Originally Posted by Jeffersonwasright

I've always had at least one firearm in my various residences. Except for a shotgun that I no longer own, they were all small caliber, either rifles or revolvers. It was clear to me in the past that if I shot an intruder with these small rounds, it probably wouldn't be shooting to kill, but rather to disarm or disable. That's OK with me, because killing someone - unless I'm staring down the barrel of their gun - conflicts with my personal beliefs. At those times when I lived in states without a "castle doctrine," I was also aware that shooting an intruder who was unarmed could be much more expensive and risky if he lived than if he died. That was OK with me, too. I've learned over the years that there's often a price to be paid for doing the right thing. I know many people won't agree with me on these points, but I wanted to present my views.

To get to the question, my situation recently changed when I bought a 9mm semiautomatic. With the larger caliber of this gun and its large capacity mag, it's a shoot to kill weapon. It's extremely unlikely that anyone entering my house uninvited in the middle of the night would live to talk about it. Bearing in mind how I feel about all this, is it ill-advised from a personal safety perspective to shout a warning through the door if someone is attempting to force their way inside? I don't mean standing directly at the door, of course, but rather in a position removed from the immediate area, but where a verbal warning could be reasonably expected to be heard outside. Is there any historical or even anecdotal data to indicate that such an approach places the homeowner in more or less danger than killing the intruder after they enter the home?