. That's probably worse than a slug because its about the same mass but its all going to stop and make one hole.

The problem is beyond that short distance it isn't appropriate.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:in close the spread pattern's less than the size of your fist. But man what a fist.

I can't imagine the wound caused by a very close range 12g bird. That's probably worse than a slug because its about the same mass but its all going to stop and make one hole.

The problem is beyond that short distance it isn't appropriate.

The mess that would make....

ShivanAngel wrote:Number 8 bird... What a complete dumbass...

That wouldnt do anything but sting like hell and make the intruder spend 2 hours picking it all out from under his skin....

Buckshot on the other hand... 10 pellets the size of gravel.... Now that will rip a limb off!

This was the not to do example. He also chased the guy out of his store and fired at him as he was jumping in his vehicle. The birdshot glanced off the sloped glass but did blow his windshield wipers off.

Grignard wrote:While I don't agree with a black and white castle doctrine, I believe you're wrong about that, at least where I live. Knoxville is OK right now, but Chattanooga has had a marked increase in gang activity in the last couple years, for whatever reason. While crime related to this activity is generally targeted at other people involved in gang activity, thats 1. Still wrong in the first place. 2. Has gotten innocent people killed. The police have said in a press release that their has been an increase in home invasion related crimes. This isn't a few cases that have been sensationalized. While your risks of being subjected to this sort of crime is still very low, it has increased in that area.

There are people killed in violent crime, and plenty of them were just the wrong people in the wrong place. Some of them were simply in their own homes. But are you going to tell me that any but the most minute portion of home invasions were undertaken with the intent to attack the home owner?

Home invasion is a horrible thing, and every time it happens there's a chance of a violent confrontation, that's just the nature of it. But violence is hardly ever the intent, which means securing yourself in one room, or getting out of the house are very good options if your priority is physicaly safety.

Yet people talk act like it isn't just likely but almost certain the invader is coming right for them, and they have to confront them.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable to keep a weapon in your home for defense if you take the massive responsibility that entails. My disagreement was with certain proposed changes in the law in my state regarding use of force.

By all means do so. I'm not commenting on keeping a gun or not, I'm just puzzled over the idea that when a person does break into your house that an encounter is likely whether you want one or not.

ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.

Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.

Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.

It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.

sebster wrote:

Grignard wrote:While I don't agree with a black and white castle doctrine, I believe you're wrong about that, at least where I live. Knoxville is OK right now, but Chattanooga has had a marked increase in gang activity in the last couple years, for whatever reason. While crime related to this activity is generally targeted at other people involved in gang activity, thats 1. Still wrong in the first place. 2. Has gotten innocent people killed. The police have said in a press release that their has been an increase in home invasion related crimes. This isn't a few cases that have been sensationalized. While your risks of being subjected to this sort of crime is still very low, it has increased in that area.

There are people killed in violent crime, and plenty of them were just the wrong people in the wrong place. Some of them were simply in their own homes. But are you going to tell me that any but the most minute portion of home invasions were undertaken with the intent to attack the home owner?

Home invasion is a horrible thing, and every time it happens there's a chance of a violent confrontation, that's just the nature of it. But violence is hardly ever the intent, which means securing yourself in one room, or getting out of the house are very good options if your priority is physicaly safety.

Yet people talk act like it isn't just likely but almost certain the invader is coming right for them, and they have to confront them.

I don't think it is at all unreasonable to keep a weapon in your home for defense if you take the massive responsibility that entails. My disagreement was with certain proposed changes in the law in my state regarding use of force.

By all means do so. I'm not commenting on keeping a gun or not, I'm just puzzled over the idea that when a person does break into your house that an encounter is likely whether you want one or not.

ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.

Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.

Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.

It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.

The BG intent is to cause harm or create the environment where harm could be caused - aka they are assumign the risk that there is a confrontation.
The GG is just trying to get to sleep because he has to work in the morning.

Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.

When/If my home is broken into id rather assume the invader IS a cold blooded murderer then not. The time you assume he is just a petty criminal is the time the newest serial killer has picked your home.

ShivanAngel wrote:Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.

Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?

If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.

sebster wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.

Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.

Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.

It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.

Maybe no one's owning up to it because no one but you is saying it. If there's a way out of the situation without shooting, that's preferable. If you need to shoot, you should be able to do so. I think most people would agree with that.

Better safe than sorry is the phrase that springs to mind. During a break in, neither participant is under the protection of the law- the burglar has already violated the social contract that makes it reasonable to assume that your fellow man will treat you decently. As such, their needs are completely secondary to those of the defender. The defender needs to restore safety in the quickest, most conclusive way possible for everyone in the house.

If that involves provoking or preempting a confrontation by excessive force, then that is the defender's call. Safe escape would be preferable (after all, who wants to clean up blood stains, or spackle over bullet holes? Never mind what a documented killing does to your property value) but it may not always be an option.

Monster Rain wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.

Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?

If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.

sebster wrote:

ShivanAngel wrote:Real world experience.

Hmmm, my apartment was broken into when i was at home, asleep. Fortunately the sound of a pump action shotgun being loaded is the universal sign for get the feth out.

Where did I say there were no break-ins? I'm talking about the hypothetical that always comes up where it isn't enough to get the family safe in one room, or out of the house, that the home invader has to be engaged because he's presumably in the house for blood.

It's a really, really weird idea that people kind of keep falling back to, but as we've seen in this thread, never quite owning up to.

Maybe no one's owning up to it because no one but you is saying it. If there's a way out of the situation without shooting, that's preferable. If you need to shoot, you should be able to do so. I think most people would agree with that.

True dat.

Well Frazzled, I do not own a rocket propelled chainsaw weiner dog, I do have two weiner dogs so there's always an extra in case I mess up the first one.

halonachos wrote:Well Frazzled, I do not own a rocket propelled chainsaw weiner dog, I do have two weiner dogs so there's always an extra to remove any remaining body parts from the crime scene once the first one has torn the BG apart with its 15 lb of weinie rage!

Corrected your typo.

Actually, they're miniature.

I loved the Moonraker from the Goldeneye video game, that puppy could shoot through the bathroom stall doors!

halonachos wrote:Actually, they're miniature.

Thats even worse. no one expects 9 - 12 lbs of fury with tiny sharp pointy teeth!

Especially when one is a female.

halonachos wrote:Especially when one is a female.

Yikes. A female mini went after Tbone the Aged while walking and Shanker was forced to shank her to protect him.

The other one is named Loki after the norse god of trickery and fire. Still waiting for him to develope flamethrower powers.

halonachos wrote:The other one is named Loki after the norse god of trickery and fire. Still waiting for him to develope flamethrower powers.

Chili will help with that.

Frazzled wrote:The BG intent is to cause harm or create the environment where harm could be caused - aka they are assumign the risk that there is a confrontation.
The GG is just trying to get to sleep because he has to work in the morning.

Yes, obviously. If there’s a confrontation then fingers crossed it’s the bad guy who cops it. But when there is a confrontation there’s never any certainty over who is going to come out best. If your priority is the safety of you and your family, then the best option is to simply avoid the home invader.

Note that says nothing about being defenceless.

My point, my very simple point, is to note how many of the hypotheticals involve invaders who aren’t there to take property, they’re after the occupants of the house. Making that extremely rare situation the base point makes an argument for actively confronting the burglar, which is a much riskier proposition than simply avoiding him.

ShivanAngel wrote:Just because most home invasions dont end in violence does not mean you should assume yours wont.

When/If my home is broken into id rather assume the invader IS a cold blooded murderer then not. The time you assume he is just a petty criminal is the time the newest serial killer has picked your home.

Who said anything about assuming there wouldn’t be violence? Did you read my post? At all?

If you assume it is a cold-blooded murderer then simply avoiding him is no longer an option, instead you’re best off taking your chances confronting the dude, at which point there’s a chance you’ll come off second best.

If, instead, you go with the overwhelmingly likely chance that he’s just there to rob the place and you avoid confrontation. By all means prepare for the possibility that he’ll come after you, but don’t just assume it, that’s silly.

My point, again, is that people give examples in this thread that almost always assume confrontation will happen, when it’s incredibly rare that random strangers break into houses to kill the occupants.

Monster Rain wrote:Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?

If you consider theft and property damage violence equal to violence against a person, sure.

If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.

If you’re willing to assume that the homeowner will always win the confrontation, that’d be relevant. But that’d be a stupid assumption.

sebster wrote:Maybe no one's owning up to it because no one but you is saying it. If there's a way out of the situation without shooting, that's preferable. If you need to shoot, you should be able to do so. I think most people would agree with that.

“Also, what if you were armed with say... a kitchen knife and the robber had a gun. Let's say that the robber walked by you because you were hidden and you then stabbed the robber in the back.

Would that be manslaughter, murder, or self defense?

I would see it as self defense seeing as though it would've been suicidal to attack the robber head on.”

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?

If you consider theft and property damage violence equal to violence against a person, sure.

Maybe you don't know what a Home Invasion actually is. In fact, I'm sure of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

If you break into someone's house, you deserve what you get. If you weren't being a criminal and dick, you'd be in no danger from a homeowner's firearm.

If you’re willing to assume that the homeowner will always win the confrontation, that’d be relevant. But that’d be a stupid assumption.

Yeah, I guess it would be but what does that have to do with anything though? You bring up relevance, ironically. What bearing does winning the confrontation have on whether or not you're in danger from a firearm in the house that you're breaking in to? You'd only be 100% sure long after the fact...

It makes no sense to question the relevancy of an statement which dismisses a point as irrelevant by repeating said point.

dogma wrote:It makes no sense to question the relevancy of an statement which dismisses a point as irrelevant by repeating said point.

Uhhhhhh....

Monster Rain wrote:

sebster wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Doesn't a home invasion begin as a violent act?

If you consider theft and property damage violence equal to violence against a person, sure.

Maybe you don't know what a Home Invasion actually is. In fact, I'm sure of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

Fair enough, the definition I’ve always assumed is entering the home without any interest in stealth or making sure the occupants are out of the house, it didn’t necessarily assume the burglars would be violent. A few years back my mate was in his room when he heard a noise, coming out he saw the window had been smashed and some DVDs and the like stolen by some kids running away down the street. This was referred to as a home invasion.

But it seems the definition you’ve been assuming is pretty standard, so I’ll accept that.

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, I guess it would be but what does that have to do with anything though? You bring up relevance, ironically. What bearing does winning the confrontation have on whether or not you're in danger from a firearm in the house that you're breaking in to? You'd only be 100% sure long after the fact...

I think you’ve probably gotten the flow of the conversation a bit confused, there’s multiple people quoting multiple people over the course of a couple of days so it’s an easy mistake to make. I'll summarise it for you.

I questioned the likelihood that break-in had a violent intent. ShivanAngel responded to me, saying he had real world experience and that shotgun was enough to intimidate burglars out of the house. I repeated my point that I was questioning the assumption that burglars would be in the house to attack the occupants, as Shivan's response didn't address that. Shivan responded that just because most don’t end in violence, it doesn’t mean you can assume yours won’t. At which point you commented on Shivan’s point, saying that the burglar deserved what he got because he was breaking into the house.

We are talking about whether or not you should confront a person who’s entered your house. Your post makes the point that the burglar deserves whatever is coming his way, which would be fine if the only reason to avoid engagement was out of a moral concern for the welfare of the burglar. But that isn’t the only issue, there is also the increased risk the occupant suffers by going out to attack the burglar, as my reply to you pointed out.

Do you understand the flow of the conversation now?

Tilean Bastard wrote:

dogma wrote:It makes no sense to question the relevancy of an statement which dismisses a point as irrelevant by repeating said point.

Uhhhhhh....

Now committing theft by explosion.

@ Sebster:

Yes, I understand the flow of the conversation. The quoting can get a little hard to follow at times.

Maybe it's just me and my situation, but with children in the house if I happen to hear someone in my house that shouldn't be there I kind of do have to make a move. Not necessarily to attack the burglar, but to put ensure the safety of the kiddos. Maybe just creeping into their room and trying to send them out the window or something...

On a purely academic level I see your point, man. I just don't think it applies to real life. Maybe my "fight or flight" switch is broken, but if someone is in my house they are getting confronted. I don't see it as morally wrong to attack someone who's already in your home illegally, and as I said before, one accepts certain risks when they decide to commit this type of crime. Please note that I said "risks" and not "outcomes."

Frazz, what does your state law say about use of force and fenced property posted with no trespass signs? In your state, if you break or circumvent a fence onto posted private property, what does the law say about that as it relates to castle doctrine.

For those who haven't been to Texas, some of these fences are very substatial because they're used to control the movement of very agile game. Its called high fence.

Whether or not I agree with their laws regarding force and property, I envy the hunting in Texas. They have all sorts of weird stuff down there. If there is some sort of meat you want to eat, odds are you can acquire it in Texas.

Monster Rain wrote:@ Sebster:

Yes, I understand the flow of the conversation. The quoting can get a little hard to follow at times.

Maybe it's just me and my situation, but with children in the house if I happen to hear someone in my house that shouldn't be there I kind of do have to make a move. Not necessarily to attack the burglar, but to put ensure the safety of the kiddos. Maybe just creeping into their room and trying to send them out the window or something...

On a purely academic level I see your point, man. I just don't think it applies to real life. Maybe my "fight or flight" switch is broken, but if someone is in my house they are getting confronted. I don't see it as morally wrong to attack someone who's already in your home illegally, and as I said before, one accepts certain risks when they decide to commit this type of crime. Please note that I said "risks" and not "outcomes."

Agreed, I don't have the option to just kick it. I have family and dogs to protect. Not to mention my precious.

Rum, you are my master, command me!!!!

I'm sure I'll get ridiculed by you gun-lovers, but...
Is it possible that if no-one had guns, you wouldn't get into this bad situation in the first place?
Where I live, in Australia, there are very few gun-related crimes. Most are the province of organised bike gangs. Armed robbery and assault is rare. Home break-ins are done during the day whilst the home owners are at work.
For protection, I keep a maglite next to my bed - its 20" of steel and also doubles as a torch! The house has monitored perimeter sensors, so that if someone DOES break a window or open a door, an alarm will sound and the police will be notified instantly.


The mentality in Australia when hearing about the gun-related crime in America is simply 'if no-one had a gun, there would be no problem'.

Thats great for you. I have a wife and kids, what is she to do? Get real.