Hellobee Boards

I'm quite anti-gun (from Canada, so that probably has a lot to do with it) and would never keep a gun in my house. I grew up with a dad who hunts, but he always kept his guns disassembled and locked up, with the ammo in a completely separate location, so quite useless in the event of an intruder.

I do have a very big dog who sounds vicious and tends to throw her huge body against the windows and doors when someone walks near our house and I live in an area that has a very low crime rate.

@grizz: OMG I would have flipped the f out.

I can honestly say I would just lose my shit. I'm not proficient enough with guns to be confident in that aspect. DH is, but we keep them locked up in a gun safe in the basement so chances are they would do ZERO good to us in an intruder situation. If it was me, a baseball bat and a crazy person was coming towards my child-I would honestly probably go overboard with the mama bear instinct.

@looch: Correct. My husband hunts as a hobby. I don't hunt (would never be able to kill an animal even though I love to eat meat!) but grew up around guns growing up on a farm and ranch. It's very much a part of life where we live but anyone around a gun should be properly trained in its use and have lots of practice operating them! I don't think there is ANY excuse for leaving a gun, loaded or unloaded, around children. We're quite serious about gun safety around here!

Just to provide another perspective, protecting yourself in this manner is actually illegal in New Zealand. A farmer in one of our rural areas shot a thief that was potentially going to steal thousands of dollars of farming equipment and was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

I would. We own a 9mm. I know how to load and shoot it. DH is a master level marksman with a 9mm and a rifle.

Mofo better not break into my damn house. They'd regret it.

To be fair, I'd go leg or kneecap over lethal. Lots of pain, enough distraction for me to call the cops. I'd also probably issue a quick verbal warning to identify themselves and if they didn't, I wouldn't hesitate. I'm from somewhere with a high violent crime rate and I don't play around.

We have a home alarm, so I'd hope that would be enough to never have to do this. It's not something I'd ever WANT to do, but I would if I had to.

I'd hope when the alarm went off, they'd take off running. If not, I'd shoot to kill. It's only me and LO, so no one else should be trying to come in.

@Mae: LMBO!

@Mae: hey hey hey I didn't leave you hanging

Yes, if anyone breaks into my home, I will shoot them! Ideally, I hope I can aim and shoot the intruder's leg, thigh, or ankle to spare his/her life but that's quite unlikely. I will just shoot until the person is down and no longer a threat to my family.

@Cherrybee: Allow me to try a response to your question about Christians and licit gun ownership and use. First, Exodus is in the Old Testament so of course your question also implicates Jews. The ten commandments are first of all a Jewish text. But perhaps you knew that.

Second, you are rather obviously incorrect in your assumption that "Thou shalt not kill" means "no killing whatsoever in any circumstance." You should finish reading Exodus. If you had, you would have seen Exodus 22:1-3 (it's either 1-2 or 2-3, depending on the translation of the text you're looking at), which is quite clear that there is an exception for self-defense. Here is a quick link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill#Justified_killing:_intruder_in_the_home .

Without intending any disrespect, the impression created by questions like this is that of a feigned desire to understand revealing that in fact very little effort has been put into trying to understand.

The Catechism (available online) is a good place to start if you are interested in the Catholic viewpoint, for example. As to why it may be acceptable to kill an aggressor threatening your life, or perhaps the life of someone in your family, the bottom line is that self-defense may well be legitimate: "it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow." (CCC 2264)

If you look up the Catechism you will see that it points to texts in the Old Testament to flesh out the fifth commandment. These texts indicate that the meaning of the admonition here is that you should not slay the innocent and the righteous. This is probably consistent with the common sense of most people.

Indeed you can probably imagine quite easily situations where it would be not only your right to kill but moreover your duty to do so, for example, if you were entrusted with the safety of a child and you were assaulted by an aggressor intent on killing that child. The Catechism says that you would be in the clear there too: "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility." (CCC 2265). So Christians--and Jews--may honorably serve in roles where they may be required to use deadly force: in the police or in the military, for example. At home in the defense of family, perhaps. That view seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable reading of the Scripture texts and one that comports well with common sense and experience.

I chose the 3rd option but I do think that if someone were after me or my baby, I could shoot. Most home intruders can be scared away though and a gun isn't necessary. I saw this episode and I think it's a tragedy all around but it was clear the kid was drunk and you would think the shooter would recognize his neighbor.. While I do think he has the right to shoot someone intruding in his house, it doesn't appear to have been the right call in that situation and I think he should have apologied in person to his family. I can't believe he didn't at least do that for a neighbor..

@honeybear: Thank you for taking the time to reply to me - and to construct such a detailed reply - when my comments were antagonistic at best. You mentioned a "feigned desire to understand revealing that in fact very little effort has been put into trying to understand" and your assessment of me, in this case, was quite correct. I was basically ranting....... I hope you can forgive me for that - this is a topic I feel very, very strongly about.

To reassure you, yes I do know that Exodus is an Old Testament text; I'm a Christian Theology graduate. My studies were actually the reason I lost my faith - I hear that's very common - but prior to that my faith meant everything to me and I still love the Bible to this day.

I don't really agree with your assessment of Exodus 22:1-3. As I read it, it asserts that if someone breaks into your home, a struggle ensues and the thief sustains an injury that later proves to be fatal, then providing this happens after sunset then you are not guilty of murder. I personally think that this is very different to shooting to kill an intruder. To me, this passage talks about accidental death - and, of course, if this happens during the day then even that is murder.

Your quotes from The Catechism were interesting - there were some interesting points raised. Of course, this is not scripture but the theological opinions of a man (a man who, if you are a Catholic, is God's representative on earth so it's pretty compelling but if you are not, well, he's just a man......).

Again, thank you for making an effort to reply to me. Topics like this make people's blood boil - so it's rare to be able to have a civil debate about it.