Does any pro gun control person think you should not be able to use a gun in your home?

[Logical]

Just curious if anyone thinks even guns in the home for self-defense is too extreme.

Should someone in their own house have to retreat?

My concealed carry instructor said if he heard someone breaking into his house and it was just him and his wife in the bedroom,and no one else at home, he would run into his closet and lock the closet door and call the police. And wait for the police to arrive. Nothing gung-ho. No need to confront the burglar.

If the bad guy came into the closet he would shoot. Or if someone else was in the house (family, friends) then he would confront the burglar if needed.

Sounded like good advice to me.

[ellisonz]

1. You asked two different questions.

And I don't think you understand how duty to retreat works...

1. Of course you should be allowed to defend your person and your family in your home.

2. This does not mean that you may do so without reasonable belief that severe bodily harm or death was the reasonable consequence for not doing so. This should be a matter for Courts to determine without a presumption that force was justified.

3. Now I get to ask a question, do you think it is okay to shoot an intruder fleeing out of the house without a reasonable belief of that severe bodily harm or death was imminent?

[geckosfeet]

2. If he is fleeing the home or in retreat, severe bodily is harm clearly is not imminent for you.

If a larger than you person (disparity of force) is advancing and is clearly intent on doing you harm, shooting is indicated.

Three requirements to justify use of lethal force here:

1. Disparity of force
2. No reasonable means of retreat
3. In imminent danger of bodily harm or death

On edit 1:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleII/Chapter278/Section8A

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

[doc03]

4. The way I understand the Castle Doctrine in Ohio is if someone

is entering your home uninvited you can assume he is armed.

[geckosfeet]

5. That may be so in Ohio. In MA there must be a disparity of force AND

imminent threat of bodily harm AND you must have no option to retreat.

If you are in your home, you have no duty to retreat.

[pipoman]

16. I am missing any reference to "disparity of force"

so I can't preemptively defend myself against a person in my home unlawfully if the intruder is smaller than me?

[kestrel91316]

17. Or if you both have guns there is no disparity of force so you can't shoot??????

[geckosfeet]

38. No - if someone pulls gun on you there is disparity, lethal force is defensable.

[geckosfeet]

35. You can't preemtively defend/attack period. There must be a threat of bodily harm.

Not my idea, I'm just the messenger.

If the 12 year old girl stealing your stereo does not threaten you in any way, the law says you can't use lethal force. Call the police.

On the other hand, if she pulls out daddy's 1911 and flips the safety off, there is an immediate threat and you can use lethal force.

[pipoman]

41. If that is true, it bears no resemblance to

the "castle law/doctrine" enacted by most other US states. The laws enacted in most states include a requirement by law enforcement to prove that an intruder didn't unlawfully enter a dwelling and/or didn't intend to inflict bodily harm on the lawful occupants. They include a presumption that anyone unlawfully entering an occupied dwelling is a threat to the lawful occupants. Most also include language prohibiting the unlawful intruder or his/her family from having standing to initiate a civil damages suit.

The 12 year old example is an extreme and unlikely example. How about I'm 6'3" and 210# and an intruder enters my home who is 5'3" and 140#?

Now back to the section of your law that you are talking about..the "disparity of force". Do you have a link to the section of MA law which talks about that? It just seems like a rather abstract and relative standard which would be hard to apply or defend against.

edit..before someone wanders by wanting to inject the origins of "castle doctrine" in British Common Law and how US castle doctrine bears no resemblance to that...nobody is talking about the association between modern US castle laws and British Common Law.

[ManiacJoe]

23. That may not be an accurate interpretation.

> The way I understand the Castle Doctrine in Ohio is if someone
> is entering your home uninvited you can assume he is armed.


However, you do have the right to a "reasonable" level of force to defend you and yours.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901

[Starboard Tack]

65. +1

[Atypical Liberal]

53. If they are in my home, this should be all a reasonable person needs to conclude intent to harm.

2. This does not mean that you may do so without reasonable belief that severe bodily harm or death was the reasonable consequence for not doing so. This should be a matter for Courts to determine without a presumption that force was justified.

Bull. Shit.

This is not a matter for courts to decide.

If an intruder is in my home, this should be all that is required to reasonably believe that that person intends you or your family harm.

It should not be a requirement for homeowners to try and determine what the true motive of the intruder is. One should assume the worst and act accordingly. It is the safety of the homeowner that is of paramount concern, not the intruder.

Moreover, I agree with places like Texas where it is not just the concern for safety that can justify lethal force, but also property.

3. Now I get to ask a question, do you think it is okay to shoot an intruder fleeing out of the house without a reasonable belief of that severe bodily harm or death was imminent?

It depends on whether or not he is trying to carry away any of my property.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Good luck with that attitude.

And there I was thinking you'd seen some light. Apparently not.
Nice to know your shit is worth killing and dying for.

[ellisonz]

90. Yeah that's why I just didn't even bother...

He is making some progress yet though, he admitted his pro-lynching stance is bonkers: "Obviously my hanging after-the-fact statement is absurd."

Funny, when I think about killing it's not in the joking context

[WinniSkipper]

108. What if it is your most valuable possession?

Like that cigar box that has your life's savings of 100K because (with good reason) you don't trust banks?

yes it's an extreme example - but since most elements of anti-gun control involve fixing isolated incidents (statistically in a country this size) at the expense of others rights is frighten - I figured what the heck

Disclaimer - I am not a gun owner. I have no plans to be one. But if I want to see why we lose elections - look no further than this forum. The amount of swing voters lost over this one issue kills us. And to what end?

[Starboard Tack]

109. I don't care if it's the crown jewels.

The debate is not about an individual's right to own a gun. Very few oppose that. The problem is the proliferation of guns in the streets and relaxing of concealed carry laws by right wing legislatures across the country, at the prodding of the NRA. The issue is about the tens of thousands of lives lost annually to handguns and the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent on those deaths and injuries.

There are no swing voters on this issue. That is a myth. There are genuine Democrats hanging out here, who genuinely believe these laws are progressive. There are also several RW trolls who hang out here and they enjoy stirring the shit. Most don't last long, but some do.

[WinniSkipper]

110. "Nice to know your shit is worth killing and dying for"

You are correct - the debate is not about that.

It is about making the determination for them that you did in the subject line of my post. What you're basically saying - losing your "shit" - could be the tools of your livelihood, your money, or maybe your house, all that you have saved for - is worth less than the life of a criminal. And if you feel that way - I have no problem with that. As I matter of fact in almost every case I can think of in my life - you are 100% correct. I have no possession I would kill someone for.

But - that is what the essence of this debate comes down to for the "average voter". Does the average voter think Zimmerman is guilty? I am leaning toward they think "Yes".

But when the debate moves to making valuations of what is important enough to kill for (and I am talking in a legal situation, not vigilante, robbery, etc) - these imaginary swing voters are not coming down on the criminals side.

I am saying when it shifts to "Nice to know your shit is worth killing and dying for" - well, a lot of people do think their shit is worth killing for.

[Starboard Tack]

111. Two wrongs don't make a right

Sooner or later, one has to make a stand or we all go down the slippery slope. I will not sell my integrity for political expedience. Probably why I'm not a politician. Way too Faustian for me. And it's not a moral thing either, more about personal ethics, you know, that guy you have to look at in the mirror every day.

[WinniSkipper]

112. So what stand are you taking?

I think one part of it is - no matter what - I cannot defend property? Do I have that correct?

The other is that this is a political issue. When I say we lose elections - I don't mean that to win them we have to pander. We actually just need to act like we are consistent. None of this 1% attitude of what good for me is too good for you.

That even though we may not "like" something we would actually respect the fact that another person may feel it necessary. Especially if it is their right. It is the hypocrassy that kills us with the middle ground

Edit for clarity

[Starboard Tack]

113. No you don't have it right

I have no problem with defending property. I am not prepared to take or risk a life for it. Big difference. I consider the use of a firearm to be an extreme measure to be used only in the most dire of circumstances. The whimsical carrying of handguns in the guise of a constitutional right to self defense is insulting to the very notion of a progressive society.
From a both a political and practical standpoint, it would be foolish to impose widespread restrictions on gun ownership, in this country. No amount of legislation would make it go away, nor should it. Yet we aspire to be a peaceful, non violent society. There lies the rub.
First, we must look at the reality of the populace and it's diversity in terms of culture, heritage and location. To suggest prohibiting the carrying of firearms in Montana or Wyoming is as absurd as promoting the same in NYC or Chicago. So, reasonable men realize that compromise is essential. Local governments should have the authority to establish gun free zones as they and their electorate see fit. Politicians should be immune to the bullying and coercion of extremist organizations and their lobbyists, or other, exclusive special interests. The only special interest that should be pandered to is public safety, which includes everyone.

[WinniSkipper]

114. I just re-read my post

Can't believe I didn't catch it on first edit - I should have have asked "taking a life in defense" of property. Sorry about that. But you did answer that question anyway.

"I am not prepared to take or risk a life for it". Neither am I. So we agree there. We part ways after "Whimsical". Are there or have there ever existed the Rambo types, the "last guy you would ever want to have a gun has a gun" guys? Of course. And probably all legally too.

I'm not worried about my fellow law abiding (permit holding) citizens "whimsically" carrying. I am worried about criminals carrying. A CCW who kills illegally? That's a criminal first.

Your Montana/NYC example - I am sure there are many members here, much more eloquent than I could ever be on the issue, who might like to address that.

Yes - we so strive to be a peaceful society. And we do a pretty good job of it all things considered.

"Politicians should be immune to the bullying and coercion of extremist organizations and their lobbyists, or other, exclusive special interests. The only special interest that should be pandered to is public safety, which includes everyone."

But my world - this statement refers to the Pharma and Health Insurance lobbies. My concern about my legal law abiding fellow citizens is not very high. And I'm not even armed.

[Starboard Tack]

115. I'm not sure where we disagree.

Is it just my use of the word "whimsical"?
Regarding corporate lobbying and special interests, I'm with you all the way. The NRA and gun lobby are as much in the snake oil business as Pharma and Health Insurers. And the sheep line up to be slaughtered.
I don't worry about the criminals having guns as I do about a culture that embraces the use of guns for conflict resolution. I'm sure I would be more concerned if I worked in a high risk job, like a liquor store or drug dealer or a cop. But those are jobs I would never consider taking in such a society.
The guys I talk to in this forum, with a few exceptions, don't claim to work in high risk jobs. A few are cops, one claims his wife was almost mugged a couple of times, another almost had his tools stolen and another had a panhandler chase him round his truck with a knife. Many are from Texas, and other "frontier" states, where it's a way of life and I appreciate that old habits die hard. Most have never lived in cities like NYC, DC, CHI, SF or LA, but they want to impose their values on those places. Fill them up with "law abiding" citizens carrying guns. Pure madness.

We do a pretty good job of striving for a peaceful society, but have a ways to go yet.

[gejohnston]

116. define civilized

NYC, DC, CHI, SF or LA, but they want to impose their values on those places. Fill them up with "law abiding" citizens carrying guns.

if you are looking at murder rates, I would argue that those "frontier" states are more civilized than any of the places listed above.

Come to think of it, if you look at murder rates, strength of community, and progress in human rights (in this case, womens' rights) the "wild" west was far more civilized than those places.

Fill them up with "law abiding" citizens carrying guns

In other words, you are saying that people in Houston, El Paso, and Omaha are more civilized than people in DC and Chicago. Or at least be trusted with guns more.
El Paso is about the same size as DC. El Paso's murder rate is half of Vancouver's and one quarter to one fifth of Thunder Bay's. Those are in Canada.

[Starboard Tack]

117. I'm not arguing with you there. Not my point

Those major cities are an enormous challenge in terms of public safety. I'm saying that what works in EP, is not going to work in DC. Using EP as an example is like using Simi Valley or Beverly Hills for LA. EP is like a gated community, with more LE per capita than anywhere in the US. Rivers make good barriers. Check out Windsor and Detroit. NYC' s murder rate is one third it was 10 years ago. Not because of relaxed gun laws.

[gejohnston]

118. I'm not claiming that El Paso

El Paso being awash in guns is the reason for their low crime. I do find it ironic being next to Cuidad Juarez, kind of like Windsor and Detroit.
NYC's lower crime rate has nothing to do with guns, we agree on that.
Please don't insult a fine city like EP by comparing it to a sterile and culture-less splotch of McMansions and symmetrical landscaping.

[Starboard Tack]

119. I think you know what I meant about EP

It is almost a gated community in that the Rio Grande separates it from the murder capital of the western world and there are about 3 roads in and out of the city. It's much easier a place to lock down than BH.
I lived in Marina Del Rey for many years. It is one of the lowest crime areas in LA county, being bordered by the ocean on one side and having very few street exits. Yet, MDR lies adjacent to Venice and Culver City, both of which have far higher crime rates.
Same difference between Manhattan and the south Bronx. Disparity of wealth.

[WinniSkipper]

120. We disagree on the equivalency

Pharma and Insurance lobbies are complete trash. And those more versed can point out the specifics - but the NRA (the one funded by dues paying members) is an entirely different animal. In fact - I thought we loved it when the little guy gets heard. We loved Dean dollar by dollar donation, same with Obama. The NRA is actually (and I could be totally off base) the most "democratic" of the lobbying groups.

And whimsical was a big part. The fact that you think legit CCW owners whimsically dance around with guns is a little off putting. It cheapens the argument. And it cheapens your fellow dems. One of the statistics I read here said 40-45% of households had guns. How many of those do you think are democratic? 900K plus FL CCW active licenses - same question. I'm never going to carry, and no idea if I will ever own a gun. But I won't deny my fellow citizens that right. And I know - you have not stated that is your goal - you have been quite clear your issue is mostly with concealed carry.

Are there "nuts" out there who should not have guns? And who have guns completely legally? And lots of them? Absolutely. And will there be tragedies? Yes. That's the world we live in. 300M people. It's going to happen. One happened just a few miles from me the other day in Oakland.

One of the things I always see around here from pro-gun control posters talks about the absolutely minuscule chance CCWs will ever use a gun in a defensive (there is a term for it I have read here) situation. And all of the CCW holders I have seen here agree. They almost uniformly state that they just prefer to be armed - just in case. But what I have NEVER seen recognized is that all (and I know - it's the internet - who really knows) of the CCW holders - MUCH more than you hope they never use their weapon - they hope they never have to use it more than you. As a matter of fact - it is just the opposite. CCWs are portrayed as blood thirsty, lacking sufficient johnson size, or just flat out paranoid. Let me tell you - if that were true - you and every other pro-control should be demanding a new government - since the government you so love gave them the permit

"We do a pretty good job of striving for a peaceful society, but have a ways to go yet." Agreed. I just would guess that we would disagree on the best way to do this - and where arms (or control of said arms) actually fit into the equation.

Cheers

[Starboard Tack]

121. I take issue with you putting words in my mouth

CCWs are portrayed as blood thirsty, lacking sufficient johnson size, or just flat out paranoid. Let me tell you - if that were true - you and every other pro-control should be demanding a new government - since the government you so love gave them the permit

I'm sure some who carry may fall into your categories (not mine), but I believe the majority do not. Thankfully. I'd like you to point out any specific recommendation I've made regarding gun control. I do not subscribe to governmental control of individual choices, unless it is reasonable and in the name of public safety, like driving on the right and respecting gun free zones, designated by those who live in those zones.
I don't think anyone should need a permit to own or carry a gun. I think we should all have the common sense to never carry a gun in public unless we mean to use it. That message needs to be drummed into every kid's head. You have the right, but don't exercise it unless you are prepared both to kill and die. It is not a cool thing to do. It is way uncool and kids need to know that. We have walked far enough into the fire. It's time to back out and get on with evolving as a respectful and peaceful society.

[WinniSkipper]

122. So these are just ideas you think would be "Nice to Haves"?

Yes - the categories are mine - pulled from many of the comments here from those who are - lets say - more pro control than others.

As long as we are talking "it would be great if......" - then I see nothing wrong with any of your statements (other than the one I pointed out in the other thread on Redwood City Patch).

But the ones I would be worried about, if you were actually recommending these ideas be put in place would be:

"I do not subscribe to governmental control of individual choices, unless it is reasonable and in the name of public safety, like driving on the right and respecting gun free zones, designated by those who live in those zones." Good thing this is just an idea - I would hate to see it implemented and then expanded to say, voting.

"I don't think anyone should need a permit to own or carry a gun." - I believe what you are saying is not that permits are not required to carry in public - but that you don't see "the need". Good thing rights are no determined by "need".

"I think we should all have the common sense to never carry a gun in public unless we mean to use it. That message needs to be drummed into every kid's head. You have the right, but don't exercise it unless you are prepared both to kill and die." Agree. I have seen many people here suggest basic gun safety in school. You on board?

" It's time to back out and get on with evolving as a respectful and peaceful society." Looking forward to your plan to get the guns away from the criminals.

We can either face reality or face fantasy. Would it be great if we could remove all illegal firearms? Yes. Not going to happen, no matter how much ANY of us would like that.

[Starboard Tack]

123. Nice talking to you. Enjoy your stay with us.

[WinniSkipper]

124. My first troll inference

I actually thought it would happen sooner.

[Starboard Tack]

125. Can't imagine why you would think that. LOL

Away with you now.

[bowens43]

3. Hand gun? Absolutely should not be allowed.

If you are looking for self defense in the home, a big dog is a much better choice and much more effective.

IMO , the whole hand gun for self protection thing is bullshit.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

6. Fuck that! My Shitzu barks, someone comes in my front door, my 1911 barks.

I'll ask questions later, like why is a stranger breaking down my door?

Edited to add, we will never know cause the motherfucker is dead.

Hint... Don't break my door down and expect to live through it, I don't care what your problem is.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. In that event, the only question I'll be asking is

"What intruder? Some kids broke that window with a baseball and then ran off."

[geckosfeet]

7. Good luck if the perp has a gun and decides to shoot your dog too.

Most crooks would probably run when they hear the deep bark of a large dog, but you never know.

In favor of firearms, they eat less than dogs and don't need to be walked as often. But they do need to be cleaned.

[saras]

26. Good luck if the perp is six cops in full riot gear who didn't bother knocking.

[geckosfeet]

36. If they are performing their duty and attempting to arrest you or someone in the house

who has broken the law - you are not justified in using lethal force. Just put up your hands and smile.

Same deal with the fireman who runs in to put out your kitchen fire or the emt who is providing emergency medical care.

[Remmah2]

45. Police state?

Violation of civil rights or just plain public servant blunder?

[oneshooter]

8. Would you agree with a shotgun? Or a pistol caliber carbine?

[Lizzie Poppet]

83. Makes it a little tough to call 911 with both hands occupied.

I suppose you could toss the intruder your phone and have him call...

[X_Digger]

9. Yes, ignore all those people who've protected themselves with handguns- they're bullshit.

[jeff47]

10. Should we also ignore all those people who've accidentally killed family members?

The dog isn't gonna kill your kid when they're sneaking back into the house.

I fully understand some people feel better with a gun. I wish they'd acknowledge that statistics do not back up their position.

[gejohnston]

11. what statistic is that?

What you are talking about is extremely rare, which is why it makes the news. Do you have a statistic from say, the FBI? Brady BS from the 1970s doesn't count.

[jeff47]

29. How 'bout 1993?

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

'course, I suspect you'll toss him into the "Brady BS" pile.

The FBI's stats are problematic because of how they break them up.

There were 232 justifiable murders by private citizens using firearms. That would include "someone broke into my house" as well as all situations outside the home. Using that stat, 232/12,996 total murders = 1.7% of murders.

5,657 people were murdered by friends, family and so on (total - strangers - unknown). However, that is both intentional and accidental. It also includes all weapons. 5,657 / 12996 total murders = 43.5%...but it's really not fair to compare that since it includes intentional killings.

Unfortunately, I haven't found a table that breaks out accidental shootings, and it's late so I'll have to look at that tomorrow.

[gejohnston]

30. actually it is

because Kellerman puts all non strangers as "friends, family etc." Most murders and murder victims tend to have criminal records and are drug or gang related. That often makes them acquainted. It also had some peer review issues.
from your Wiki article:

Critics of Kellermann's 1993 paper responded with a number of objections, some accurate (e.g. the guns/homicide association could simply reflect the fact that people already at risk of homicide are more likely to acquire guns for self-protection; the study population was urban and therefore higher risk in general, compared to suburban or rural areas), and some inaccurate (e.g. that members of rival gangs were tabulated as "family member or intimate acquaintance"; that the data was cherry-picked).
More importantly, Kellermann was criticized for not reporting what fraction of homicides in his sample were committed with guns kept in the victim's home [11]. If few homicides were committed with such guns, it would be unlikely that it was home gun ownership itself that caused an elevated risk of being murdered.
Suspicion was also aroused by the fact that Kellermann did not release his data immediately upon publication. SUNY-Buffalo's Lawrence Southwick, among others, publicly speculated "that Kellermann's full data set would actually vindicate defensive gun ownership." [1]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants do not require the individual investigator to make data public until there are no more publications to be developed from them. After publishing additional analyses, Kellermann released the dataset to the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, the world’s largest archive for social science research [2]. ICPSR released the data for public access on May 30, 1997 [3]

In other words, an ER doc re wrote his equally flawed 1986 study and some criminologists said it was bullshit.
That is part of the reason the NRA got pissed off at the CDC at that time.

This is the easiest source I could find that goes in depth:
http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

In case you don't know who Dr. Kleck is
https://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

[jeff47]

50. The reason I linked to wikipedia is so the controversy was covered. As for actual numbers

Lower in the thread, someone provided a nice CDC link that makes is easier to find accidental fatal shootings.

Using that site, there were 554 accidental deaths caused by a firearm in 2009.
Using the FBI data I linked above, there were 218 justifiable homicides by citizens in 2009 using a firearm.

So the gun in the house is roughly twice as likely to accidentally kill someone as shoot an intruder.

(As noted above, these numbers aren't completely accurate for the statement being made. But they're good enough for a rough approximation on a message board. Methodology that would decrease the number of accidental deaths - such as excluding outside the home - would also decrease justifiable homicides.)

[gejohnston]

55. one major flaw

that does not include defensive gun uses were no shots were required. Which means, the bad guy found the target was not as soft as he thought. Or, he just wanted the TV, but his casing skills sucked.

Most accidents happen with long guns. Accidents can be mitigated by small inexpensive pistol safes. Some ore bio-metric like this one. That gives the best of both worlds.
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=biometric+pistol+safe&hl=en&prmd=imvns&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1680&bih=781&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=9139083629326993501&sa=X&ei=NtZ1T9-jMMH22AXLhtW6DQ&ved=0CIYBEPMCMAI

[eqfan592]

58. That's probably the biggest flaw with the '86 study.

And honestly, it invalidates the study completely.

The '93 study has a similar fatal flaw. From the wiki page: "More importantly, Kellermann was criticized for not reporting what fraction of homicides in his sample were committed with guns kept in the victim's home. If few homicides were committed with such guns, it would be unlikely that it was home gun ownership itself that caused an elevated risk of being murdered."

How can you possibly try and conclude that keeping a firearm in the home is a detriment if you aren't going to include this type of information?

[jeff47]

63. Except that's not what people are proposing

Castle doctrine, stand your ground and so on mean "shoot first". Those laws are unnecessary if the goal was to scare the guy trying to steal the TV and only fire the weapon when in real danger.

Heck, look over this very thread. There's plenty of people spinning stories about how they're gonna blow away that guy "breaking down their door". And there's generally massive objections to trigger locks and similar devices with the claim that there isn't going to be enough time to unlock the gun.

And I'm having a very hard time believing there's hundreds of incidents where someone breaks into a house or is otherwise threatening, and then flees only because a gun is present. Thieves tend to flee regardless of whether or not the person catching them is armed.

Plus, I only used fatal accidental incidents. There's also going to be lots and lots of non-fatal accidents. I suspect if we add both non-fatal accidents and "the guy ran when he saw my gun", that would result in roughly the same ratio of accident-to-intruder. At least for the level of accuracy necessary for a message board.

And to reiterate - not against responsible gun ownership. But the law has to account for morons.

[eqfan592]

68. Reality doesn't change just because you have "a hard time believing it."

Even conservative estimates of DGU's that don't involve a shooting number in the hundreds of thousands.

And I'd suggest studying Castle Doctrine and SYG laws a bit more closely.

EDIT: Here's a link about DGU's - http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[jeff47]

71. Try reading that again.

Especially the part where the gun usually isn't necessary to make the thief run.

There's a lot of incidents where the thief runs.
There's no data showing the gun was actually necessary to cause the thief to run. Because nobody's collecting it. It would be pretty damn hard to collect anyway - you can't exactly ask the thief if they would have stayed if the homeowner was unarmed and expect a truthful answer.

[eqfan592]

78. Ummm, what?

Can you quote exactly what it is you're talking about?

As for the rest, it would actually be impossible to collect data on if a thief would when faced with a firearm vs being faced with a baseball bat, a dog, or anything else, because each thief is likely to react differently. Tho I think if there is any one of these that are likely to illicit a more universal response, it would be the firearm.

But simply because we can't answer the question of necessity doesn't mean the DGU took place.

[gejohnston]

81. research is a must

Castle doctrine, stand your ground and so on mean "shoot first". Those laws are unnecessary if the goal was to scare the guy trying to steal the TV and only fire the weapon when in real danger.

Shoot first was a propaganda buzz term. Neither mean any such thing. Each state law is different. As far as I know, Texas is the only place where you can shoot over a TV. Wyoming's castle doctrine is you have no duty to retreat within your home and may fire only if your safety or life is in danger. Your state may vary.

Heck, look over this very thread. There's plenty of people spinning stories about how they're gonna blow away that guy "breaking down their door". And there's generally massive objections to trigger locks and similar devices with the claim that there isn't going to be enough time to unlock the gun.

Breaking down the door is a more than a reasonable belief that your safety and life is in danger. They are correct about trigger locks.

And I'm having a very hard time believing there's hundreds of incidents where someone breaks into a house or is otherwise threatening, and then flees only because a gun is present. Thieves tend to flee regardless of whether or not the person catching them is armed.

Criminologists James D. Wright and Peter Rossi may disagree.
http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Considered-Dangerous-Firearms-Institutions/dp/0202305430

Plus, I only used fatal accidental incidents. There's also going to be lots and lots of non-fatal accidents. I suspect if we add both non-fatal accidents and "the guy ran when he saw my gun", that would result in roughly the same ratio of accident-to-intruder. At least for the level of accuracy necessary for a message board.

Even if you use conservative estimates by the Census Bureau's National Crime Victim Survey, your suspicion is wrong.

And to reiterate - not against responsible gun ownership. But the law has to account for morons.

Then the laws must be based on empirical evidence, not "just seems like"

[eqfan592]

31. Kellermann? Really dude?

[jeff47]

48. You're welcome to post your own stats proving he's wrong

But hey, why bother with math when you can just shout "You're wrong!!!!" so much more easily.

[eqfan592]

54. Are you totally incapable of verifying the veracity of the studies you post?

EDIT: I see you're aware of the issues with the study, just choose to ignore them. And no, the CDC stats do not make up for the poor methodology used, as highlighted in the wiki page you yourself posted. But hey, nice try tho.

[jeff47]

73. Are you totally incapable of posting a study showing the results you want?

This isn't an easy area of study due to lack of statistics. So assumptions are made. If those are errors and fixing them changes the ratio from 4:1 to 2:1, that doesn't really change the conclusion. And the errors you cite aren't sufficient to change the results.

[eqfan592]

106. Not only are the errors cited enough to change the results...

...they are enough to completely invalidate them. By restricting himself to ONLY defensive firearm uses that resulted in a death, he eliminated the VAST majority of DGU's. Sorry, but that is a bogus study reaching a bogus result, end of story.

[DonP]

14. Please share your statistics with the class

Is that like all the innocent bystanders that will be shot by concealed carry weapons holders shooting the grocery store or parking lot up? Or the permit holders that will be shot by police, who arrive on the scene and can't tell who the bad guy is?

How many other gun control fantasies that never happen am I missing here guys?

Let us know how many family members have actually been killed by mistake, then we'll compare it with lawful defense uses. I have a feeling it's not even close. But that is a gun control favorite.

Or are we going to play the "if just one ..." game again?

[Thesouthwillrise]

18. Stats

-- There are 700,000 physicians in the United States.
-- There are 120,000 accidental deaths in the United States caused by physicians every year, and the accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
-- There are 80 million gun owners in the United States.
-- There are 1,500 accidental deaths from guns every year, regardless of age group, and the accidental death percentage per gun owner is 0.0000188.

This means,that doctors are 9,000 times more deadly than gun owners.

[Thesouthwillrise]

25. The armed citizen; feb 2011

Detroit, Michigan: Pizza delivery man fights back after being ambushed
on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2011
WXYZ: A pizza delivery driver with a concealed carry permit used his gun to defend himself after three men tried to rob him.
Belgrade, Nebraska: Shooting called self-defense
on FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2011
Omaha World Herald: A man fired in self-defense after another man he met at a bar attempted to break into his house following an altercation.
Wauconda, Illinois: Pharmacist shoots robbery suspect
on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011
Chicago Tribune: A man armed with a knife demanded drugs from two employees at a Wauconda drug store. After refusing to surrender, the pharmacist fired a shot, sending the intruder to the hospital.
Boston, Massachusetts: Store Clerk Shoots Man In Botched Robbery
on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011
The Boston Channel: An armed robber was shot by an armed clerk in Boston. **Note** Due to the increase in effort and labor to paraphrase every article brought on by the Righthaven lawsuits, The Armed Citizen is going to be moving more towards link-only, with maybe a sentence describing the nature of the crime. The [...]
Ex-Temple Law student not guilty in shooting
on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011
Ex-Temple Law student not guilty in shooting This is an update to a defensive gun use story posted on the archives before Righthaven forced us to remove them.
Armed Pastor Holds Thieves for Police
on WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011
KRIS TV An armed pastor confronted two juveniles attempting to steal from a church remodeling project. The teens first pleaded, then threatened, the pastor, who held the men for police.
Sacramento, California: Would-be robbers flee after market employee fires gun in air
on SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2011
Sacramento Bee: Four men in ski masks and armed with a pistol tried to hold up a Sacramento Market. The owner denied the robbers by firing a shot in the air, prompting their quick retreat. Thanks to Eddie for the tip!
Hazleton, Pennsylvania: Home invasion intruder killed
on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011
The Standard Speaker: A female homeowner shot one of several intruders breaking into her home in Pennsylvania. The woman was wounded but is expected to recover; one intruder was killed, the others retreated.
Indianapolis, Indiana: Man fatally shot during car break-in
on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011
Indianapolis Star: An armed homeless man confronted two citizens and tried to break into their car. The owners were present, but rather than complying with the gunman’s demands, they drew weapons of their own, shooting the would-be robber. Neither armed citizen has been charged. Thanks to Earl for the tip!

[geckosfeet]

37. How about a link?

[ellisonz]

91. You'll be waiting forever - that troll is gone.

[sarisataka]

92. Don't want you to wait forever...

I couldn't find Mr. Troll's examples, they are over a year old. Here is a link to the latest column:

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/12659/armed-citizen-24/


I, personally, deem these reports as reliable. As for similar columns in other gun magazines, I put those 'self-reported' stories in the same basket as columns in a certain men's magazine I 'read' in my younger days.

[gejohnston]

99. explains the name

I can imagine the avatar if it were available. Looks like he was pushed off the bridge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=282832

In case you don't get the reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Billy_Goats_Gruff

[ellisonz]

102. I hate Neo-Confederates!

You may be a gun nut, but you're not so bad

[sarisataka]

103. More than Illinois nazis?

[ellisonz]

104. No. But they're a close second.

[sarisataka]

107. You have your priorities straight

[X_Digger]

15. Accidental shootings are at historic lows.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

There were 554 firearm accident deaths (0.18 per 100,000 population) in 2009, as compared to 592 accidents (0.19 per 100,000) in 2008. Going back to 2000, there were 776 deaths (0.27 per 100,000).

Firearm accidents accounted for 0.48% of all accidental deaths in 2009; well below motor vehicle accidents, falls, fires, poisonings, and several other causes. Firearms are #16 on the list of causes of accidental deaths.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

[jeff47]

49. Ok, then you're roughly double as likely to accidentally kill someone than shoot an intruder

Using the FBI stats I mentioned above, there were only 232 justifiable homicides using a firearm in 2010.

Ignoring the different years for the moment, since 2009's not that different from 2010, you're twice as likely to accidentally kill someone with a firearm than to kill an intruder.

[eqfan592]

59. You do understand your ignoring all defense firearm uses...

...that don't involve the criminal being killed, don't you? Hell, your post can't even back up the claim made in its title (shoot does NOT equal kill).

Sorry man, but your fail ship is sinking rapidly.

[jeff47]

64. I'm also ignoring all accidental firearm uses that aren't fatal.

In order to get a situation that's roughly equivalent.

This is a message board, not a scientific journal. Round numbers are close enough.

[eqfan592]

79. But it's NOT equivalent because you are ignoring DGU's where no shots were even fired.

And while those may be hard to count, even by conservative estimates they represent the vast majority of DGU's.

[X_Digger]

74. Not quite..

First, not all shootings result in homicide, so that's a false equivalence. If you 'shoot an intruder' and he *doesn't* die, it's not in the FBI's JH (or is reported as a robbery, under violent crime.)

Considering that most defensive gun uses don't actually involve shooting, much less killing someone, that's a bit disingenuous.

Second, the FBI only records those justifiable homicides that are reported to them as as precipitated by an obvious felony in progress. If a case is ongoing, the FBI never sees the conversion from homicide -> justifiable homicide. UCR's semi-annual filing deadlines mean that some portion of cases don't have final disposition when reported. That's been a long-standing criticism of the UCR. (Not just for justifiable homicides, either.)

[jeff47]

76. You also have to look at it from the accidental side.

Just like most justified shootings aren't fatal, most accidental shootings aren't fatal. I suspect if we add both in we wouldn't change the ratio much since the weapons are equally non-lethal in accidental or justified shootings.

And yes, I'm aware that the statistics are not perfect. Unfortunately, there aren't any. But unless you can double the rate of justifiable homicides/shootings, the ratio isn't going to move enough for justified to pass accidental.

I'd love for there to be better stats. Unfortunately, there isn't. Perhaps we should start trying pressuring the government to collect better stats.

[X_Digger]

82. Accidental shootings (non-fatal) are *also* at historic lows.

Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2012, 02:32 PM - Edit history (1)

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

In 2010 there were 14,161 accidental non-fatal firearms shootings (4.59 per 100,000).

In 2001? 17,696 incidents, representing 6.21 incidents per 100,000 population.

Kleck*, among other criminologists, believes that the FBI's number of justified homicides are about 1/3 to 1/4 what is actually true. He did a survey of selected police department records and correlated those with the FBI's reported JH numbers for the same area and time. There was a 4x to 6x difference in the numbers. (Smaller departments tended to have a larger variation, so may be outliers.)

Now this was in 1991, so there may be some drift since then, but I would imagine the drift would be in 'my' direction rather than yours.

*Kleck, G., POINT BLANK, GUNS AND VIOLENCE IN AMERICA p. 112-116 and Table 4.3.

[S_B_Jackson]

40. From a dead sleep, I know and recognize my dogs' barks.....

for greeting a member of my family entering the home; for a person - not a family member - but who is known to my dogs; and for a complete stranger, unknown to the dogs. They're loud, and they will continue barking until commanded to hush by one of their family.

At 60 and 110 pounds respectively, my dogs are of a size that they can (and will) do some damage unless they're called off by myself, my wife, or my kids. Their job is to protect our home and their family....with the warning and notice they provide to my family, we can respond accordingly.

If my kids are getting in late after the wife and I have gone to bed, their not sneeking in unknown...the dogs bark, I wake, and I hear my kids tell the dogs to be quiet. As a system, it seems to work quite well.

[rl6214]

12. I have two German Sherpherd Dogs

The older female will lick you to death or knock you over to get inside if someone were to break in. The younger female will bark like crazy and act tough but I don't know what she would do with an actual intruder. I have scared her in the dark and she has run away crying and yelping. She is two years old.

A large dog is NOT all that you need.

[jeepnstein]

44. A female German Shepherd?

I'm willing to bet they'd tear into an intruder or die trying, even if they are just big family pets. It's in their nature. They protect their own, and don't ever forget they think they own you. Females are super protective. The finest dogs on the planet as far as I'm concerned.

They're great dogs, but no guarantee that you won't need a little something extra on hand just in case.

[rl6214]

93. My young female is EXTREMELY protective of me

I am definately hers, she follows me EVERYWHERE I go when we are together. She sleeps on my side of the bed and even lays outside the shower waiting for me while I shower. If I am sleeping and even my wife comes down the hallway towards our bedroom, she will get up and put herself between us, not agressively but she lets me know someone is coming. I do think she would definately die protecting me if it came down to it.

[rrneck]

33. Oh, for fucks sake.

Millions of people rent where no pets are allowed.

[oneshooter]

84. Then I would hazard a guess that they are plain out of luck.

[rrneck]

88. Ain't it the truth.

Shoulda been born rich and live in a gated community. What were they thinking?

[ileus]

39. My wieners tell me when it's time to get my HANDGUN.

That's all I require from them....warning.....I'll take care of the rest with either my Sig or M&P.

[hack89]

46. What if your landlord doesn't allow dogs?

self defense is a basic right.

[Remmah2]

47. My early alarm system is "TWO" dogs.

Seeing as how my dogs don't "tote" I'm responsible for defending them if some moron SOB insists on breaking in.

I'm not interested in chasing a perp once they leave my house either. However that is a good time to let the dogs out for a run.

[spin]

62. A big dog is not always a good deterrent ...

I once owned a 60 pound female black Labrador. She was absolutely worthless as a home protection dog. However, she was a real sweetheart.

Prior to her I owned a 50 pound Norwegian Elkhound. He was a great alarm dog. He would bark at every stranger in the neighborhood even someone who was five houses away. He would bark at sea gulls and kids flying kites. He would bark at just about everything. He would also scare the hell out of visitors. I would have to hold him when I answered the door. The entire time a visitor was sitting in my living room he would watch them with his eyes never leaving them. When they decided to leave he would not want to leave them out the door until I grabbed his collar. He was a loving dog but also a pain in the ass.



Now I live in a home with two Boston Terriers who alarm when someone comes to the door. If I have any reason to suspect a problem, I just grab my snub nosed revolver and slide it into my pocket before I answer the door.

edited for spelling

[pneutin]

87. All a burglar has to do is bring doggy treats to defeat your dog defense. n/t

[BiggJawn]

94. My 1911 doesn't suffer Separation Anxiety...

And tear the shit up out of the upholstery and shit on the carpet while I'm gone.

[jeff47]

13. Your question is a tad vague

There's a lot of situations where someone might decide to use their gun in their own house. Some should be illegal.

You should not be able to use your gun in your home to murder someone in cold blood.

You should probably try and let the police deal with intruders, using your gun as a last resort much like your CCW instructor. Since statistically you're much more likely to kill a friend/family member than an intruder - that's where the 'duty to retreat' concept comes from.

However, that's going to depend on a lot of factors. For example, if the cops are going to take 30 minutes to get to your house, you can't rely on them for protection. Or if you happen to live alone and are next door to a meth lab, you're more likely to be in actual danger.

[pipoman]

19. Well...

Some should be illegal.

Many are.

Since statistically you're much more likely to kill a friend/family member than an intruder - that's where the 'duty to retreat' concept comes from.

No such statistic from any credible source exists.

For example, if the cops are going to take 30 minutes to get to your house, you can't rely on them for protection.

If an intruder enters your home meaning you harm, five minutes is too long...of coarse that is assuming you could even call the cops.

[Thesouthwillrise]

21. 911 dirty little secret

http://www.defenseactions.com/defense-principles/another-dirty-little-secret-about-calling-9-1-1

[Hoyt]

34. That's why self defense training as practiced today often simply trains people to kill.

It simply trains already paranoid people that shooting an unarmed teenager is AOK and worthy of mention in NRA publications and even here.

[rl6214]

43. More of the tripe you like to spew

Let's break it down:

Untruth #1

"That's why self defense training as practiced today often simply trains people to kill."

Untruth #2

"It simply trains already paranoid people that shooting an unarmed teenager is AOK "

Untruth #3

"It simply trains already paranoid people that shooting an unarmed teenager is AOK and worthy of mention in NRA publications and even here. "

Wow, that's your entire post.

[BiggJawn]

95. Then I want my money back.

They didn't say anything about no unarmed teenagers when I took MY class!

[Hoyt]

96. They try not to make it obvious.

[BiggJawn]

97. Really, Hoyt.

This dirtbag who got his head shoved in the toilet too many times by the big kids in middle School murders a kid and now your Insult du Jour is all about how we fantasize about shooting unarmed teenagers.

BTW, been meaning to ask, does your avatar know that fucking cancer stick will give him heart disease and a limp dick?

[Hoyt]

98. He's not worried because I like folk music and the name Woody.

[gejohnston]

100. are you working to get

Nunn v. State of Georgia (1845) overturned by the current Georgia supreme court?

[jeff47]

52. The CDC and FBI aren't credible? (nt)

[eqfan592]

60. Oh, they are credible.

They just don't have statistics that back up your claim, as has been shown several times now.

[pipoman]

89. Post'em if ya got'em..

[gejohnston]

22. Interesting

Since statistically you're much more likely to kill a friend/family member than an intruder - that's where the 'duty to retreat' concept comes from.

Where did you learn this?

[jeff47]

51. CDC and FBI stats

CDC: 554 accidental deaths caused by a firearm in 2009.
FBI: 218 justifiable homicides by citizens in 2009 using a firearm.

Now, there are going to be gun owners who are a lot more careful, and there are going to be gun owners who are a lot less careful. The law unfortunately has to be written to cover the morons as well, hence 'duty to retreat'.

[hack89]

56. How many of those accidental deaths were hunting accidents?

And what about all those intruders that were wounded and thus neutralized? Handgun wounds are very survivable - if I remember correctly, only about 20% are fatal.

[jeff47]

67. If we accounted for those, we should also add in accidental-but-not-fatal shootings.

I suspect the ratio wouldn't change enough to change that the gun is more likely going to be used accidentally than justifiably.

[hack89]

72. But you are ok with letting individuals decide if the risk is worth it, right? nt

[jeff47]

75. I'm in the forced training camp

If you think it's worth the risk, then you're gonna have to take firearms safety course(s). Requiring those courses means requiring licensing to enforce that rule.

I expect many gun owners would be responsible. I have no delusions that all gun owners would be responsible. Requiring training would at least give us a chance at reducing the number of people who would be irresponsible.

[hack89]

77. Teaching gun safety in school is the best route.

Most accidental guns deaths are children - doesn't do much to train the parents if the kids are ignorant of basic gun safety.

[jeff47]

85. I'm not sure that would be helpful

Kids don't really have an understanding of mortality. Plus the vast majority of households don't have guns, and schools are already strapped for cash so adding firearm safety classes is going to be a hard sell. And by the time the kids could purchase their own firearms, they may have forgotten a lot.

Makes more sense to me to train the adults, and part of that training be "when and how to teach your kids".

[hack89]

86. My kids are always at other people's houses

I have no idea if they have guns or not. That's why every kid should learn. I would scrap the DARE program in schools and invite Eddie Eagle instead.

If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

[gejohnston]

57. that is nothing to do with duty to retreat

most of those accidents are hunter forgetting to unload before climbing fences or get in a vehicle, and dumbass suburbanites who buy a pistol and just throw it a drawer without learning anything about it or keeping it child proof.

[eqfan592]

61. As stated above...

...and I know you posted this prior to this being pointed out to you, but it is worth repeating; you are ignoring all defensive firearm uses that don't result in a homicide. It invalidates your conclusions completely. That was the problem with the Kellermann '86 study, and you are repeating the mistake over and over.

[jeff47]

70. And as I stated above...

I'm also ignoring non-fatal accidental shootings. Adding those as well as the non-fatal justifiable uses is probably not going to move the ratio enough to change the conclusion. Not to mention the difficulty of figuring out if the gun was actually necessary to deter the crime - thieves tend to run when discovered whether or not the homeowner is armed.

I'd love for there to be better stats for this. Unfortunately, I can't find any. So unless you know of better stats, we should probably go with what we have. Especially since this is just a message board, and not a scientific journal.

[eqfan592]

80. By restricting yourself to ONLY counting shootings...

... you are ignoring the vast majority of DGU's, so it is a false equivalency you are establishing.

EDIT: Since we are basically having the same discussion in several different spots of the same thread, I vote we restrict ourselves to just the one. In the spirit of that, I'm going to stop replying to this one.

[Hoyt]

20. Depends. How many and what type of guns one feels they need to protect their home.

Would you shoot fleeing unarmed teenager? How do you and family get along? Storage of guns. And more.

[gejohnston]

32. Let me answer your questions

How many and what type of guns one feels they need to protect their home

one, but that has nothing to do with guns that serve other functions

Would you shoot fleeing unarmed teenager?

Besides being immoral and could not even if legal, I really should not dignify that with an answer.
Since George Zimmerman and I don't have the same rich daddy, my ass would be in a Florida jail, if I happen to be in Florida at the time.
If I do that at home while visiting family, I won't be coming back to Florida and the razer wire would be blocking my view of the sunsets.

How do you and family get along? Storage of guns. And more.

Google "myth of the virgin killers"

[S_B_Jackson]

42. Depends....

both my wife and I have Concealed Handgun Licenses. We've taken advanced training classes and have in the past both shot competively in IDPA.

In the home, I rely upon a pistol, the wife relies upon a 12-guage shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot or her pistol, depending upon which is closer.

Guns for home defense are kept loaded those not are kept in a gun safe.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. How many guns? Why? Do you have more than 2 arms?

[guitar man]

27. If someone breaks in

If someone breaks in my house, and is coming down the hall where our bedrooms are located, I have to assume that he defeated or ignored the alarm and defeated a very formidable dog to get that deep into the house. My wife is in one room and my daughter in the other so I can't retreat any further and keep all of us safe.

The last chance he's going to have to retreat is when he hears the unmistakable sound of a shell being racked into the chamber of a 12 ga pump shotgun. There's a mag light mounted under the magazine tube so I can light him up and see him too. If he retreats, it's all good, no matter what he's carrying. things are not worth killing anybody over, they can be replaced. If he keeps advancing at that point, I'm going to figure he's crazy enough to kill us and that's when I'd shoot. That's as fair as I can be about it.

[sylvi]

105. House design is a question in retreating, too.

Our house is the type that real estate agents like to call an "open floor plan", meaning there aren't as many solid dividing walls and hallways like you might see in older homes. Someone kicking in my back door would enter into kind of a sun room area that our bedroom opens directly into. There are French doors right at the bedroom but my wife and I never close them unless we have overnight guests, so the person could simply look to the right and see us about 20 feet away. There's no way I could get my wife up and into the closet in the master bath before the intruder would be on us.

The front door is farther away but it would still only be a matter of a short run across a foyer and living area, a quick left through the breakfast nook and again they're right at our bedroom door. Still not enough time to get my wife, who doesn't move too fast these days, out of bed in the darkness and confusion and into the closet. When you consider that in a home invasion the criminal(s) would likely know there are occupants and move towards a "dynamic entry" to gain control of them, retreating wouldn't be much of an option. I'd have only a few seconds to access the gun in my nightstand and make the decision on whether or not to engage with it.

In the dark, awakened from sleep, facing a forced entry, with the life of my wife possibly hanging on a split-second decision, I'm afraid I'd have to take away the initiative from the intruder by firing as soon as there was a clear target. I can only pray I am not forced to make that call.