5 ms·

Another reason you have locks is to show intent to keep others out. You can't shoot someone that walks into your home through an open door. You can shoot some

Another reason you have locks is to show intent to keep others out. You can't shoot someone that walks into your home through an open door. You can shoot someone that rams your door to open it.

goodpoint 3y ago
You cannot shoot anybody in the largest majority of countries on this planet. Thankfully.
- pdonis 3y ago
  How do you get criminals to obey this nice rule?
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    By making it hard to obtain weapons. The US thinking to me seams to go along the lines of handing out nuclear weapons to everybody so forces are balanced...
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      What do you do if two criminals break into your house and you don't have a gun?
      - talldatethrow 3y ago
        I love that this got downvotes but no responses.
      - ddingus 3y ago
        A few things: The number one, by far most effective thing you do comes well ahead of those armed, home entry thieves, and that is you make your home scream "GO AWAY!" Get a dog Employ great lighting Put the home alarm stickers on, actual alarm optional, [3] Clean up. Etc... The criminals work on risk reward. You can bias that equation away from favorable meaning the baddies pick another home, not yours. From there, should you really feel this scenario could happen, maybe consider a gun. But if you do, please get gun education. One bad scenario is to have a gun, and face experienced users. Your chance of getting you, and or family, hurt go way up! I do mostly identify with the left, but am gun friendly having grown up rural and well educated about guns. [3] - no joke! Neighbors had done the sticker thing for roughly a decade. That, plus the other suggestions work well.
    - jtriangle 3y ago
      For 500 bucks worth of crypto anyone in the world can get a reasonably competent full auto AK with a box of milsurp ammo. If that's your definition of "hard", I'd say you're setting that bar far too low.
      - bscphil 3y ago
        And the overwhelming majority of people, including thieves, don't do this, because the raised barrier to entry makes gun crimes vastly less attractive. Combine that with a broad social safety net that reduces poverty, and you miraculously get homicide rates dropping through the floor: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_(2006_%E2%80%93_2018).svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_countries_by_...
        akira2501 3y ago
        > because the raised barrier to entry makes gun crimes vastly less attractive. Is that assertion based on study or "common sense?" It may well be that they don't feel the need to bring a gun because they know their victims are definitely not going to be armed anyways. The real question would, do the criminals not use a weapon at all, or do they use weapons that just don't happen to be guns? > broad social safety net that reduces poverty People aren't being shot in the US because of poverty. The _majority_ of "gun violence" in the US is actually suicides. It's nearly 2/3 of that terrible statistical category. The remainder of murders typically involve alcohol and arguments. The majority of murder victims in the US know their murderer by name and have been acquainted with them for years. Means. Motive. Opportunity. These things don't change.
    - Minor49er 3y ago
      Shinzo Abe might disagree with this
      - master-lincoln 3y ago
        He was right leaning so you are probably correct. But I would think his murder might have happened earlier if weapons were legal for most citizens as in the US.
        Minor49er 3y ago
        I'm not so sure. The assassin took advantage of the fact that nobody was expecting a gunman. In an armed society, there would have been more defense measures present to prepare for such an attack
        master-lincoln 3y ago
        good point
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > By making it hard to obtain weapons. If the legal rule is "you can't shoot anybody", which is what the post I responded to said, wouldn't that make it impossible to legally obtain weapons? Why just "hard"? If, OTOH, you mean make it hard to illegally obtain weapons, where has this actually been done successfully? My reading of human history is that criminals who want weapons have always been able to get them somehow. > The US thinking to me seams to go along the lines of handing out nuclear weapons to everybody so forces are balanced... I don't know where you are getting that from. The US thinking is very simple: since it is impossible for governments to prevent all violent crimes or to ensure that police show up in time to protect citizens from being harmed by violent crime, citizens must be allowed to have the means of self defense. The best way to minimize the number of citizens that feel the need to have weapons for self-defense is to extirpate crime--but unfortunately the US in recent decades has been moving in the opposite direction.
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      This is a lame response. A man with a knife or a bat has the tools he needs to easily kill your whole family. So what is the plan to protect a family since knives and bats will always exist?
neilv 3y ago
I imagine some Non-Americans reading this are horrified. But Americans know that this (a pre-shooting checklist) isn't a reason for door locks for every American. And I'd guess it only is for a small minority of Americans.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I'm not American and I'm not horrified...if someone breaks into your house seems quite fine to shoot them if you can.
master-lincoln 3y ago
WTF? Do you mean that you can't shoot someone without legal consequence in some US jurisdiction if you have an open door? You can still shoot them... >You can shoot someone that rams your door to open it. So somebody destroys a door and that entitles you to take their life? I think in both situations you should just refrain from shooting at all. Seems to work in most of the rest of the world..
- talldatethrow 3y ago
  No, you can't legally shoot someone that walks in through an open door. You can ask them to leave, but youre going to have big problems if you shoot them and all they did up to that point was not leave instantly when asked, if they walked through an open door. If the door is locked, and they break in, you are not shooting them because they broke a lock. You are shooting them because theyve shown criminal intent by forcibly making their way through a locked door.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    I'm curious in how many jurisdictions simply "showing criminal intent" is sufficient to mean they're legally a target to be shot at, potentially fatally. I'd be pretty horrified to know I was living in such a jurisdiction. Whereas somebody walking through my open door while clearly posing a threat to my life, or the life of family members (e.g. holding a weapon) I would have no hypothetical qualms over aiming a gun at, and should they continue to approach, firing. Mind you if that did result in their death I'd still expect to be required to provide evidence that it was a reasonable course of self-defence given the circumstances. Are you saying that isn't the case wherever you live?
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      Instead of trying to catch me making a language error on exactly what criminal intent is... Why don't you think about this like a human.... You are at home with your wife and kids. A large man wearing all black with his face covered has broken your door lock and forced the door open. He is now making his way up your stairs where all your family is. Should you be able to legally shoot this man? If not, what is your plan for protecting your family members from this person?

Another reason you have locks is to show intent to keep others out. You can't shoot someone that walks into your home through an open door. You can shoot someone that rams your door to open it.

goodpoint 3y ago

You cannot shoot anybody in the largest majority of countries on this planet. Thankfully.

pdonis 3y ago
How do you get criminals to obey this nice rule?
- master-lincoln 3y ago
  By making it hard to obtain weapons. The US thinking to me seams to go along the lines of handing out nuclear weapons to everybody so forces are balanced...
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    What do you do if two criminals break into your house and you don't have a gun?
    - talldatethrow 3y ago
      I love that this got downvotes but no responses.
    - ddingus 3y ago
      A few things: The number one, by far most effective thing you do comes well ahead of those armed, home entry thieves, and that is you make your home scream "GO AWAY!" Get a dog Employ great lighting Put the home alarm stickers on, actual alarm optional, [3] Clean up. Etc... The criminals work on risk reward. You can bias that equation away from favorable meaning the baddies pick another home, not yours. From there, should you really feel this scenario could happen, maybe consider a gun. But if you do, please get gun education. One bad scenario is to have a gun, and face experienced users. Your chance of getting you, and or family, hurt go way up! I do mostly identify with the left, but am gun friendly having grown up rural and well educated about guns. [3] - no joke! Neighbors had done the sticker thing for roughly a decade. That, plus the other suggestions work well.
  - jtriangle 3y ago
    For 500 bucks worth of crypto anyone in the world can get a reasonably competent full auto AK with a box of milsurp ammo. If that's your definition of "hard", I'd say you're setting that bar far too low.
    - bscphil 3y ago
      And the overwhelming majority of people, including thieves, don't do this, because the raised barrier to entry makes gun crimes vastly less attractive. Combine that with a broad social safety net that reduces poverty, and you miraculously get homicide rates dropping through the floor: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_(2006_%E2%80%93_2018).svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_countries_by_...
      - akira2501 3y ago
        > because the raised barrier to entry makes gun crimes vastly less attractive. Is that assertion based on study or "common sense?" It may well be that they don't feel the need to bring a gun because they know their victims are definitely not going to be armed anyways. The real question would, do the criminals not use a weapon at all, or do they use weapons that just don't happen to be guns? > broad social safety net that reduces poverty People aren't being shot in the US because of poverty. The _majority_ of "gun violence" in the US is actually suicides. It's nearly 2/3 of that terrible statistical category. The remainder of murders typically involve alcohol and arguments. The majority of murder victims in the US know their murderer by name and have been acquainted with them for years. Means. Motive. Opportunity. These things don't change.
  - Minor49er 3y ago
    Shinzo Abe might disagree with this
    - master-lincoln 3y ago
      He was right leaning so you are probably correct. But I would think his murder might have happened earlier if weapons were legal for most citizens as in the US.
      - Minor49er 3y ago
        I'm not so sure. The assassin took advantage of the fact that nobody was expecting a gunman. In an armed society, there would have been more defense measures present to prepare for such an attack
        master-lincoln 3y ago
        good point
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > By making it hard to obtain weapons. If the legal rule is "you can't shoot anybody", which is what the post I responded to said, wouldn't that make it impossible to legally obtain weapons? Why just "hard"? If, OTOH, you mean make it hard to illegally obtain weapons, where has this actually been done successfully? My reading of human history is that criminals who want weapons have always been able to get them somehow. > The US thinking to me seams to go along the lines of handing out nuclear weapons to everybody so forces are balanced... I don't know where you are getting that from. The US thinking is very simple: since it is impossible for governments to prevent all violent crimes or to ensure that police show up in time to protect citizens from being harmed by violent crime, citizens must be allowed to have the means of self defense. The best way to minimize the number of citizens that feel the need to have weapons for self-defense is to extirpate crime--but unfortunately the US in recent decades has been moving in the opposite direction.
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    This is a lame response. A man with a knife or a bat has the tools he needs to easily kill your whole family. So what is the plan to protect a family since knives and bats will always exist?

neilv 3y ago

I imagine some Non-Americans reading this are horrified. But Americans know that this (a pre-shooting checklist) isn't a reason for door locks for every American. And I'd guess it only is for a small minority of Americans.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I'm not American and I'm not horrified...if someone breaks into your house seems quite fine to shoot them if you can.

master-lincoln 3y ago

WTF? Do you mean that you can't shoot someone without legal consequence in some US jurisdiction if you have an open door? You can still shoot them... >You can shoot someone that rams your door to open it. So somebody destroys a door and that entitles you to take their life? I think in both situations you should just refrain from shooting at all. Seems to work in most of the rest of the world..

talldatethrow 3y ago
No, you can't legally shoot someone that walks in through an open door. You can ask them to leave, but youre going to have big problems if you shoot them and all they did up to that point was not leave instantly when asked, if they walked through an open door. If the door is locked, and they break in, you are not shooting them because they broke a lock. You are shooting them because theyve shown criminal intent by forcibly making their way through a locked door.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  I'm curious in how many jurisdictions simply "showing criminal intent" is sufficient to mean they're legally a target to be shot at, potentially fatally. I'd be pretty horrified to know I was living in such a jurisdiction. Whereas somebody walking through my open door while clearly posing a threat to my life, or the life of family members (e.g. holding a weapon) I would have no hypothetical qualms over aiming a gun at, and should they continue to approach, firing. Mind you if that did result in their death I'd still expect to be required to provide evidence that it was a reasonable course of self-defence given the circumstances. Are you saying that isn't the case wherever you live?
  - talldatethrow 3y ago
    Instead of trying to catch me making a language error on exactly what criminal intent is... Why don't you think about this like a human.... You are at home with your wife and kids. A large man wearing all black with his face covered has broken your door lock and forced the door open. He is now making his way up your stairs where all your family is. Should you be able to legally shoot this man? If not, what is your plan for protecting your family members from this person?