That was always MY standard.

Once again, I’m asking how you — MIKEB302000 – gun owner, former Marine, home owner, father, husband and human being possessed of enough intellect to operate a computer — determines is someone poses a “lethal threat”.

See you’ve owned firearms in the past – while you don’t want to talk about it – you obviously owned them for a reason. Was that reason to protect yourself or your family?

Where would you draw the line?
How do you determine if someone is not just a threat to your family, but the standard you set of a lethal threat?

You are very comfortable with asking current gun owners questions, demanding answers and accountability from us but let’s here how you make the decision.

Come Sparky, surely you can spell out in simple terms what constitutes the standard you set, right?

“I would almost agree. Here’s how I would say it.

“would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders WHO ARE POSING A LETHAL THREAT. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.””

We then came back and said that the judgement call being made is that inside the home == posing a potentially lethal threat. You then called me a macho and nonsensical. (which you backed off of later when I clarified). I still stand by my statement – “Don’t want to get shot, don’t break into my home”.

I am neutral on duty to retreat outside of the home, as long as the standard is based on the actor’s knowledge at the time and has the “in perfect safety”-only clause. A “reasonable person” standard invites too much monday-morning quarterbacking by the prosecutor, the grand jury, and the petit jury. On your own property (not just inside the home)? No legal requirement to retreat. The upright man will do so anyway where possible, and the low man won’t regardless of the law.

You stated that people shouldn’t be convicted if the criminal was posing a “lethal threat”.

I’ve asked and you’ve still not answered how YOU as an individual home owner determines who is posing a lethal threat.

You’ve said it would be difficult, you’ve said it would not be clear or easy….yet you seem to think that home owners who shoot someone not posing a lethal threat should be prosecuted and convicted.

Since that is your standard –lethal threat — again — how does a home owner determine what is a lethal threat?

See you are showing your bigotry again —
I went on to say you have to drop the preconceived attitudes about burglars deserving death.

Can you show me where I’ve said or anyone else here has said that burglars deserve death?
That is your preconceived prejudice getting in the way of reasonable discussion.

You did lump us all altogether when you apologized to Ian, remember?
I apologize for lumping you in with that bunch of tough talking pro-gun commenters.

Now you turn to the victim, poor picked on MikeB302000. You simply come by trolling, implying that we are all bloodthirsty, vigilante minded, gun owners wanting to gun down innocent burglars (contradiction of terms), then get yourself in a snit fit when you are called on your statements.

You infamous completely made up 10% is a joke and you know it. Since you illegally and legally owned firearms, do you think that you are part of that 10%?

I’m offended by your 10% bullcrap because you are talking about me, my friends, my family, my fellow gun owners without a shred of evidence or proof.to back up your ridiculous claims.
You are simply trolling for hits on your blog — you link to the 10% garbage so that people will drop by and see what you mean.

Once again you show your true colors by not contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way — how do you determine lethal threat (stop saying it will be difficult and list some ways to do it) and trying to pimp out your blog.

Why do you so often exaggerate what I say and attack me for it? I covered all this pretty well in The Famous 10%. If you feel you are among the 90%, why are you so defensive?

These “duty to retreat” laws, however, include a “in perfect safety” clause – you are not bound to retreat if it puts you in harm’s way…

I’m going to go a bit confucian here and opine that the upright man does not require a law to behave properly with a firearm and the criminal will not behave properly regardless of the law – so the law is superfluous.

It is already (and justifiably so) to threaten to harm, inflict harm, attempt to inflict harm, etc, with pen or pen-knife, cross-cut saw or crossbow, fire or firearm, slingshot or shotgun; without good cause. Making the use of a firearm more illegal isn’t going to change things.

The underlying assumption of the majority of firearms laws is that every person owning or possessing a firearm is criminal who hasn’t yet committed a crime, but could at any moment, and therefore must be tightly constrained. That’s a blatant violation of the principles of American justice.

By the way, the fact that you automatically assume the rest of us won’t take every step possible to avoid killing someone says more about you then it does us.

It once again exposes your bigotry.

And remember, I am the guy who is defending the Buffalo man for shooting up a reversing car! On the gunblogs I may be a moderate as far as things go, but I was just defending the guy’s actions in shooting a car reversing away. A car is a deadly weapon, and at the close quarters claimed in the article reversing away is not a guarantee of retreat. Nor am I shocked by the expenditure of 15 rounds. Cars take a lot of stopping by small arms. Let him be judged by 12 to a standard that is fair.

Incidentally, one of the LEOs in that article is quoted as saying there is a duty to retreat; where upthread a commentor posted otherwise… Wonder who is right? (I would give 60/40 on the commentor w/o resorting to google)

What’s up?

You complete ignore a point that I made, a question that I’m trying to resolve — how do you determine “lethal threat”?

Come on Sparky, let us have the benefit of your Marine Training, your years of gun ownership, your years of blogging about firearms.

You’ve posted enough stories about home invasions, robberies and other firearm related crime that you should be able to articulate a reasonable method of determining “lethal threat”.