What's new
By:

Burglar Shot Dead

* 38 percent of assaults and 60 percent of rapes occur during home invasions
- Where else would they happen? That seems pretty obvious to me.

* One in five homes undergoes a home invasion or break-in
- And how many of them involve a violent altercation? Conveniently left out, I see.

* There are more than 8,000 home invasions every day in North America
- Most of which I'm sure occur in bad neighborhoods. How many of us here live in bad neighborhoods?

* 50 percent of home invasions involve the use of a weapon; the most common weapons used are knives or other cutting instruments
- OK?

* In 48 percent of home invasions, victims sustain physical injuries
- Note how they use "home invasions" meaning that the person is home when they enter the house. Otherwise, it's a break-in.

* Victims age 60 or older make up 17 percent of home invasion victims
- ..K?

* In 68 percent of home invasions, victims and the accused are strangers; in 11 percent of these cases, victims and the accused are friends, business associates, or family
- Once again, "home invasions". People who know the person they're breaking into won't break in when they're home. They usually know there's some good stuff in there because they've been in there, and they know when the family won't be home. Home invasions are almost always random, but note how there's no statistic of the likelihood of a random home invasion happening to any given person in an average housing situation.
Click to expand...

You need to learn to read statistics before you blindly post them and act like they've refuted anything I've said. Again, your clowning is at an all-time high in this thread. Are you ever going to get it?
 
TheDude said:
UL17... sorry, but you are a moron. I am not saying that this intruder had any intention to hurt the family, but you don't take that chance. Rubber bullets, I am sure, hurt very bad but they don't provide stopping power. There are real bullets that don't provide stopping power.

So if the guy comes in with a gun, I shoot him with my rubber bullet, he doubles over in pain, then gathers himself and shoots me with his 9mm, then I have not protected myself or my family.
Click to expand...

From a guy that hasn't ever posted anything and I'm sure came out of the woodworks to respond to this fear mongering and overall ignorance spread in this thread, trust me, your comments don't mean anything to me. Thanks. Bye.
 
unluckyseventeen said:
You need to learn to read statistics before you blindly post them and act like they've refuted anything I've said. Again, your clowning is at an all-time high in this thread. Are you ever going to get it?
Click to expand...

You just don't get it, do you?

Do you lock your doors to your home?
 
unluckyseventeen said:
From a guy that hasn't ever posted anything and I'm sure came out of the woodworks to respond to this fear mongering and overall ignorance spread in this thread, trust me, your comments don't mean anything to me. Thanks. Bye.
Click to expand...

This might just be the stupidest response to anyone/anything I've ever read. Thanks. Bye.
 
C l u t c H 385 said:
k, so if someone is charging at you, with or without a weapon, or begins firing back you would prefer rubber bullets to real ones? Sorry, not me. There's no way to test it but I would think the guy with real bullets makes it out a higher % of the time.
Click to expand...

If they have the intention of entering your house and shooting you dead, your percentages of winning are still pretty sketchy compared to where you'd ideally like to be.

What would most likely happen, if somebody entered your front door and you were asleep, is that you'd wake up, you'd stand guard at a point where you know they'd have to cross (as in, you already have an advantage), you'd shout something to them to tell them to get out, or you'd start firing your weapon.

If you fire real bullets, without shouting - You don't alert them before they have the chance to react, but you risk killing them quickly without figuring out what the real situation was, and you might have killed somebody that was drunk/high and just doing something stupid, as opposed to having an intention of hurting you or your family.

If you fire rubber bullets, without shouting - You don't alert them before they get nailed by a few stun rounds, and at that point you have a huge advantage considering they're in tremendous pain, you're still relatively covered and they still don't really know where you are considering all they felt were a bunch of stun rounds hitting them. You don't risk killing somebody that might be doing something stupid and relatively harmless.

If you shout - The person is alerted to your general area. You then risk them charging you or doing something quickly without you being able to react first. This is where your situation of "what if they charge you" would come up much more than any other.

Overall, the rubber bullets firing first and asking questions later seems like the least risk to both be discovered and lose the fight, and kill somebody that shouldn't deserve to be killed.

Neither form of weapon comes into play if he walks in takes ****, rapes your child, or kills you before you wake up. Still doesn't seem relevant to the conversation to me.
Click to expand...

Quite the fear-mongering response. You were presenting variables that would foil my strategy. I'm simply doing the same and stating that no matter what solution you come up with, it will always have holes and you shouldn't act as if your strategy is fool proof any more than mine is.
 
Well looks like the Republihacks have already burned this bitch down.

i will not comment any further,

Personally I oppose the second ammendment as it is applied today.
 
Archie Moses said:
You just don't get it, do you?

Do you lock your doors to your home?
Click to expand...

I don't get what? That I should go find obscure youtube videos, pictures of BB guns, random statistics or something not relating to anything anybody ever said to prove my point? Is that the proper way to present an argument?
 
One concern I have not seen discussed: innocent bystanders. When you fire a gun with a metal bullet, sometimes you will miss, and sometimes it will go throught he person you hit without strking a bone. There can be people in the next yard, next house, etc. that wind up being hit by your bullet, especially if you are shooting someone outside, as this homeowner was.

Since there is no evidence that any sort of weapon was available in the Hayes case, it has no bearing on the "shoot first" or "warn first" discussion that I can determine. Nor is that type of case common enough that I find it worth shooting first over.
 
Never said it was fool proof. Just that I'd prefer the option that gives ME and MY family a better chance to survive. I don't care if he's drunk or high. He's breaking the law. Should we not prosecute drunk drivers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top