How awful to be always living in fear of strangers.

Again, I am not talking about 'entering' I'm talking about walking/driving up your road or knocking at your door!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

I fear no one, including someone who enters my home illegally. There'd be no reason to; he'd be dead shortly thereafter...

Knock on my door, and I'll answer it. If you need directions, I'll give them to you. Open the front door to my home, and the last step you ever take will be when the second foot crosses the threshold.

you used the word "intruder". Well, here ya' go:

Intruder:

Pronunciation: \in-ˈtrüd\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in·trud·ed; in·trud·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin intrudere to thrust in, from in- + trudere to thrust — more at threat
Date: 15th century
intransitive verb
1 : to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome
2 : to enter as a geological intrusion
transitive verb
1 : to thrust or force in or upon someone or something especially without permission, welcome, or fitness <intruded himself into their lives>
2 : to cause to enter as if by force
— in·trud·er noun[/quote]

None of that sounds as thought it's based in good intentions.

Now, maybe you're cool with waiting to see what an intruder in your home wants, but I am not. You have no business being in my home, so I must, for the sake of my family, assume that you mean us harm. I will, therefore, act accordingly, and put your lungs all over my foyer...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

None of that sounds as thought it's based in good intentions.

Now, maybe you're cool with waiting to see what an intruder in your home wants, but I am not. You have no business being in my home, so I must, for the sake of my family, assume that you mean us harm. I will, therefore, act accordingly, and put your lungs all over my foyer...[/quote]

FFS, Steve, I merely used the word 'intruder' for convenience's sake as that was the word you used. Benign intruder means 'not dangerous'! I could have used the word 'visitor'.

You can't just go around shooting people.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

One man's paranoia is another man's cautious. Home invasions happen. Burglaries happen. In the past 3 years, my house has been broken into once, and my truck 3 times. It doesn't just happen to the other guy.

__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” --Edmund Burke

One inside and one outside. The outside dog is a hunting dog, and the inside is a inside dog (I would say lap dog, but he's too big for that). What I am saying, is that if you ignore my barking outdoor dog, ignore my barking indoor dog, and ignore my alarm going off (and it is loud), my wife will be on the phone calling the police, in the kids' room, armed, while I confront you. And if you do not immediately obey my commands, you will get hurt (I'm a good shot, but can't guarantee that I will actually kill you).

As for benign intruders, if they are looking for directions or what-have-you, they will knock or ring the doorbell. They will not be greeted by an armed homeowner. My neighbors are far enough away that they will probably not hear any gunshots, much less my alarm or my dogs. So truly, in the end, it is just me defending my wife and kids until the police arrive. So you'll forgive me if I don't stop and ask your intentions when you have broken into my house.

For what it's worth, the dogs have been pretty good about keeping us safe. I mostly keep the guns for camping and hunting, now, as I do not think that anyone would be foolish enough to intrude on my domicile.

But I keep sharp in memory of Dylan Groene, and keep in memory what happened to him, his sister, mother, and other members of their household.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Agree, 100 percent.

Hey, he lives in a remote area - I've seen remote areas like that in the US ... not a soul to be seen for miles. I don't blame him for installing the security system and having guns for personal protection. Hell, even 911 would probably take a while to get to where he is. So no, not paranoia.

As you can probably tell, I'm in favor of owning guns for personal protection, but NOT vigilante justice or random shooting - and the two aren't connected for the most part either.

I understand what you are saying. Most responsible gun owners would likely NOT shoot at someone who clearly means no harm and is a "benign trespasser" as you say. I know many people who carry guns, and they all have a general sense of awareness about them as to when to actually USE the gun (when it's really warranted). There may be some kooks out there, but I don't think we should take away gun ownership rights from the general public just because of a few kooks.

As far as the trespass issue goes, I would never shoot if I saw someone trespassing, even intentionally - I'd give the person one, perhaps two warnings. However if he didn't leave AFTER being warned, I have to say I'd be shoving a barrel up his nose ... hey, he was TOLD to leave, and didn't.

As far as someone knocking on doors goes, absolutely no reason to shoot a person simply because of that and I doubt most responsible gun owners would even THINK of doing that.

I think even in the US they have something about 'reasonable response to a danger' or something like that. Or does that only apply to law enforcers?

There are friends of mine who live in fairly remote areas and the have shotguns. However, this is usually not for protection from humans but snakes or to put one of their animals out of pain.

Who is this person Groen, we haven't heard of anything over here. I am well aware that there will always be a situation where one can't take one's way out of, or run fast enough and one can be badly hurt or killed. However, carrying a gun 'just in case', is still beyond my understanding. I pay taxes and that's a job for the police.

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

I think we are dealing with two situations here.

One where you keep a gun in your home for protection.

The other where you carry a gun for protection.

I find the former problematic and the latter, weird!

I'm sorry but I think it all boils down to the fact that I grew up in a time when even policeman didn't carry guns. It wasn't until I came home from New Zealand in 1978 (where police still didn't wear guns) to Australia where I was aghast that in my absence carrying by police was accepted. I still find it weird!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

Well, we've discussed the former at length.

The latter, well I don't think it's wierd, but perhaps it's unnecessary to carry a gun on ones person unless there are special situations (if your carring excess amounts of cash, for instance). That being said, this is subject to personal opinion. Another case would be carrying a gun in one's car/vehicle - perhaps unnecessary to some, but again, I wouldnt call it wierd.

Ha, the Kiwi cops were just like old time British bobbies, I see.

I'm also originally from a society where most law abiding citizens don't own guns, but the criminals manage to get a hold of such ... thus my views on this.

Sure. I don't know what the technical term is, but you have to prove that you had sufficient reason to kill/shoot the person - no, that does not just apply to the cops. It applies to private gun owners equally.

So, killing someone for knocking on your door would land you in prison as far as I know, and rightfully so.

Well, nothing wrong with that ...

Neither had I, to be honest. I googled, and it seems he's the the young boy involved in a horrific murder/sex assault crime.

Remains Identified as Dylan Groene's
Joseph E. Duncan III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, the "just in case" is exactly the situation you articluated in the first sentence ...

What would you do in such a case where you couldn't run fast enough and could be hurt or killed? Would you not rather have a means by which to protect yourself?

If you choose to leave it for the police, then thats perfectly fine, but in my opinion, those who prefer to take care of the matter themselves should be allowed. I see what you meant by not allowing vigilante justice (I think you brought this up), but in some instances, deadly force is REQUIRED to save one's own life or protect onself. For instance, if a group of thugs breaks into your house with the sole purpose of robbery/rape/other horrific crimes and won't hesitate to kill if you if necessary, then I doubt you'd have the time to call the cops to take care of it. Even if you DID, the thugs would probably escape by then.

You mean, by being less likely to attack? Not a bad response.

Seriously, isn't that better than having the criminals knowing you are unarmed and acting accordingly?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Here's what you fail to understand.

Even though I may be carrying a firearm, I will still do everything possible to de-escalate, defuse and avoid a confrontation. If given the choice between getting into a lethal force encounter and running, I'll scream like a little girl and run.

But at the end of your sentence we find the true difference. Faced with the gravest extreme, where an armed criminal is intent on harming me or my family, I am not forced to hope the police get there in time, because I have one last option that you don't have.

You say you find it weird that someone would carry a firearm for that last case. You prefer to dial the police and hope they can get there before the criminal is finished raping you, or stabbing you to death, or both.

How do you think this woman would have fared under that plan? http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pb...=2007703050350

Note also who saved her - a lawfully armed citizen.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Right - you are conditioned through your upbringing to fear guns.

Why should your fear of an inanimate object prevent me from having the tools to defend myself or my family in the gravest extreme?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

No you just need to clarify it with authorites of foreign nations as i understand it, they will let you carry it if they know before hand unless there's some law stating no civillian in the entire country can bear arms. And even still they have foreigor/tourist/overseas gun owner/gun trading laws that specify to different situations.