Stipulating that the person in question is not a Tier 1 Operator,
Again with the logic fallacies. Seriously, try posting once without one. No one said anything about Tier 1 Operators. You do understand that there is a large gap between untrained noob with a gun and a Navy SEAL right?
what's the answer to this hypothetical (re-posted from above):
Two things here:
1) Learn what a the False Dilema fallacy is, because you just committed it
2) You don't need to repost an unanswered question before allowing time to answer it. Your post was entered a grand total of 1 minute before mine and you waited a grand total of 10 minutes to repost. Seriously, that doesn't make you look like you have a point. Quite the contrary.
So:
A) Retrieve his firearm, shove the furniture against the door, call 911, and wait until either the cops break down his front door to clear the lower level or the intruder appears; or
Appeal to Extremes logical fallacy. Ignored
B) Content himself in the knowledge that is it probably nothing and go back to sleep; or
Appeal to Extremes logical fallacy. Ignored
C) Use a time-machine to travel into the past and outfit his house with security measures befitting a high-end jewelry store, but with more claymores; or
Appeal to Extremes logical fallacy. Ignored
Are you starting to understand why you committed the False Dilema fallacy?
D) Cautiously go through his own house, with a gun and a flashlight in hand just in case it's an unlikely-but-not-impossible worst-case scenario; or
You almost... almost were able to engage in an adult conversation... but then.
D1) Same as D, but leave the firearm behind because, lacking years of experience clearing houses in Kandahar, the person will end up with his own brains on his walls, and, in the unlikely event that it turns out there is an intruder, it's better to face them unarmed; or
Appeal to Extremes logical fallacy. Ignored
E) Some materially different approach that you describe more fully?
Well, there we go. See, you could have just left out all that logical fallacy stuff. Unfortunately, the answer to the question requires your original question to be re-written significantly. Because, as was previously noted by other posters, if your home defense plan counts on you sneaking up on a burglar and winning a gun fight with them, your home defense plan sucks. It's not a marginal plan. It's not a bad plan. It's a terrible, irresponsible disaster of a plan.
So, let's re-write your schenario so that it proposes a homeowner that has half a brain:
A homeowner/resident, asleep on the upper floor of his home, is awakened at 2am by a single loud noise that he thinks came from the ground floor. His wife is also awakened, and asks him, "Did you hear that?" He responds, "yes." They sit very quiet and still for another 20-30 seconds waiting to see if any more information comes in the form of more noise or otherwise... all remains quiet. They check their alarm panel and there are no indications of trouble in any zones including the motion sensors. The dog sleeping at the end of the bed perks it's ears up them as they talk, but otherwise is unconcerned.
Yeah, roll over and go back to sleep is the proper response to those indicators.
That doesn't disqualify anyone from looking through their own house when you hear those noises,
I didn't disqualify anyone. I said it was a stupid horrible plan likely to get you killed.
I find it face palming to suggest hiding in your bedroom and wasting the police's time with such ventures.
Well, I didn't. So, Strawman award for you.
Can either of you actually address statements that have been made instead of just making up an argument to topple over?[/quote]