October 31, 2008, 01:26 PM | #51 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
And to my way of thinking "checking on a noise" doesn't necessarily mean going out for a look. I can look out the window. I can wait quietly and listen closely for further noises. It's been my experience over a lot of years that so far I've always been able to identify the noise as something innocuous without having to go wandering about.
As far as the statistical side of things go, remember that the odds that it's something to worry about are independent from the odds that if it is a BG and you go looking for him, something bad will happen to you. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that it's a BG. But if it is, and you put yourself in to a situation in which you're at an extreme tactical disadvantage, it becomes almost a certainty that you will lose. Remember Mas Ayoob's story about the NTIs (see post #25) -- the [highly skilled and highly trained] good guys never won. |
October 31, 2008, 01:38 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
It's not that simple though. First, there has to be a badguy. Let's just make that a given. There IS a badguy. Now, he has to INTEND to hurt you, have the ABILITY to hurt you, and then actually ACCOMPLISH hurting you. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that 3 out of the 4 times you find yourself in that situation, you would walk away unscathed. Simply because only one of those 3 things has to NOT happen for you to be okay. (Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating one way or the other. For the record, my instructions to my wife are to stay concealed, cover the doorway to the bedroom with the pistol, and wait for the police. I understand the tactics involved in clearing houses vs. defending a position, etc, and you'll never here me argue that clearing space is more advantagous.) But in one thread, it's suggested that you should so something because of the stats and then in another, that line of reasoning is completely ignored. That's what I am addressing. If you're going to say that 83% of the time compliance leads to no injury, therefore you should comply, then you have to accept that if 75% of the time confronting a badguy leaves you unharmed, it's not "wrong" for someone to take that course of action. You can't have it both ways. |
|
October 31, 2008, 01:48 PM | #53 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From Hondo 11:
Quote:
Quote:
However, if you get mugged or shot, or if you shoot someone, or get charged with brandishing or assault, I'm sure you will become a statistic. I'm not sure how you would apply it analytically to your question. |
||
October 31, 2008, 02:29 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
Very few things in this realm are abosulute. "It depends" is the answer that covers almost any scenario you can dream up. SOP's/Guidelines are good to have as a starting point, but things rarely stay so scripted. That's why I don't like absolute answers and why it drives me nuts when people tell others (or imply) they are "wrong" in their way of thinking. |
|
October 31, 2008, 02:52 PM | #55 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From Hondo 11:
Quote:
Quote:
Where I live I can get into nothing but trouble. My state is not unusual in that respect, and we now have some of the better gun laws. |
||
October 31, 2008, 03:27 PM | #56 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
October 31, 2008, 03:32 PM | #57 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
October 31, 2008, 03:34 PM | #58 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
October 31, 2008, 03:49 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
I realize that a source for those specific stats probably doesn't exist. That's why I just threw out the 75% and clarified that it was just a seat-of-the-pants number. I think it's probably a little low too. It's pretty rare, respectively, for someone who's breaking into a house, garage, etc, to attack instead of running away. Even more rare is the one who decides to attack and has the ability to hurt you. And even rarer still is the one who decides to attack you, has the means to hurt you, and accomplishes exactly that.
As for minimizing loss or resources- you have to decide whether you want: A. No injury to you, yet some property loss. (Stay inside and call the police) B. Injury to you and no loss of property. (Go outside and the BG hurts you) C. Injury to you and loss of property. (Go outside and the BG hurts you AND takes your stuff) D. No injury to you and no property lost. (Go outside and not get hurt and BG takes nothing...OR...find some other way to deter them from inside.) I think most people would take D and you can possibly accomplish that from inside as well as outside. You probably have a better chance of staying unhurt if you remain inside, but you have probably a better chance of deterring the theft by going outside. It's a risk/reward decision that can only be answered by the person facing it. I'm not arguing that going outside is the RIGHT thing to do. I am saying that telling someone it's the WRONG thing to do isn't correct either. THAT's my point. |
October 31, 2008, 03:55 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
October 31, 2008, 04:00 PM | #61 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 31, 2008, 04:54 PM | #62 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 31, 2008, 05:39 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2008
Posts: 120
|
I haven't missed any point. You won't hear any argument from me that there are steps you can take from inside the house. I haven't said otherwise.
I happen to agree with you on this one (see my post regarding what I have told my wife to do), but I take issue with your attitude that there is only one correct method...the one you say is correct. You don't leave room for anyone to have a different opinion, a different perspective, a different thought process, or different priorities. You use stats and logic to advocate your way when it suits you and then ignore it when someone can use it to bolster their opinion. It's as simple as logic and stats when it's backing you up, but it doesn't work that way when you disagree. There is rarely a single right or wrong answer or solution to anything and it gets even more complex when people's varying priorities come into play. Some people think that property is worth defending, even if it's insured. To them, it's the principle. Much like 150 years ago, when people were hung for stealing a horse. A horse represented a man's livelihood and people saw it as a grave crime to steal one. People dropped everything to hunt the thief down and he was usually hung. Nowadays, stealing someone's car is just a "property crime" and is usually punishable by probation. Neither is right or wrong, just different. For someone to think that defending their property is worth the trouble and risk doesn't make them wrong. It makes them different than you. |
October 31, 2008, 05:39 PM | #64 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From Hondo11:
Quote:
I presume from the fact that you are discussing the protection of property that you would either (1) be going outside unarmed with no intention of using deadly force, or (2) be going outside armed, with no intention of using deadly force (unless you are in Texas at night) unless you are put in personal danger, and that if the law in your state so requires, you would retreat before resorting to the use of deadly force. Right? The former looks dangerous, and the latter looks both dangerous and pointless. The best case is no injury and no loss of property, and the other three outcomes you have listed involve injury or death and/or loss of property. You have not mentioned the possibility of being charged with a crime, which is a risk whenever arms are displayed or used outside. Last edited by OldMarksman; October 31, 2008 at 05:46 PM. Reason: typo |
|
October 31, 2008, 09:21 PM | #65 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
|
Quote:
Why wouldn't you take your pistol with you to investigate every strange noise? Exactly how do you determine if a noise is something that might merit bringing your pistol or not? Obviously if you hear your back door being kicked off the hinges, or your kitchen window being smashed, or you hear someone trying to unlock your back door.....but how do you know that the odd "thump" isn't a criminal who just dropped something? And if you hear an odd noise, say a bump in the night, but then you hear nothing else, do you just roll over and go back to sleep? Do you call 911 and lock yourself in your bedroom? Do you investigate the noise without your firearm? |
|
October 31, 2008, 09:47 PM | #66 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Yes, easyG, let's get to the heart of the matter.
If, you grab your gun and go investigate a noise; and If, there is a BG, or more than one BG; and If, he, or they, are willing to engage you; Then the odds are overwhelming that you will lose (and if the police respond, you might get shot by them). So, how do you want to play it? |
October 31, 2008, 10:44 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2006
Location: midwest
Posts: 1,105
|
hm my post might not have been helpful...
|
October 31, 2008, 11:22 PM | #68 | |||||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
October 31, 2008, 11:32 PM | #69 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
November 1, 2008, 12:35 AM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Ona,West Virginia
Posts: 1,215
|
I have chimed in to these types of posts and threads before and i keep coming up with the same conclusion.People get you some night vision camera's,that way you never have to go peeping around corners again.It is also a good way to keep video proof of what really happened when and by whom.
From where i am sitting right now i am looking at 2 different tv's,one in my bedroom and one in my livingroom.No my house isn't that small just oddly laid out.I can see both my cars on one monitor and the front porch on my other monitor.I see all with these nifty little camera's and they even have audio to boot.each system comes with 2 camera's and a remote to change from camera to camera.They are available at wal-mart in the hardware section. Yes if something does get in my house my first thoughts are to clear a way to my kids bedroom safely.So yes i'll be more than happy to clear a house with a gun.The furthest i'll venture outside is my front porch with a gun in hand. Oh and back to main post the biggest problem i see with what the victim did,was let the b/g get close enough to him,stupid on his part. A tip that i have started using in my cars to keep from getting brokin into so much,tie a couple of cans to the inside of your car doors,when someone tries to get in,it will make the most god awfull noise. |
November 1, 2008, 07:20 AM | #71 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From Hondo11:
Quote:
From easyG: Quote:
What would I do with the pistol? If I do encounter a man in the yard, in most jurisdictions, I can't point it at him for being there. If he is carrying my propane tank, would be I permitted to point it at him without being charged with brandishing or assault with a deadly weapon? Probably not, in most of these United States, but that's a lawyer's call--he hasn't given me reason to fear that I am in imminent danger of death or serious injury. I surely cannot say, "put down my property or I will murder you." Nor can I reasonably detain him, unless I want to assume the liability of a citizen's arrest. That's not for me. Now, if I have the pistol, and I am attacked outside, in some places I can "stand my ground" and resort to the use of deadly force. However, in most places, my first obligation is to retreat. So what's the point of having it with me? And that would seem to beg the question, why did I go outside in the first place? The risks (of injury, death, or legal difficulties) are high, and there's relatively little for me on the upside. Quote:
Now, if I am out in the country, and I hear repeated banging that may indicate that something is awry with the livestock, it would certainly be appropriate for me to go outside to investigate and make things right. And it's not a police issue. Unless I'm legally prohibited from doing so, carrying a pistol would seem reasonable. If I happen to encounter someone any number of events may unfold. There are two principal differences between this and the "prowler" scenario we have been discussing. One is that I do not expect trouble, and I can reasonably believe that I am not putting myself at risk simply by going outside. The second is that if something does go wrong and someone is hurt, I will have had a pretty good reason to go outside, and I will not end up explaining to the authorities that the reason I went outside with a gun was to see if someone was taking my property. I hope this proves constructive. |
|||
November 1, 2008, 08:04 AM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2008
Posts: 191
|
1) Never bring a knife to a gun fight.
2) Never ever bring a gun to a knife fight. When the man did not use his shotgun, he made it a knife fight. Some people insist that if you hear a noise, hunker down and call the police. In the past 20 years I would have had to call them at least 50 times. I've found 3 squirrels, a collapsed book case, and a pot hole that caused passing cars to make a noise that echoed through the house. I’ve found no bad guys. If I had called the police every time, by now they would never bother to show up. I'll save my 911 call for when I need it. |
November 1, 2008, 09:06 AM | #73 | ||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
From Alistaire:
Quote:
Quote:
The best advice I've seen so far on this and related threads is (1) do not put yourself unnecessarily in harm's way, because of the risk of your being killed or injured; (2) become familiar with the relevant laws concerning the use of lethal force, so that you do not unwittingly become a felon; and (3) take a course in the use of lethal force, to improve your understanding of the first two items, to improve your skills and confidence, and to give you a better idea of your limitations. The poor fellow with the shotgun ignored item 1 with tragic results. Last edited by OldMarksman; November 1, 2008 at 09:12 AM. Reason: Rewording in last paragraph, for accuracy. |
||
November 1, 2008, 10:47 AM | #74 | |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
|
|
November 1, 2008, 12:20 PM | #75 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|