Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Depends on the state. I can defend my home, but they must be IN my home (IN and KY are both this way. dunno about others). There are ways around the property thing, though,How is coming through the window not count? The house must sit in a lot, which is presumably the owner's property.
Wow, Some pretty brave people here. I know myself if it came right down to it, It would be a very dangerous game to try and defend my loved ones from armed robbers. I can shoot a gun. I have 2. But going up against 3 armed robbers who would probably shoot first and not even ask questions, I don't know. Mind you these robbers probably do this alot and have more time behind a gun than me. Mind you they are desperate and liable to do anything, including shooting your loved ones if they feel a threat. Escalating the situation is never a good idea unless there is no alternative. As for being prepared, no one prepares for something like that. How long have you people lived in America? We don't prepare for anything. A small percentage may, but that would be it. These people were probably being staked out by these creeps. They thought easy money, he used his brain and got creative and it worked. Good for him. Let's not blame him for being just like 98 percent of the rest of the population.
You must not live in the USA. Here, special consideration is given when someone is theatened inside their own home. Once the bad guys crossed the threshold of his house with intent to commit a crime, the residents can use any means necessary to neutralize the threat. Often times civilians have far more leeway in their use of deadly force than police officers do. Your life is precious, and our laws recognize that and the fact that you don't have to wait for someone else to protect it.
You must not understand what a castle law is and what protection it offers the person. in the state of maryland you have to retreat into your house until you cannot retreat anymore and then, only then can you use deadly force. also, even in this case you open yourself to issues with the law. people need to realize that state law runs a wide gamut and better educate themselves,
Like I said in a previous post, I'm using him as an example to point out, like you said, that 98% of people are not prepared to deal with something like this. I'm advocating that those 98% seek out training to prepare themselves.
Just to be a devils advocate, those 98% of people tend not to prioritize this as they see the chances of their home being invaded as slim. Investing all the time/money required in order to become efficient at defending their home just does not seem necessary.
I wonder how many of those same people also don't have car insurance, home insurance, or don't even own a fire extinguisher at home? All of that is stuff we spend money on despite the fact that we hope to never need it. Your car, your home, your "stuff" can all be replaced. You can't be replaced, so why would you ignore the preservation of the one thing you have that once taken can never be gotten back??
That renders the "money" argument moot but what about the time factor? I've seen the word "training" thrown around quite a bit but I haven't seen anyone detail what is required. I highly doubt a "Firearms Safety" course would be sufficient enough to explain fields of fire, how to clear a room, active/passive defensive plans, stairway entries, etc. And should you find one that covers all of that, taking one course would not be sufficient as you would need to constantly practice/train. And of course you need to factor in all the time spent at the range becoming proficient with your weapon. Can you really expect the Johnsons living with their 2.5 children in their suburban home to do all of that?
Not everybody believes in picking up a gun to end a dispute like this. Crazy way to think though, the mentality of guns=bad is rampant in the world. Must be because of the violence that they are attributed to. Anyways, we live in a free country, there are more than one way to do things.
That renders the "money" argument moot but what about the time factor? I've seen the word "training" thrown around quite a bit but I haven't seen anyone detail what is required. I highly doubt a "Firearms Safety" course would be sufficient enough to explain fields of fire, how to clear a room, active/passive defensive plans, stairway entries, etc. And should you find one that covers all of that, taking one course would not be sufficient as you would need to constantly practice/train. And of course you need to factor in all the time spent at the range becoming proficient with your weapon. Can you really expect the Johnsons living with their 2.5 children in their suburban home to do all of that?
Dude sees grandma and sister being attacked and his first reponse is to hide and update his facebook status? This could have ended horribly in so many ways. He really should put down the laptop periodically and visit his local gun range once in a while to learn how to really defend his family.
See, you are making my point for me. It shouldn't be considered an act of bravery or heroism to stand up and defend yourself and your family, it should be instinct. Yes it is dangerous to engage armed thugs, however I suggest it's even more dangerous to put yourself at their mercy and hope for the best.
How is defending yourself considered escalating? If you don't defend yourself, who will? The Police are a great asset to society, but you can't have them with you all day, and as a US Supreme Court case determined about two years ago, the Police have no duty to protect you (the case involved a woman who was killed by a stalker despite having a restraining order against him and a police protective order on herself. Her family sued, eventually got to the SCOTUS and they ruled that the police have no duty to protect any individual, and can't be held liable if something happens even after they offered such protection).
Like I said in a previous post, I'm using him as an example to point out, like you said, that 98% of people are not prepared to deal with something like this. I'm advocating that those 98% seek out training to prepare themselves. Whether a gun, martial arts, whatever. We should not have to accept that being a victim is the price we pay for living in a modern civilized society. Even in a modern and highly evolved society like the US, there are still bad people willing to do bad things to good people. The good people need to take a bit more responsibility for their own wellbeing. No one cares about your life as much as you do, so its just basic logic that if you want to preserve your life, you should probably be an active participant.
While I totally agree with your point, the point I am trying to make is not everyone can be trained for such a thing. You can train a person to weild and use a gun, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD use one. I see people come into my workplace frequently and try to train on my area. Some people get it, some don't. Some we keep, some we send packing. All the training in the world is not going to help someone if they just don't get it. This kid used what he knew and it worked, thankfully.
Two words. Front Site.
friends request sent...
That renders the "money" argument moot but what about the time factor? I've seen the word "training" thrown around quite a bit but I haven't seen anyone detail what is required. I highly doubt a "Firearms Safety" course would be sufficient enough to explain fields of fire, how to clear a room, active/passive defensive plans, stairway entries, etc. And should you find one that covers all of that, taking one course would not be sufficient as you would need to constantly practice/train. And of course you need to factor in all the time spent at the range becoming proficient with your weapon. Can you really expect the Johnsons living with their 2.5 children in their suburban home to do all of that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQP4-Ijw
If an 11 year old girl can do it, I'd like to think a 20 year old is more than capable. Remember, there are teenagers fighting in wars all across the globe, since when did 20 become such a tender and helpless age?
You do realize that in the 11 year olds case, it was 3 teenagers in the home. If say, it was 3 20-30 year olds, people that aren't afraid to hurt you, that kid would have been screwed. How many mature burglers you think are scared of a small pink bolt action rifle wielded by an 11 year old? Not many.
As for the topic at hand, the guy was resourceful and used what he had at his disposal to safely alert police without endangering himself or his family. Know why you never hear the story about the individuals getting their pistol and trying to defend against 3 burglers? Usually it doesn't go so well for them.