Idaho teen shoots burglar during home invasion, gunfight
370 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Joshii;51314107]I have to wonder, but why are you getting so hung up over this hypothetical scenario you've made up, the intruder decided to open fire first and the homeowners returned the same in self defense, yes they could've backed off but I imagine it's pretty hard to do that when you have a man in the same room as you firing his gun at you in hopes to kill you so he can escape.
What's with these "should have" and "could have" when the situation already happened and ended in a way that both parties are still here, it's not like you can suddenly stop time the moment you get shot at and consider your options.[/QUOTE]
They should have done it before they got shot at, of course. It's not like you can shout at the intruder, "Restart, let us make a different choice!". It's not only about what alternate decision could be made here but also what you should do in future similar cases.
[editline]5th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51314125]And here you're pulling a statistic out of your ass and subsequently using it to back up your own preconception. Someone addressed it earlier and said that the statistical result is that more often than not the intruder will turn tail even when the confronter is armed with a gun. So statistically it sounds like the likely conclusion to confronting the burglar is them running or the home owner managing to apprehend them and hold them until police can arrive. So it's pretty clearly more than 10% that turn out well.[/QUOTE]
It was an example, I don't know the chances and don't claim to know either. Whatever it may be.
[editline]5th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;51314183]I've already explained why this isn't the case.
Provide evidence to back up your claims. Your feelings about the issue do not overrule measurable metrics- very simple statistics shows that somewhere between 98% and 99.95% of confrontations between an armed citizen and an aggressor end with neither party dead. The chances of an armed homeowner confronting an intruder resulting in their own death is extremely small.[/QUOTE]
Stop taking everything I can say as being literally what I believe. It was only a point that even if it worked out this time, it doesn't everytime.
[QUOTE=RB33;51314002][B]If[/B] the chance of it ending up like this [B]was[/B] 10%, it wouldn't be a reliable approach just because it worked this time. It doesn't tell us much unless compared with other similar cases.[/QUOTE]
Man these idealists (if you can even call them that) work in shifts :v:
What I got out of this thread is
Europeans think America should be beholden to their values and laws.
Americans dont think they should be broken into and shot and want a way to defend themselves.
Im not for killing people its messy mostly, unnecessary and fucks up your life.
My first line of defense is my locked door my last line of defense is my crossbow I keep under my bed if by the time they have gotten through my door the cops arnt there I am on my last line of defense and I will defend my life.
[QUOTE=JesseR92;51314422]Im not for killing people its messy mostly, unnecessary and fucks up your life.
My first line of defense is my locked door my last line of defense is my crossbow I keep under my bed if by the time they have gotten through my door the cops arnt there I am on my last line of defense and I will defend my life.[/QUOTE]
A crossbow bolt is way more likely to do serious bodily damage than a few bulletholes will in the same spot. Then what happens if you wind up missing with your loaded bolt? Do you expect a home invader to wait for you to draw another one to try again?
I'm getting some mixed messages from your post.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51313849]You're right, but I didn't insinuate they were mutual(ly exclusive?)[/QUOTE]
I'm just trying to point out that there's a distinct difference between robbery (and robber) and burglary (burglar). And that they should not be confused
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51314542]I'm just trying to point out that there's a distinct difference between robbery (and robber) and burglary (burglar). And that they should not be confused[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and I was in agreement.
[QUOTE=Psychopath12;51314527]A crossbow bolt is way more likely to do serious bodily damage than a few bulletholes will in the same spot. Then what happens if you wind up missing with your loaded bolt? Do you expect a home invader to wait for you to draw another one to try again?
I'm getting some mixed messages from your post.[/QUOTE]
The fact he has one means he might not even need to fire it, though if someone's braying down his door they probably wouldn't be deterred by it, and probably already has intent to do him harm. If it does come to someone trying to break into the room you're in, knowing you're there, a crossbow is still a potent ranged weapon that could mean the difference between life and death if the assailant has a firearm, and if not puts the odds in his favour against a melee weapon instead of having one of his own (Which almost any household object can serve as) as the only option.
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;51314583]The fact he has one means he might not even need to fire it, though if someone's braying down his door they probably wouldn't be deterred by it, and probably already has intent to do him harm. If it does come to someone trying to break into the room you're in, knowing you're there, a crossbow is still a potent ranged weapon that could mean the difference between life and death if the assailant has a firearm, and if not puts the odds in his favour against a melee weapon instead of having one of his own (Which almost any household object can serve as) as the only option.[/QUOTE]
No I mean his stance on how he sees killing as messy and unnecessary, yet he's fine with a weapon that can arguably do it far more messily but he only really gets 1 shot to subdue an assailant if it comes down to the wire.
In terms of self-defense in a life-or-death situation as he's describing, you'll reasonably want something that you can quickly brandish and put to use. A crossbow is more unwieldy than a handgun (both for brandishing and for reloading) and the damage a bolt does is messier, so he seems to be contradicting himself.
[QUOTE=Psychopath12;51314682]No I mean his stance on how he sees killing as messy and unnecessary, yet he's fine with a weapon that can arguably do it far more messily but he only really gets 1 shot to subdue an assailant if it comes down to the wire.
In terms of self-defense in a life-or-death situation as he's describing, you'll reasonably want something that you can quickly brandish and put to use. A crossbow is more unwieldy than a handgun (both for brandishing and for reloading) and the damage a bolt does is messier, so he seems to be contradicting himself.[/QUOTE]
A crossbow is all I have access to other than knives or swords and if someone is trying to knock down my door im trapped unless I want to risk jumping or falling off my third floor balcony.
Killing someone would be my last course of action I dont want to do it but I value my life over someone who would try to do me harm.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.