Defensive Gun Use

[Blues Man]

Since there seems to be much interest in this subject, I think it's time to define our terms for the purpose of raising the level of the debate.

I know that most people here aren't really interested in an actual intellectual debate but rather prefer to snipe at each other with juvenile insults but one can hope.

So what consensus can we reach on a working definition of defensive gun use?

IMO we need to start with deciding if a person faced what a reasonable person would think is a threat to life or of bodily harm to oneself or another.

I'll suggest that a DGU is reasonable in the case of any contact crime where a would be assailant approaches an intended victim. Robbery, mugging, assault, breaking into a home can all be called contact crimes.

Personally I'm not sure if shooting at a person who is stealing property is a sufficient enough risk to safety to justify killing. I use the standard that if it's not worth dying for it's not worth killing over. I would never say killing a person for stealing a car is justified unless that person pulled a gun on you or tried to run you down.

I don't think chasing off a person who is cutting across your property is an example of a reasonable threat to a person's safety either. Now if that person approaches you even if they see you are armed I would call that a situation that escalates to a reasonable threat but now we need to decide how close that person needs to be. If the would be assailant is armed with any type of weapon that distance must be close enough that any reasonable person would consider it a threat to life or bodily safety.

Let's see if we can behave like adults in this discussion and not children on a playground.

 

[rightwinger]

Since there seems to be much interest in this subject, I think it's time to define our terms for the purpose of raising the level of the debate.

I know that most people here aren't really interested in an actual intellectual debate but rather prefer to snipe at each other with juvenile insults but one can hope.

So what consensus can we reach on a working definition of defensive gun use?

IMO we need to start with deciding if a person faced what a reasonable person would think is a threat to life or of bodily harm to oneself or another.

I'll suggest that a DGU is reasonable in the case of any contact crime where a would be assailant approaches an intended victim. Robbery, mugging, assault, breaking into a home can all be called contact crimes.

Personally I'm not sure if shooting at a person who is stealing property is a sufficient enough risk to safety to justify killing. I use the standard that if it's not worth dying for it's not worth killing over. I would never say killing a person for stealing a car is justified unless that person pulled a gun on you or tried to run you down.

I don't think chasing off a person who is cutting across your property is an example of a reasonable threat to a person's safety either. Now if that person approaches you even if they see you are armed I would call that a situation that escalates to a reasonable threat but now we need to decide how close that person needs to be. If the would be assailant is armed with any type of weapon that distance must be close enough that any reasonable person would consider it a threat to life or bodily safety.

Let's see if we can behave like adults in this discussion and not children on a playground.

I agree

It all comes down to threat and personal safety
A person trespassing or taking your “stuff” is not a personal threat.

 

[mak2]

Not speaking legally, but morally for myself. I could not shoot a person for stealing my property. Unless it was something I had to have to survive or my weapon. In no case ever is it morally acceptable to shoot someone for stealing your lawn mower out of your shed out in the yard. Now, where it does become acceptable is when the risk of injury to yourself or others increases to a point it is possible you or others could be harmed. Let's say some one enters your house. The person is a large muscular male that demands your money or anything else, but you did not allow him in and you are not sure of his intentions. Shoot him early and often. If it was a 90 lb naked woman you could see was obviously not armed with a weapon who broke in your house, shooting her would not be appropriate.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Law allows you to defend life, limb & property.
The right to own personal property is the very backbone of freedom & individual rights.
Defending your property by whatever means is necessary is your right as a free person.

For example:
Your child has a rare illness that requires a special & very expensive medicine that they need to function normally & would be impossible to replace. Your child might live without it but it would really mess them up nonetheless.

Someone breaks into your house, grabs this medicine supply & attempts to flee with the stolen property.
You warn them, plead with them & even fire a warning shot but they still are intent on stealing it.

Do you think it is acceptable to use a gun to to shoot the perp in that circumstance?

If you say yes here, you're really just arguing over semantics for the rest.
Like where you personally would draw the line.

I wouldn't kill someone over chewing gum but I'd damn sure pop them if they tried to carjack me.

 

[mak2]

Law allows you to defend life, limb & property.
The right to own personal property is the very backbone of freedom & individual rights.
Defending your property by whatever means is necessary is your right as a free person.

For example:
Your child has a rare illness that requires a special & very expensive medicine that they need to function normally & would be impossible to replace. Your child might live without it but it would really mess them up nonetheless.

Someone breaks into your house, grabs this medicine supply & attempts to flee with the stolen property.
You warn them, plead with them & even fire a warning shot but they still are intent on stealing it.

Do you think it is acceptable to use a gun to to shoot the perp in that circumstance?

If you say yes here, you're really just arguing over semantics for the rest.
Like where you personally would draw the line.

I wouldn't kill someone over chewing gum but I'd damn sure pop them if they tried to carjack me.

You can use deadly force to protect that machine and medicine because a life depends on it. Not a lawn mower out in the yard.

 

[1srelluc]

Any situation where my life or the life of a loved one or other innocent is threatened I'll go weapon hot.....Same with any thievery situation where the perp has a weapon like the above mentioned car-jacking.

The perp might want my lawnmower but if confronted and he grabs the brush-axe next to it then he's went from a mere thief to a life threat.

BTW.....If you are going to shoot, shoot, don't talk. - Tuco

 

[mak2]

Any situation where my life or the life of a loved one or other innocent is threatened I'll go weapon hot.....Same with any thievery situation where the perp has a weapon like the above mentioned car-jacking.

The perp might want my lawnmower but if confronted and he grabs the brush-axe next to it then he's went from a mere thief to a life threat.

BTW.....If you are going to shoot, shoot, don't talk. - Tuco

When he picks up the axe it is not about the lawnmower anymore. What is "weapon hot?" Is that from a movie or video game?

 

[Blues Man]

Law allows you to defend life, limb & property.
The right to own personal property is the very backbone of freedom & individual rights.
Defending your property by whatever means is necessary is your right as a free person.

For example:
Your child has a rare illness that requires a special & very expensive medicine that they need to function normally & would be impossible to replace. Your child might live without it but it would really mess them up nonetheless.

Someone breaks into your house, grabs this medicine supply & attempts to flee with the stolen property.
You warn them, plead with them & even fire a warning shot but they still are intent on stealing it.

Do you think it is acceptable to use a gun to to shoot the perp in that circumstance?

If you say yes here, you're really just arguing over semantics for the rest.
Like where you personally would draw the line.

I wouldn't kill someone over chewing gum but I'd damn sure pop them if they tried to carjack me.

I consider breaking and entering while you are in your home to be a contact crime. I don't know any reasonable person who would not feel a legitimate threat to life and safety in that instance.

Obviously if you weren't home when the break in occurs I would not condone anyone hunting down the criminal and killing him.

But I'm not going to shoot some guy in the back for stealing a bicycle out of my driveway

 

[Blues Man]

Any situation where my life or the life of a loved one or other innocent is threatened I'll go weapon hot.....Same with any thievery situation where the perp has a weapon like the above mentioned car-jacking.

The perp might want my lawnmower but if confronted and he grabs the brush-axe next to it then he's went from a mere thief to a life threat.

BTW.....If you are going to shoot, shoot, don't talk. - Tuco

Which is why I specified whether or not the perpetrator is armed. IMO ANY weapon in the hands of a person within 30 feet of you is a reasonable threat especially if they continue to approach you after seeing you are armed.

 

[rightwinger]

I consider breaking and entering while you are in your home to be a contact crime. I don't know any reasonable person who would not feel a legitimate threat to life and safety in that instance.

Obviously if you weren't home when the break in occurs I would not condone anyone hunting down the criminal and killing him.

But I'm not going to shoot some guy in the back for stealing a bicycle out of my driveway

If you are in the home during a robbery, it is a threat to your safety and defensive gun use is justified

 

[candycorn]

Since there seems to be much interest in this subject, I think it's time to define our terms for the purpose of raising the level of the debate.

I know that most people here aren't really interested in an actual intellectual debate but rather prefer to snipe at each other with juvenile insults but one can hope.

So what consensus can we reach on a working definition of defensive gun use?

IMO we need to start with deciding if a person faced what a reasonable person would think is a threat to life or of bodily harm to oneself or another.

I'll suggest that a DGU is reasonable in the case of any contact crime where a would be assailant approaches an intended victim. Robbery, mugging, assault, breaking into a home can all be called contact crimes.

Personally I'm not sure if shooting at a person who is stealing property is a sufficient enough risk to safety to justify killing. I use the standard that if it's not worth dying for it's not worth killing over. I would never say killing a person for stealing a car is justified unless that person pulled a gun on you or tried to run you down.

I don't think chasing off a person who is cutting across your property is an example of a reasonable threat to a person's safety either. Now if that person approaches you even if they see you are armed I would call that a situation that escalates to a reasonable threat but now we need to decide how close that person needs to be. If the would be assailant is armed with any type of weapon that distance must be close enough that any reasonable person would consider it a threat to life or bodily safety.

Let's see if we can behave like adults in this discussion and not children on a playground.

Do you have to pull your gun out of it's holster to have a defensive gun use?

 

[1srelluc]

Which is why I specified whether or not the perpetrator is armed. IMO ANY weapon in the hands of a person within 30 feet of you is a reasonable threat especially if they continue to approach you after seeing you are armed.

Sounds to me you are just stating the obvious.....Nobody really cares what you or I would do in a given situation as it's on the person that is being violated, either by theft or by threat to make that ultimate life changing decision.

You must also bear in mind that there are some states (like TX) where it is perfectly fine to shoot thieves that are just thieving.

Part of the responsibility of being a gun owner is to know your state's laws around the use of deadly force. I'd say start there and then make your own determination going forward.

 

[Blues Man]

Do you have to pull your gun out of it's holster to have a defensive gun use?

I don't think so. The threat of force is often more than enough to scare off a would be assailant.

If you put your hand on a gun in a holster on your waist I think it counts.

 

[Blues Man]

Sounds to me you are just stating the obvious.....Nobody really cares what you or I would do in a given situation as it's on the person that is being violated, either by theft or by threat to make that ultimate life changing decision.

You must also bear in mind that there are some states (like TX) where it is perfectly fine to shoot thieves that are just thieving.

Part of the responsibility of being a gun owner is to know your state's laws around the use of deadly force. I'd say start there and then make your own determination going forward.

But that decision may have the person claiming self defense in a courtroom. And the standard of a justified use of a firearm in self defense is that use of deadly force is justified if any reasonable person would view that threat as a threat.

I disagree with the TX law for obvious reasons. I'm not going to go over a cliff to save my car so IMO my car is not worth killing over. The same goes for any material thing I may own. Now that in no way means I'll not use a gun if a person breaks into my home or tries to carjack me because as I stated those are actual contact crimes where the threat is not only reasonable but irrefutable.

I am trying to reconcile the numbers people use for DGUs annually. There is no consensus on a definition anywhere I have seen so I wonder if some guy taking a survey counts the time he ran onto his porch with a shotgun and yelled at the neighborhood kids to get off his laws would say he used his gun in self defense in that instance.

 

[Blues Man]

If you are in the home during a robbery, it is a threat to your safety and defensive gun use is justified

I believe I said that.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

So the consensus is it is OK to use a gun to defend your property.
Everything else is just personal preference as to what point & what property you would defend with your gun.

If you would allow someone to steal your car rather than defend your property with a gun, that is your choice.
My choice would be to defend my property, be it a car, a cow or a candle.
Letting them get away with the little things just encourages them to go after the bigger things.

Basically, it you don't want to get shot, don't steal from others

 

[johngaltshrugged]

You can use deadly force to protect that machine and medicine because a life depends on it. Not a lawn mower out in the yard.

BS. I specifically pointed out the child would not die but it would affect them.
So what you're talking about is a quality of life issue & again we're back into semantics.
No longer having my lawnmower is a quality of life issue as well.

The lawnmower is my property, same with the medicine. I can use deadly force to protect it if I so choose.
Whether I do so or not is strictly my choice.

 

[candycorn]

I don't think so. The threat of force is often more than enough to scare off a would be assailant.

If you put your hand on a gun in a holster on your waist I think it counts.

So you have to put your hand on it?

Meaning that we're not counting someone just seeing the gun and deciding not to commit a crime. Right?

 

[Blues Man]

So the consensus is it is OK to use a gun to defend your property.
Everything else is just personal preference as to what point & what property you would defend with your gun.

If you would allow someone to steal your car rather than defend your property with a gun, that is your choice.
My choice would be to defend my property, be it a car, a cow or a candle.
Letting them get away with the little things just encourages them to go after the bigger things.

Basically, it you don't want to get shot, don't steal from others

Property crimes are an issue for me. I don't think my stuff is worth dying for so I don't think it's worth killing for.

I don't consider some guy walking across my yard to be a threat to my safety if that's all he is doing. I have no problem with anyone telling a person to hightail it out of their yards but do I think you should shoot a person from a window because he dared step on a piece of dirt you own? No.

And again I'll not shoot a person in the back for stealing a bicycle out of my driveway either.

 

[Blues Man]

So you have to put your hand on it?

Meaning that we're not counting someone just seeing the gun and deciding not to commit a crime. Right?

Personally? A guy showing me a gun and a guy with a hand on a gun even if it is holstered are 2 different levels of threat.

Really if a guy is close enough to you to see you are armed then he is close enough to justify pulling a gun again this is my opinion. I am not trying to push a definition on anyone i am trying to see if we can come up with a consensus for a working definition to use going forward.