Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Does any pro gun control person think you should not be able to use a gun in your home? [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)32. Let me answer your questions
How many and what type of guns one feels they need to protect their home
one, but that has nothing to do with guns that serve other functions
Would you shoot fleeing unarmed teenager?
Besides being immoral and could not even if legal, I really should not dignify that with an answer.
Since George Zimmerman and I don't have the same rich daddy, my ass would be in a Florida jail, if I happen to be in Florida at the time.
If I do that at home while visiting family, I won't be coming back to Florida and the razer wire would be blocking my view of the sunsets.
How do you and family get along? Storage of guns. And more.
Google "myth of the virgin killers"
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
125 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Does any pro gun control person think you should not be able to use a gun in your home? [View all]
Logical
Mar 2012
OP
If he is fleeing the home or in retreat, severe bodily is harm clearly is not imminent for you.
geckosfeet
Mar 2012
#2
Or if you both have guns there is no disparity of force so you can't shoot??????
kestrel91316
Mar 2012
#17
No - if someone pulls gun on you there is disparity, lethal force is defensable.
geckosfeet
Mar 2012
#38
You can't preemtively defend/attack period. There must be a threat of bodily harm.
geckosfeet
Mar 2012
#35
If they are in my home, this should be all a reasonable person needs to conclude intent to harm.
Atypical Liberal
Mar 2012
#53
Fuck that! My Shitzu barks, someone comes in my front door, my 1911 barks.
OffWithTheirHeads
Mar 2012
#6
If they are performing their duty and attempting to arrest you or someone in the house
geckosfeet
Mar 2012
#36
Yes, ignore all those people who've protected themselves with handguns- they're bullshit.
X_Digger
Mar 2012
#9
Should we also ignore all those people who've accidentally killed family members?
jeff47
Mar 2012
#10
The reason I linked to wikipedia is so the controversy was covered. As for actual numbers
jeff47
Mar 2012
#50
Ok, then you're roughly double as likely to accidentally kill someone than shoot an intruder
jeff47
Mar 2012
#49
But it's NOT equivalent because you are ignoring DGU's where no shots were even fired.
eqfan592
Mar 2012
#79
That's why self defense training as practiced today often simply trains people to kill.
Hoyt
Mar 2012
#34
If we accounted for those, we should also add in accidental-but-not-fatal shootings.
jeff47
Mar 2012
#67
But you are ok with letting individuals decide if the risk is worth it, right? nt
hack89
Mar 2012
#72