Good guy with an AK47 ...

[Elixir]

In 2021 there were at least 377 unintentional shootings by children. This resulted in 154 deaths and 242 injuries in the United States.

70% of unintentional shootings by children occur in the home.

And incredibly in four of those cases, the randomly scattered lead happened to strike unlucky home invaders (one of them breaking into a neighbor's house), bringing their careers as such to an abrupt end. So it's not all bad. It just shows we need more guns in homes, especially where there are children.
And the fact that they scored 154 kills with 377 shots (a few more maybe, if they didn't stop shooting after the first big noise) shows that they are better aims than most cops. Or home invaders for that matter.

 

[Politesse]

Who is saying they have a responsibility??

The position is that people have a right to use whatever force is necessary to stop home invaders.

Of course they do. That does not make death anything to celebrate. Certainly not something a "good guy" would consider well done.

And the fact that upper class people commit different kinds of crimes does not make them "good people". Grow up.

"Good" as in not a threat, not as in angel.

Bullshit.

 

[Toni]

I find this childish worldview of good guys and bad guys, wherein good guys have a right and responsibility to presonally end the lives of bad guys, very disturbing. I know it isn't just you; a great many Americans seem to believe that they live in a modernist era TV Western where you can tell how good or bad someone is by observing the color of their hat/skin. But even allowing for over-exposure to said genre, I don't really understand how anyone could pass the age of twelve or so without at some point realizing that the world is not a simple dyad between good and evil people. Since everyone is predisposed to think of themselves as good and those opposed to them as bad, I do not see how such a reductionist worldview could possibly end any other way than with everyone dead.

Who is saying they have a responsibility??

The position is that people have a right to use whatever force is necessary to stop home invaders. If the bad guys end up dead so be it.

As for the splitting into good guys and bad guys--the reality is that most people never commit substantial offenses. Violent or potentially violent crime is highly concentrated in a small segment of the population, a somewhat larger segment will engage in white collar crime.

I'm just going to offer this as a PSA:

At least 3 different times, close family members were victims of armed home invasions. During daylight hours. Two were at farm houses. One in a very upscale suburb of a major city. The farm house invasions were well before drugs were a serious problem. The suburban home was invaded by someone recently released from prison and his teenaged nephew—in that case, they were likely hoping to get some cash for drugs. Everyone survived in each case. In only one case was there an arrest.

In two cases, everyone survived unharmed. The only person armed was the invader. My uncle who was visiting my grandparents avoided losing his wallet because he was able to toss it into a basket of laundry undetected.that was the first home invasion, of a farmhouse during the early ‘60’s. My inlaws ( upscale suburb) were able to alert the police and despite multiple SWAT teams being called to their residence, no one was injured and there were zero shots fired.

In the third case which took place in the mid-70’s, the victims were my aunt and uncle who were shot at with their own firearms. In their farmhouse kitchen. The thieves were there looking for guns—most farmers had some and my uncke was famously a skilled marksman and known to be a good hunter. I’ve always had my suspicions of how those thieves knew to rob my uncle but my dislike of my cousin is not probable cause. Fortunately, the thieves were poor shots and missed. No one was physically harmed. But emotionally? Those effects lasted for months and included serious medical issues. Oh, my uncle also had multiple dogs on the property. The thieves got in unimpeded by the dogs and motivated, not deterred by the known presence of hunting rifles and a skilled marksman. It was winter so it was unlikely they thought my uncle was out in a field plowing.

I understand people having hunting guns and even something high powered if they need to worry about wolves, cougars or bear going after livestock or people. The rest of it, I plain do not understand. Guns are for killing. Calling it something else doesn’t change things.

 

[Gun Nut]

I think Derec’s intended”point” is that assault rifles are a good way to thwart attempted home invasions, supported by two anecdotes gathered from an unknown time interval.

Fascinating Home Invasion Statistics:​

• 65% of burglars are already well-acquainted with the people they rob.
• Only 12% of home invasions are planned in advance.
• New Mexico has the highest burglary rate with 767.8 burglaries per 100,000 people.
• There are almost three burglaries every minute in the US.
• 85% of home invasions are not conducted by professional burglars.
• 62% of burglaries happen during daylight hours.
• 88% of burglars may be robbing to support their drug habit.
• Burglaries in the US have dropped by 37% since 2008.

If both of Derec’s examples occurred in the same week, it would indicate a success rate of less than a half of one percent. Chances are they were drugged up non-pro home invaders too, so factor that in. Then consider how much risk to self and family is increased by the presence of an AK47 in your home, and the stupidity is glaring.

It is common knowledge amongst professionals that a high powered rifle (of any kind - "asault-style" or hunting) is the worst home defense weapon imaginable. It lacks all of the basic requirements for the role, and has all of the features that are antithesis to the role... not the least of which is that it fires high powered rounds, and therefore great for killing the intruder, your partner in the next room, the dog in the yard, and two neighbors in their own house across the street with one shot.
The best weapon for home defense is a shotgun with a 16" smooth barrel, loaded with #4 shot in a tube magazine that holds 5 rounds or so. No rounds will pass through a person or a wall. Anything else is second (of fifteenth) best.
So, if Der's point is that assault rifles are good for home defense, then consider the point refuted.

 

[Derec]

[*]88% of burglars may be robbing to support their drug habit.

"May be". What a meaningless number then.
88% of all statistics may be made up on the spot. Then again, they may not be.

 

[Derec]

So, if Der's point is that assault rifles are good for home defense, then consider the point refuted.

It wasn't. It was just to offer an "after all this a happy ending" type of story about the much maligned weapon type.
If there is a home invasion, or a carjacking, or street mugging, and the robber is the only one harmed, that's always a good outcome.

I agree about what you said about drawbacks of rifles and advantages of shotguns for home defense.

 

[Derec]

And incredibly in four of those cases, the randomly scattered lead happened to strike unlucky home invaders (one of them breaking into a neighbor's house), bringing their careers as such to an abrupt end.

I don't think it's that random in those cases.

 

[Derec]

Both of the scenarios listed in the OP could have just as easily occurred with a lever-action .30-30. Again showing how utterly superfluous having military style rifles in civilian hands is, unless you like big body counts at mass shootings

First of all, military rifles are heavily regulated. And semi-auto rifles that resemble military rifles are used in a small minority of gun crime. Most gun crime is committed using regular handguns. And the Virginia Tech shooter has shown that high body counts at mass shootings are quite feasible using handguns only.

 

[Derec]

Of course they do. That does not make death anything to celebrate. Certainly not something a "good guy" would consider well done.

Neutralizing an armed threat to your home and family is indeed "well done".

And the fact that upper class people commit different kinds of crimes does not make them "good people". Grow up.

Are you saying people who defend their homes are "upper class people [who] commit different kinds of crimes", or what is your point?
Surely, those crimes should be prosecuted as well (unless they are bullshit kinds of laws that should be repealed) but that is no argument against self defense against home invaders, carjackers and other assorted scum.

Just recently an attempted carjacker murdered a father around here.
Arrest made in connection to Gwinnett QuikTrip carjacking murder
Surely, a much better outcome would have been that the carjacker got shot instead. Even if there are "upper class people" somewhere committing crimes

 

[Derec]

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

That line may cut through the "heart" of every human being, but that dissection is not even, and much less the same in everyone.
And if Solzhenitsyn had his house invaded, and he had the means to defend himself, I would think he would defend his life and home, rather than wax poetic about lines through hearts.

 

[bilby]

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

That line may cut through the "heart" of every human being, but that dissection is not even, and much less the same in everyone.
And if Solzhenitsyn had his house invaded, and he had the means to defend himself, I would think he would defend his life and home, rather than wax poetic about lines through hearts.

You're really not very good at the whole 'introspection' thing, are you?

Fuck me, sometimes I wonder why I bother talking to authoritarians at all. They're just not capable of thinking beyond "how do I spin this so that it simply agrees with me, so I don't have to try to understand it?"

 

[Politesse]

Of course they do. That does not make death anything to celebrate. Certainly not something a "good guy" would consider well done.

Neutralizing an armed threat to your home and family is indeed "well done".

And the fact that upper class people commit different kinds of crimes does not make them "good people". Grow up.

Are you saying people who defend their homes are "upper class people [who] commit different kinds of crimes", or what is your point?
Surely, those crimes should be prosecuted as well (unless they are bullshit kinds of laws that should be repealed) but that is no argument against self defense against home invaders, carjackers and other assorted scum.

Just recently an attempted carjacker murdered a father around here.
Arrest made in connection to Gwinnett QuikTrip carjacking murder
Surely, a much better outcome would have been that the carjacker got shot instead. Even if there are "upper class people" somewhere committing crimes

I explicitly say "of course they do" in the post you quote. Yes, people have a right to defend their homes. No, the death of a human being is nothing to celebrate, let alone so glibly.

 

[Derec]

I find this childish worldview of good guys and bad guys, wherein good guys have a right and responsibility to presonally end the lives of bad guys, very disturbing.

People have the right to defend themselves. If there is a reasonable fear for one's life or limb a person has a right to defend themselves or others.

I know it isn't just you; a great many Americans seem to believe that they live in a modernist era TV Western where you can tell how good or bad someone is by observing the color of their hat/skin.

Don't think your irrelevant reference to "skin color" was missed here. Of course you want to reduce everything to race, as usual.
But note, this is not a western. The good guy/bad guy dichotomy here is situational, not metaphysical. It does not imply moral purity or reprobacy, respectively, in some cosmic sense. Only in the sense as it relates to the actions taken then and there. Robbing people is wrong. Defending your person or your home is right.

But even allowing for over-exposure to said genre, I don't really understand how anyone could pass the age of twelve or so without at some point realizing that the world is not a simple dyad between good and evil people.

Who is talking about "simple dyads" here except you?

Since everyone is predisposed to think of themselves as good and those opposed to them as bad, I do not see how such a reductionist worldview could possibly end any other way than with everyone dead.

 

[Politesse]

Don't think your irrelevant reference to "skin color" was missed here. Of course you want to reduce everything to race, as usual.
But note, this is not a western. The good guy/bad guy dichotomy here is situational, not metaphysical. It does not imply moral purity or reprobacy, respectively, in some cosmic sense. Only in the sense as it relates to the actions taken then and there. Robbing people is wrong. Defending your person or your home is right

A toddler's moral philosophy.

 

[Derec]

3. vastly reform home insurance (or, ideally, just nationalize it) so that high value personal items are replaceable and you don't feel the need to *murder another human being* over your television.

1. Self-defense is not murder.
2. Home invaders often want to harm or even murder occupants, not just steal their stuff. You can't take that chance.

 

[Derec]

I explicitly say "of course they do" in the post you quote. Yes, people have a right to defend their homes. No, the death of a human being is nothing to celebrate, let alone so glibly.

I do not intend to break out champagne either. But that outcome is far more preferable than the converse.

 

[Derec]

On the one hand, I'm not sure I buy the 93-year-old's claim that he fired in self-defense; but on the other hand, any 93-year-old who can hit the perp at 2,070 miles' distance is a 93-year-old I want on the SWAT team!

Over the horizon artillery.

 

[Derec]

I can't think of any bad guy who didn't start with a clean criminal record.

I feel the same when the family of some 16 year old or even 18 year old is saying that their precious son could not have done this or that because he has a clear record. There is always a first time for everything.

But in this case what you say doesn't even apply. The good guy in this case could have a prior record. The home invader could have a clean one - either this is their first home invasion or they were not caught before. The distinction is based on actions - who is in their home, minding their business? Who is trying to break into somebody else's private domicile to either steal what isn't rightfully theirs or to harm the occupants? That is the distinction, not criminal records.

How we can do so is something I'm not sure of but we don't seem o be having that talk.

Repeat offenders are a big problem. If we effectively remove guns from those not allowed to have them, a lot of gun crime would be eliminated. That was the aim behind stop, question and frisk, which Bill de Blowjob ended because it disarmed too many of his voters.

Edit: And I say it should "only be about that" because we can do fuck all to stop bad guys from getting guns from other bad guys. But we sure as shit can do something about good guys arming bad guys.

If a gun seller is violating the law, they are hardly good guys.
Another problem is that too many on the left think that actual attempts to get illegal guns off the streets are "racist" because they end up ensnaring disproportionate numbers of blacks. So instead we get more useless attempts to ban certain semi-auto rifles based on how they look.

 

[bilby]

Home invaders often want to harm or even murder occupants, not just steal their stuff.

Why?

In my experience, home invaders want the minimum possible interaction with the occupants, and see physical violence as an absolute last resort - a disastrous outcome to be avoided if possible.

Now, that's limited of course to people invading the homes of strangers. People with a grudge frequently go looking for their enemies with intent to harm them, and might well go to their homes.

But assuming that you don't have violent criminals as acquaintances, you are certainly not being targeted for violence by housebreakers. That seems to be a popular and unexamined fantasy of the American authoritarian/police community, with zero basis in reality. It's propaganda.

People just are not interested in violent conflict with strangers in their victim's own homes. What would they stand to gain by such violence? Not only is there nothing they could reasonably expect to gain, but there's nothing they could expect to gain even assuming bizarre illogic in their way of thinking.

People who take risks for zero perceived benefit are vanishingly rare lunatics. But your argument assumes that they are commonplace. Which is itself insane.

Paranoia isn't a sound basis for policy.

 

[Derec]

In my experience, home invaders want the minimum possible interaction with the occupants, and see physical violence as an absolute last resort - a disastrous outcome to be avoided if possible.

People who want minimum possible interaction with occupants try to burgle a place when it is unoccupied. A dwelling being occupied is what distinguishes a burglary from a home invasion.

Now, that's limited of course to people invading the homes of strangers. People with a grudge frequently go looking for their enemies with intent to harm them, and might well go to their homes.

While that is somewhat true, there have been many cases of home invaders going into strangers' homes with the intention to harm the occupants. There has been many a death penalty case in this country with such a scenario.

But assuming that you don't have violent criminals as acquaintances, you are certainly not being targeted for violence by housebreakers. That seems to be a popular and unexamined fantasy of the American authoritarian/police community, with zero basis in reality. It's propaganda.

It has a basis in reality. It may not be very common, but it does happen.
Example:
Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders, 10 years later
There have been other cases of deadly home invasions, or home invasions where occupants were harmed, but this case was particularly notorious.
But don't tell me this is rare. For example, this home invasion just happened in my neck of the woods.

I do not think a homeowner should have to take a chance that the home invader is just an idiot who can't tell when a house is empty vs. somebody who wants to harm the homeowner's family.

People just are not interested in violent conflict with strangers in their victim's own homes. What would they stand to gain by such violence?

Maybe that's how they get their jollies. Criminals are not always rational.

People who take risks for zero perceived benefit are vanishingly rare lunatics. But your argument assumes that they are commonplace. Which is itself insane.

No. The argument assumes that the homeowner should not have to take that chance.
If you invade somebody's home, you take your chances. You may get shot, and you may catch murder charges if your accomplice is shot and killed. That's occupational risk. Don't break into occupied dwellings if you don't want the possibility of the homeowner shooting you legally.

Paranoia isn't a sound basis for policy.

It is not paranoia when such people really exist.
What would be your preferred policy? Protections for home invaders and harsh charges against any homeowners who defend themselves?
Oh, and you still advocate for paying "protection money" to burglars and robbers, right?
Now that is not a sound basis for policy!