More than 20 dead in Vegas

[8circles]

And there are stories of people shooting an intruder that intended to harm them or their kids. There are stories of home invasion where homeowners are killed or harmed. For every story you cite, someone else can cite a story on the other side of the coin.

 

That's why anecdotes, designed to evoke emotion about a particular tragic event, are not particularly useful when trying to reason out a policy.

 

What you say above is a tragedy.  There are a few ways it could have been prevented.

 

I post the story because everyone who says "not me, I would only kill armed intruders" is still only human and acknowledgment that they could make a mistake would be nice. Even better would be not settling for having to defend your home with a gun but work to make that unnecessary.

.

My overall question still remains unanswered.

[unsinkable]

The title of this thread should be changed to gun debate. It's not about Vegas. It's not about the number of people who lost their lives. I can't look at this title anymore and it just keeps going. So please call it what it is.

 

Sincerely,

someone from Vegas who is barely hanging on.

:grouphug: :grouphug:

 

I wish I could do more for you and those who are suffering.

[TechWife]

And I’m trying to figure out why you think it’s immoral to defend your self, family, home, and property against an armed intruder. Why someone committing a crime has the moral high ground, and the homeowner becomes the bad guy.

 

Slavery? Really? The legality and morality of the two don’t compare at all. Defending yourself vs. owning another human being. Apple and broccoli.

 

 

Here's the thing, I don't think it's necessarily immoral to defend myself or my family against an armed intruder. That's where you have me pegged wrong. I also don't think necessarily is moral to defend my life to the extent that I take another persons. What makes my life more valuable than the intruder's? Throw my family in the equation and it is a different scenario. What I don't understand is how so many people are so adamant that this is a real possibility, and they are so sure they could take another person's life and live with themselves afterward. That is the very real consequence. I don't think that an intruder has the high ground, but I also don't think the homeowner necessarily has the high ground, either. I do not understand how you can be so certain that you will make the right call that you will be willing to live with the personal consequences if you make the wrong call. If trained police officers get it wrong, I think we can all be assured that the average person will sometimes get it wrong, too.

 

As far as comparing slavery and killing someone, even when the killing is in self defense, well, that is not at all what I was doing. I was offering slavery as an example of something that was once legal but always immoral. The purpose was to ask you to explain how you are so sure this is morally correct. You have not offered an explanation, though. You have also not answered my initial questions. It is hard to understand someone's position and thought process when they refuse to explain it, even after being asked, very plainly, several times.

Edited October 6, 2017 by TechWife

[TechWife]

I actually know some people who DO feel it's better to allow their family to be harmed rather than take action against someone who has broken into their home in the middle of the night. They think it's morally wrong to harm someone even in that scenario. That's their right. But really sounds like you're saying the same thing. Am I misunderstanding? Because Lady Florida has been very clear about what very specific situation she's referencing.

 

At what point, does responsibility for a bad outcome for the criminal fall on the criminal's shoulders? When he's casing the house? When he's prepping his weapons be they a gun, knife, baseball bat, whatever? When he's pulling out his tools to break into someone else's home--the one place a family should feel safe and secure from the predators of the world? When he crosses the threshold? When he refuses to retreat when confronted? What if I can't retreat because my kids are still asleep? Or an elderly parent can't get up the stairs to flee? Just how close should that person--who has telegraphed dangerous intent by his mere presence in my home in the middle of the night--be allowed to get to my family before I'm justified in taking protective action?

 

At the point he's in my house, I don't give a damn about analyzing his intentions any further. I don't care about his psychological state or his sobriety or lack thereof. I don't care about his bad childhood or his poverty or whatever excuse might be offered to give him the upper hand in the situation. In that moment, when he's in my home and I'm all that stands between him and my kids, exactly how much benefit of the doubt am I supposed to give him?

 

Sometimes bad people who go looking for trouble actually find it.

 

Again, I'm assuming I know it isn't a kid sneaking home late.

 

Please don't think I'm ignoring you hereon. I just can't handle this thread any longer.

Yes, you are misunderstanding. I have very plainly asked some questions that are not being answered.

[EmseB]

I post the story because everyone who says "not me, I would only kill armed intruders" is still only human and acknowledgment that they could make a mistake would be nice. Even better would be not settling for having to defend your home with a gun but work to make that unnecessary.

.

My overall question still remains unanswered.

I don't think anyone here is saying that accidents never happen.

 

The PP that you responded to was excluding that aspect in order to discuss a different point, which was: assuming that the intruder is not a kid sneaking in, then what morality is in play?

 

She wasn't saying it never happens. She wasn't saying it's not a possibility. It was, "If we assume it is not this, then what should happen?"

 

And I agree, it would be great if we lived in a world where no one had to defend themselves from possible harm.

[Cindy in FL.]

You’re right, and I apologize. The current discussion should have been taken up in a different thread. I meant no disrespect or to cause more pain. What happened in Las Vegas was horrific, and the lives of so many people will be changed forever because of it. I am sorry.

 

The title of this thread should be changed to gun debate. It's not about Vegas. It's not about the number of people who lost their lives. I can't look at this title anymore and it just keeps going. So please call it what it is.

 

Sincerely,

someone from Vegas who is barely hanging on.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[EmseB]

The title of this thread should be changed to gun debate. It's not about Vegas. It's not about the number of people who lost their lives. I can't look at this title anymore and it just keeps going. So please call it what it is.

 

Sincerely,

someone from Vegas who is barely hanging on.

 

Ugh, I keep thinking I'm in one of the other threads.  I'm sorry. :(

[Reefgazer]

I'll take a stab at your questions, even though you did not address me.  My answers are in bold.

Actually, they would not be taking their lives into their own hands, they would be putting them in your hands. Why is it okay for you to shoot them if they are there to steal your stuff? Because I don't know if stealing my stuff is their only intent.  If someone has broken into my house, they are a bad apple, and I will not put my life/my kid's lives at risk by giving them the benefit of the doubt.  Is your stuff more valuable than their life? No. See above answer.  How did you come to that conclusion?  I didn't come to the conclusion that their lives are worth less than my stuff.  Does it matter if the person is armed (many burglaries are done by unarmed people)? No.  Someone can kill me if they are unarmed, just as if they had a gun or knife  If they  went to the lengths to break into my house, they are a threat to me.   How is the line of entering your home square with self defense, or does it? Again, if you are in my house uninvited, you are a threat.  Is it that feeling threatened is enough justification for you to kill someone? If I have reasonable and logical (based on my own judgment because I was there) expectation of encountering harm, yes, it does.  If so, how does that play out out to our police forces? If a policeman has a reasonable and logical fear of harm, then they should be allowed to defend themselves with force, including killing someone.  I'm not second-guessing a police officer who is up against someone who is a threat to him; he's defending me.  Is feeling threatened enough reason for a police officer to shoot someone, whether or not they are armed? Yes.  You don't need to be armed with a gun to kill or maim someone.  If the requirement is not to wait until you are truly physically threatened to engage in self defense, and that you can shoot people because of something they might do, then why is it not okay to put people in jail or otherwise penalize them because they might one day do something dangerous?  If they are a threat to someone, then then by definition they have already shown that they are dangerous.  The person in my house has *already* done something dangerous and threatening to me.  These two scenarios are not the same  - person in house has already threatened me, a person who *might* do something has not.

 

Can you tell I have a ton of questions about this thought process? Really, they are sincere questions. I'm trying to figure out how different the thought process is from mine that leads people to this conclusion. 

 

[TechWife]

I'll take a stab at your questions, even though you did not address me. My answers are in bold.

Thank you, I do appreciate it.

[Clear Creek]

It's not just your actions that I cannot understand here (& I don't believe they are actually feasible in terms of the speed required to assess friend or foe and react appropriately... but setting that aside....)

 

It's the idea that armed intruders roam your area. The idea that this is a possibility that one takes seriously is mind boggling. 

 

That would be like living in a war zone for me. And I grew up in the historical echoes of a war zone. I walked to elementary school past buildings with bullet holes in them from WW2.  They had plaques remembering the people who were shot against that wall. 

 

We were all 'never again'. If circumstances are such that strangers and acquaintances are regularly trying to kill each other, for me that is not a place to live, not a place to raise a family. I would be moving, trying to emigrate, escaping as a refugee, seeking the assistance of international organizations. 

 

Reminds me of that scene from that Michael Moore movie with him discovering that people in Canada often still leave doors open. You can knock, call halllooo, and walk in.  

 

 

I have one word for you - gangs.

 

My immediate area does not have a lot of crime. I live less than 15 minutes, though, from a city that perpetually ranks in the top ten most dangerous cities in Texas. Currently the murder rate per capita is 3rd in the state; the rape rate is 1st. The city and the state know the high rate of violent crime is a problem and they are trying to get the gang problem under control.

 

When I moved here 20 years ago the biggest issue in that city was burglaries, and while that rate hasn't changed much, the violent crime rate has risen considerably. 15 years ago the Army was letting in pretty much any yahoo who wanted to join, and gangs realized they could spread across the U.S. on the government's dime. The Army eventually wised up to the scheme and started kicking gang members out, but their mission was already accomplished. I don't know how it was around other Army bases, but the gang presence here was too well established for it to make a bit of difference.

 

I don't live in fear, but I am also not stupid. I live in a rural area with no regular police patrols. The one time I had to call the county sheriff (a pushy door-to-door salesman actually became physically pushy after I refused to make a purchase) it took the nearest officer over 45 minutes to show up at my house. I don't want to be unprepared if the violent crime from just down the road makes its way to my neighborhood. And I am not going to move away in fear just because I don't live in a Mayberry-esque neighborhood. 

 

[Cindy in FL.]

I agree with Reefgazer’s answers to your questions.

 

Thank you, I do appreciate it.

[meena]

I'm off to go do some volunteer work. Manual labor in daylight is the best medicine. I don't want to derail or get the thread locked or deleted. I'm all for a healthy gun debate. I woke up at 3am thinking about dh who works in a hospital here has been seeing. Just requesting the title be changed.

 

:grouphug: Many prayers and positive thoughts for your community and those working to help in the aftermath. 

[hornblower]

I have one word for you - gangs.....

 

<snipped>

 

 

. And I am not going to move away in fear just because I don't live in a Mayberry-esque neighborhood. 

 

 

I can't help but wonder about two words: income tax 

 

 

It's fascinating to me that you think this is Mayberry-esque because I don't think I'm talking about unreasonable standards.

 

I want to live in a place where you pay your taxes and you build a community, with poverty reduction programs, recreation opportunities, good education, adequate crime prevention, well funded police forces.  

 

States with low to no income tax disproportionately hurt poor people. I believe crime is an outgrowth of that. 

 

"Altogether, states with no income tax tend to place a disproportionately high tax burden on the poor. Five of the no-income-tax states — Florida, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Tennessee — are ranked in ITEP’s “Terrible 10†list for unfair taxing." source

[8circles]

 And I am not going to move away in fear just because I don't live in a Mayberry-esque neighborhood. 

 

 

I don't think it's unreasonable or asking too much to not live in fear of an armed intruder. If that means that my neighborhood is "Mayberry-esque" then so be it.  

[8circles]

I can't help but wonder about two words: income tax 

 

 

It's fascinating to me that you think this is Mayberry-esque because I don't think I'm talking about unreasonable standards.

 

I want to live in a place where you pay your taxes and you build a community, with poverty reduction programs, recreation opportunities, good education, adequate crime prevention, well funded police forces.  

 

States with low to no income tax disproportionately hurt poor people. I believe crime is an outgrowth of that. 

 

"Altogether, states with no income tax tend to place a disproportionately high tax burden on the poor. Five of the no-income-tax states — Florida, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Tennessee — are ranked in ITEP’s “Terrible 10†list for unfair taxing." source

 

Exactly.

 

Which brings me back to my question that nobody has really addressed. Why are so many content with this solution - defending your home/your person with a gun? What are your representatives doing for you except making sure you have easy access to guns? Why is that acceptable to you? (not you, hornblower)

[Joker]

Something I'm confused by is what everyone who feels they need a gun for protection does with their kids. Dh and I actually had a long conversation about this at lunch today because, yet again, we saw someone go into a home goods store with a gun. If I lived in a place where I felt I needed protection in my home and needed to have a gun on me to go shopping, I would never leave my kids home alone or pretty much ever allow them out of my sight. 

 

I worry a lot about ds because some people are idiots but I don't worry about those in my neighborhood. Dh and I are actually going out of town in a couple of weeks for five nights and ds and dd will be home alone and going to school. They are almost 18 and 15 and my mom lives 5 minutes away. I feel pretty confident they will be fine.  If I felt a need to always have a gun with me, there is no way I could leave them home without one because that would be crazy. If I felt a need to carry a gun with me while shopping, why in the world would I let either of them go out without me and my gun? 

 

I just don't get how those people go about their daily lives especially with growing kids/teens. So, maybe many don't really need it but they just want it to appease some sense of anxiety or paranoia? Is it something else or do you just really never let your teens out of your sight? 

[Paige]

Something I'm confused by is what everyone who feels they need a gun for protection does with their kids. Dh and I actually had a long conversation about this at lunch today because, yet again, we saw someone go into a home goods store with a gun. If I lived in a place where I felt I needed protection in my home and needed to have a gun on me to go shopping, I would never leave my kids home alone or pretty much ever allow them out of my sight. 

 

I worry a lot about ds because some people are idiots but I don't worry about those in my neighborhood. Dh and I are actually going out of town in a couple of weeks for five nights and ds and dd will be home alone and going to school. They are almost 18 and 15 and my mom lives 5 minutes away. I feel pretty confident they will be fine.  If I felt a need to always have a gun with me, there is no way I could leave them home without one because that would be crazy. If I felt a need to carry a gun with me while shopping, why in the world would I let either of them go out without me and my gun? 

 

I just don't get how those people go about their daily lives especially with growing kids/teens. So, maybe many don't really need it but they just want it to appease some sense of anxiety or paranoia? Is it something else or do you just really never let your teens out of your sight? 

 

I think you are over thinking it. I'm not a gun person, but the people I know who are aren't especially paranoid, fearful, or anxious. Guns are seen as a backup, last resort, defense mechanism. They are also, in the micro culture, no big deal; like a pocket knife. There are cultural differences in how you and an open or concealed carry person view guns. They don't have a need to carry, but it's more like, why not? They see no harm in carrying because they don't expect to need it and don't expect to have any accident, and if something does come up, then it's there. It's like being prepared for anything; like a girl scout. 

 

It's not that they think they are likely to actually be threatened at any moment, but they understand that relying on police or outsiders to protect them and their family is not 100% effective. They know owning a gun is not 100% effective either, but it's an extra layer of protection. I think we can all agree that even in low crime areas, people are sometimes attacked, and the police cannot prevent every crime. You are assuming the person is more fearful or anxious about being a crime victim than you are, but most of the people I know are not. They just acknowledge the small risk and think they'll try to minimize it because it's not a big deal and they've been socialized in a way that it's normal. For me, I acknowledge the small risk and think it's too much effort to do anything about it because guns weren't part of my culture growing up. And I've had family members who have been crime victims- I still think the risk is small and the effort to carry too much for me. I don't carry pocket knives either. 

 

The other group of people I know who carry are people for whom it's part of their jobs- LEO or FBI agents and similar. They always carry and don't think twice about it. If I see someone open carrying, I generally assume they are off duty FBI or something and it doesn't bother me. 

[Joker]

Most of those I'm able to recognize as carrying are most definitely not law enforcement. The guy today had his gun tucked in the back of his shorts.

 

I grew up with guns but what I see and hear from people today is so different. They say they need it for protection. I stand by the idea that if an adult feels they need it then I question them letting their children out of their sight.

[dsmith]

Did anyone catch the special about the victims on CNN with Anderson Cooper? I only caught the end but from what little I saw it seemed very well done. It's playing again later tonight, so I'm going to stay up and watch the whole thing and probably cry. The whole situation is just so unbelievably sad. 

[Sandwalker]

The title of this thread should be changed to gun debate. It's not about Vegas. It's not about the number of people who lost their lives. I can't look at this title anymore and it just keeps going. So please call it what it is.

 

Sincerely,

someone from Vegas who is barely hanging on.

^

[8circles]

I think you are over thinking it. I'm not a gun person, but the people I know who are aren't especially paranoid, fearful, or anxious. Guns are seen as a backup, last resort, defense mechanism. They are also, in the micro culture, no big deal; like a pocket knife. There are cultural differences in how you and an open or concealed carry person view guns. They don't have a need to carry, but it's more like, why not? They see no harm in carrying because they don't expect to need it and don't expect to have any accident, and if something does come up, then it's there. It's like being prepared for anything; like a girl scout. 

People who see no harm in carrying a weapon in public - especially when they don't think they'll need it - are not looking hard enough. They are absolutely harming our society by continuing to normalize violence and because more guns statistically make everyone more unsafe.

It's not that they think they are likely to actually be threatened at any moment, but they understand that relying on police or outsiders to protect them and their family is not 100% effective. They know owning a gun is not 100% effective either, but it's an extra layer of protection. I think we can all agree that even in low crime areas, people are sometimes attacked, and the police cannot prevent every crime. You are assuming the person is more fearful or anxious about being a crime victim than you are, but most of the people I know are not. They just acknowledge the small risk and think they'll try to minimize it because it's not a big deal and they've been socialized in a way that it's normal. For me, I acknowledge the small risk and think it's too much effort to do anything about it because guns weren't part of my culture growing up. And I've had family members who have been crime victims- I still think the risk is small and the effort to carry too much for me. I don't carry pocket knives either. 

 

The other group of people I know who carry are people for whom it's part of their jobs- LEO or FBI agents and similar. They always carry and don't think twice about it. If I see someone open carrying, I generally assume they are off duty FBI or something and it doesn't bother me. 

[Guinevere]

The title of this thread should be changed to gun debate. It's not about Vegas. It's not about the number of people who lost their lives. I can't look at this title anymore and it just keeps going. So please call it what it is.

 

Sincerely,

someone from Vegas who is barely hanging on.

 

Can we make this happen?  Or move to another thread so this one gets buried?

 

A lot of threads lately have been about thinking about other people, about being kind, about listening...I think we are missing something by continuing past this simple request.  

[8circles]

Can we make this happen? Or move to another thread so this one gets buried?

 

A lot of threads lately have been about thinking about other people, about being kind, about listening...I think we are missing something by continuing past this simple request.

Either msg the op or contact a moderator. Nobody else can change the title. Edited October 7, 2017 by 8circles

[TravelingChris]

In terms of intruders who bust into my home--- I think almost anyone busting into my home is a threat to me- I am a disabed person and do not think I could outfight most people above small children.  Would I shoot first without determining who it is?  No, I would make sure it isn't a family member or a little child.  I like a shotgun because racking that back sounds very threatening and should make an intruder run.  If instead he turns and heads for me, well too bad for him.  I would think all normal people who didn't want to harm me would either run away or put hands in the air, not start moving towards me.  That would be threatening enough for me.  

 

Some of you seem to think that people are only threatening if they have a weapon.  Males are generally bigger and stronger than women and so for us, a lone male is threatening enough.  Anyway, the law in most states is that presumption of evil intent by entering a home with people in it and they are allowed to protect themselves.  That includes shooting intruders.  My personal standard is threaten to shoot if able first, and then only shoot if person doesn't retreat.  But that all depends on who is in the home.  That guy who was sleeping and awakened to see three intruders dressed in ninja type clothing had no need or capability to threaten first since they would have gotten to him if he first alerted them.  He would be dead instead of them.  So everything depends on circumstances- how many, what state they are in (one guy passed out on my sofa from drunkeness isn't going to get shot, for example, just watched carefully while alerting the police to come take him away), what state the household is in, etc.  

[mommyoffive]

Did anyone catch the special about the victims on CNN with Anderson Cooper? I only caught the end but from what little I saw it seemed very well done. It's playing again later tonight, so I'm going to stay up and watch the whole thing and probably cry. The whole situation is just so unbelievably sad. 

 

I didn't watch that one, but I watched the one on 20/20.   I was torn on weather to watch it or not.  I like to put my head in the sand on these things and not get so into  them, because it makes me so stressed out about daily safety.   

 

But I am glad that I did watch.  It did lay tribute to a small amount of the victims.  I was crying for the wife whose husband died.  I can't imagine.  I feel for every person who was there who is dealing with injuries.  I am sad and praying hard for every person at the concert who wasn't physically impacted, but will be emotionally affected for ever.  

 

I mean I have no words.  This should not be happening here or anywhere in the world.   We have to fix this.  This shouldn't be something that our kids think is normal.  

[Happy2BaMom]

Haven't read the entire thread as I do not have time.  Pass gun legislation.  Fine.  I'm for it.  However, it will not stop senseless violence.  It just will not.  People will use cars, new technology, whatever.  Until the human heart is fixed, there just isn't anything to be done.  We will keep fixing this problem and that problem.   So I hope it passes.  I do.  But I do not think it will bring the peace most of you are hoping for;  Humanity is too far gone.  It has been this way since the beginning of time.  

I'm off to volunteer in my small corner of the world.  It is all I can do. 

 

It will not stop senseless violence, but getting rid of assault rifles and gun bumps and whatever-else-allows-one-person-to-mow-down-dozens-of-people-within-seconds would stop the mowing-down-of-dozens-of-people-within-seconds. Australia's history is a perfect case in point - got rid of assault-type rifles 40 years ago and haven't had a mass shooting since. Yes, there are & will be murders and violence and hideous humans. Just not mass shootings. 

 

But I don't argue it anymore. This country will never do it. Never.

 

Which is why there are more, many more, Las Vegas incidents in our future. 

[Guest]

Haven't read the entire thread as I do not have time. Pass gun legislation. Fine. I'm for it. However, it will not stop senseless violence. It just will not. People will use cars, new technology, whatever. Until the human heart is fixed, there just isn't anything to be done. We will keep fixing this problem and that problem. So I hope it passes. I do. But I do not think it will bring the peace most of you are hoping for; Humanity is too far gone. It has been this way since the beginning of time.

I'm off to volunteer in my small corner of the world. It is all I can do.

Not one person on this thread has suggested gun control will end all violence. Waiting for Jesus is not the answer to this problem.

[Guest]

It will not stop senseless violence, but getting rid of assault rifles and gun bumps and whatever-else-allows-one-person-to-mow-down-dozens-of-people-within-seconds would stop the mowing-down-of-dozens-of-people-within-seconds. Australia's history is a perfect case in point - got rid of assault-type rifles 40 years ago and haven't had a mass shooting since. Yes, there are & will be murders and violence and hideous humans. Just not mass shootings.

 

But I don't argue it anymore. This country will never do it. Never.

 

Which is why there are more, many more, Las Vegas incidents in our future.

Yep. Again, if a room full of dead 5 year olds didn’t spark change, nothing will.

[OH_Homeschooler]

It is the ONLY answer. I said I am for passing gun control. It will not stop mass killings. Jesus is the only answer.

Honestly, if this is true, what is He waiting for?

[TCB]

It is the ONLY answer.  I said I am for passing gun control.  It will not stop mass killings.  Jesus is the only answer.

 

I believe that Jesus is the answer to all things. However we are also given our brains to reason with. There are things we can do to reduce the incidence of mass shootings. We have only to look around the world to know that there must be answers to this. Many other places in the world do not suffer this to the same extent we do in the US. But we have to be willing to look for answers. 

[swimmermom3]

Yes, gun owners are mentally ill. They don't love their kids. They are irrational. They are not normal. They are "other".

 

Surely we must put those people in their place with the superior wisdom and prudence of their betters.

ETA: Added quote to which I was responding.

 

nm

Edited October 13, 2017 by swimmermom3

[fairfarmhand]

Why didn't the dad just yell at the guy? Or call the police? In my world, people shouldn't be discharging fire arms just because someone is trespassing. That's ridiculous. That's exactly the type of behavior that gets people killed. Dad has some self control issues, or anger issues or paranoia issues, maybe all three,

 

If anyone I know ever shoots someone, they damn well better be protecting their family from a direct threat, like an armed intruder who is doing more than just trying to steal their stuff. Most stuff is replaceable. No sentimental item or collectable is worth killing someone.

 

The type of thought process that leads making your example acceptable is a much bigger problem than trespassing or losing property.

I'm a gun owner and I TOTALLY agree. WE're not going to shoot at anyone who is walking away from our house!

 

We're not going to shoot someone on our property unless they're a direct threat to us.

[fairfarmhand]

I do think that people have right to defend their homes by whatever means possible. I just can't figure out the way it works to hear a noise and go "Intruder! I'm going to fire without knowing what's going on!" Because there's always somebody moving around in the night here. My dd moved to the couch a few days ago, making multiple trips up and down stairs to have all her stuffies and blankets where they needed to be.

 

If someone hears a dog barking, they might step outside, or if they hear cows bawling, they'll be in and out checking out what's wrong, or if the cat is climbing on the screen, someone will go out with a broom and knock him down. So if I hear noises, I'm thinking "Why is one of my kids knocking around at night?"