They acted as cops, judges, and executioners.

More like robbers and felons. Not that those automatically exclude cops,...

When someone enters your home forcefully and threatens you with deadly weapons, isn't the resident the one who's rights are being violated?

For the sake of ideological purity, it preferable that the victim be the one who dies in Gun Control Land, apparently.

According to a certain mentality, yes, it is preferable.

By resisting/refusing/fighting back victimhood, a pro-self defense person is shattering the concept of ideological purity that comes with being a victim.

How dare you fight back!!! I was so proud of myself for being a victim, so pure, so good. You had to fuck it all up by shooting the bad guy. Now I just look like a chump by letting people get over on me.

That's the gun-control/anti-self defense mindset in a nutshell.

shooting someone who puts a gun in your face is not escalating the level of violence.

its self defense.

They actually made the decision to use.

Nice try to show how far many anti-gunners go to demonize guns, but when you go over the top like this everyone figures out that you are a pro-gunner just looking to make the other side look bad. Either tone it down or add a sarcasm icon.

On the slight chance that you are serious, three armed men break into a guy's house and your take is that the victim (the home owner, not the armed robber) did not show enough restraint when confronted with 3 intruders inside of his house within inches of him. Any hesitation would immediately tip the advantage back to the 3 versus 1. That the victim only shot one and did not pursue the men three blocks down the street spraying shots shows more than enough restraint for anyone who just had gone through literally a life and death, split second decision.

Can't wait to read your take on rape victims who wore too short of dresses.

There were 8,277,829 property crimes in 2014 according to the FBI and 13,716 murders. That means that only 0.166% of property crimes result in murder. So when the chances are less than 1 out of 600 that there will be a murder, you don't have a problem with someone just deciding to ignore facts and decide to murder someone? They're ignoring the 599.

your life, but your families as well.

That the victim happens to be numbers 600, is it okay if they defend themselves after they are murdered?

Do you consider all forms of self-defense that end with the attackers death to be murder?

I think that it makes for better discussions and even better understanding that way.

You provided the property crimes and murders numbers as your metrics.

Metrics note. 13,716 sounds like all murders. I'd assume that only using murders that occur during property crimes would reduce the odds by half or more which would further your case.

Your statement "with someone just deciding to ignore facts and decide to murder someone" is only defensible if your decision is only based on a slightly flawed 1 out of 600 aggregate metric. You've basically stated the victim murdered the home intruder. Therefore, we need to use a more appropriate metric to evaluate the case for a murder.

Our only relevant metric now is the number of murders that occur in cases where three gun carrying home invaders are encountered inside of the house.

I'd say without question your 1 in 600 odds have shrunk down quite a bit. Victims in this situation are probably going to think that things are about 100 to 1 against them, but they don't understand the big picture statistics like you do. I'd also say that if two police officers just happened to have been in the victim's house that it's highly likely that they would not only have fired on on the intruders, but probably gotten commendations for it.

If the victim's statement that the intruders "...pulled a gun on him and told him to 'give it up,' " is true than your 1 in 600 is probably down into playing one number in roulette if not worse.

The only way you can stand by your murder charge in this case is if your core belief is that any potentially lethal self defense action during home invasions and I'd presume in most other defensive situations is murder. Or is it more like any lethal defensive gun use is murder?

Self righteous people who live in safe or not rural areas. Lol but I think it's the first.

An armed robber brought a gun into a home invasion.

Nobody but the homeowner knows what actually happened. I dont have a problem with the homeowner defending himself, and Im glad he is uninjured.

when they forced their way inside.

The only good robber, rapist or carjacker is one in the process of rapidly expiring from a gaping chest wound.

Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

They all ran off despite the odds in their favor.

Hopefully the cowards will get charged for the murder of their buddy and never be able to terrorize anyone again.

Never trust your fate to a criminal.