Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread 2

[nik-]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I'm concerned about cavalier attitudes to taking someone's life or mobility.

lol they're breaking into your house. This isn't some random person on the street, or ringing your doorbell. It's not cavalier at all.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm not really concerned with how it affects crime rates. I'm concerned with people's ability to protect themselves and their families in their houses to the fullest.

I get that a house invasion is more psychologically damaging, as my house was broken into many years ago. However, I think you need to consider the actual consequences of such a law.

More guns.

More guns in the house. Much higher chance of your own kid dying, let alone what may be a kid breaking into your house, looking for quick cash or drugs.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol they're breaking into your house. This isn't some random person on the street, or ringing your doorbell. It's not cavalier at all.

lol............

[nik-]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

lol............

lol............................................... .......................

are we good now?

[D as in David]

The problem as I see it is that some people feel that having their doorbell rung by a stranger also destroys their sense of safety and well being in their most personal space.

[devo22]

it's a ####ing doorbell. Is shooting postmen and delivery guys going to be a thing soon then?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by D as in David

The problem as I see it is that some people feel that having their doorbell rung by a stranger also destroys their sense of safety and well being in their most personal space.

Yeah, those people are idiots. Someone ringing a doorbell, literally announcing their presence with a gong, is very much not an intruder. Even trespassing shouldn't be covered under castle laws, there's no reasonable sense of imminent danger if someone appears in your backyard.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by D as in David

The problem as I see it is that some people feel that having their doorbell rung by a stranger also destroys their sense of safety and well being in their most personal space.

Snowflakes...

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by devo22

it's a ####ing doorbell. Is shooting postmen and delivery guys going to be a thing soon then?

why not? pretty sure bullets expire if you don't use them.

[Just a guy]

Originally Posted by nik-

Nah, it's not just stuff when it's in your house. The consequences for invading someone's home should be extreme. If you don't want to potentially lose your life, or be crippled, don't break into someone's home.

People who confront an intruder shouldn't have to play instant psychologist to determine how far they're willing to go and how much force is reasonable. #### that.

Not a gun guy, but tend to agree with Nik. When someone is in your house and you are there it is not about stuff. It is about safety. You have no idea what the person is there for or what they are capable of. They obviously have no problem breaking the law and we have no idea which lines they won't cross.

That being said I recall a case where an 80 year old man caught someone breaking into his boathouse (not really a personal safety issue) and fired at the intruder. The intruder returned fire and killed the 80 year old. So people need to get rid of the popular version of I will just shoot them and it is over. There is risk in any violent encounter.

So as I said I tend to agree, but realize there is risk in doing so. So how do you decide which risk is greater. Likely has to do with personal circumstances (locality, crime rate, murder rate, etc).

[metroneck]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm not really concerned with how it affects crime rates. I'm concerned with people's ability to protect themselves and their families in their houses to the fullest.

I get where you’re coming from, and I would lean towards wanting to unload my over/under into an intruders kneecaps, but that is the problem. The horrible feeling of being violated from home invasion does not justify capital or corporal punishment, here or in the US.

You are within your rights to protect yourself with force, if you are truly in harms way. The difference between Canada and various US States is how you define the perception of harms way.

You are more likely to F you and your family up, with the Florida model, than the Canadian model.

Let them do their thing and get away. The risk of the other option is not worth it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by metroneck

I get where you’re coming from, and I would lean towards wanting to unload my over/under into an intruders kneecaps, but that is the problem. The horrible feeling of being violated from home invasion does not justify capital or corporal punishment, here or in the US.

You are within your rights to protect yourself with force, if you are truly in harms way. The difference between Canada and various US States is how you define the perception of harms way.

You are more likely to F you and your family up, with the Florida model, than the Canadian model.

Let them do their thing and get away. The risk of the other option is not worth it.

You are within your rights to protect yourself with "reasonable force" which is not defined and needs to be determined in the heat of the moment. The requirement for reasonable force is hilariously an unreasonable expectation. How do I know what this person will do? Why is it on the victim to make that instantaneous distinction?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol they're breaking into your house. This isn't some random person on the street, or ringing your doorbell. It's not cavalier at all.

How many legit random home invasions have you heard of? This is more like, “f***, I bought all these goddamn guns, I need to use them somehow on someone”. Like, seriously, I bet if you even confronted someone who was actually breaking in and they saw you had a gun, they’d leave. Shooting them is just excessive.

[nik-]

Well I own no guns, so in this scenario I'll probably just end up throwing pans at them.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol............................................... .......................

are we good now?

Nah, I think you are wrong.

I fundamentally don't agree with you.

So no, on this topic we ain't good.

I reckon guns kept in homes for the sake of "home protection" are far and away more likely to be involved in accident shootings, or assaults or suicide attempts than to be used to "defend your castle".

So if you are willing to expose your family to that increased risk....

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well I own no guns, so in this scenario I'll probably just end up throwing pans at them.

Have you fired many weapons?

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Have you fired many weapons?

Or thrown pans?

[nik-]

oh I've thrown pans, I was a champion pan thrower in my day.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Have you fired many weapons?

Not "many". I don't own guns, I don't want to own guns. My home defense item would never be a gun. I do think that people should 100% have the right to use them to protect themselves in their homes though. And I don't think they should be forced to perform a continuous calculation about threat level in the moment to do so.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

Not "many". I don't own guns, I don't want to own guns. My home defense item would never be a gun. I do think that people should 100% have the right to use them to protect themselves in their homes though. And I don't think they should be forced to perform a continuous calculation about threat level in the moment to do so.

Just based on perception, it seems like allowing people to do that really just causes an increase in the likelihood of innocent people dying (family, usually) by accident, assault, or suicide, and doesn’t have any tangible impact on home invasions.

It’s great to say “people should be able to use guns to protect their homes” but it seems to have more negative affects than positive ones.