Whats your home defense plan?

[David Armstrong]

6) If he splits, I win.

That pretty much sums it all up. And if he doesn't split you haven't lost anything, you are right where you were before.

I'd rather not assume my hollering is going to scare away a BG.

You should probably never assume much of anything. But the point is that if hollering doesn't work, as mentioned above you haven't lost anything. You still have your position of control, you can still get into a gunfight if you want to, etc.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If it does, great. But if it doesn't, then you can move on to the next gamble. That is the beauty of trying the easy way first.

The problem with that line of thought is that you may not have the oppertunity to "progress" through the "gambles". I think a better way to put it is try the non-lethal/violent way if you have the time and opportunity.

Furthermore, I think that the idea that we live our lives one "gamble" to the next to be without merit. As pax once said and well so: "It's not the odds it's the stakes."

 

[David Armstrong]

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

There is the problem, IMO. Some seem to feel a reaasonable response is somehow un-American or some such. Glenn refers to it as being ego-driven (correct me if I'm wrong on that, Glenn). Some of us feel that getting into a shootout over some property is rather silly, some feel that they would rather start a gunfight than give up two dollars. My postion is and always has been fairly simple, and I think reasonable. Pick a response that causes you the least amount of harm physically, mentally, emotionally and financially; and use the best information possible when picking that response. Some consider that compliance. Other consider it good strategy.

I think all David started out to say was that he's not gonna start shooting just because someone is banging on his door.

David always suggests to not start shooting until you need to, as opposed to some who seem to think you should shoot any and every time you get a chance to do so. Some think that is compliance. And of course some think that if you choose compliance as an initial strategy it means you can't ever stop complying, as we have seen on some of the posts here. "Go away, Bad Guy" doesn't mean "if you don't go away you can have the run of the place and do anything you want because I won't do anything else." "Go away, Bad Guy" means "If you don't go away I will do my best to make you wish you had gone away, so take this chance and make it easier on both of us."

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My view is a coldly rational view of establishing the best outcome for me and my family.

In a potentially lethal force situation, the best outcome is coming out without significant harm to us.

In this calculation, I am not concerned with emotions such as a sense of territorial violation. I understand such and have felt it when I was once burgled. However, the property is trivial as compare to the risk of harm, the practical expense of dealing with a lethal shooting in the house, the potential psychological harm and social negative outcomes. I also am not into potential reciprocal altruism to prevent another burglary elsewhere. This is different from saving someone being attacked. That has a different moral context.

I am sure that if I get hurt in an interaction with a burglar - no neighbor or internet participant will contribute one red cent to me.

Thus, I will use lethal force if needed to prevent grievous bodily harm. If I can use various measures to cause the BG to flee - I'll do it. In fact, I've trained in FOF house exercises to hunker down and use command voice to get them to leave.

I note for those who haven't tried it, that when folks went out to engage the bad guys and save their TV, the BGs ambushed them and landed them on their buttocks. Those who hunkered down - with the appropriate long arms - saved the day.

We have sufficient layers of warning and noise such that I will be convinced that someone continuing to advance is a physical threat and then we have the tools for that. Fighting from a defensive position is quite superior in most cases.

Now we see folks arguing that they are predator killers, taking the offensive in the house and the like. They won't let the BG get away. As Dave mentioned, some of that, IMHO, comes from a sense of personal violation and not the rational. I don't think less of you if you don't get yourself killed for your TV but instead hunkered down and called the cops.

However, for some - they don't want to admit that. I have an acquaintance who brags how he clears his house. No training, crappy shot - but he's clearing. I told him that if I were in his house - he probably would be ambushed and dead. Annoyed him.

Think about the overall goal of your home defense plan - is to get the bad guy or is it that you don't get hurt? Your ego doesn't bleed real blood, your body does.

So if you decide to fight - be sure you understand what your goal is.

1. Save self and family from harm
2. Feel good as a warrior
3. Save the neighbors from potential crime.

Why are these your goal? One thing I always say which causes a firestorm, if you choose the altruistic statement - is that really the motive? Theories of altruism suggest that saving the neighbors for some is not that you care about the neighbors but you want their adulation for your heroic effort. Is that really important? If you were truly altruistic, would you actually chip in to support the family of a neighbor killed in a firefight with a burglar. I mean not just giving his family a pound cake and tuna casserole but contributing them for life. I doubt that happens.

Hollering so they go away, if you are in position to do so - makes a lot of sense - if you are truly honest about your decision processes. If you need to fight, then you do. You can reduce the need by not taking foolish ninja risks.

We are armed. The police have been called. Get out
We are armed. The police have been called. Get out.

By the way, have the phone line open to the law and the alarm sounding.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

That pretty well nails it Glenn.

Close the thread.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

My view is a coldly rational view of establishing the best outcome for me and my family. In a potentially lethal force situation, the best outcome is coming out without significant harm to us.

Glenn, I agree with that statement. My motivation is that same as yours but my concern is if confronted with violence, and I am armed, I choose the non-violent method (or comply) first then will I have another option later? If not then the violent one must be used first. Do you see my point?

In the OP the scenario is pounding on an (I assume) locked door. Ok, you can holler because there is a barrier between you and the BG that keeps you safe for the moment. Once that door is breached time and options get smaller. I think anyone who reads or watches SD stuff out there will learn that moving through a house to engage bad guys is not too smart. Unless of course you are retrieving loved ones. It just makes sense and you can do your own contrived FoF to see that.

I also agree with your precept about concern for property. I was not a Joe Horn supporter.

So, to wrap up my thoughts; use nonviolent options or avoidance if possible as long as you surrender no advantage such as distance, firearm etc AND have the time and opportunity to do so.

 

[David Armstrong]

Hollering so they go away, if you are in position to do so - makes a lot of sense - if you are truly honest about your decision processes.

I think that is the key, Glenn...many are not honest about the decision process, or they don't even have a decision process. We see some that argue that one course of action is a gamble, but that another course is not a gamble. Of course, everything is a gamble, but some are not honest about that. Some try to present the fluid situation of the fight as a one-dimensional event, not being honest about the fact that it is an on-going event with multiple variables that are changing on a regular basis. As you point out, some try to claim altruistic motivations, but they are not honest about the altruism, they base their decision on hopes of adulation. And sadly, I think some are honest in stating they want to shoot just because they can. Honesty, and a rational view. Pretty good ideas that many reject.

 

[Creature]

Lets be honest...in my home, there isnt going to be a "gunfight". A so called "gunfight" implies an exchange of gun fire back and forth. My aim will be to gather my family into a safe location....and to locate and neutralize the threat at the first opportunity...which ever happens first.

Your smugness about who is being honest and thoughtful and who isnt based on what a homeowner is prepared to do in the event of a home invasion is at best just plain arrogant. Your line of thinking doesn't work for me. I have decided that I will follow another course of action. That doesn't make me dishonest or even thoughtless.

In fact, I have thought long and hard about this. My home is rather small...too small to just hole up and holler warnings to intruders. My home is so small that, at the furthest, an intruder once they are inside will be within 25 feet of me anywhere in my home. Because of the close proximity to me and my family, I will actively repel intruders at every opportunity with every tool at my disposal. I wont just hole up and and holler at them...hoping that they go away to possibly hit someone else's home.

 

[BuckHammer]

I just deleted a couple of personal remarks bordering on personal attacks. Knock it off now, please. Confine your remarks to the topic or don't post.

It was just a playful jab. Oh well, I respect your decision. It was fairly off-topic, anyway.

 

[Ian0351]

One final response before we put this one to bed

1. If BGs were in my house, I would not begin "clearing the house", I would stay in my most defensible position. When I clear the house in the middle of the night it is to put my fiance at ease when the dog/alarm goes off, or a drill... in either case I am reasonably sure there is no current threat.
2. I will acknowledge that I am motivated by territorial violation, and given a shot at someone in my home (not the original topic, but what we have gotten into on pp.2-3) I would take it rather than offer a chance to flee and thusly 'gambling' on the sensibilities of the criminal dirt bag.
3. I'm not going to shoot a perp in the back for stealing my laptop, but I'm not just going to let him take it as a prize for not cleaning me out of the room I am in.
4. I am concerned about community safety, particularly my community, and would step up to help a neighbor either in the moment of the assault or in the aftermath. Whether it be crashing on my couch while the blood gets professionally removed from your carpet or testifying for you in court, I was raised to believe that being a neighbor is about more than living on the same street.

 

[skydiver3346]

What to do?

"Engage the bad guys until I am satisfied that none of them are a threat any more to me or my family. Simple as that. Mozambique them until I'm happy and safe."

Does that mean to go looking for them in a dark house at night, not knowing where they may be lurking? Would it not be best to wait in your bedroom where you can hold a defensive position (on your terms) and be prepared to shoot them when and if they enter your space? Seems to me that may be safer for you, your wife, etc. I guess the only time I may leave my "protected space" in a situation like this is if I had children in another part of the house. Would definitely go make sure they are safe, no matter what.

 

[Steviewonder1]

BG at front and rear door

If a door is breached, I will wait for them in the bedroom behind a defense wall partition that was built just for that. It will stop anything out to a 454 Magnum. Wait for the bedroom door to open which will shine two spotlights on the door so I can have a clear view of what I am about to shoot. In Georgia we no longer have to Flee. We can stand our ground and Shoot till there is no threat, even if they turn and flee.

 

[David Armstrong]

Lets be honest...in my home, there isnt going to be a "gunfight".

Honestly, you don't know that. Anybody whose plan is based on "I can never fail and everything will go just like I want it to" has a poor plan, IMO, and isn't being honest in the decision process.

Your smugness about who is being honest and thoughtful and who isnt based on what a homeowner is prepared to do in the event of a home invasion is at best just plain arrogant.

As opposed to the arrogance of "in my home there isn't going to be a gunfight"?

I wont just hole up and and holler at them...hoping that they go away to possibly hit someone else's home.

So, your choice is to start a gunfight with the BGs within 25' of your family, hoping that you can stop all the BGs before they harm you and yours. Personally, I'm hoping I don't have a gunfight. Doesn't mean I'm not ready for one, but honestly now, isn't it better not to have BGs shooting at you and your family than to have them shooting at you and your family?

 

[Rifleman 173]

Does that mean to go looking for them in a dark house at night, not knowing where they may be lurking?

No, you use common sense. If I am home alone, I let the bad guys come to me and walk into my ambush zone. If I have a kid somewhere else in the house, I might cautiously move towards the kid engaging any felons I come across. You also make contingency plans in advance of trouble. Sort of like asking yourself, "What if..."

I also plan ahead with more than one means of communications. I have a regular house phone but we also have cell phones too. Where I differ with many people is that I have memorized the phone numbers to the local police departments (city, sheriff and state police) so if I have trouble I dial directly to them with either the cell phone or the house phone. We had one incident where a person called 9-1-1 and got an emergency operator in another state. So while the person called for an ambulance meant for a wreck in Bellevue, Illinois, the operator dispatched the ambulance in Bellevue, Iowa, about 2 hour drive away from the original caller. Come to find out that different cell phone companies have different agreements with different emergency services operator systems throughout the nation. So, if you're in Illinois your 9-1-1 cell phone operator might be in Iowa, Indiana or even Wisconsin depending on the contract for the service agreed to by the provider and cell phone company. That's why I memorized the local phone numbers for the police.

So, would I hunt a bad guy in my own house? Yeah, probably but only because I learned how to carefully do that many years ago.

 

[Creature]

A good offense is a good defense

Honestly, you don't know that. Anybody whose plan is based on "I can never fail and everything will go just like I want it to" has a poor plan, IMO, and isn't being honest in the decision process.

Obviously you have never been in my house.

As opposed to the arrogance of "in my home there isn't going to be a gunfight"?

I'd call it confidence and preparation. I intend on maintaining the advantage of surprise. Failing that, I am confident I can mitigate that loss by the advantage of knowledge of the terrain. Failing all these, I will certainly try to gain the initiative by...wait for it...engaging first and with prejudice.

So, your choice is to start a gunfight with the BGs within 25' of your family, hoping that you can stop all the BGs before they harm you and yours. Personally, I'm hoping I don't have a gunfight. Doesn't mean I'm not ready for one, but honestly now, isn't it better not to have BGs shooting at you and your family than to have them shooting at you and your family?

Again...you missed my point. There will likely be no "exchange" of gunfire. I fully intend on engaging first before any hostiles can return fire. And if there is an exchange, I have already made preparations (imagine that) to afford my family a certain and fair amount of protection.

Surprise, knowledge of the terrain, ferocity of attack...all of these things are force multipliers that must be exploited from the outset to have any measurable effect. But the initiative must be maintained from the beginning by the defender.

Sure...a good defense is the best offense, but in my experience, a good offense is the best defense.

 

[SquidWarrior]

under my night stand I have a small biometric handgun safe(excelent investment, I got mine for 150$ on ebay), I have my Springfield 1911A1 loaded with 185 Grain Speer Gold Dot and a Streamlight Scorpion flashlight. My first priority is my wife next to me and infant daughter in the room about twelve feet down the hall. Our plan involves me silently opening the bedroom door and getting the wife into the babys room. I then take up a defensive position on the staircase and call 911. With dispatch still on the line I announce to the suspected intruder that I am armed and the police are in route, and I will use deadly force if forced to do so. Seldom is it prudent to attempt to clear the house, unless you have to move across alot of comon area to secure your children; in which case you should move quickly with weapon at the close-body ready and FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER. If you encounter the intruder at this time, order him to stand fast, do not engage unless the perp has intent and capability of disarming or engaging you.

 

[PhoenixConflagration]

One advantage to living in a crummy apartment is that there's nowhere for a BG to be that I can't get to them. The front door's in line with the bedroom door and it's poorly hung so it can't open without making a lot of noise. The only real plan is that my wife takes her Bersa CC and moves so there's a triangular cross fire at the bedroom door. Anyone who busts in the door (not counting identified first responders of course) has forfeited their right to live. They do not get my stuff, they do not pass go.

 

[David Armstrong]

Obviously you have never been in my house.

Don't need to be. I would suggest that anybody who claims they will have 100% success 100% of the time without even knowing what the situation will be is being somewhat unrealistic in their assessment.

I'd call it confidence and preparation.

I'd call it wishful thinking.

Again...you missed my point. There will likely be no "exchange" of gunfire.

Oh, I got your point just fine. As I pointed out, for your plan to work you have to be 100% right 100% of the time. You'll excuse me if doubt the perfection you are trying to present. I've seen way too many real fights where one little thing went wrong and it created all sorts of problems. Personally I think it more than a little questionable to base a plan on shooting it out with an undetermined number of badguys by assuming none of them will shoot back and where each of them will be slain without being able to fight back.

 

[McBrideGuns]

I would have to agree with scorpion_tyr on page 2 if you come into my house uninvited I have to asume you are there to harm me or my family. I am not going to let that happen. I will warn you once to leave, if you dont that's your problem.

 

[Only S&W and Me]

For me there will be no warning after the break-in. The intruder has made this decision to chance his life. First opportunity at a sight and the trigger is pulled...period. I would think typically this invasion would happen quickly while sleeping with minimal time to react...only enough time to retrieve your firearm and take a sleep dazed shot.