If an intruder came into your home what would you do*?

[havejoy]

I would shoot them.

[swampgeek]

I'm sorry but the assumption that most invaders are not looking for confrontation is a bit naive these days. There are increasing reports about home invasions in most areas. I live outside an area where this is becoming far too common. Just in the past month there have been multiple stories of home invasions where the homeowner defend themselves, was over come by the intruder, and one where a man was robbed\stabbed\home burnt.

I have a large family and my father was Sheriff of my hometown multiple times growing up. I have seen too much of the bad side of human nature I suppose. I take nothing for granted. I am a former Marine (not that we ever stop being Marines) and am quite adept at defending myself, my position, and those that mean the most to me. In this older, hopefully wiser, and less rash stage of my life I have one thing that I will not compromise and that is my loved ones. You end up in my home for any nefarious reason plan on meeting your maker post haste.

And it is true, a surprisingly high percentage of robbers\home invaders that are shot by homeowners survive, but is mostly attributed to nerves and level of training with weapon. No matter how good you think you are or prepared you may be, even professionals miss (most people have seen the police videos where cops and criminals at point blank range miss each other multiple times). Center Mass, aim center of the largest mass you see and make sure you have done what you have to. Oh, and use something with some knockdown power or at least the proper ammo, hydro shocks for pistols and buckshot for shotguns. If you just want to ruin someones day hit them with rock salt, you want to end that day, well you get the point.

I hope and pray none of us have to actually go through these scenarios. That being said the cops can be minutes away when seconds count. I'll take my chances before my maker when this life is over in defense of my family.

Edited April 14, 2011 by swampgeek

[Mahone]

I'm sorry but the assumption that most invaders are not looking for confrontation is a bit naive these days. There are increasing reports about home invasions in most areas. I live outside an area where this is becoming far too common. Just in the past month there have been multiple stories of home invasions where the homeowner defend themselves, was over come by the intruder, and one where a man was robbed\stabbed\home burnt.

Do you have any statistics to back this up?

I still believe that in most first world countries, the vast majority of people that forcefully enter someone else's property without permission are not looking for confrontation, and those that are often have a grudge against the person who's home they are breaking into (drugs, debt etc.) and that's a different scenario altogether - if this was to occur the home owner would be expecting it. I don't believe it's common for someone to select a home to break into at random looking for violence.

[skippy740]

Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans, and Rednecks?

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

*********************

Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?

Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?

Could we run away?

What does my wife think?

What about the kids?

Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?

Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?

Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?

If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

Should I call 911?

Why is this street so deserted?

We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

**************************

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

****************************

Redneck's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"

Son: "Can I shoot the next one?"

Wife: "You ain't taking that to the taxidermist!"

Which one are you??? Hmmmmmm.......

Let's just say that I'm a redneck!

[swampgeek]

Do you have any statistics to back this up?

I still believe that in most first world countries, the vast majority of people that forcefully enter someone else's property without permission are not looking for confrontation, and those that are often have a grudge against the person who's home they are breaking into (drugs, debt etc.) and that's a different scenario altogether - if this was to occur the home owner would be expecting it. I don't believe it's common for someone to select a home to break into at random looking for violence.

Guns and Self-Defense by Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

This is a document outlining a book about guns used in defense of crimes and other studies being researched by Mr. Kleck. There have been recent FBI evidence of the decreases in overall crime, but shifts in the number of rapes, car jacking, home invasion type incidents. These can be review from the annual reports issued by the FBI on crime statistics and I leave that to everyone to look at themselves. Statistics are cool, we can set a twist them to fit most any scenario, but I have personally watched violent crime increase in areas that I live and frequent. I also have many associates and friends in the defense\security\police fields that apply decades of personal experience and classes to the situations and they are quite alarmed and the upward trends of late.

Statically on the number of fatal shootings of people defending themselves from an attack, in the linked report you can see the what people report and the surrounding factual data can be misleading. Example: civilians have a higher "kill" ration as compared to police in similar encounters (unlikely). That being said the rate of treatment for gun woulds bear out the numbers that guns are being used in defense of crime, but also shed light on the smaller percentage of shooting victims (criminal or not) who survive.

When in doubt, empty the clip.

[Guest]

Do you have any statistics to back this up?

I still believe that in most first world countries, the vast majority of people that forcefully enter someone else's property without permission are not looking for confrontation, and those that are often have a grudge against the person who's home they are breaking into (drugs, debt etc.) and that's a different scenario altogether - if this was to occur the home owner would be expecting it. I don't believe it's common for someone to select a home to break into at random looking for violence.

Tell that to the 82-year-old man in my town who lives on the 9th hole of the golfing subdivision complete with security gate. Oh wait, never mind, you can't tell him anything. He's dead. Gunshot wounds to the gut (supposedly the worst way to die by gunshot) while he was in the garage. The perpetrators were just "having fun" and wanted to show the "rich people" they can't hide behind their security gates.

Here's real statistics: In the county I live in, there were 1,000 violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny, and burglary) per 100,000 population in 2010.

[Blackmarch]

*Also if an intruder(s) did come into your, anyone else's, both home(s)/other(s) what happened or would happen?

Me I would probably call 911 and pray (in my head atleast).

My mom called 911 when an intruder was try to and finally did enter her old apartment when she (my mom) lived in it.

grab my sword, my gun, my AEG, and my phone. It would depend on whats going on on how i would use them.

[Mahone]

Tell that to the 82-year-old man in my town who lives on the 9th hole of the golfing subdivision complete with security gate. Oh wait, never mind, you can't tell him anything. He's dead. Gunshot wounds to the gut (supposedly the worst way to die by gunshot) while he was in the garage. The perpetrators were just "having fun" and wanted to show the "rich people" they can't hide behind their security gates.

I didn't say they didn't exist. Emotive stories are pointless, I have the daily mail (or fox news over there) for that :). I'm just interested in statistics.

Here's real statistics: In the county I live in, there were 1,000 violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny, and burglary) per 100,000 population in 2010.

How many break-ins occurred during 2010, and of those, what percentage of them did the person breaking into the house initiate any violence? I'm not referring to other violent crimes, just those which occur as a result of someone breaking into a house and then initiating violence.

[Guest]

How many break-ins occurred during 2010, and of those, what percentage of them did the person breaking into the house initiate any violence? I'm not referring to other violent crimes, just those which occur as a result of someone breaking into a house and then initiating violence.

There were 2 just this month (and we're not even halfway through the month). Does that help? Disclaimer - those 2 are the only ones that had fatalities. There's probably a lot more that didn't make it to the news because nobody died.

But my personal defense system is not just for home invasions. It's for everything. The Boy Scout motto is not just for camping... it's also for personal defense... always "Be Prepared". And no, I did not agree with my husband owning guns. Because, you can't trust me with a gun. I'd probably end up getting shot by my own gun instead because I will not have the willpower to use it. My family is trained in MMA and weaponry (sticks, knives, swords, nanchucks, etc.). My husband practices his shotgun, rifle, handgun, and crossbow. If he has his way, my sons will probably get their firearms training at age 12 (when my husband got his first firearms training). I might debate him on that. We'll see.

Edited April 14, 2011 by anatess

[rex8499]

I get the NRA's magazine, "America's First Freedom" and there is a section in it every month called "Armed Citizen." It relates stories from all over the country where people who had guns protected themselves, their homes, their families, etc. I've yet to hear about any of the incidents I read about in the news, but I find it very eye opening.

I'd say that in about 2/3 of the encounters, the intruder is only wounded, or missed completely, and flees the scene after someone opens fire. They are usually apprehended by police, especially if wounded.

One thing that quickly because apparent reading through all these stories every month is that most criminals are cowards and don't want a confrontation. Once it's clear that the person is armed, they turn tail and run. If the home-owner only claims to be armed, the criminals tend to call their bluff and keep coming anyway until the person demonstrates that they weren't bluffing. So removing all doubt that you really are armed is a great way to avoid having to shoot someone if you don't think you have the fortitude to actually pull the trigger. Rack a shotgun, shoot a warning shot, some easily identifiable noise that makes it clear that you really are armed and mean business. At that point, unless the person is there to intentionally hurt you rather than rob/rape etc, they will most likely leave.

[Mahone]

There were 2 just this month (and we're not even halfway through the month). Does that help?

Not really. What I'm trying to establish is, is someone who breaks into an occupied house likely to be violent if no violence is shown towards them. Having just one of the two numbers doesn't really give me much information. My personal belief is that statistics will show the answer to be no. My personal belief is that the majority of people breaking into a house are doing it in order to steal, not to injure or kill.

I prefer to make decisions leaving emotion out of the equation where possible. To some people it might sound manly to say "I'd pull out my gun and bang bang, they'd be dead", but to me that sounds childish. As I said before, they are just as likely to be armed as the occupier of the house. If they entered the house in order to steal, and are attacked with a gun, they will defend themselves and violence will be met with violence. You may see them as being the threat, but if you attack them first, you are now a threat to them too.

When there is family involved, I don't care if they steal anything, I don't care if they get away, just as long as we get away unharmed. Sometimes, the most obvious solution is actually counter intuitive.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Mahone

[NeuroTypical]

I'm sorry but the assumption that most invaders are not looking for confrontation is a bit naive these days. There are increasing reports about home invasions in most areas. I live outside an area where this is becoming far too common. Just in the past month there have been multiple stories of home invasions where the homeowner defend themselves, was over come by the intruder, and one where a man was robbed\stabbed\home burnt.

Hi swampgeek,

First of all, thank you for your service in the corps. Secondly, I would guess that you and I probably see eye to eye on more things related to self-defense than we'd disagree about. But thirdly, I wasn't making an observation, I was stating a fact.

Google around a bit for numbers. You'll see things like a violent crime rate of 430 per 100k, but a property crime rate of 3036 per.

Yeah, violent home invasions have been going up. But they've been going up from triple digits to slightly higher triple digits. Burglars who just want your stuff and no encounter with you are still quadruple digits. There are just more drug addicts wanting their next fix, than there are gang banger initiates wanting into the club or whatever.

Of course yes, we live in a dangerous country, and yes, there are people looking to do you harm, and yes, it's every American's right to protect yourself from such (unless you live in Vermont or other places where the 'duty to retreat' doctrine has it's claws in people's souls). So yes, be prepared for whatever might come your way. But again, odds are, if you're sitting there quietly in your home and a back window breaks, a loud firm statement that they're not alone in the house is usually all it takes. I mean, if you have some sort of desire to make life more complicated than it has to be, then by all means, exercise your castle doctrine right and ventilate the 16 yr old punk trying to get quick cash for his next fix. I'm just saying that I'm happy to scare him off so he doesn't come back.

LM

[Guest]

Not really. What I'm trying to establish is, is someone who breaks into an occupied house likely to be violent if no violence is shown towards them. Having just one of the two numbers doesn't really give me much information. My personal belief is that statistics will show the answer to be no. My personal belief is that the majority of people breaking into a house are doing it in order to steal, not to injure or kill.

I prefer to make decisions leaving emotion out of the equation where possible. To some people it might sound manly to say "I'd pull out my gun and bang bang, they'd be dead", but to me that sounds childish. As I said before, they are just as likely to be armed as the occupier of the house. If they entered the house in order to steal, and are attacked with a gun, they will defend themselves and violence will be met with violence. You may see them as being the threat, but if you attack them first, you are now a threat to them too.

When there is family involved, I don't care if they steal anything, I don't care if they get away, just as long as we get away unharmed. Sometimes, the most obvious solution is actually counter intuitive.

I don't have the statistics because I'm too lazy to look for it...

So, let's say your statistics is correct. Somebody who breaks into a house to steal something in the United States of America knows they carry the risk of an armed homeowner. Therefore, they don't usually go into a house to break in when the owner is in the house. BUT, when the owner is present, they are usually prepared to maim/kill... regardless of whether the owner is armed or not.

And, regardless of the bluster of the posters on here that seem to indicate they are going to shoot first ask questions later, I don't really think that's the reality of their reaction. Firearms are never childish. It's serious business. And if you went through the trouble of legally arming yourself, then you know for a fact it is serious business.

Firearms training tells you to show your strength so that the criminal will think twice before engaging in a fight. It's first and foremost a defense tactic. If the criminal does not get intimidated by the firearm, then that criminal is willing and ready to hurt people regardless of the cost - the presence or absence of the firearm wouldn't have mattered... it would only make it easier for the criminal to follow through with his intent.

If you want real statistics - you can run a comparison between the crime rate in Australia before and after the gun ban was established and see for yourself how it differs - or how it is the same as the case may be.

[Dravin]

If you want real statistics - you can run a comparison between the crime rate in Australia before and after the gun ban was established and see for yourself how it differs - or not.

That wouldn't really answer his question. It isn't about guns at its heart. It's about if a homeowner does not confront an intruder if the intruder will content themselves with taking the possessions or if they will make an effort to confront the homeowner which can be done with a lead pipe, a knife, a gun, or just raw physical power.

Obviously it hinges on if you believe the criminal will confront you or not if you just hide out in your bedroom. If he won't then seeking him out only increases the risk as you converted a scenario without a confrontation into one with a confrontation, if the criminal will seek a confrontation then seeking him out gives you a chance to get a drop on him (or at least decide some aspects of the engagement) instead of letting him do such to you. The mentioning of guns is mostly a caution that the person (who he suspects isn't going to confront you if you hide in your bedroom) is armed and so to seek confrontation is to seek an unnecessary confrontation with an armed criminal (but it isn't particularly central to his argument, folks in the UK can get lead pipes and unnecessary confrontations with criminals armed with lead pipes is still dangerous).

The likelihood that a criminal is going to seek a confrontation is the crux of the matter.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

That wouldn't really answer his question. It isn't about guns at its heart. It's about if a homeowner does not confront an intruder if the intruder will content themselves with taking the possessions or if they will make an effort to confront the homeowner which can be done with a lead pipe, a knife, a gun, or just raw physical power.

Obviously it hinges on if you believe the criminal will confront you are not if you just hide out in your bedroom. If he won't then seeking him out only increases the risk as you converted a scenario without a confrontation into one with a confrontation, if the criminal will seek a confrontation then seeking him out gives you a chance to get a drop on him (or at least decide some aspects of the engagement) instead of letting him do such to you. The mentioning of guns is mostly a cautionary, "You ain't the only one armed, I'm not sure seeking confrontation with an armed person is safe."

The likelihood that a criminal is going to seek a confrontation is the crux of the matter.

I see your point...

In my case though, I don't think I'm going to willingly hide out while an intruder defiles my home. So yes, a confrontation is inevitable. And that's the problem. I have to be confident enough in my ability to defend myself in a confrontation... especially since I'm considered "easy prey" being a woman and only 5 foot tall, er short, at that.

We've been robbed before - when I was a kid. In our sleep. When we woke up to find out our home has been invaded, it was an emotional trauma for my parents (not being able to do anything about it). We moved out of the house not too long after that.

Edited April 14, 2011 by anatess

[Dravin]

I see your point...

In my case though, I don't think I'm going to willingly hide out while an intruder defiles my home. So yes, a confrontation is inevitable.

Which is fine, but it removes the if no violence is shown against them aspect he's talking about. It's fine (by me) that you don't want to let the situation exist, but arguably (obviously as Mahone is arguing it) it would be safer for you to just leave the intruder be. Thing is we do things that increase our risk for emotional needs/reasons all the time. For instance, a man starts verbally abusing a family member in public, most of us would confront them, in some cases under threat of violence, even though in a strictly logical look at things it is far safer to just ignore the man.

You, and Mahone place different importance on having someone enter your home and take possessions. For you, it's a untenable violation, for Mahone it's just things. I don't fault either perspective.

[Guest]

Which is fine, but it removes the if no violence is shown against them aspect he's talking about. It's fine (by me) that you don't want to let the situation exist, but arguably (obviously as Mahone is arguing it) it would be safer for you to just leave the intruder be. Thing is we do things that increase our risk for emotional needs/reasons all the time. For instance, a man starts verbally abusing a family member in public, most of us would confront them, in some cases under threat of violence, even though in a strictly logical look at things it is far safer to just ignore the man.

You, and Mahone place different importance on having someone enter your home and take possessions. For you, it's a untenable violation, for Mahone it's just things. I don't fault either perspective.

But that's not taking into account the psychological impact of an invasion. Yes, it may just be things... but is it really?

[Dravin]

But that's not taking into account the psychological impact of an invasion. Yes, it may just be things... but is it really?

It depends on the psyche of the person involved. Obviously for you it isn't, but you aren't Mahone. And while he probably has emotional attachment to his possessions and domicile he's deemed it not worth a confrontation.

[rex8499]

For you, it's a untenable violation...

Exactly. For most of us it's a violation of established boundaries, which must be dealt with to teach them a lesson and save others from similar violations by them.

One of my friends who is going to school in southern CA heard 3 miscreants break a downstairs window and enter his basement one day. He didn't have a gun, but he grabbed his sword off the wall and ran downstairs and cornered them with his sword. Then called the cops while they cowered in the corner and waited for the police to arrive. Most criminals are cowards, and I'll be darned if I'm going to just let them violate my place of comfort and safety.

[Guest]

It depends on the psyche of the person involved. Obviously for you it isn't, but you aren't Mahone. And while he probably has emotional attachment to his possessions and domicile he's deemed it not worth a confrontation.

I agree... and that's why that statistic he is looking for is important here - because from what I understand, Mahone doesn't think it worth a confrontation because he is of the understanding that violence is avoided when the homeowner do not confront the invader and on the same token, violence erupts when a homeowner confronts the invader. I'm not sure I agree with this because I believe you can also avoid violence - including the psychological impact - by showing your strength, and at the same token, an invader intent on violence will seek it. But, I don't have any facts to base my disagreement. Just my own analysis of causation and personal experiences and things going on in my town.

[bcguy]

As soon as the break in attempt happens, then the automatic German Sheppard bark box goes off. I don't think he would attempt to break in then.

Last time some one attempted to break into the owners truck at a collage campus, the owners dog on leash was awaken on other side of truck, he went around and pounced on the thief with fangs growling at his face as the dog stood on his chest.

[rex8499]

If I were a thief or other type of criminal, a dog would not concern me at all. I've dealt with lots of angry dogs. Once you make it clear that you're not afraid of them, and meaner than they are, they're harmless. If I had a knife, and what thief doesn't, a dog would be quickly and easily dispatched. Even trained police dogs are easily and often killed once they reach the criminal.

The biggest hassle of a dog would be attracting attention from neighbors from an angry dog. But the dog itself: no concern.