What's your view on 'minimum force' when defending your home or self?

Question

Surely if someone breaks into your home or attacks you, they should accept that they may have to suffer the fullest consequences? Not as if they would not have known the possible outcome beforehand, is it?
A chance they take, I say.

Dont think there is an answer I disagree with yet.
Picking a 'best' is gonna be tough, lol.

Answer 1

Yes I believe in minimum force. Why mess up the walls with a shotgun when a 9mm will do?

Answer 2

Depends on which country you live in.
In the USA I believe that you can use a gun you hold legally in self defence of yourself and your property, while:
the idiotic laws here (UK) will arrest you and probably send you to prison. The attacker and intruder is told, "Don't be a naughty boy again" and is let off with a few hours community work (that's usually hiding in the bushes reading comics instead of gardening in the local hospital grounds)

Answer 3

Minimum force means the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack. Unfortunately for them, the least amount of force I'm going to use in that situation is a firearm. Why? If it's dark I don't know what they are going to use against me and I'm not about to take a chance. In fact, like you said, they would have to know the possible outcome...that's why I assume they would be armed with a firearm too.

Answer 4

I had no problem shooting two carjackers near Huntsville TX 8/6/2000. Don't attempt to carjack an old Marine, don't get shot in the face. They lived, just look like Freddy Crouger now. 12ga #8, Mossberg model 500 at 15 ft.
Should be a law, get hurt during the commission of a felony, TMFS.

Who ever gave nearly everyone here a thumbs down is probably either a criminal who fears us or a wimp who wouldn't take care of his/her home and family.

Answer 5

Definitely a chance THEY take!

If someone breaks into my home or attacks me (which has actually happened to me before and it is NOT pleasant to say the least), then I think I should have to right to hurt them as much as I want. It would be their own fault after all.

I should not have to stay my hand because ***I*** might get charged for assault when THEY are the ones breaking into my house and threatening me.

I mean it's not like I would kill them, but even if I somehow did it would be their own fault for attacking me first. I'm not just gonna attack someone if they aren;t attacking me first, i won't start a fight (but I will finish it, and I have.)

Answer 6

My view on this subject is clear - a Smith & Wesson 357 or a Lugar 9 mm - in the USA we have the right to defend ourselves and our homes from harm and invasion!

Answer 7

Minimum force would be whatever I said it was, because if someone was in my home attacking me I would kill them, then there is no one to tell a conflicting story.

Under the law I imagine that it means the minimum amount of force necessary to subdue the person or to releive yourself from being in danger.

Answer 8

SOME THING LIKE THAT HAPPEN TO ME.

I got off work early one night ,and went home . As i walked in the back door every thing seemed OK. As i walked down the hall to my room ,i heard my little sister make a noise.I knew she should be a sleep so i thought she might have been having a bad dream. WELL she wasn't , i opened the door and there was a man laying on top of her . He had his paints down and didn't know i had walked in . and with out thinking or saying any thing.I pulled out my boot knife and with just one swing of the knife i cut the mans balls off.
well he got what i thought was off easy. but the courts gave him just 2 yrs parole and i got 15 yrs for attempted murder .they said i used to much excessive force to clam self defense .

Answer 9

NickR desires to look back. The somewhat anti gun center for sickness administration did a three twelve months learn and that they won't end that any gun administration diploma had any valuable effect on crime. This comparable form of learn has been repeated via universities with the comparable end. confident felons have become weapons even nonetheless its opposed to the regulation, that is why they are spoke of as criminals. Even in England an island for pete sakes, they have banned handguns thoroughly yet contained in the final 2 months gun crime has climbed to an all time extreme. The ban does not artwork. Criminals proceed to get weapons on an analogous time as the regulation abiding is held helpless. i anticipate in factor #2 you're pertaining to the liberal media. They hate weapons, gun vendors and the NRA and that they frequently vilify regulation abiding gun proprietor and belittle us with their elitist physique of strategies. factor #3 I take is from a constitutional viewpoint. certainly the factor of the 2d exchange has not something to do with searching. i'm unsure what you're searching for for with factor #4. presently it quite is merely not interior the capacity of the federal government to confiscate firearms. confident legislations could desire to be surpassed and that they might attempt to achieve this. yet they only lack the manpower or the criminal mechanism of doing so. There are over 80 million gun vendors in this usa and no database or grasp record of who has weapons and who does not. a huge dwelling house to dwelling house seek is merely not likely to ensue. On factor #5, we are tremendously much there. hid carry is enable in forty 8 states yet admittedly the 8 states that are could concern as a exchange of shall concern desire some artwork. I even have confidence that enable could be good in any state, merely like my driving force's license is. I positioned up that i'm in greater advantageous threat from an out of state driving force than i'm from an out of state enable holder. On #6 i might say that people who've surpassed the states competency checking out be they instructor or scholar could be allowed to maintain on campus. All in gun administration merely does not artwork. yet statics devised via Gary Kleck and John Lott tutor that armed electorate are good deterrents to crime. There are over 20,000 gun regulations on the books around the rustic and to think of that including one or 2 greater will remedy the difficulty of our loss of morals, ethics and scarcity of appreciate for human life is laughable.

Answer 10

If someone breaks into my home, or attacks me I WILL DEFEND MYSELF, MY FAMILY AND MY BELONGINGS. That being said, I won't outright kill someone when I can just keep them from doing more harm. Like I wont shoot someone in the head when I can shoot their leg and keep them from moving. But I have been trained in that sort of thing.

I think you need to subdue them, but there is a point where force becomes excessive on your part. It's all about defending yourself, but not attacking them. If you alreayd shot them and they are down, there is not need to keep firing to inflict more damage. Do what you have to do, not any more.