Home Defense General

>>30794479
If you want to. It's your house, you can do what you want until the cops get there.

Depends where you live, how threatened you are, and if you're cool with going to trial.

For example, i live in NM (which is pretty good with gun laws) but i can only shoot someone if they threaten my life or another life. I'd have to watch Mr nig nog walk out my door with my TV unless he tried to attack. Study your state laws instead of asking no guns central

>>30794501
What would you do? I personally wouldn't want to take any risks. By that I mean I would assume the invader is armed, so I'd be inclined to blow his head off on sight...BUT I feel like it could be a legal nightmare. I live in Massachusetts, the laws of which are cucked beyond belief.

File: 1448780098644.jpg (34KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x640px

>>30794479
>Shooting to wound
>Ever

File: 0004238214_130.jpg (13KB, 270x480px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 270x480px

>>30794479
Not unless you want to get sued into jail and lose everything. Besides, if you're shooting at someone, you better be trying to kill them anyway. There's no such thing as "wound shot". Center mass and pelvis, every time

To kill only if he is a nigger

>>30794479
>In the event of a home invasion, are you supposed to shoot to kill?

Yell out at the first sign of trouble that you have a gun
Call 911, yell out again the second warning that you have a gun (emphasise its the second warning).
911 records audio...
Do what you have to ... shoot to stop, nothing more. Shooting to kill is neither realistic nor legally responsible.

Juries pay MORE when you kill an untruder not less... whether or not you kill an intruder is a matter of papaerwork. John Doe who was getting his life back on track and was in a rough spot with no record of violence becomes THE ESTATE of John Dor who was getting his. .

>>30794479
i would, but i also have muh castle doctrine. just remember if you shoot to wound that you would be leaving a witness that has already proven to you that they would do unscrupulous things for profit.

>>30794582
Are you seriously saying you'd give white criminals a pass? Forget black people, you're the real nigger here

>>30794582
>giving criminals a pass

>>30794479
If you hear the BOOM BOOM CRASH, and seem some guy forcing his way into your home in a classic home invasion, most uncucked jurisdictions will let you shoot back with no initial "duty to retreat". And in all cases no matter what you should ALWAYS shoot to kill. If you "shoot to wound", it demonstrates that you didn't truly think your life was in danger enough to utilize deadly force, and opens you up to all sorts of lawsuits and legal assraping.

That being said, if you see a scrawly kid in your home going through your dresser, and you draw your CC and he gives you the deer-in-the-headlights look and begs you not to shoot, please don't blow his brains out. Respond with overwhelming violence if it's necessary, but only if you really think Tyrone is about to pop your black cherry.

>>30794479

If I'm drawing my weapon and firing it at an intruder, then I'm putting rounds into centre mass. If that kills them, then so be it. You shoot to neutralise the threat from the target, there is no such thing as shooting to wound.

Yeah.


Make sure that piece of shit doesn't survive to sue your ass and take your house legally

>>30794527
>tfw 413fag
don't we have castle doctrine? there shouldn't be legal problems if Jamal gets his muffincap peeled back blue in my home

>>30794479
It's illegal in Ohio (thanks Kasich), but I still would only shoot if he had a weapon, reached down to his waistband or charged me anyway. Shoot to kill, but not shoot otherwise

>>30794479
If you live in a free state, then shoot to kill.

If you don't live in a free state, then shoot to kill, but make sure you have a good lawyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

>>30794588
What if my state has stand your ground laws?

>>30794479

In Canada the law is that you need to use the minimum force necessary to stop the invader. "Minimum force" being something that a jury of randoms would find reasonable for the situation. So as long as you can justify your actions as being reasonable and necessary in the particular situation it's fine.

My bedside gun is a Benelli M4 that I bought after someone broke in while I was gone.

I also live in the cucked state of California. That being said, if some faggot breaks in and I hold him at gunpoint, yet he tries to make a break for it, am I still within my right to shoot him? I know it would not look good to a jury that I'm blasting someone with a scary black salty shotgun.

>>30795977
probably not, just keep your gun pointed at him as he leaves and shoot if he reaches for his waistband and turns around