Poll of the Day > If someone broke into your house and you had a gun, would you shoot them?

(+) Yeah! (+)

knivesX2004 posted...

You're telling me you've never sneaked back into the house after curfew?

No, because I have a family that trusts me.
---

EvilMegas posted...

Long story short, me and my 3 brothers jumped him with long ranged shit like brooms and he fucked off. It was some random basehead high out of his mind

How do you think it would have went if you and or they had a gun?

knivesX2004 posted...

ChouBF posted...

And yes, this is also why a lot of innocent people get killed by guns. You see a dark shape at night and your brain enters kill first, think later mode.

Dude. Come on.

Yeah, people get killed for making dumb decisions. Doesn't mean people are wrong for trying to defend their homes/themselves.

knivesX2004 posted...

EvilMegas posted...

Long story short, me and my 3 brothers jumped him with long ranged shit like brooms and he fucked off. It was some random basehead high out of his mind

How do you think it would have went if you and or they had a gun?

Fucking horribly, both ways. Guns make everything worse and I really like guns.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Krazy_Kirby posted...

in CA you cant shoot unless they are threatening/harming you/family.

break in, grab tv and start to leave? better not shoot the person who broke in to your home and steals your stuff

Makes sense. TVs are not worth more than human lives, after all.

Note that it doesn't say you have to sit there and do nothing - there's a crime in progress, and you are allowed to attempt to stop it after all - you're just not allowed to deliberately kill the guy doing it. I don't know of too many people who can fight or run very well while carrying a TV, so dropping the guy wouldn't be particularly difficult.

it doesn't make sense. if someone breaks into your house you should be able to shoot them. they commited a crime by entering your home.
---

ChouBF posted...

Yeah, people get killed for making dumb decisions. Doesn't mean people are wrong for trying to defend their homes/themselves.

Do I need to define the word "innocent bystander" for you? It looks like I might need to.

Everyone, I want you all to realize that knives is a professional victim. You will NEVER convince someone to defend themselves when they define themselves by how they think they are being oppressed.

Noop_Noop posted...

Everyone, I want you all to realize that knives is a professional victim. You will NEVER convince someone to defend themselves when they define themselves by how they think they are being oppressed.

Way to argue for your cause.
Ad hominem and (false) victim blaming.

knivesX2004 posted...

Damn look at all the cold blooded badasses in here who have never had to kill someone before. I bet it's really easy though and you'll feel super great about doing it because it was self defense. Just like all those soldiers with PTSD and shooter's guilt.

I mean, you wouldn't?

It all comes down to wether you value your/family life more than you value the life of the attacker.

I won't go around shooting people, but if I have a gun and someone broke into my house, why wouldn't I shoot? They broke into my house for a reason, and more than likely is to cause some kind of harm to me or my family. The whole "only point my gun at then" is a stupid ass thing to say. If you pull out a gun, is to use it. You do not know what's going on in that persons mind.

I would rather have PTSD and have the guilt of killing a human being than being killed or my family being killed.
---

knivesX2004 posted...

Noop_Noop posted...

Everyone, I want you all to realize that knives is a professional victim. You will NEVER convince someone to defend themselves when they define themselves by how they think they are being oppressed.

Way to argue for your cause.
Ad hominem and (false) victim blaming.

There is a difference between a victim and a professional victim home. Professional victims (like you) are not actual victims, they just crave the attention they get by screaming 'I am oppressed!'

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

knivesX2004 posted...

Assault rifles are for hobbiests and soldiers. Not for self defense.

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't know what an "assault rifle" is.

darkknight109 posted...

Note that it doesn't say you have to sit there and do nothing - there's a crime in progress, and you are allowed to attempt to stop it after all - you're just not allowed to deliberately kill the guy doing it. I don't know of too many people who can fight or run very well while carrying a TV, so dropping the guy wouldn't be particularly difficult.

That sounds great unless you're a 5'2 110 lb. woman and he's a 200 lb+ male. Guns are an equalizer.
---

knivesX2004 posted...

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

I thought this was just a simple question TC had asked...
---

LinkPizza posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

I thought this was just a simple question TC had asked...

It was, he's just trying to change the topic.
---

Smarkil posted...

That sounds great unless you're a 5'2 110 lb. woman and he's a 200 lb+ male. Guns are an equalizer.

In a fight between a 110 lb woman and a 200 lb man whose hands are occupied by a TV, my money is still on the woman.

And even if that wasn't the case, see previous point: a TV is not more valuable than a human life.
---

VeeVees posted...

LinkPizza posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

I thought this was just a simple question TC had asked...

It was, he's just trying to change the topic.

The topic kind of evolved into this after seeing the replies but I'm also talking (?) to gun nuts in other topics so I apologize if my posts from there are bleeding into here.

Viking_Mudcrap posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Damn look at all the cold blooded badasses in here who have never had to kill someone before. I bet it's really easy though and you'll feel super great about doing it because it was self defense. Just like all those soldiers with PTSD and shooter's guilt.

I mean, you wouldn't?

It all comes down to wether you value your/family life more than you value the life of the attacker.

I won't go around shooting people, but if I have a gun and someone broke into my house, why wouldn't I shoot? They broke into my house for a reason, and more than likely is to cause some kind of harm to me or my family. The whole "only point my gun at then" is a stupid ass thing to say. If you pull out a gun, is to use it. You do not know what's going on in that persons mind.

I would rather have PTSD and have the guilt of killing a human being than being killed or my family being killed.

Having a gun in the house gives false sense of security. I dont have exact statistics, but far too often, when people think someone is breaking into their home and shoot the person, it turns out they shot a family member and not a burglar.
---

TyVulpine posted...

I dont have exact statistics, but far too often

"Even 1 is 1 too many."

Your team's rhetoric invalidates your credibility.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

I dont have exact statistics, but far too often

"Even 1 is 1 too many."

Your team's rhetoric invalidates your credibility.

No it doesnt. But youre just saying it is okay to shoot the family member because you thought they were a burglar. Wow.
---

Maybe it's the paranoid people. I'm not going to get my gun every time I hear a bump in the night.
---

if you shoot him in the back for instance, can't you be charged?

darkknight109 posted...

Smarkil posted...

That sounds great unless you're a 5'2 110 lb. woman and he's a 200 lb+ male. Guns are an equalizer.

In a fight between a 110 lb woman and a 200 lb man whose hands are occupied by a TV, my money is still on the woman.

And even if that wasn't the case, see previous point: a TV is not more valuable than a human life.

You do know he could just set the TV down for a few seconds, right? Or just kick her
---

knivesX2004 posted...

VeeVees posted...

LinkPizza posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

I thought this was just a simple question TC had asked...

It was, he's just trying to change the topic.

The topic kind of evolved into this after seeing the replies but I'm also talking (?) to gun nuts in other topics so I apologize if my posts from there are bleeding into here.

It didn't "evolve". You just kept bringing up irrelevant scenarios over and over again.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe it's the paranoid people. I'm not going to get my gun every time I hear a bump in the night.

And while the people in this topic might not be paranoid or have a history of mental issues that doesn't mean every single person who thinks the same way doesn't. And yet, no background checks or medical history checks...

I'd announce that I was armed and give then a chance to skip.

Yea I would shoot them if they wanted to take it too far.

It's the difference in the police finding their body or my own.
---

if you shoot him in the back for instance, can't you be charged?

Yes.

You have to shoot them in their chest.

They also have to be in your home and not just on your property.

It also have to be seen that they had broken in... because the police could assume that you invited some fool into your home and shot them to death.
---

knivesX2004 posted...

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

and i am saying that you, as a professional victim, prefer empty words and high minded rhetoric over action, and therefore do not have any other desire to defend yourself, because you value being a victim over being empowered, because victims get attention.

if you do not understand the value of self defense, then you are not going to understand why people want or need guns to protect their homes. its a pointless argument.
---

i wouldn't. i'd just hide my family until they got the stuff and got the fuck out then i'd call the police.

i have insurance on my property and a tv or video console isn't worth anyone's life including a robber.
---

synth_real posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Smarkil posted...

That sounds great unless you're a 5'2 110 lb. woman and he's a 200 lb+ male. Guns are an equalizer.

In a fight between a 110 lb woman and a 200 lb man whose hands are occupied by a TV, my money is still on the woman.

And even if that wasn't the case, see previous point: a TV is not more valuable than a human life.

You do know he could just set the TV down for a few seconds, right? Or just kick her

I have an experiment for you - go pick up your TV, then try kicking something. Unless you have a pretty small TV, you're going to have a difficult time getting much power into it.

Kicking is also a really shitty defence unless you are actually trained. It puts you off-balance (when you're already top-heavy due to holding a heavy TV) and most people can't kick above their own hips while still generating any respectable power (martial artists excepted). They're also generally pretty slow attacks compared to a punch.

As for putting the TV down, the robber is going to have a choice between dropping and likely breaking the TV, thus rendering it worthless for stealing, or taking several seconds to gently put it down somewhere, which is ample time for the woman to grab whatever melee tool is at hand (an umbrella, a lamp, a chair) and brain the guy with it.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

and i am saying that you, as a professional victim, prefer empty words and high minded rhetoric over action, and therefore do not have any other desire to defend yourself, because you value being a victim over being empowered, because victims get attention.

if you do not understand the value of self defense, then you are not going to understand why people want or need guns to protect their homes. its a pointless argument.

How am I a victim if this has never happened to me? You seriously need a dictionary.

I understand why people want guns to protect themselves. They are paranoid and like guns. Guns are cool.

I don't understand why you need them and nothing anyone has said in this topic has convinced me yet.

darkknight109 posted...

I have an experiment for you - go pick up your TV, then try kicking something. Unless you have a pretty small TV, you're going to have a difficult time getting much power into it.

Kicking is also a really shitty defence unless you are actually trained. It puts you off-balance (when you're already top-heavy due to holding a heavy TV) and most people can't kick above their own hips while still generating any respectable power (martial artists excepted). They're also generally pretty slow attacks compared to a punch.

As for putting the TV down, the robber is going to have a choice between dropping and likely breaking the TV, thus rendering it worthless for stealing, or taking several seconds to gently put it down somewhere, which is ample time for the woman to grab whatever melee tool is at hand (an umbrella, a lamp, a chair) and brain the guy with it.

So in your scenario you're assuming A. all people that break and enter are only there to steal and just ignore anyone in the house, and B. that a man getting hit with an umbrella wouldn't just drop a tv (that he doesn't own) and beat the shit out her/kill her?
---

Yeppers.
---

knivesX2004 posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

Irrelevant.
This issue is about why people need to have guns to protect their homes. Stop trying to change the topic.

and i am saying that you, as a professional victim, prefer empty words and high minded rhetoric over action, and therefore do not have any other desire to defend yourself, because you value being a victim over being empowered, because victims get attention.

if you do not understand the value of self defense, then you are not going to understand why people want or need guns to protect their homes. its a pointless argument.

How am I a victim if this has never happened to me? You seriously need a dictionary.

I understand why people want guns to protect themselves. They are paranoid and like guns. Guns are cool.

I don't understand why you need them and nothing anyone has said in this topic has convinced me yet.

remember when i said that there is a difference between a professional victim, and a victim, and how a big part of it is that professional victims are not actually victims? you seriously need to learn to read boyo

and no shit nothing is going to convince you, because you see more value in pretending to be a victim than you do in self defense.

that seems like a YOU problem
---

Jen0125 posted...

i wouldn't. i'd just hide my family until they got the stuff and got the fuck out then i'd call the police.

i have insurance on my property and a tv or video console isn't worth anyone's life including a robber.

what if hes not there for your TV? what if he is there to do you and your family harm? you gonna count on a 15 minute police response time while you cower under the bed? thats victim talk.
---

darkknight109 posted...

synth_real posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Smarkil posted...

That sounds great unless you're a 5'2 110 lb. woman and he's a 200 lb+ male. Guns are an equalizer.

In a fight between a 110 lb woman and a 200 lb man whose hands are occupied by a TV, my money is still on the woman.

And even if that wasn't the case, see previous point: a TV is not more valuable than a human life.

You do know he could just set the TV down for a few seconds, right? Or just kick her

I have an experiment for you - go pick up your TV, then try kicking something. Unless you have a pretty small TV, you're going to have a difficult time getting much power into it.

Kicking is also a really shitty defence unless you are actually trained. It puts you off-balance (when you're already top-heavy due to holding a heavy TV) and most people can't kick above their own hips while still generating any respectable power (martial artists excepted). They're also generally pretty slow attacks compared to a punch.

As for putting the TV down, the robber is going to have a choice between dropping and likely breaking the TV, thus rendering it worthless for stealing, or taking several seconds to gently put it down somewhere, which is ample time for the woman to grab whatever melee tool is at hand (an umbrella, a lamp, a chair) and brain the guy with it.

There is almost no scenario where a 110 pound woman stops a full grown 200 pound man. He'll stop her, you're delusional to think differently.

Troll_Police_ posted...

what if hes not there for your TV? what if he is there to do you and your family harm? you gonna count on a 15 minute police response time while you cower under the bed? thats victim talk.

that is such a rare occurrence. even if i have a gun there's not a guarantee i'd be able to do anything. if someone breaks in in the middle of the night while we're asleep there's not much reaction time there.
---

Troll_Police_ posted...

that seems like a YOU problem

I agree.
Me being afraid of mentally unstable people of shooting me is most definitely a me problem.

knivesX2004 posted...

Troll_Police_ posted...

that seems like a YOU problem

I agree.
Me being afraid of mentally unstable people of shooting me is most definitely a me problem.

It kinda does. I mean, letting someone shoot you when you had a gun is not good. The other option is you're the person breaking into a house and get shot...

ASlaveObeys posted...

darkknight109 posted...

synth_real posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Smarkil posted...

That sounds great unless you're a 5'2 110 lb. woman and he's a 200 lb+ male. Guns are an equalizer.

In a fight between a 110 lb woman and a 200 lb man whose hands are occupied by a TV, my money is still on the woman.

And even if that wasn't the case, see previous point: a TV is not more valuable than a human life.

You do know he could just set the TV down for a few seconds, right? Or just kick her

I have an experiment for you - go pick up your TV, then try kicking something. Unless you have a pretty small TV, you're going to have a difficult time getting much power into it.

Kicking is also a really shitty defence unless you are actually trained. It puts you off-balance (when you're already top-heavy due to holding a heavy TV) and most people can't kick above their own hips while still generating any respectable power (martial artists excepted). They're also generally pretty slow attacks compared to a punch.

As for putting the TV down, the robber is going to have a choice between dropping and likely breaking the TV, thus rendering it worthless for stealing, or taking several seconds to gently put it down somewhere, which is ample time for the woman to grab whatever melee tool is at hand (an umbrella, a lamp, a chair) and brain the guy with it.

There is almost no scenario where a 110 pound woman stops a full grown 200 pound man. He'll stop her, you're delusional to think differently.

Most likely, if he saw someone, he could always drop the tv. Because if he takes out the occupants of the house, he could always find another tv or more expensive stuff like jewelry/other electronics he could also sell. And maybe make more money off of...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Most likely, if he saw someone, he could always drop the tv. Because if he takes out the occupants of the house, he could always find another tv or more expensive stuff like jewelry/other electronics he could also sell. And maybe make more money off of...

most people who break into homes do not want to turn a robbery into a murder. that's why a lot of the homeowners that do shoot intruders get in hot water because they shoot the intruder while they're fleeing and are no longer a threat.
---

Jen0125 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Most likely, if he saw someone, he could always drop the tv. Because if he takes out the occupants of the house, he could always find another tv or more expensive stuff like jewelry/other electronics he could also sell. And maybe make more money off of...

most people who break into homes do not want to turn a robbery into a murder. that's why a lot of the homeowners that do shoot intruders get in hot water because they shoot the intruder while they're fleeing and are no longer a threat.

I'm just saying it's a possiblility...
---

Smarkil posted...

So in your scenario you're assuming A. all people that break and enter are only there to steal and just ignore anyone in the house, and B. that a man getting hit with an umbrella wouldn't just drop a tv (that he doesn't own) and beat the shit out her/kill her?

I already laid this out in my first post:

darkknight109 posted...

I will never willingly have a gun in my house, so this is a bit of a moot point, but if I ever did.

1. If I could run, I would do that and call the cops.
2. If they were blocking my escape route, but were not visibly armed, I would warn them that I was armed and tell them to leave.
3. I would only shoot if they attacked me or if they were visibly armed.

---

XBoner posted...

if you shoot him in the back for instance, can't you be charged?

unless they are attacking/going to attack someone then yes, you will be charged in most places
---

LinkPizza posted...

Jen0125 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Most likely, if he saw someone, he could always drop the tv. Because if he takes out the occupants of the house, he could always find another tv or more expensive stuff like jewelry/other electronics he could also sell. And maybe make more money off of...

most people who break into homes do not want to turn a robbery into a murder. that's why a lot of the homeowners that do shoot intruders get in hot water because they shoot the intruder while they're fleeing and are no longer a threat.

I'm just saying it's a possiblility...

anything is a possibility.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

XBoner posted...

if you shoot him in the back for instance, can't you be charged?

unless they are attacking/going to attack someone then yes, you will be charged in most places

Also shooting someone in the back is dishonorable.

I'd rather face someone who has a equal chance.
---

Jen0125 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Jen0125 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Most likely, if he saw someone, he could always drop the tv. Because if he takes out the occupants of the house, he could always find another tv or more expensive stuff like jewelry/other electronics he could also sell. And maybe make more money off of...

most people who break into homes do not want to turn a robbery into a murder. that's why a lot of the homeowners that do shoot intruders get in hot water because they shoot the intruder while they're fleeing and are no longer a threat.

I'm just saying it's a possiblility...

anything is a possibility.

Exactly. Which is why I said earlier, it would depend on the situation.
---

Jen. What if your boyfriend had a secret underground milk smuggling ring? And then the milk mafia came for you guys after a botched milk smuggling operation?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Jen. What if your boyfriend had a secret underground milk smuggling ring? And then the milk mafia came for you guys after a botched milk smuggling operation?

are you drunk?
---

Jen0125 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Jen. What if your boyfriend had a secret underground milk smuggling ring? And then the milk mafia came for you guys after a botched milk smuggling operation?

are you drunk?

Nope. Not yet. Work says I can't do that...
---

oh okay, so just saying stupid shit sober then.
---