Wheels, i'm sorry to hear you have to go through such experience.

From a european perspective, prevention is better then reaction. We invest more in target hardening (proper doors, locks, windows, fences). Last time I was in the US, I was rather not impressed by the exterieur doors and windows. My closet has a more impressive lock then they front door locks i have seen. My doors has 3 locks, extra pins on the hinged side and a anti-prybar bar.

Better to have a frustated thief on the outside and me having a good night sleep, then hoping you can shoot quicker then the bad guy.

A firearm is a last resort solution. From a security point of view, you need layers, that make it hard for the bad guy. Preferably a passive system, that doesn't require a person to do something. A firearm requires a awake and aware person near it to be usefull.

You just mentioned the one of the two 900 lb primates that are valid arguments against no-weapons legislature. A gun, knife, cane, mace, Taser, etc. allows the weak to mount an effective defense against the strong.



What you're esposing is the standard home protection setup. I have a similar setup to the ones you described at home. You're not getting in without alerting half the neighborhood.

If somebody wants in while I'm home, it's not going to be a matter of when they give up and go away. But, a matter of if they get in before the cops get there (typical response time in my area is 10 minutes). Anyody brazen enough to break into an occupied house is either completely off their rocker, and/or prepared for violence. That's where weapons comes in. 15 or 20 years ago I would have been a formidable opponent. Now the only thing deadly about me is if I were to sit on you.

Very, very true. All defenses need to in layers to buy time. I am impressed with the security in apartment buildings in my visits to eastern europe: 1) punch in code or intercom to enter building to the stairwell/elevator; 2) at the floor you want, another locked door to get to the wing of the apartment you want, again intercom or you know the code, and 3) get past the locked apartment door.

Yet, my niece had to call the police when some guys made it to her front door and were heard to be working on getting in and making comments like "she is in there, lets get her. . ."

The police got there in time, but just so, thus, from that point of view the system worked. But her last passive defense was about to be breached. So, to be frank, I would have liked her to have that last resort, an active defense. Not permitted where she lives.

I am also personally familiar with a woman here in the U.S. who was on the phone with with 911 trying to get help as a man was breaking into her room. Regretfully, the police arrived too late to save her from assault and murder. A last resort solution is sometimes necessary.

I agree that a gun is a last resort and we should all harden our homes. The break-in at my house was at 3:00 a.m. The intruder tried to get in through several windows - police found evidence all around our house. When he started kicking in our glass patio door it woke us up. Modern patio doors are incredibly strong. It took the intruder about three minutes of kicking and throwing his whole body into the door before it exploded into our house and he came in. During that time I tried to dissuade him - told him police were on the way (wasn't sure but what the heck); showed him my gun; told him to go away many times - all for naught. If a large strong person is determined, he will get through your defenses. Maybe a big loud dog would have gotten his attention. Maybe not.

It's difficult to imagine the adrenaline and fear you must have had, or at least I would have been full of adrenaline and fear.

I've never had a home invasion like that. However, I once had a person lightly tap my front door in the middle of the night. Imagine "knock, knock, knock, knock, knock" very light at the front door, every 15 seconds. While we're fully awake, this may not sound like something strange. However, it's extremely bizarre in the middle of a quiet night. My dog went berserk and woke me up before I heard the knocking. At the time, I figured it was somebody trying to determine if anybody was home without disturbing the neighbors (not a bad technique actually). I got my guns. It turned out to be my wife's friend who was escaping an episode with her abusive husband.

Anyway, I learned several things during this practice run:
(1) I cannot operate my big safe's combination too well when I'm half asleep, full of adrenaline, and freaked out.
(2) I can quickly get to my handgun that's in a quick safe.
(3) My gun setup gives me confidence that I can protect my family during a home invasion.
(4) I need to install security cameras.
(5) A dog earns a lifetime of keep from just one of these episodes.

If this quote from the initial post in this thread is true:



... then it sounds like the violence rate in the UK is about double that of the US. "But it's knives, not guns!" you might say. I don't really care how I go in this case. A knife, a gun. Doesn't really matter. I'm injured or dead either way.

The thing is, doing away with guns, and having all the criminals thus resort to knives, as in the UK, actually favors the criminals. Who are by in large, younger and stronger than their typical victims. Knives are up close and personal weapons. You still need physical agility to use them effectively. How about allowing the potential victims to have knives to defend themselves? (wait, scratch that, that's what the UK is trying to take away now) But even if allowed, that's still a losing proposition. A gun is a much better equalizer. An older out of shape person can still be an excellent marksman to defend themselves with a gun. And they can potentially do it at arms length, not requiring them to physically struggle with a younger and stronger assailant.

Actually, much of the "gun violence" in the US is one gang member/criminal killing another gang member/criminal. To that, I say "good riddance". I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a benefit to society. Now, if we could just figure out how to control it so it is 100% criminal killing criminal, with no innocents ever getting drug into it. We'd have the problem solved! We could stop building prisons. We could do away with the expensive and drawn out death penalty. We wouldn't have to go to the dreaded "jury duty" as often.

While self-defence with a gun is big no-no in Finland, there are some cases where the court has freed the person using a weapon for self-defence.
One case was where an intruder (broke in to the victims apartment) was stabbed with a decoration-sword. And the victim was freed in court because he was in imminent fear of life.

Another one where the intruder tried to climb in through a window above the door and was shot dead by the apartment owner. Here again the apartment owner was freed in court.

Is self defense considered a no-no, or just self defense with a weapon? Are you allowed to meet violence against you with equivalent force on the your (the victims) side? I would hope that a 250 lb young attacker beating on an 85 year old frail lady with his fists could legally be repelled with something better than that old ladies fists, which wouldn't be very effective. Fist-for-fist would not be equivalent in this case. Chances are the old lady couldn't even repel the attacker with a knife or a club. About the only thing that would be potentially effective, but not guaranteed, would be a gun in this case. Since those are a no-no, is the old lady just supposed to suck it up and die? I can't understand the mindset behind a law like that. Is it supposed to be for the better good of society for the attacker to live and the old lady to die? It rings rather hollow for me that someone would later smugly say, "Well, at least a GUN wasn't involved. R.I.P. old lady."

One is allowed to use reasonble force against an attacker. Basicly it is up to the court to afterwards judge if you used reasonable or excessive force. So there is a chance that the victim will also be prosecuted along with the attacker.
There have been multiple cases in the newspaper where the victim also was prosecuted for using too much violence in self-defence.
We live in a socialdemocratic country where the police is supposed to protect you. But that is of course only a nice dream which does not work in reality.

Idiots.