Lethal force in defense of pets

[Serendipity82]

Well said Tyger.

[Sukurachi]

Guns have a horrible tendency for making people die.

See, this is a horrible misconception people have about firearms. A gun is an inanimate object; it can't do anything without human interaction and yet it's labeled by a lot of people as being inherently evil. Yes guns get used for great evil sometimes, but the gun itself is just a tool, if we didn't have them it would just be some other object that humans found/created.

Also, I see a lot of people thinking you have to shoot to kill. A shot in the air or to the ground is enough to scare most people. And if you're in a dire situation that would require you to fire in self defense, a shot to the arm could be enough to make them stop since, if you do it right, it won't kill them. I don't necessarily think the question is right, but I have seen a few misconceptions and extreme cases in here.

Build a house with a gun.

Feed your family with a gun.

Plant a garden with a gun.

No, a gun isn't "just a tool". (as a matter of fact, a gun does not fit the definition of "tool" at all)

A gun is a "weapon". Its primary function is to fire a metallic projectile at high velocity designed to inflict damage to the target.

You are, indirectly, correct however. The vast majority of gun shot victims survive. It's a very small proportion of gun shots that end with death. It sounds like there are a lot of people killed by guns every year (and there are!), but if you compare to the number of people shot who do NOT die, you realize that gun mortality is quite low in relation to non-lethal shootings.

[Turgus]

...Also, I see a lot of people thinking you have to shoot to kill. A shot in the air or to the ground is enough to scare most people. And if you're in a dire situation that would require you to fire in self defense, a shot to the arm could be enough to make them stop since, if you do it right, it won't kill them. I don't necessarily think the question is right, but I have seen a few misconceptions and extreme cases in here.

Unless you are an expert marksman you do.
All the training that I have had with firearms have been quite specific where you aim (center of mass) and where you don't (everywhere else).
I have to admit that I haven't had advanced training with firearms, but I have had much more than most people with weapons have.
Unfortunately guns are a lethal weapon, there is no "stun" setting.
It is a deadly weapon full stop.

If the situation does not call for it i.e. deadly force you don't draw it and you do not fire it.
Because you are escalating the situation and the if you draw the other person is justifiable in doing the same and even if you aren't willing to fire, you have no idea how they will respond.
Its better to not escalate the situation, and instead should work to diffuse it.

You are, indirectly, correct however. The vast majority of gun shot victims survive. It's a very small proportion of gun shots that end with death. It sounds like there are a lot of people killed by guns every year (and there are!), but if you compare to the number of people shot who do NOT die, you realize that gun mortality is quite low in relation to non-lethal shootings.

From what I have read you are wrong. (Of course it all depends on your definition of "vast majority".)
If you are the victim of gun violence even with all the emergency medical technology out there you have about a 30% chance of dying. (that isn't a small percentage)
The only direct data I could find was at the site below.
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/ ... istics.asp

I am not sure if you really want to take that chance regardless of which side of the gun you are on.

I am not against having or using a firearm but I am against using (drawing, aiming and firing) it unless you absolutely need to.

[TygerDarkstorm]

Tool was the wrong word choice, I apologize. However, that doesn't change my point. A gun is an inanimate object, it is not inherently good or bad. It is the person wielding the gun and the intent they hold behind it. And you can still shoot into the ground without needing to shoot the person (unless it's hard ground or pavement). Would I resort to a firearm in this situation? Probably not. I don't really know how to use a gun which would make the situation just as dangerous for me and my pet as it would the person causing harm. I'm not even sure if I would honestly have the guts to confront a mean person like that; chances are I would be calling the police.

[Sukurachi]

From what I have read you are wrong. (Of course it all depends on your definition of "vast majority".)
If you are the victim of gun violence even with all the emergency medical technology out there you have about a 30% chance of dying. (that isn't a small percentage)
The only direct data I could find was at the site below.
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/ ... istics.asp

I am not sure if you really want to take that chance regardless of which side of the gun you are on.

I am not against having or using a firearm but I am against using (drawing, aiming and firing) it unless you absolutely need to.

2000 statistics give (I rounded the numbers to the nearest thousand):

Non-fatal gunshots
52,000 deliberate
23,000 accidental
Fatal gunshots
17,000 suicide
12,000 homicide

that means that for the year 2000, 8% were fatal deliberate uses of firearm. Suicide does not count in what we are talking about.

that IS a small proportion.

By the way, I am not trying to diminish the problem with firearm violence.
I am a rabid gun control proponent. I believe the only people who should own guns are policemen and soldiers, and only while on duty.
I am just trying to clear up the misconception that ALL gun violence ends in death. The majority of it is non-fatal.

[Turgus]

2000 statistics give (I rounded the numbers to the nearest thousand):

Non-fatal gunshots
52,000 deliberate
23,000 accidental
Fatal gunshots
17,000 suicide
12,000 homicide

that means that for the year 2000, 8% were fatal deliberate uses of firearm. Suicide does not count in what we are talking about.

You are wrong.
Using the data from your post (I am assuming it is accurate) of total intentional shootings 18.75% ended in a fatality.
(12000 + 52000 = 64000) (12000/64000 = 18.75%)
That is not a minor percentage.

I admit that the data will vary year to year, and how you group the percentages, but many shootings end in a fatality.
As for the rest of it, yes, many people are injured and die from gun related accidents and suicides, but that does not change the fact that if a gun is used there is a good chance someone will be killed.

[Vephriel]

Perhaps it's since I'm Canadian, but the idea of people just...owning guns as a normal thing seems so strange to me. I don't think I know a single person that has a gun. I personally don't see reason for everyone and anyone to possess them as a weapon when they're just regular civilians. I dunno, I just don't get it I guess.

[Turgus]

I guess I better post this since it may seem as if I am anti-gun.

I am for responsible gun owners.
I am one and I take the responsibility of having an object that can literally end someone very seriously.

That is why this kind of roleplaying, what if question bothers me.
Because the use of a firearm should be the LAST resort.
Because of its incredible and often fatal consequences.
Even if the guy/girl is not killed after being shot the hospital expenses are tremendous.

Drawing down and threatening someone with a deadly weapon is not something that I would do unless I HAVE to. (Which IS something I have done before)

In this case I would verbally warn my neighbor, then if needed physically intervene (block his advance), then if needed attempt to physically restrain and subdue if needed and only, ONLY if he physically overpowered me and attempted to kill me would I use my firearm.

Only in defense of myself, or another person would I use deadly force. Any pet, no matter what I felt for them would not change this.

Maybe it is just my perception, but some people do not seem to understand the gravity of this scenario and its life altering ramifications if it were to take place in real life.

Just refer to the recent media coverage in the US if you have any questions about what kind of consequences these could be.

[Boven]

It's pretty much a lose/lose situation.

I'm going to assume that, like the concealed carry classes here in VA, a good portion of it was devoted to basically telling you to not use your weapon unless there's a direct threat to your life or another person's life. Much as we love our pets and consider them family members, the law doesn't really identify them as such. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Running out between the neighbor and your pet would be intentionally putting yourself in harm's way. That would almost guarantee invalidating any defense you might have for claiming you felt your life was threatened.

Suggestions to fire to wound or fire a so-called warning shot are bad moves, too. Even for a skilled shooter, hitting a moving target with enough accuracy to only incapacitate is extremely difficult. Hitting an extremity would really be just luck. You'd be more likely to miss and that means you've just sent a bullet going who-knows-where, potentially going into some bystander's back yard/house/car/etc where it could injure them. For a moving (or even stationary) target, you're going to aim for the torso. Specifically the chest. That's very likely going to be fatal.

Drawing or otherwise presenting a weapon, even without firing it, can be considered 'brandishing' which is illegal. Doing so will pretty much lose you your CC permit and potentially result in criminal charges.

Unless the neighbor comes after you (of their own volition, not by you running in front of them so they're now heading toward you instead of your pet), any retaliatory action is grounds for a civil suit against you for assault, battery, wrongful death, and more. Depending upon the situation, you're also looking at the possibility of manslaughter or even murder charges as well.

[Sukurachi]

You are wrong.
Using the data from your post (I am assuming it is accurate) of total intentional shootings 18.75% ended in a fatality.
(12000 + 52000 = 64000) (12000/64000 = 18.75%)
That is not a minor percentage.

no, I'm not wrong.

I didn't calculate only "intentional" shootings. but ALL shootings, which does include accidental and suicides.

[Boven]

Perhaps it's since I'm Canadian, but the idea of people just...owning guns as a normal thing seems so strange to me. I don't think I know a single person that has a gun. I personally don't see reason for everyone and anyone to possess them as a weapon when they're just regular civilians. I dunno, I just don't get it I guess.

I own a guns, both pistols and long guns. I just enjoy shooting at targets. I'm sure it sounds strange, but it's actually a bit relaxing. That's probably just due to needing to concentrate and such.

I'm not a hunter. If by some weird circumstance I had to hunt to survive, I probably could. I honestly doubt whether I could shoot a human. I like to think that I could if the situation demanded it and there was no other recourse, but I'm really not sure.

[Silivren]

I know several people who own guns. Most are for personal defense in case of break-in. That being said however, a good friend of mine likes to do competition shooting. He's really good, he wouldnt dream of hurting anybody with it however and he is certified to own it. Honestly knowing that my college is in the part of town it is(can get kinda sketchy at night) I'd like to get a conceal and carry license myself. I currently carry mace but that can expire(its true and lose its stun). Whatever the case anyone intentionally theatening any animal or person cant be up to any good. I take it as if you can willingly hurt an animal then you could willingly hurt a human being.

[Turgus]

You are wrong.
Using the data from your post (I am assuming it is accurate) of total intentional shootings 18.75% ended in a fatality.
(12000 + 52000 = 64000) (12000/64000 = 18.75%)
That is not a minor percentage.

no, I'm not wrong.

I didn't calculate only "intentional" shootings. but ALL shootings, which does include accidental and suicides.

Yes you are right of ALL injuries and deaths associated with guns intentional homicides only make up 8%.

That was not what we are talking about in this scenario.

This would be an intentional shooting.
From the data you provided 18.75% resulted in a fatality.
I am not sure where your data came from as you didn't link it, but the data I used http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/ ... istics.asp showed:

"Guns were used in 11,493 homicides in the U.S. in 2009, comprising over 36% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides."

"In 2009, firearm injuries were the cause of the unintentional deaths of 554 people."

"From 2004-2009, over 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings."

"Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides."

"Using a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce the chance of being injured during a crime than various other forms of protective action."

"Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 were killed by firearms (165 by handguns) in homicides by private citizens that law enforcement determined were justifiable."

From this data it is easy to gather that using a gun often ends in death and that its use is often unjustifiable even if used in "self defense."

[cowmuflage]

Perhaps it's since I'm Canadian, but the idea of people just...owning guns as a normal thing seems so strange to me. I don't think I know a single person that has a gun. I personally don't see reason for everyone and anyone to possess them as a weapon when they're just regular civilians. I dunno, I just don't get it I guess.

I'm in that boat well apart form being Canadian Heck our police here don't cary firearms and they do a bloody good job at protecting people! (and trust me I've seen heaps of cop shows where police officers from countrys who carry guns (okay 90% of them are yanks ) basicly call our ones pussys or useless for not carrying them and that is quite insulting when you think about it XD Not saying cops who ahve guns don't do good jobs but when they say you can't do a good job without one it's just insulting)

[Knee-Sniper]

Build a house with a gun.

Feed your family with a gun.

Plant a garden with a gun.

No, a gun isn't "just a tool". (as a matter of fact, a gun does not fit the definition of "tool" at all)

ok I can do that

*points gun at builder*
*points gun at farmer*
*points gun at gardener*

YOU THERE GET TO WORK!

[Lupis]

A gun is an inanimate object, it is not inherently good or bad. It is the person wielding the gun and the intent they hold behind it.

I disagree, honestly. Yes, it's not exactly the gun pulling the trigger, but in very few other situations do people have such an easy way to seriously injure someone. It takes a single twitch of a finger to shoot someone. They might not die, but plenty do. Were guns not involved, such violence usually isn't resorted to. It's a lot harder to hurt someone with a knife.
I'm not saying in all situations, but guns DO make people die. It's the human pulling the trigger, the human choosing the shoot, but it's because it's so easy to use that many people are hurt by them so often. There have been several cases recently of people being killed because they looked suspicious, and they would not have been killed if the people around them didn't have easy access to something that can so easily kill.

In self defense it often ends up the same, though I happily admit that sometimes the gun is necessary. But a gun gives people a sense of confidence. Few other things are both very lethal and very easy to use (And, if the aim is off, which is likely, it's still a nasty injury.). People are killed when they shouldn't be, it just happens. So no, you can't blame the gun for the act of trigger-pulling, but the ability they give people is very dangerous and is abused.

[Wain]

If slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" were changed so the word "guns" was replaced with "drugs", I wonder if the right wing would be as happy to accept them. Drugs are inanimate objects, after all. They don't kill people on their own. Hell, I might like to grow a field of cannabis and opium poppies just because I like the aesthetics of them. If I'm not using them to harm people, shouldn't it be within my civil liberties to do so?

And no, I'm not pro-drugs. I despise them I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I think the "guns are tools" argument is a deliberate simplification.

[SpiritBinder]

I'm playing Devil's advocate here.

Drug Takers and Snipers... always chasing there next hit, it's despicable!

[Dakonic]

I'd rather whip out pepper spray or a tazer than shoot. I hate seeing dogs on the news needlessly killed when other methods could've effectively stopped them.

As a pet owner I would do everything in my power to avoid putting my dog in that situation in the first place, that also means not leaving them unsupervised outside. My dogs are either kenneled in the garage or crated when I'm not home. Pit Bulls have been killed when left unattended in their backyards, plus the neighborhood kids have done a lot of things, throw rocks, loosen the fence, stick a fishing pole through. Their parents don't care, they let them run rampant. Better safe that sorry IMO

In the heat of the moment, I would pull the trigger before my dog got killed. But that means like if they're pointing a gun at their head, serious, dog could die in a second, stuff.

I did skim a lot of this, so my apologies if I'm redundant.

[Redith]

I should probably give my answer since I created this can-o-worms. Would I shoot if I saw someone trying to kill my dog and I didn't think my dog could escape. Most likely Yes. Would I be right? No effen way. If I saw someone going to kill my dog and I had a gun close yes I would shoot him. If I didn't have a gun I would probably full body, no regard for my life body slam him. Would I get convicted of murder if I shot? Nope. Manslaughter 1? Yes. Now im pretty sure if I saw my dog was running away and could avoid him I wouldn't shoot, I would call him into the house. Then the punk has to deal with me, and he has 5 seconds to drop the shovel then I consider him a threat to me. If he corners my dog and goes in for a final stroke. Adios bioch.

Now I know allot of you are going to say im a bad person that I would kill a human over an animal. You know what, I don't care lol. I don't see it as black and white as human life vs animals life.

To me its my best friend who I love and care for and means the world to me vs the asshole who is trying to maliciously kill him. You damn right I would blow him away