4 recent self-defense shootings raise questions about law, safety

[Jade Tigress]

DAYTON — In a recent four-week period, four local residents who were threatened by armed individuals opened fire, shooting the people who had allegedly drawn or fired the weapons first. One incident left a would-be robber dead after a homeowner shot and killed him inside his home.
It’s a recent trend that leaves police torn between public safety concerns and law enforcement objectives.


“If your life is genuinely in danger ... I would expect people to fight for their lives or their family’s lives,” said Dayton police Lt. Patrick Welsh, a former prosecuting attorney. “But we also encourage people to think, ‘What can I do to avoid being placed in that situation in the first place?’ ”

A local gun rights advocate said firearms training and common sense are crucial so gun owners avoid those types of situations, but not when it comes to self-defense.
“I’m not a mean person. I’m not a vigilante. But I’m getting tired of the criminals being turned into the victims,” said Billy Perry, a range safety officer and concealed-carry instructor at Vandalia Range and Armory. “People ask, ‘Did they need to shoot him?’ Well, did he need to break into my house? This is not as hard as people are making it out to be.”

Article.

 

[lklawson]

The guys at Vandalia Armory are friendly and knowledgeable.

I was just there yesterday on a date with my wife teaching some paper plates a lesson they'll never forget.

I'm not surprised at some of the statements from LEO and gun grabbers though. But they seem to be in a shrinking minority from what I can tell.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MBuzzy]

Stuff like this hits home much more when it is your town. I just moved from Huber Heights and the immediate area. Overall, Dayton isn't a bad area, but people need to be allowed to defend themselves. If criminals continue to be the victims in cases like this, crime will only get worse.

A criminal needs to fear for his life when breaking into a house....

 

[Deaf Smith]

It's kind of a spiral. The more they restrict good people the more crime you hear of. The more crime in the news the more they restrict good people.

You see criminals will always be... uh well criminals. And part of their job description is to disobey laws. And stealing, raping, killing, robbing all are so much easier if the populace cannot fight back either cause they don't have the means or because the laws have made them afraid they will go to jail if they resist.

Fortunatly here in Texas you can fight back. The laws are strait forward and you can own the means to defend yourself.

Deaf

 

[Archangel M]

I'm not surprised at some of the statements from LEO and gun grabbers though. But they seem to be in a shrinking minority from what I can tell.

Lets be careful with THAT generalization. In this instance the LEO is right. He said that fighting for your life is fine, legal and right but that "..we also encourage people to think, ‘What can I do to avoid being placed in that situation in the first place?’ ” Which I agree with 110%. Thats not a "gun grabbing" sentiment.

I think some people would be surprised when they see the "whole story" behind some..not ALL by any means, but a substantial number...of these "home invasion" shootings. Quite a few of these homes have links to "high risk activity" by one or more residents that drew a target on them. Not that that means that they were not entitled to defend themselves or have legal access to firearms, but I would encourage "smart living first" vs. "just buy a gun" anyday.

A PD not saying "good shot man..high five" in front of the press is NOT an indicator that LE is anti-2nd amendment.

 

[lklawson]

A PD not saying "good shot man..high five" in front of the press is NOT an indicator that LE is anti-2nd amendment.

Didn't say it was. Was more referring to the general trend of (mass media published) LEO "official statements" and not necessarily specific to this (or any other specific) case.

"Unofficial/Personal" LEO opinions run the gamut. I've LEO friends who are strong 2nd supporters and I've LEO friends who were less so. I recall one who sort sat astride the fence. He advised one lady that, if she wanted a firearm for home defense, she should get a .38 revolver, bust a hole in her drywall, place the revolver on a "shelf" inside the wall, and paper & paint over the hole. Another LEO I ran across once (in Texas) opined that if it were up to him EVERYONE not legally barred from ownership would be CCing.

All caveats apply, &c., &c., &c.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Deaf Smith]

I recall one who sort sat astride the fence. He advised one lady that, if she wanted a firearm for home defense, she should get a .38 revolver, bust a hole in her drywall, place the revolver on a "shelf" inside the wall, and paper & paint over the hole.

Kirk,

That ain't a bad idea.

Mine is to get a light switch plastic faceplate, toggles, and the metal box that fits behind it.

Cut into dry wall and bolt the box in.

Pad it and make sure your .38 snub fits.

Then epoxy a few magnets to the box.

Epoxy a bit of steel to the light switch faceplate.

Then epoxy the toggles in place.

Put the snub .38 in and the faceplate will just 'click' to the magnets.

Thieves look behind pictures, but very rarely look behind light switches!

You can do the same with a electrical outlet, say in the bathroom high near the sink.

Deaf

 

[Skpotamus]

Why not just use a Vline gun safe like I did? It has a quick open combo on it.
http://www.vlineind.com/html/top_draw.html Keeps the gun secure, but you can open it quickly in the dark.

I've had mine (handgun safe) since 2002 and it works great. Has holes in bottom to bolt to things and is thick steel.

I plan on getting one of the rifle safes too after seeing one in a gunshop
http://www.vlineind.com/html/long_gun_case.html

 

[prokarateshop]

You have to have quick access to your firearm, or at least slow the intruder down.. Home alarms are important, this way you have some type of warning..

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You have to have quick access to your firearm, or at least slow the intruder down.. Home alarms are important, this way you have some type of warning..

Loud insane dogs, central alarm system, an 82 year-old mother in law with insomnia, and a large boomstick kept loaded and ready near the bed.

Why loaded? Because an unloaded gun is a stick. I already have a stick. It's a Monadnock and it sits on the other side of the bed.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A PD not saying "good shot man..high five" in front of the press is NOT an indicator that LE is anti-2nd amendment.

Though such a 'High Five' would send a clear message to home invaders.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Didn't say it was. Was more referring to the general trend of (mass media published) LEO "official statements" and not necessarily specific to this (or any other specific) case.

"Unofficial/Personal" LEO opinions run the gamut. I've LEO friends who are strong 2nd supporters and I've LEO friends who were less so. I recall one who sort sat astride the fence. He advised one lady that, if she wanted a firearm for home defense, she should get a .38 revolver, bust a hole in her drywall, place the revolver on a "shelf" inside the wall, and paper & paint over the hole. Another LEO I ran across once (in Texas) opined that if it were up to him EVERYONE not legally barred from ownership would be CCing.

All caveats apply, &c., &c., &c.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

“We continue to be exasperated by the view, apparently gaining momentum in certain circles, that armed robbery is okay as long as nobody gets hurt! The proper solution to armed robbery is a dead robber, on the scene.” -Col. Jeff Cooper

What confused me is this statement in the article "It’s a recent trend that leaves police torn between public safety concerns and law enforcement objectives."

I seem to have missed what objectives are at odd's on this issue between 'Law Enforcement objectives' and 'Public safety concerns'?

 

[Archangel M]

What confused me is this statement in the article "It’s a recent trend that leaves police torn between public safety concerns and law enforcement objectives."

I seem to have missed what objectives are at odd's on this issue between 'Law Enforcement objectives' and 'Public safety concerns'?

Considering what the Police actually said in the article, I think that was a media embellishment.