Chicago Homeowner Wastes 3 Intruders Breaking into his Home

Each of the deceased had multiple gunshot wounds. Hmm. Is one bullet not enough to get your point across?

He made my day.

Good riddance three scumbags.

Of course he had a gun. He had to protect all the illegal drugs in his basement.

markschultz25 wrote:

Ooo-rah!

This is what needs to happen with more home invaders.

http://prideeagle.com/2017/08/28/3-thugs-break-into-chicago-home-fed-up-family-man-dishes-out-brutal-instant-justice/

Wow, great, this is so great!, man, really great stuff, great. 3 dead people, great!!!!!

not a gun owner wrote:

Each of the deceased had multiple gunshot wounds. Hmm. Is one bullet not enough to get your point across?

You have to make sure they don't shoot you back.

Do you think cops stop at one? Heck they shoot hundreds at innocent people.

If you want to complain, then complain about them.

Quality story. Owning, safely storing, and properly maintaining a gun is ESSENTIAL to being a REAL MAN.

Of course not wrote:

not a gun owner wrote:

Each of the deceased had multiple gunshot wounds. Hmm. Is one bullet not enough to get your point across?

You have to make sure they don't shoot you back.

Do you think cops stop at one? Heck they shoot hundreds at innocent people.

If you want to complain, then complain about them.

I am not a gun owner. I've never shot someone and never been robbed so don't know what it's like. I feel like one could get in trouble shooting to kill versus shooting to protect. If I robbed a house I sure as hel! would expect to be shot too so it's not that I'm saying it was wrong, but what will the courts say?

not a gun owner wrote:

Of course not wrote:

You have to make sure they don't shoot you back.

Do you think cops stop at one? Heck they shoot hundreds at innocent people.

If you want to complain, then complain about them.

I am not a gun owner. I've never shot someone and never been robbed so don't know what it's like. I feel like one could get in trouble shooting to kill versus shooting to protect. If I robbed a house I sure as hel! would expect to be shot too so it's not that I'm saying it was wrong, but what will the courts say?

I asked a buddy of mine (he works security for high ranking government officials) this exact question. He had a two part response: 1. If he's dead, there is only one side to the story, and 2. A dead guy can't come after your family.

Sounds callous, but I have been robbed, and I wouldn't heaitate.

not a gun owner wrote:

Of course not wrote:

You have to make sure they don't shoot you back.

Do you think cops stop at one? Heck they shoot hundreds at innocent people.

If you want to complain, then complain about them.

I am not a gun owner. I've never shot someone and never been robbed so don't know what it's like. I feel like one could get in trouble shooting to kill versus shooting to protect. If I robbed a house I sure as hel! would expect to be shot too so it's not that I'm saying it was wrong, but what will the courts say?

In most of the US, this would never get near a court.

markschultz25 wrote:

Ooo-rah!

This is what needs to happen with more home invaders.

http://prideeagle.com/2017/08/28/3-thugs-break-into-chicago-home-fed-up-family-man-dishes-out-brutal-instant-justice/

Right or wrong, all this post proves is shultz is a low life loser.

"not a gun owner," perhaps my rewording of TheJeff's comment part 2 isn't perfect but it would go something like this:

Your goal is to neutralize and/or eliminate the threat(s) to your safety and security.

This can ONLY be guaranteed when the threat canNOT possibly harm you in any way, shape, or form. If they are alive, there is ALWAYS a possibility they could still pull a weapon on you and harm you or persons around you. Also, if you truly "feared for your life" (the general standard used to decide whether you acted in reasonable self defense or not), then you really want to have an empty magazine when the cops show up, no joke.

not a gun owner wrote:

Of course not wrote:

You have to make sure they don't shoot you back.

Do you think cops stop at one? Heck they shoot hundreds at innocent people.

If you want to complain, then complain about them.

I am not a gun owner. I've never shot someone and never been robbed so don't know what it's like. I feel like one could get in trouble shooting to kill versus shooting to protect. If I robbed a house I sure as hel! would expect to be shot too so it's not that I'm saying it was wrong, but what will the courts say?

Read some accounts of police shootouts. It's not like the movies. A guy may be shot once, twice, three times and still come at you. Unless that bullet is .50 caliber, your attacker is not necessarily going to be massively affected.

I'm with these guys. I'm. I'm no tough guy. I'm socially liberal/libertarian. My home defense plan is centered on my wife calling 911 whil elicked in my master suite bathroom while I lay by the top of my stairs with my Mossberg and let home invaders take whatever they may find downstairs before the police come. Only if they come up the stairs would I take any action. But if I take action, my plan, if I have the fortitude to enact it, includes fully neutralizing the threat. That doesn't mean I intend to kill, but a mobile assailant is a threat and I, like anyone else is such a situation, don't don't see aiming for someone's knee to imobilize them, etc. as a viable option.

Sad to see a loss of life in any event.

At least we won't have to listen to these three spouting off their "didndonuffin" bs.

not a gun owner wrote:

Each of the deceased had multiple gunshot wounds. Hmm. Is one bullet not enough to get your point across?

Of course not wrote:

You have to make sure they don't shoot you back.

Do you think cops stop at one? Heck they shoot hundreds at innocent people.

If you want to complain, then complain about them.

not a gun owner wrote:

I am not a gun owner. I've never shot someone and never been robbed so don't know what it's like. I feel like one could get in trouble shooting to kill versus shooting to protect. If I robbed a house I sure as hel! would expect to be shot too so it's not that I'm saying it was wrong, but what will the courts say?

I'm not a gun owner either. I agree with all that you said, plus if I had a gun, I'd be quite concerned

about using it in an inappropriate manner. Not having one keeps that from happening, and that's why I don't.

not a gun owner wrote:

Of course not wrote:

You have to make sure they don't shoot you back.

Do you think cops stop at one? Heck they shoot hundreds at innocent people.

If you want to complain, then complain about them.

I am not a gun owner. I've never shot someone and never been robbed so don't know what it's like. I feel like one could get in trouble shooting to kill versus shooting to protect. If I robbed a house I sure as hel! would expect to be shot too so it's not that I'm saying it was wrong, but what will the courts say?

The courts have generally given homeowners a lot of leeway in protecting their homes especially when occupied. However, I am confident of the following:

1) This was not the first time these 3 did this

2) A parent of at least one of the burglars will claim his/her son/daughter was a good kid who just fell in with the wrong crowd

Smoove wrote:

I'm with these guys. I'm. I'm no tough guy. I'm socially liberal/libertarian. My home defense plan is centered on my wife calling 911 whil elicked in my master suite bathroom while I lay by the top of my stairs with my Mossberg and let home invaders take whatever they may find downstairs before the police come. Only if they come up the stairs would I take any action. But if I take action, my plan, if I have the fortitude to enact it, includes fully neutralizing the threat. That doesn't mean I intend to kill, but a mobile assailant is a threat and I, like anyone else is such a situation, don't don't see aiming for someone's knee to imobilize them, etc. as a viable option.

Sad to see a loss of life in any event.

A law enforcement officer once told me that a pump action shotgun is the best for home defense. His reasoning

1) Assume the break in occurs while oyu are asleep. It takes a lot of training to wake up, realize what is going on, then from a deep sleep to identify the target in the dark (and make sure you do not shoot a family member) and aim and hit the target all the while making sure a miss or through and thorough does not fly into your kid's room.

So a shotgun blast gives you more margin for error (although still need to be concerned about what is behind your target).

2) The loud sound of a pump action shotgun by itself might be just enough to get the guy or gal to consider another house.

Scuttlebutt says that it might end up being 3 murders - the scene was staged, apparently.

Most home defense shotgun loads have only a few very large individual shot. They'll definitely punch through drywall and kill somebody on the other side. They likely won't make it through if they hit a stud instead.

They won't be a through and through and kill a second person, though.

Your aim will have to be almost as good with a shotgun as with a pistol. The spread when shooting across an average sized bedroom will only be maybe 6 inches wide. Plus you have to pump for each shot.

If they're in close enough, it would be very easy for them to avoid being shot simply by moving quickly. A longer gun moves much slower than a pistol.

My point on pump shotguns is:

- it can still kill an occupant of another room if you miss

- they're probably harder to hit your target

- they're pretty much useless if the assailant is in close and aggressively attacks you before you can shoot

- they shoot much slower than a semiautomatic

Pistol makes much more sense.

Of course none of this changes the fact that a legally owned firearm for self defence is statistically more likely to kill your loved one than an intruder. That's why I don't have one. I'm not philosophically to them