Defending your home, how far would you go?

[Cyrus]

The guy who posted the German law?

I don't want anyone to justify anything they say in their opinion Cyrus, I simply want what you would do and what the law says you can do. I 'feel' they forfiet their rights, it doesn't mean they do. I know exactly what innocent until proven guilty means, I simply find it difficult to understand how you can question someones guilt when they are walking out your front door with your tv.

Now, instead of attacking peoples opinions on what they believe and would do. Would it hurt for you to answer the question?

I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that?

 

[OAQfirst]

I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that?

Then why are you here?

 

[JaredJames]

I don't answer "what if's." Sheesh, don't you get that?

Then you must be a pretty poor engineer. Last time I checked engineers had to plan for things going wrong with the things they design/build. All hypothetical situations. Failure to prepare is preparing to fail, I believe the quote is.

 

[JaredJames]

Then why are you here?

To rip the s*** out of others opinions (I'll give you this Cyrus, you give some exceptionally good arguments and I can't fault your logic) when it is not the intended purpose of this discussion. As I keep saying, I want an opinion and some law facts, that's all.

 

[JasonRox]

The guy who posted the German law?

I don't want anyone to justify anything they say in their opinion Cyrus, I simply want what you would do and what the law says you can do. I 'feel' they forfiet their rights, it doesn't mean they do. I know exactly what innocent until proven guilty means, I simply find it difficult to understand how you can question someones guilt when they are walking out your front door with your tv.

Now, instead of attacking peoples opinions on what they believe and would do. Would it hurt for you to answer the question? I don't care what people say, it just seems that everyone has started attacking each other when that isn't the purpose of this discussion (at least not what I intended).

Maybe someone told him to get him a new TV or he will kill him and his family. So he chose your house to get the TV. Who knows?

Seriously, I would take Moonbear's way of doing it.

If he's being violent in nature, and I have no choice but to take some sort of action, then surely I will act to protect myself. If I don't need to do anything, then why bother. Just let it be.

Some start stealing under the stress of money and raising family and are led to believe that theft is an easy way out. And not actually intending to be a physical threat to the family he's stealing from (or she ). Who knows. I still don't want to kill someone over something stupid like that. He's still guilty (the court will find him so) but it still gives me no right to kill him.

It's almost as though you will do anything the law allows you to do and try to use the law to justify it being morally right. It used to be legal to rape you own wife... does that make it right? NO!

 

[JaredJames]

Firstly, as I stated before the punishment can be utter rubbish and not worth doing as it provides no deterrant.

Stealing is Stealing, no matter how you phrase it.

In my orignal post, I said, I would confront them, if they ran great if not, and they turned and came at me I would react. Only then.

 

[Tibarn]

To answer the OP's question, I would first see if I can gauge their intentions. Thieves go for easy targets and don't like dealing with people who can put up effective resistance. If that was the case, I'd confront them with a weapon. If I could detain them with minimal risk I would, but most likely I'd just tell them to get lost and call the cops later.

On the other hand, if I had good reason to suspect they wanted to kill me, I'd grab a weapon and try to leave undetected. Then I'd call the cops (gotta love cell phones). If that was impossible and there was only one intruder, I'd try to ambush him. If there was more than one intruder, I'd barricade myself in a room, call the cops, and try to sneak out the window.

I have no guns in my house and don't have sufficient confidence in my martial abilities (armed or unarmed) to engage an intruder unless I had an overwhelming advantage.

 

[lisab]

OK guys, I refer you to my previous post (#62) could we please just answer the questions then to stop this silly bickering. What would you do in that scenario (or what do you believe you would do) and what are you legally allowed to do?

Hmmm...OK, I wake up because of a noise. Actually, I'm a light sleeper so this happens quite frequently. So, I go downstairs...and I find an intruder.

I know just what I would do...fist of all, let's back up a bit. Because I'm awakened in the night so often by stupid little noises, I wouldn't be nervous or scared at all, because I'm coming downstairs expecting to see my cat throwing up.

If I see a person who is not a family member I would be all over them, teeth and fingernails and twisting sensitive parts...no thinking involved, haha. Seriously, how could you not? This person did not come into your house to make friends. I have a daughter, for crying out loud. Law be damned, this person is not going to hurt my daughter.

Yet, the whole idea of having a weapon in the house is terrifying to me. I'm a light sleeper, so I wake up often. I'm not going to grab a gun just because I heard a noise. I also sleepwalk and when I do, I do weird things (usually just take things apart)...but, wow, I'd never want a gun in the house.

 

[JasonRox]

Just for those who dream of detaining the criminal, I will tell you how I would commit theft if I was into hardcore stuff.

I would bring a gun. If I heard anyone in the house, I would keep an eye out and shoot the victim instantly. So, I guess detaining me wouldn't be easy?

Who's to say other people wouldn't take my method? Just shoot them right away.

 

[Cyrus]

Then you must be a pretty poor engineer. Last time I checked engineers had to plan for things going wrong with the things they design/build. All hypothetical situations. Failure to prepare is preparing to fail, I believe the quote is.

Sorry, but now you're just making stuff up because what you describe (design for failure) has nothing to do with this topic.

 

[Cyrus]

Anyways, my point is that your question is one you should ask in a legal forum. Not a physics forum. Unless anyone here is a lawyer that deals with this type of law, you're going to get garbage answers, and I hate to see people play pretend lawyer (unless you are a lawyer, that's exactly what were all doing) .

 

[JaredJames]

Lisab you bring up my point beautifuly. As I stated before, in UK law you can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. Now, to you and like most other people, to come downstairs and find someone your judgement of what is 'reasonable force' in your case going at them all out, is correct. You deemed that reasonable to protect your family and to me that is fair enough, but if you were a jury sitting in a nice room looking at what happened you would say the person used far too much force. They are not at risk and their judgement is not fear based. This is what I do not like about the system.

 

[JasonRox]

Lisab you bring up my point beautifuly. As I stated before, in UK law you can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. Now, to you and like most other people, to come downstairs and find someone your judgement of what is 'reasonable force' in your case going at them all out, is correct. You deemed that reasonable to protect your family and to me that is fair enough, but if you were a jury sitting in a nice room looking at what happened you would say the person used far too much force. They are not at risk and their judgement is not fear based. This is what I do not like about the system.

How are you going to use reasonable force if I shot you already?

You only attempt to use self-defense if you can. Otherwise, stay out of it. Duh.

 

[Cyrus]

On that note, I will stand aside and let you all dance in circles. Dance my pretties DANCE!

Watch the arguments of what-ifs bleed on for the next 10 pages (and you'll see what I mean by hating what ifs).

Before you know it we will be talking about the war in Iraq (don't ask me how).

 

[Cyrus]

Lisab you bring up my point beautifuly. As I stated before, in UK law you can use 'reasonable force' to defend yourself. Now, to you and like most other people, to come downstairs and find someone your judgement of what is 'reasonable force' in your case going at them all out, is correct. You deemed that reasonable to protect your family and to me that is fair enough, but if you were a jury sitting in a nice room looking at what happened you would say the person used far too much force. They are not at risk and their judgement is not fear based. This is what I do not like about the system.

Again, go ask a lawyer this question.

 

[skeptic2]

To those who would quickly grab their gun, my understanding is that when weapons are stored at home, they are to be stored unloaded and locked up with the ammunition stored in a separate place and also locked up. How would one unlock his gun, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and still be an effective deterrent?

My daughter now 11, recently told me that when she was about 7 and played with two boys her age across the street, they found their father's guns and pointed them at each other and that the ammunition was right there too. She never told me because she knew I wouldn't let her play with them anymore. The father had told me he had guns in his house but that they were locked up.

I propose that accidents with kids and guns are far more common than the type of situation described above.

 

[JaredJames]

If you came to my house with a gun Jason, in the scenario you posed, whether I tried to get out or confront you I would have to negotiate squeaky floorboards, an open plan setup so you wouldn't need to look hard to find out where I was. Now, given I live in the UK, guns aren't really a problem here so I wouldn't be too concerned about them.

 

[JaredJames]

Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparently it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.

 

[OAQfirst]

Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparently it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.

It's not that bad.

 

[junglebeast]

To those who would quickly grab their gun, my understanding is that when weapons are stored at home, they are to be stored unloaded and locked up with the ammunition stored in a separate place and also locked up.

Where did you hear that? It is perfectly legal to store your gun unlocked and fully loaded, and many people do. In fact if I'm not mistaken the NRA recommends it. It's also legal to shoot someone in your own home out of defense.

 

[Cyrus]

Alright guys never mind, I wanted a simple two part response from you all but apparently it's turned into a slanging match with no purpose at all, someone lock the thread please.

My purpose is not to try to give you a 'slanging match', I'm challenging you to increase the quality of debate.

 

[JaredJames]

All I wanted was to know what you would do if confronted with an intruder and what the law let's you do. But people started debating other peoples opinions (not the purpose of this thread, I just wanted the opinion) and it's gone downhill from there. Cyrus if you aren't going to answer the question why are you here?

 

[JaredJames]

Where did you hear that? It is perfectly legal to store your gun unlocked and fully loaded, and many people do. In fact if I'm not mistaken the NRA recommends it. It's also legal to shoot someone in your own home out of defense.

It is the law in the UK. Guns must be kept unloaded and in a locked cabinet.

 

[JaredJames]

My purpose is not to try to give you a 'slanging match', I'm challenging you to increase the quality of debate.

There wasn't meant to be a debate cyrus, I simply wanted opinions on what you would do and perhaps a bit of law on what you can do.

 

[Cyrus]

There wasn't meant to be a debate cyrus, I simply wanted opinions on what you would do and perhaps a bit of law on what you can do.

Its that second part in bold that's the problem. You're simply *not* going to get a legit answer to that question in a physics forum.

 

[lisab]

It is the law in the UK. Guns must be kept unloaded and in a locked cabinet.

A reasonable thing to do, IMO. Just look at skeptic2's post...who, btw, still has an 11-year-old daughter.

 

[turbo]

To those who would quickly grab their gun, my understanding is that when weapons are stored at home, they are to be stored unloaded and locked up with the ammunition stored in a separate place and also locked up. How would one unlock his gun, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and still be an effective deterrent?

I propose that accidents with kids and guns is far more common than the type of situation described above.

I have defended my home with a handgun and have not yet killed a person. The first would not have been possible without the possession of loaded firearms (excuse me, Mr home-invader, I have to get past you to get some bullets) and the second is a matter of perception and discipline. If you are an adult, and you keep guns in your home, and you have not acclimated your children to guns and properly trained them, any "accidents" are all your fault. When I was 10, my father told me that I was old enough to deer-hunt with him, and he gave me his M-1 carbine to use. AFTER I had shown proficiency in its use, demonstrated that I could handle it safely, and could field-strip that weapon, clean, lube, and reassemble it to his satisfaction, I was allowed to hunt with it, not just shoot it at the local gravel pit.. He was not a drill-sergeant, but being a sergeant in the Airborne mobilized to the European Theater during WWII probably lent a bit of urgency to his training.

 

[JaredJames]

I'll be honest, I think that the US gun laws are crazy, I can see no justification in people needing guns at all, their purpose is to kill and therefore by owning one you are opening the possiblity of you using it (same as knives).
Yes there are guns in the UK (strictly no guns), but incidents with them are few and far between (despite media hype) and we have armed response units (as police have no guns either) which deal with them. The system works here, I just don't see why people feel the need to have a gun. You can NOT tell me it increases safety.

 

[skeptic2]

Where did you hear that? It is perfectly legal to store your gun unlocked and fully loaded, and many people do. In fact if I'm not mistaken the NRA recommends it.

Perhaps that's why there are so many accidents with kids and guns.

 

[JaredJames]

Perhaps that's why there are so many accidents with kids and guns.

Reinforcing my previous post. I saw a newspaper article a while back, can't remember where it was, about a child who was given an UZI for some reason (I think it was at a fair as a shooting attraction) and he fired it, it kicked back so violently as he had never shot one before, he ended up shooting himself in the head. Anyone heard of this?

 

[lisab]

I'll be honest, I think that the US gun laws are crazy, I can see no justification in people needing guns at all, their purpose is to kill and therefore by owning one you are opening the possiblity of you using it (same as knives).
Yes there are guns in the UK (strictly no guns), but incidents with them are few and far between (despite media hype) and we have armed response units (as police have no guns either) which deal with them. The system works here, I just don't see why people feel the need to have a gun. You can NOT tell me it increases safety.

Sure, but the reality is there already are **lots** of guns here. Outlawing them now would be like closing the barn door after the horses have run away...too late.

 

[Cyrus]

Reinforcing my previous post. I saw a newspaper article a while back, can't remember where it was, about a child who was given an UZI for some reason (I think it was at a fair as a shooting attraction) and he fired it, it kicked back so violently as he had never shot one before, he ended up shooting himself in the head. Anyone heard of this?

Round and round we dance.

Segway about iraq in 3...2...1... post

 

[JaredJames]

I'll be blunt cyrus, I've given up trying to keep this on topic now, just going with the flow.
If you have nothing constructive to say, just leave. (And that's the nice version of what's going through my head).

 

[skeptic2]

Reinforcing my previous post. I saw a newspaper article a while back, can't remember where it was, about a child who was given an UZI for some reason (I think it was at a fair as a shooting attraction) and he fired it, it kicked back so violently as he had never shot one before, he ended up shooting himself in the head. Anyone heard of this?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/11/08/questions_grow_after_uzi_death_of_child/

 

[Cyrus]

I'll be blunt cyrus, I've given up trying to keep this on topic now, just going with the flow.
If you have nothing constructive to say, just leave. (And that's the nice version of what's going through my head).

We started people busting into your home and now its going to go off into anti-gun rants and kids shooting themselves with UZIs...hmmmmm.