From: hale@btree.uucp (Bob Hale)
Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Killing burglars.
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:51:09 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Distribution: na
Organization: Brooktree Corporation

[ other author's comments about shooting intruders deleted ]

In article <LOWRY.92Aug19174710@rotor.watson.ibm.com> lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry) writes:
>You play the odds.  The intruder is not likely to intend you or your
>family harm beyond depriving you of some articles that are probably
>insured anyway.  They *might* be after more than that, but to assume

Incorrect.  Imprisoned felons were interviewed about this; most of
them admitted that they were armed while burgling, and that they
would not hesitate to use the firearm.  Besides, why do you think
that the burglar would be rational?  And why should I, or society at
large, encourage burglars by chalking it off to insurance?

>the worst is ridiculous.  At some point you have to weigh the odds and
>the consequences of your various choices of action.  If, upon
>discovering the intruder, you call the police and let them take care
>of the situation, you risk exposing your family to untold horrors at
>the hands of this intruder who, as it turns out, is a psychotic serial
>murderer.  Likelihood: extremely low; potential consequences:
>extremely severe.  If you take your gun out and blow the intruder
>away, you risk killing a person who meant you no physical harm, you
>risk going to jail on manslaughter charges, and you risk that the
>weapon you're stupidly keeping in your home will accidentally be used
>against a family member or friend rather than an intruder (incidents
>of the former far exceed those of the latter case).  Likelihood:

Incorrect.  Usage of guns in deterring crime easily exceed their uses
in committing crimes.  See "Firearms and Violence" by Kates, or
"Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" by Kleck, amongst others.
The idea that guns more commonly harm family members than strangers
is an old distortion of an invalid study.

Some states take the very reasonable approach that anyone who has
indicated his willingness to violate your rights by entering your
residence by force has surrendered his right to avoid being shot.
See the Texas "theft at night" laws or the California "forceful
entry and agression" law.

>extremely high; consequences: severe to extremely severe, depending on
>which consequence and how you view these things.
>
>It seems clear to me that blowing away the intruder is far more likely
>to leave you in very bad straits than letting the police deal with the
>matter.

This depends on whether the police will even deal with it.  The police
are under no legal obligation to protect any individual.  Note that
during the LA riots the police were telling people "sorry".  Police
response time in this county is 1 to 3 hours during weekends; do you
expect to be able to hold out for that long while an intruder roams
through your house?

>Reasoning by worst-case scenarios is very rarely useful as a guide for
>decision making.  It's mostly useful when you want to put a bound on
>the damage or cost you risk incurring.  That is, you use it to
>understand your risk, but not as a basis for deciding a course of
>action.  Generally, if you want to maximize your benefits, think in
>terms of likely scenarios, not worst-case.

Note the Follow-up line.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net
From: brooksp@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Peter Brooks)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:48:11 GMT
Subject: Re: 12 gauge vs 14 gauge wiring price
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server