"why would people bring up a woman who died from an idiot licking off blindfire in an apartment complex in this topic about why licking off blindfire in an apartment is bad gee willickers too confusing better be a child"There are big differences between the two.
I can't prove this, but why does it feel like that user was one of the ones insisting that Breonna Taylor's death was her fault for "associating" with her boyfriend?You notice how I'm not the one inappropriately bringing up her name in a failed attempt to win an argument while crying when asked to explain how the two situations are any way comparable besides merely involving guns?
Maybe the intentional bad faith arguments are reminding me of someone else.
I don't think anything about this situation compares to those other than location.
Comparing this to Taylor is overly reductive at best.I bring it up because that is the likely end result when you lick off blindfire in an apartment complex.
I bring it up because that is the likely end result when you lick off blindfire in an apartment complex.I don't know if I'd call this responsible gun ownership so much as I'm willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt considering he was under threat in his own home. In a situation like that pure reason is not a realistic expectation to put on an average person in potentially lethal peril.
This situation is unfortunate, sure, but we've got people in here acting like it's responsible gun ownership.
The armed robbers were the aggressors in this situation and he had good reasons to fire unlike the cop.
The victim here knew apparently knew beforehand that nobody was home there reducing the chance for harm.
Other gun owners have said in this topic that he didn't have a good reason to fire without seeing his targets or checking if it was clear behind his targets.I think he saw the targets through the surveillance camera but but fired in panic after seeing they were armed and trying to break in.
That's half the standard met, established above. Space behind his targets was supposedly clear, and he would have been firing in good faith.
(I don't know about apartment construction and how many layers of drywall a bullet can go through, so I'm willing to concede it might have been safe to fire with the apartment behind his assailants.)
He still opened fire without seeing what he was firing at. That's the dangerous and irresponsible part.
Thankfully my apartment is across the street and bans gun ownership so my likelihood of that happening to me is low.That doesn't seem legal to me
That doesn't seem legal to meIdc enough to fight for my 2nd amendment rights considering I hope I never find myself in a situation where I need to use a gun.
You do not have castle doctrine protections until they cross the threshold. You cannot shoot through the door like that.You can in Texas.
You do not have castle doctrine protections until they cross the threshold. You cannot shoot through the door like that.Please don't talk so confidently about things you don't understand.
You do not have castle doctrine protections until they cross the threshold. You cannot shoot through the door like that.So another dude that thinks this guy should have just let the robbers inside before protecting himself first. So odd. Lord knows none of you making that suggestion would follow it were you in his shoes, so why does it keep on being brought up?
I literally said he should have waited for them to break down the door and then shoot them, WHEN HE HAD AN ACTUAL LINE OF SIGHT, instead of doing something that would have needlessly endangered their neighbors were they home.While I can't disagree that him blind firing through the door was potentially dangerous; I don't blame the guy for being scared & trying to defend himself at all. If they got through the door there's the possibility that him and his brother could've been hurt or killed. Thankfully nobody was home next door.
You do not have castle doctrine protections until they cross the threshold. You cannot shoot through the door like that.Legality=/=morality
Legality=/=moralityHe's also flat out wrong
Bunch of wannabe tough guys in here pretending they would wait for the home invaders to get through the door before firing.Kinda ironic how we're posting on a video game websight and none of those people would even advise doing that in a video game cause it would obviously just get you killed lol.
He's also flat out wrongLaws vary. I'm not too concerned about the law. I don't even feel the need to own a gun. But if I was armed and an armed intruder breaking down my door, my first priority is my safety. Not the law, not some set of gun safety rules. If the rules say you're probably gonna die, fuck the rules.
Just the criminals outside the door.
The dude who was doing mule kicks against the door had a gun in his hand. You wait for the door to open, you're not the only one who has a "better view" of who they're trying to shoot.
It's absolutely bonkers to me that some people think there's an obligation to 'wait for a criminal to gain entry before defending yourself'
It's unrealistic and absurd.
Kind of a rock and a hard place. Someone with a gun kicking in your door is an imminent threat. There isn't a simple set of rules you can just apply to a life and death situation like that.
so did the robbers get caught or whatYeah, they got 'im
that's good, but I'm really confused by the situation. why them? why pretend to be workers if they're just going to kick open the door? and why not just kick open somebody else's door who didn't answer if they were just looking for shit to steal and not out to kill someone?I think after the conversation through the speaker they thought no one was home, which is strange because that convo through the speaker should have told them at least that there's a camera.
I go back to
The guy was home and said no one was home over the speaker. I feel like all he had to say was "I'm not going to open the door." Or "I'm calling the office right now.".
I go back to
The guy was home and said no one was home over the speaker. I feel like all he had to say was "I'm not going to open the door." Or "I'm calling the office right now.".
Also anyone that actually watched the video will see the bullets hit the neighbors cement wallsThat's the part people have a problem with. He shouldn't be blindly firing with the neighboring apartment as a backstop. He's just as likely to kill the intruders as he is someone who is occupying that apartment.
That's the part people have a problem with. He shouldn't be blindly firing with the neighboring apartment as a backstop. He's just as likely to kill the intruders as he is someone who is occupying that apartment.So what should he have done then, wait for them to come inside?
So what should he have done then, wait for them to come inside?
How many posts and you're still asking the same question that's already been answered by multiple users?Turns out having a bunch of people insist they'll John Wick the home invaders once they let them inside their home doesn't stop being funny.
Turns out having a bunch of people insist they'll John Wick the home invaders once they let them inside their home doesn't stop being funny.
Sure. Sure.So what happens when the victim fires and misses? He has now let two people inside his home that are trying to kill him and his gun is now empty. And before you insist that it's impossible for the homeowner to miss, I'd just like to remind you that's exactly what he did when he shot the first 13 rounds at the home invaders in the video.
"Wait until you can see your target in front of your gun before firing center mass in the middle of your line of sight/lane," is so John Wick and not basic firearms operator guidelines.
So what happens when the victim fires and misses? He has now let two people inside his home that are trying to kill him and his gun is now empty. And before you insist that it's impossible for the homeowner to miss, I'd just like to remind you that's exactly what he did when he shot the first 13 rounds at the home invaders in the video.
Yea no shit he missed 13 times. Hitting a person you can't even see sounds like John Wick shit. If you can't hit a person on the other side of a room that you can see with 13 shots then you should not have a gun.Ok so the victim let's them inside. He then shoots 13 times, then the first home invader shoots 13 times, and then the second home invader also shoots 13 times.
So what happens when the victim fires and misses? He has now let two people inside his home that are trying to kill him and his gun is now empty. And before you insist that it's impossible for the homeowner to miss, I'd just like to remind you that's exactly what he did when he shot the first 13 rounds at the home invaders in the video.Who is saying that he should let them into his home? Who the fuck are you talking to?
Who is saying that he should let them into his home? Who the fuck are you talking to?Why do you guys keep on saying this then proceed to outline scenarios where that's exactly what you're describing? It's so freaking weird.
Why do you guys keep on saying this then proceed to outline scenarios where that's exactly what you're describing? It's so freaking weird.
Why do you guys keep on saying this then proceed to outline scenarios where that's exactly what you're describing? It's so freaking weird.I seriously want to know. Who has said that the victim here should have let the intruders into his home?