and Stand Your Ground. Why NOT RUN if you can? You MUST protect your property? You are a COWARD if you don't protect your HOME? Hell, if I can escape with my life, and not have to confront and shoot them, they can have ALL my property for all I care. I guess that is difference in my thinking, and theirs.

There must be a middle ground between having a sign that says "come on in, I'll run while you loot!" and "I'll shoot you in the back whether you're invading my property or not".

I want the right to protect my property. Not to blast people because I think they MIGHT look like a criminal walking down the street.

OK sure, some property is uniquely valuable or its loss might be life-threatening, but otherwise it's just "stuff." What most people mean when they want to "protect their property" is that they want to protect their ego. They want to protect themselves from the feelings of powerlessness, invasion, and embarrassment that accompanies their loss of stuff. Think about it-- if losing property was dangerous to the person losing it, no one would be able to pick up and carry on when natural disasters like floods or storms destroyed their property. instead, people routinely recover from property loss, often quite quickly.

No one ever recovers from being killed though, so killing to protect property is an inherently asymmetrical and overblown response EXCEPT in some possible instances where the loss really is similarly threatening to the owner.

Second, everyone who is robbed of property entertains revenge fantasies of one sort or another. At least I suspect that everyone does-- I certainly do. We have those fantasies as part of our emotional response to loss and victimization. People who keep guns to protect themselves from trivial property loss are essentially projecting those revenge fantasies into the future, and I think that makes them much more dangerous than people who don't act on their fantasies, but rather use them passively to dissipate emotional distress.

Sure, if I could read minds and knew that someone breaking into my home only wanted my stuff, I'd let them take it rather than shoot them. I'd be pissed off...but not to the point of killing a human being (even a scum-sucking lowlife thief...). But I can't read minds, and a statistically significant minority of such situations result in the person breaking in committing an act of violence.

I don't believe any external agency, be it a government or an individual, has the ethical right to tell me I have to assume I'm not in danger of grave physical harm if someone breaks into my home while I'm there. I don't believe they have the ethical right to tell me I must flee (for all that I would do so if that seemed to be the safest course of action). It's not their call to make, it's mine.

Basically, I don't disagree with your assertion that "killing to protect property is an inherently asymmetrical and overblown response." It's just that in many plausible circumstances a person can't reasonably be certain that's all that's going to happen.

If you run out of your home, you won't be there for them to kill you, right? They can take all they want, but they cannot kill you if you aren't there.

If they're also there for you (or you're just a bit of "icing on the cake&quot , then it's only going to work if you can outrun them.

Like I said previously, my stuff isn't worth even a scumbag thief's life (and I've got some fairly nice stuff!). My life, on the other hand (or even my health), is.

and I'm no track star. My wife might be able to get away to the neighbors to call police but if you think I'm going to take a chance that an intruder into my house only wants my stuff and nothing else then we will just have to disagree. I will do whatever it takes to protect my family.

I took my chances when I was 23, and yes, had an attempted breakin back then, so I will still take my chances now. I am old. Go ahead, kill me.

then that's fine for you. I do not choose to go that way and I am glad I live in a country where we both have the freedom to choose our own path.

I keep a shotgun under my bed, because if you break into my house I'll shoot you to protect myself and my wife. If the intruder wants to run when he sees me, that's peachy keen, I'm not chasing him once he gets out of my house.

That's pathetic. You mean to say that there is no one in your life that would mourn you terribly if you were murdered?

If I find an intruder in my home who has absolutely no right to be there, I assume that he intends to harm me or others in my family. If all he wanted to do was to take my possessions, he could wait my the home was unoccupied.

Some of my family members have upstairs bedrooms. I could yell at the top of my voice and they would never hear me as this is a large home. If I retreat or run out the door, I would be leaving my family at the mercy of the intruder.

That doesn't automatically mean that if I find an intruder, I plan to blow him away. If he follows my instructions, I will hold him for the police. If he runs out the door I will not shoot or pursue him. If he turns his back but doesn't run, I will have a real concern that he is attempting to access his own weapon and turn plans to turn around and attack me. I will move left or right to a different position. Hopefully if he suddenly turns with a gun in his hand, I will not be quite where he expected and I will be able to shoot him in order to stop his attack before he shoots me.

Retreating may be an excellent option for you. It's a poor one for me. If I ran out the door and the intruder killed another member of my family, I would find it difficult to live with myself.

And what about the VERY real possibility of fleeing being what instigates the invaders to pursue you and hurt or kill you so that you cannot get free to get help thereby increasing the possibility of the invaders being caught.

It makes me sick to my stomach that anyone thinks that a VICTIM of a home invasion is only interested in protecting their "stuff" and not themselves and any other loved ones in the home. A home is NOT just a collection of physical property encased in four walls with a roof - it is the one and only safe haven that a person has and EVERYONE has a natural instinct to protect themselves, their loved ones in the home and their safe haven.

I'm DISGUSTED with this attitude that I should be MORE concerned of the life of a criminal breaking into my home - my only safe haven - and that I don't have a right to have very real and very reasonable fear for my life and that of any loved ones in MY safe haven and that I should be MORE concerned with that criminal than for myself, my loved ones in the home and my safe haven. And YES, even my "stuff" particularly since no, it is NOT so easy for the average person to replace their "stuff" particularly such "stuff" that is irreplacable.

Twenty-five years ago my home was robbed thankfully while no one was home, and thankfully the perp(s) didn't destroy the place. I have to this day never been able to replace some of the things that were stolen and what STILL hurts to this day is those items that were stolen that were worth NOTHING to the perp(s) but meant EVERYTHING to me in sentimental value, and those things CANNOT be replaced. To this day it still frightens me that whoever it was went through my underwear draw, stole photos of me and other of my loved ones, stole my journal and other intimate and private possessions, and though I have lived in many different homes since I still cannot feel entirely safe. It was almost the entire reason why since then I have always had a large terretorial dog protecting my safe haven for those times when I'm there and those times that I'm not. Knowing how wretched and terrifying it is to come home and discover your home was invaded and you were robbed of "stuff" I cannot even imagine how terrifying it would be for my home to be invaded while I or other of my loved ones were in it. To think that there are people here that believe that I should be MORE concerned of the life of a criminal invading my home while I and/or my loved ones are in it and that I should be obligated to flee in order to PROTECT that invader's life and their criminality makes me want to PUKE.

Any burglar that wants to stay out of jail works in a group. I'd rather "stand my ground" than take chances with my life. If you think that the life of some criminal is worth more than yours, that's your choice.

...whether they have ever needed to use deadly force to defend themselves. Really needed to. Overwhelmingly, they say no, but also overwhelmingly, they express fear that they might have to some day. That touches on one of the other main reasons for gun ownership: irrational fear. I say irrational because, with some exceptions of course (like extreme civil unrest), the probability of anyone needing to shoot to kill in order to protect their own LIFE-- as opposed to their dignity, or their comfort, or self-image, or their property-- is miniscule. AND in many cases when that need does exist it arises out of the easy access to guns that fosters the belief that they're necessary in the first place.

Much of my life as been spent in urban areas which suburban acquaintances typically imagine are fabulously dangerous, and indeed, the 'police blotter' sections of the neighborhood paper can make interesting reading. But nothing has ever left me feeling possession of a fire-arm was necessary to my safety, and indeed, in probably the most dangerous situation to actually arise, it was obvious to me a fire-arm would not have been of any help at all, in the long run. The most striking thing about the typical RKBA enthusiast is the condition of near absolute safety in which they actually live.

I have fire insurance on my house, too...but the chances of me ever needing it are actually lower than the chances of me needing to employ deadly force (or the threat thereof...which is how most defensive gun usages play out*) in my defense. Is my having fire insurance irrational? Obviously not. A firearm, kept for defensive purposes, is like an insurance policy in that regard (although obviously the analogy must be applied in a narrow, specific way). Personally, I'd have firearms even if I were somehow able to be assured of never being the victim of violent assault. I enjoy recreational shooting.

I would argue that the probability of finding oneself in the position of facing violent assault is not "minuscule." Violent crime rates per capita have been dropping since the early 90's peak, but they still remain at about 1-in-200 per annum. A person's lifetime chance is far from remote. Moreover, probabilities vary radically by location.



*It's a bit misleading to consider only "shoot to kill" situations as valid usages of a firearm in self defense. Every reliable stat I've seen on defensive gun usages indicates that the firearm is not discharged...not surprising: it would take either an utter lunatic or someone loaded to the gills to continue to threaten in the face of a firearm pointed at them.

Most people carry home owner's insurance to protect their investment, but I'll bet if the bank who owns the mortgage didn't require it, a significant proportion would carry no insurance, or only minimal insurance. Likewise, when I was younger, I spent a couple of decades with no medical insurance because I decided the cost was too great compared with the actual risk, and for the most part I was right. The important thing though, isn't that bad things didn't happen-- it's that I didn't live in fear of getting sick or being injured. Sure, I knew there were risks, and I worried about them occasionally, but on balance I was less worried about the low probability of being desperately ill than I was about the high probability of not having rent money if I paid for health insurance.

In my mind, the question of prudence comes down to this balance. IF you live in fear of the remote possibility that you'll be harmed by "criminals," and if arming yourself alleviates that fear, then that's prudent, at least as far as it goes.

But really, does being armed alleviate the fear, or does it simply give you a different perspective on it? Because once the fear is gone, well, there's no longer any need to be armed. In my experience, people who consistently express fear as their motive for arming themselves are not really helped all that much by being armed, i.e., they're still fearful. So it seems to me that the real problem they have isn't the low risk that most people have of being attacked in their beds, it's their irrational fear of being attacked.

And because of that irrational fear, they create situations that fulfill the prophecy. Guns are broadly legal-- and I'm not talking about sporting weapons here, even though guns kept for recreation often overlap guns kept for self-defense-- and they're relatively easily obtainable largely BECAUSE of those fearful people who tremble at the thought of not being able to "protect their families," thus exacerbating the very hazard they cite as rationale for their fears.

Someone mentioned in another thread yesterday that people like George Zimmerman who carry firearms for self protection operate from a "fear-based psyche." I think that's largely true.

I reply that fortunately I have never had to use a firearm for self defense and I hope and pray that I never will. I point out that while it is unlikely that I will ever find myself in a situation where I have to use lethal force, it's not impossible.

You might interpret that as fear. I chose to look at it as my desire to be as prepared as possible for whatever life decides to throw at me.

I don't fear that I will be involved in an accident while driving to the nearby local grocery store, but I wear my seat belt. I don't fear that my house will catch on fire and no house I ever lived in has, but I have a fire extinguisher ten feet from where I am sitting and fire alarms throughout the house.

Neither your seat belt nor your fire extinguisher cause untold suffering and death in the U.S. each year in the hands of people who use them irresponsibly. That analogy diminishes the importance of their suffering-- you suggest that the victims of gun violence are no worse off than people who wear seat belts, or own fire extinguishers, which is to say, they have no real problems at all.

...for those who do not use them responsibly.

Goodnight.

Seriously. I'm still in the office and even on the left coast it's late as sh*t. Time to go. Pulling the plug....

*beep*

Goodnight.

nor did I ever cause anyone that I have encountered on the street or in stores any concern. Not one person that I talked to or walked past has known that I was carrying a concealed handgun. I have never drawn my weapon while in public to intimidate another person and I never would.

I am in no way responsible for the actions of other people who misuse firearms. Nor am I in any way responsible for those who drink to excess and then drive vehicles and injure or kill others. I am not responsible for people who deal in illegal drugs, husbands who abuse their wives or pedophile priests in the Catholic Church.

I am responsible for my own actions not the actions of others.

Having said that, of course I regret the tragedies that are caused by the misuse of firearms. That's why I favor efforts to combat the illegal sale of firearms and strong enforcement of the law against criminals and criminal gangs. I would, for example, like to see the NICS background check system better financed and improved to input information on dangerous criminals on a more timely basis. I would also like to see this system required for the private sale of all firearms.

I carefully reread my post and I can't see anything that I said that would suggest that "the victims of gun violence are no worse off than people who wear seat belts."

That isn't a reason for outlawing guns. Outlawing dangerous things would make a very bland world.

Be careful there, sweetheart. There are a lot of female gun owners here who very much would shoot if they thought their "dignity" was about to be attacked. If you get my drift.

There are some things that hurt longer than death.

Edit to add and clarify -- Yes, that's a lot of the reason I have a gun, as a single woman. I don't know if they're after my property, my "dignity", or my life if they were to break into my home. Fortunately I have a two-story townhouse now in a slightly better neighborhood, and if they came up my stairs I think I'd be safe to assume they might be wanting one of the latter two. I purchased one after there were two robberies in my old apartment complex, one was when the girl was home, and while I don't know everything that happened she had facial lacerations when I saw her afterward.

When dealing with something that is of infinite value ( your life) probability becomes irrelevant.

not two blocks away when he came home from work and disturbed a burglar.

What's a fair and measured response to rape? No one should enter your body or your home without your consent.

Like say - my expensive and dear exotic pets.... I should just shrug my shoulders and thank my lucky stars no confrontation resulted??? I don't like GUNS either, but I'd sure use one to stop someone from hauling off my stuff! Sure - "they" will make more stuff - except for family heirlooms and precious pets. But what DO I do when the latter might be in peril and I can use force to intervene?

"Trivial property loss" - izzat like a pie left to cool on the windowsill? I seriously doubt anyone checks the magazine to be sure it's holding a round when they set that pie out. But if there's someone rousting your home at night, and you're in the bedroom when they come for your jewelry - what's your response? Do you pull the covers over your head and meekly offer that the box is on the far end of the big dresser? Or do you start to think about personal safety? Maybe we should ask them what their intentions are before we try to get our hand into the nightstand drawer.

...than someone else's life, especially someone you look down upon. AND you played the fear card. Masterfully done!

So tell me-- how many times has someone rousted your home at night or come into your bedroom after your jewelry while you slept? Did you shoot them? It sounds like maybe you're going to be the exception that undermines the apparent reality that those sorts of things are so exceedingly infrequent and almost never happen to people who spend their lives in fear of them. How did you feel when you faced down your attackers?

Picture, if youi can (and you probably can't) being awakened in the wee hours of the morning, bleary-eyed and trying to figure out what the HELL'S going on. When the only thing you can make out for sure is the flash of bright flashlights on a BIG-ASS chromed revolver. Live that moment and tell me real candid-like, how worried you are that the intruders might suffer injury or death. Then spell out your righteousness for me.

You've largely proved the point, I think. Sorry, those just aren't the sorts of things that keep me up at night. Unless you're telling me that this actually happened to you, in which case I'm terribly sorry. You apparently survived-- I hope no one was hurt. Did you shoot the intruder? Or is this a revenge fantasy before the fact? I'm sorry if you find the question offensive-- I genuinely mean no offense. Your response left me unsure whether you were describing your fears or whether you were describing something real.

and it takes intense self-control to not give you detailed directions to a suggested destination. I lived thru that nightmare and had no weapons to grab for. My sleeping partner - who I ultimately married - was who/what they wanted. I don't remember what she said that night to defuse things, but I CAN assure you I had not evern the most fleeting thought for the gun-wielder's welfare. I'm sure your results would vary.

No offense intended. However, you've proven that without being armed, everyone is still around to argue about who said what or whatever. Don't you think that's the better outcome? If you'd shot someone, there'd just be one more unnecessary dead person. Aren't you glad you didn't have a gun?

Supposedly, the last perfect person didn't make it past age 33. Thru my crafty strategy, I've gotten to DOUBLE that age. In your case - be careful!

'Cause that's significantly more likely than "someone rousting your home at night, and you're in the bedroom when they come for your jewelry".

Because if you think this is just a property issue, I am thinking, NEVER.

Such as a plumber, electrician, carpenter, HVAC repairman, has a work truck with all his tools, which could cost as much as $100,000. He has no fixed worksite, goes from job to job, working from his truck. This truck is his sole means of supporting his family, keeping a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and food on the table.

If this truck is stolen, he can’t work. His family could go hungry, and could even become homeless.

Is it ethical and moral for someone who works hard, pays their taxes, and doesn’t commit crime to become homeless to save the life of a thief?

If you don't understand that, I can't explain it any better.

and people who think like you. My property means nothing to me. I could not kill a person to protect my property.My life and my kids lives? Yes. Material goods? Not at all.

Which also means - and this is the difficult part - the life of the criminal trying to steal from you is also worth more than your property.

And why is his right to respond greater than mine?

When I was poor, living paycheck to paycheck, letting someone make off with my stuff - mostly my food - would mean I'd starve to death. Who was going to replace all of that when, at the time, I had no money between paychecks?

Food banks ain't got nothin' now.

I can afford to not defend my property with my life now, but back then, pretty much all I had to steal was my food and 1-2 changes of clothes.

Then you have more issues then I can help you with.

But apprehension is.

Hell, what about nonlethal weapons? We should be seeing more of that in use now.

The NRA and other extremist RW gun nuts are pushing for extreme situations to become commonplace - so the Sanford PD can insist with a straight face that a 17-yr old armed only with a bag of Skittles & a can of iced tea can be considered by them to be a serious threat, and that life - any life - is less important than property.

I feel we should not only be challenging and debunking what the Sanford PD is saying, but we should also be asking why aren't there more nonlethal methods of taking down REAL burglars and intruders into one's home.

This goes way beyond merely showing that a kid with a can of iced tea and a bag of candy is not a threat to anyone.

If someone has already broken into my house, how do I know that property is their only goal? I'd rather ventilate the criminal than take chances on whether they are feeling benevolent or not.

Is it worth less than a can of iced tea & a bag of Skittles? Or that TV you paid too much for 3 yrs ago? Or that ugly vase from your grandmother that you really don't like & really isn't worth anything, but your mom would kill you if you ever sold it or threw it out. Whatever it is, your life isn't intrinsically worth any more than that of a burglar.

And remember: burglars especially like to steal your guns. They're easy to carry, easy to sell & they can always shoot the homeowner with it if things don't work out the way they planned.

I don't think a person should be forced to run. Sometimes running isn't safe and that's a split second decision to make. Nor should they be forced to defend if they feel running is the safer option.

Zimmerman was in pursuit, as far as the writers of the bill in question are concerned:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/

If you want you can run, these laws just allow those of us who don't want to run to defend our property. Personally I'd be willing to use deadly force if someone was taking my stuff. The person taking the things made a bad decision, and sometimes bad decisions have bad consequences.

a vision of himself as some kind of hero. I wouldn't be surprised if he had fantasies of a community awards ceremony where he would be honored for saving the community from the bad guys.
He was hot to trot to shoot someone.

It's well known that he wanted to become a police officer. I'm quite sure he was looking to bag at least one "bad guy" to bolster his chances.

not every cop, fireman, or EMT is a goddamn hero.

In a profound sense, this was a murder pre-meditated and planned for a year or more.

his talking of "Fu...n as...es" comment can be construed to as hate talk...

I agree he should be investigated, arrested, and incarcerated....asap

Imagine you paid top dollar to buy a home that would insure you were surrounded by people of your same socio-economic class, if not race - walled in to keep the Others out.

Then the real estate market collapses.

Soon you find yourself gated into a community of folks one or two steps down a perceived class ladder who rent for pennies on the dollar. And now you and a few long time neighbors are the minority and those very same Others are the majority.

This is certainly not the first nor will it be the last such murder.

I thought it was projection.

Trayvon was running away. He had done nothing. Zimmerman Persued him and shot him. He's a murderer. This is not a ground standing issue.

You have a way of revealing a perspective I just can't imagine, can't see.

I have lived in Massachusetts my whole life, hence the liberal. I have been a republican since Dukakis ran the state into the ground prior to his running for president. Governor Weld took over and in the time he was running the state, we got our a+ rating back and was no longer in the red. This was done without raising taxes. Back when I became a republican it simply meant (at least to me) no more new taxes, only spend what you have in the treasury. This is way off topic, but I felt the need to explain my "republican status". Just wanted to say when it comes to home invasion I am all for shooting the burglars if caught in the act. Criminals have a right to a fair trial and to the constitutional protections afforded them...but when someone comes into my home uninvited and is caught taking things before they "catch me" I will always shoot first and call the police second. I have never been broken into, nor have any of my neighbors, but I feel strongly about my right to privacy in my own home.

Zimmerman was, at minimum, 50% predisposed to become judge, jury, and executioner given the SYG law.

He based this whole thing on looks alone. WTF!? Bubble Boy goes "pop".

That way, someone doesn't have to do something moronic like run outside where it might not be safe, when they can stay defensively in their home and kill a home invader.

An unfortunate side effect of this is that it makes morons think they can go on the offensive (as opposed to just staying where they are). Joe Horn is a good example, because neither he nor Zimmerman were correct in doing what they did (despite the fact that the men Joe Horn shot were criminals. I'm not sure if the law protected Joe Horn, and he was a dumbass for leaving the safety of his home to shoot and kill for material items, but the thing was no jury in the world would have convicted him.

he said "punk"...he looks like the type of guy who would use slurs...I can see it in his eyes, he has racist eyes.

My daughter came in the front door and said that there was a man rifling through my truck.

I told her to call 9-11, which she did, I grabbed my 12 gauge pump shotgun (unloaded) and observed what was going on in the driveway from an upstairs window. Sure enough, a dude had both my cab doors open and was throwing stuff on the ground looking for anything worth keeping.

My main concern was keeping him out of the house. As far as the "stuff" in the truck, he could have it. No way was I going to endanger anyone's life over that, even the robber's.

Eventually, he ran off. By the time I got downstairs, he was gone, and the police soon caught him. He had one of my flashlights on him, which I got back.

That was the only thing he had stolen, a used plastic flashlight worth maybe two dollars.

These guys that shoot first and ask questions later have just watched too many movies . . .