Effectiveness of Guns for Home Defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What?

So you're asking if an incident happened where a home owner ENGAGED an intruder, and whether or not the intruder was hit, he continued the home invasion? I find it hard to believe that someone who arms him/herself for home/personal defense would engage someone, hit or miss the intruder, and let the intruder continue without engaging him again...you've lost me pal.
 
I think what he's asking is if just by initiating an armed response that caused the intruder to turn tail and run, or if the intruder was OK with being in a gunfight and continued his attack.
 
I know of a case where three attempts were made to break into the same house in the same night -- the cops were called each time, and the intruder fled, but came back after they left, trying to pry open a door connecting with the garage. On the third attempt, a neighbor came over with a shotgun before the cops got there. The intruder escaped, but never returned.
 
Sounds to me as if someone is thinking about the utility of "warning shots."

Not a good idea IMHO, if that's the case. The shot you get off into the floor or ceiling may be the only one you have. If you are legally and morally justified in firing at all, you are justified in shooting for center of mass of the target you can see. Not thinking about warning shots? Please explain further...

lpl/nc (it was said: Direct your prayers to the heavens, confine your gunfire to the earth.)
 
Actually, I'm asking people for any accounts with which they may be familiar which might serve to refute a hypothesis. Here's the hypothesis: Guns are so effective for home defense that the mere firing of a gun in response to a home invasion will almost always end the invasion. This hypothesis could be true or false. I'm trying to find out if anyone is aware of any actual encounters that would refute this hypothesis.
 
Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
 
NewShooter said:
Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
Click to expand...

BANG! BANG! Then while he's lying there, put a kitchen knife in his hand. 'nuff said. :evil:
 
Taurus 66, can you say Obstrution of Justice? I knew you could.

We don't advocate illegal acts, even in jest. I'm sure from your emoticon you were kidding so everyone should just consider this a friendly reminder.

Jeff
 
NewShooter said:
Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
Click to expand...

How do you tell if he/she (must be politically correct) is armed?

Does the fact that an intruder, when challenged, yells out that they have a gun constitute them being armed?
 
I don't know about the home invasion part, but there are documented cases of combatants being shot, usually by small caliber weapons, and not only continue fighting, but not realize they were shot until the festivities died down.
 
NewShooter said:
Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
Click to expand...

I've wondered a lot about this "armed/unarmed" thing. For one thing, if someone has broken into my home, and if I'm a 5-foot tall 120lb. female, can I not believe that he could harm me with his hands? Why would he need to be "armed"? Or pick something up in my house to use as a weapon? This seems like a grey area to me. What am I missing, or not thinking about?

Sorry, just realized that this is sort of hijacking the thread. I am also interested in the original poster's question.
 
Actually, in some states if an unarmed intruder enters your home you do not have a legal right to discharge your firearm. Its unfortunate but true.
Click to expand...
Or you must be able to articulate a reasonable fear that he was armed, that changes the whole scheme of things.

I know of no state the requires absolute proof that an invader is armed before you defend yourself. Unless that state has no self defense provision.

There are no absolutes and it's all in how the story is told, that's why you hire a lawyer to tell your story


I believe that there is truth to the theory that the mere presence of a gun can dissuade a criminal in most cases. There is a study that shows something like two million crimes a year are prevented that way. I'm just not willing to bet my life on it because it doesn't have that much credibility to me, (LAK)
 
LightningJoe said:
Actually, I'm asking people for any accounts with which they may be familiar which might serve to refute a hypothesis. Here's the hypothesis: Guns are so effective for home defense that the mere firing of a gun in response to a home invasion will almost always end the invasion. This hypothesis could be true or false. I'm trying to find out if anyone is aware of any actual encounters that would refute this hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis is flawed. You are trying to extrapolate historic events to future situations where the historic events are mutually exclusive of future events. Because the events are mutually exclusive, the prediction isn't valid.

If you flip a penny, what are the chances it will come up heads?

If you flip a real penny and it comes up heads, what are the chances it will come up heads for the next flip?

If you flip a penny 99 times where it comes up heads, what are the chances it will come up heads on the 100th flip?

In each case, the chance of the flip coming up heads is the same, 50%. That is because each flip is mutually exclusive from all other flips. So you have had an amazing and statistically unlikely run of 99 flips to heads, those 99 flips give you no predictive power for the 100th flip.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Your hypothesis is flawed. You are trying to extrapolate historic events to future situations where the historic events are mutually exclusive of future events. Because the events are mutually exclusive, the prediction isn't valid.

If you flip a penny, what are the chances it will come up heads?

If you flip a real penny and it comes up heads, what are the chances it will come up heads for the next flip?

If you flip a penny 99 times where it comes up heads, what are the chances it will come up heads on the 100th flip?

In each case, the chance of the flip coming up heads is the same, 50%. That is because each flip is mutually exclusive from all other flips. So you have had an amazing and statistically unlikely run of 99 flips to heads, those 99 flips give you no predictive power for the 100th flip.
Click to expand...

As Daimon Runyon said, "The battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift. But that's the way the smart money bets.":p


Statistics do not hold in individual cases -- but they do hold over the long run. And there are poker players who make good money on that principle.
 
Yeah, they were on drugs......

If they kicked in my door, and did not do as I command, the shooting will start.......both barrels of a shotgun with BB loads..........Texas is a good state to live in.........chris3
 
For non self-defense states, memorize the following mantra:

"I only meant to fire a warning shot. But in my haste and fear, my aim was off and I hit him center of mass. Oops." :scrutiny:
 
Or you must be able to articulate a reasonable fear that he was armed, that changes the whole scheme of things.
Click to expand...
Best done after - and only after - consultation with your attorney. (Your adrenaline-pumped memory in the immediate aftermath may get some details wrong. Best you and your attorney work together and reconstruct your memory so it matches all details before you articulate anything.)
 
Calamity Jane said:
I've wondered a lot about this "armed/unarmed" thing. For one thing, if someone has broken into my home, and if I'm a 5-foot tall 120lb. female, can I not believe that he could harm me with his hands? Why would he need to be "armed"? Or pick something up in my house to use as a weapon? This seems like a grey area to me. What am I missing, or not thinking about?
Click to expand...
Okay, it is a thread hijack, but it is something you really need to know and I see you have your PMs turned off.

As a woman, you absolutely may assume that disparity of force (Ability) is present, even if the male intruder is unarmed. A male intruder does not need to pick up a weapon in order to present a deadly threat to a female.

You of course still have to be certain of Opportunity (is he close enough to use his Ability against you?) and Jeopardy (is he acting in such a way that a reasonable and prudent person would believe he intended to kill or maim you?).

But as long as the other two requirements are met, disparity of force can safely be assumed to be present if your attacker is male and you are female.

(IANAL, nor do I play one on the internet -- consult a genooowine lawyer for local nuances and more details...)

pax
 
Thain said:
For non self-defense states, memorize the following mantra:

"I only meant to fire a warning shot. But in my haste and fear, my aim was off and I hit him center of mass. Oops." :scrutiny:
Click to expand...

I'm sure that there are others here that are better informed than I, but I believe that reciting a storyline such as the one above might be used to prove your negligence. It's best to only fire when in fear for your life or the lives of your loved ones, and then to express this fact to the legal authorities when they come to investigate.

Somewhere (I would assume it was on THR) I read that when a cop is being investigated for a wrongful shooting, the legal opposition is HOPING the cop will say that he didn't actually mean to shoot ("didn't realize my finger was on the trigger" or "didn't mean to squeeze the trigger"). The cop who says this will be admitting to a wrongful shooting. OTOH, the cop who says that he was in fear for his life and shot to end the threat is testifying to the validity of a justifiable shot.

Now if an intruder who has been shot inside your home begins crawling AWAY from you towards a door in an attempt to flee and you shoot him again and kill him, you will most likely have a very hard time justifying such a shot since the intruder no longer poses any real, immediate threat to you.

What says you all?
 
jashobeam is quite right. Lying is STUPID, whether it's "accidentally" shooting someone (ever heard of negligent homicide? If someone shoots someone and gives the "warning shot gone awry" story, they will be charged, prosecuted, and convicted on the strength of their own false testimony...), and after they have gone to jail, the subsequent civil suit will sue the shooter and his/her homeowners' insurance company for millions over "gross negligence resulting in death."

AFAIK, very, very few states require you retreat from your own home, and of those that do, many probably have a "if you can safely do so" type exception. If you can safely get out, why not? But if you don't feel you can safely retreat--or if retreating would leave your family at the mercy of the armed intruder, who is presumably not there to sell gift subscriptions to Good Housekeeping--then even in those states, you'd be justified in defending the lives of you and your family, I'd expect.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deaf Smith
  • Locked
Home invasion in Dallas stopped by daughters with guns!
Replies
5
Views
450
jawman
jawman
theotherwaldo
  • Locked
Shots fired after home invasion near Donna (Texas)
Replies
2
Views
530
Art Eatman
A
H
  • Locked
Home Invaders screaming "POLICE, POLICE" "GET ON THE GROUND".
Replies
2
Views
445
Kleanbore
K
B
  • Locked
Home Defense Course , June 19th
Replies
0
Views
177
Brian@ITC
B
C
  • Locked
Home Invasion Seattle
Replies
16
Views
638
Guns and more
G
Back
Top