MMA fighter fends off four attackers, killing one during home invasion

[NutmegYankee]

92. The Sandy Hook reference is a ridiculous appeal to emotion fallacy.

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2014, 11:04 PM - Edit history (1)

An active shooter situation is very different than a targeted attack. An active shooter is seeking the most people to kill, and is looking for groups to kill. dispersing from the group will generally save you as he is going for the herd. A targeted attack seeks you. And he will follow you. Outside, if the attacker has a gun, there is little escape. No one can outrun a bullet. The children who got out survived because the gunman chose to not pursue them. He focused on the two rooms. They were not caught in the open. They were within a building and by fleeing the building while the gunman was occupied, forcing him to have to decide to pursue or not, they lived. Basically, the building served to keep them from his sight. Even in military training, it's recognized that being attacked in the open is the most dangerous. You are the most exposed.

Now, you basically made the case for Castle Doctrine. Once an attacker is in the home, you no longer have a duty to retreat and can use anything around to defend. But your chances of successfully defending yourself are far better in the home than in the open. You make the assumption that they wouldn't be caught outside and that they had sufficient time to flee - that cannot be proven and you cannot know that if a threat is made to you. For all you know, they are out on the street watching the house and waiting for you to come out.