guns

[bbsam]

And people get scared when other people attack them or try to break into their home.

Do you really feel that you have the luxury of assuming that the person who is breaking into your home is unarmed?

Martial arts are great...but of little use against an armed assailant, or multiple assailants, or some guy that is just bigger and badder and tougher than you are.

What you are describing is a "continuum of force" and is a good protocol for police officers whose job is to subdue violent yet unarmed people. They have the ability, training and backup to start with verbal commands and then if needed proceed through various less-lethal options (martial arts, tear gas, tasers etc.) before finally resorting to deadly force.

I, on the other hand, have no interest in a "fair fight" or in risking my or my family's safety in an attempt to minimize the damage I may have to do to an attacker.

If you dont want me to shoot you...dont attack me or my family and dont try to break into my home while my family and I are inside. Its not that complicated.

I think I have been clear in that I don't want my life driven by fear. I don't want a trigger finger that squeezes when a hair on the back of my neck goes up. I don't want my fear to overcome the rational fact that I live in a low crime area and there are reasons for the bumps in the night that have nothing to do with life threatening intruders.

 

[brett636]

This was an incident where a local man decided to take the law in to his own hands.

I can honestly say I have no remorse for the man killed. He was attempting to enter the wrong home, and the man who shot him had every right to do so. Decisions have consequences, and his was to get drunk and enter the wrong house, and he paid for it. I feel more remorse for the old man who had to pull the trigger, but its simply not feasible to try and figure out the true motive of the unknown character attempting to enter your home at that time of day.

 

[brett636]

I think I have been clear in that I don't want my life driven by fear. I don't want a trigger finger that squeezes when a hair on the back of my neck goes up. I don't want my fear to overcome the rational fact that I live in a low crime area and there are reasons for the bumps in the night that have nothing to do with life threatening intruders.

So your saying you don't lock your doors because by your own definition that would be living your life in "fear".

 

[bbsam]

So your saying you don't lock your doors because by your own definition that would be living your life in "fear".

Are you saying you see no difference between locking doors and discharging a firearm at an unknown target? Is that really the best analogy you can come up with?

 

[brett636]

Are you saying you see no difference between locking doors and discharging a firearm at an unknown target? Is that really the best analogy you can come up with?

Perhaps I was mistaken, but I took your comment as saying someone who owns a home defense weapon like a firearm is living their life in fear. Although you do show you have a very skewed view of your average gun owner. I don't believe anyone of us are going to start shooting in the direction of any little noise we hear, but its not difficult to discern between a normal nighttime sound and the noise of shattering window glass or the repetition of sounds that would come from a would be home invader attempting to kick in your backdoor. Sometimes its just good sense to investigate such noises with a fully loaded weapon in your hand.

 

[bbsam]

Perhaps I was mistaken, but I took your comment as saying someone who owns a home defense weapon like a firearm is living their life in fear. Although you do show you have a very skewed view of your average gun owner. I don't believe anyone of us are going to start shooting in the direction of any little noise we hear, but its not difficult to discern between a normal nighttime sound and the noise of shattering window glass or the repetition of sounds that would come from a would be home invader attempting to kick in your backdoor. Sometimes its just good sense to investigate such noises with a fully loaded weapon in your hand.

I don't know the numbers, but it seems to me that there are far more "accidental" shootings with fire arms than there are incidents of home owners marching the bad guy off to jail. I think the incident that Upstate posted shows exactly what I'm talking about. A shot in the dark a dead kid and you don't care.

 

[island1fox]

I don't know the numbers, but it seems to me that there are far more "accidental" shootings with fire arms than there are incidents of home owners marching the bad guy off to jail. I think the incident that Upstate posted shows exactly what I'm talking about. A shot in the dark a dead kid and you don't care.

bbsam,
I am sure you realize ---What people consider NEWS is reported ---a shooting , a death --accident or whatever.
As I reported my "incident" on a different thread ---preventing a robbery. assault ,a rape, or death --because someone was armed --actually prevents it from being reported --the old no call no foul --or no foul --no news!! It is obvious why it seems to you there are more shootings ---!!That is all that is reported .

 

[Dis-organized Labor]

My intent was to quit drinking and drugging before UPS fired me. I received the results of my actions (rightfully so), not my intentions. I think Klein will back me up on this. Not that will strengthen the argument any.

BB: you have got to be kiddin' me????

 

[Jones]

I don't know the numbers, but it seems to me that there are far more "accidental" shootings with fire arms than there are incidents of home owners marching the bad guy off to jail. I think the incident that Upstate posted shows exactly what I'm talking about. A shot in the dark a dead kid and you don't care.

I looked around briefly, and found this page. Scrolling down a bit was this paragraph:

A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)

Here's the study they referenced: click

I'm sure there's more stuff like this out there if you care to look. I don't really know how significant it is.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

I can honestly say I have no remorse for the man killed. He was attempting to enter the wrong home, and the man who shot him had every right to do so. Decisions have consequences, and his was to get drunk and enter the wrong house, and he paid for it. I feel more remorse for the old man who had to pull the trigger, but its simply not feasible to try and figure out the true motive of the unknown character attempting to enter your home at that time of day.

I do agree that the kid made several stupid decisions but did he deserve to lose his life over those decisions?

 

[bbsam]

BB: you have got to be kiddin' me????

About?

 

[wkmac]

According to this 2008' article more than 500 children per year die of accidential gunshot. Now whether this is accurate or not, others can judge but I want to address the point made by bbsam where he/she (sorry I don't know your gender but didn't want to offend either by assuming) said more people killed accidentially than are saved. I'm not here to prove or disprove because like bbsam doesn't have data to support (per own admmission), I don't have data to disprove either. What I do look at is root cause and what in fact does pose the greatest threat to children and I contend that the individual with a gun is by far and away a much lesser threat to the children while we completely ignore the real root cause and greatest threat. Case in point.

Now if you are gonna be consistant about "protecting the children" "protecting the innocent" you will seek to ban all threats to children and the innocent!

And here's a true fact if you dare follow the trail and I'll use Colt Arms as a case in point. Right from their website is a history of the company itself and I'd invite you to read it and you'll see a very common thread that at the end, if you are an honest person, would ask, had there been no State, no State involvement at all, would there even be a Colt Industries today? If you look at the mid-1800's and Colt's Walker pistol and are honest, you'd have to answer in all probability, no there would be no Colt. And if no Colt, how many revolvers, semi-automatic pistols or how many civilian AR-15's and the many knockoffs would not be around.

The State has always been the silent partner in the arms bidness and without the gov't contracts, those mass production lines are economically unsustainable and at best, the firearms industry would be small in scale on the order of a large machine shop at best (and I speak as a former tool and die machinist myself before my UPS career) with the vast majority of guns being hand built which is a slower process compared to mass production lines. Even with more advanced weaponry, the State at some points via treaty and alliances (after effective lobbying from weapon makers and banking interests who benefit from financing with US Taxpayer supports) allow weapon makers to sell their wares to foreign interests which quite often comes back to haunt us. Case in point, Albright's focus of her "it's worth it" cause!

Go ahead and blame the individual because it is the easiest to do but the simple fact is that the State itself, in pursuit of it's own self interests has created the environment to which you protest and now you seek to further grant greater monopoly to a greedy, tyranntical, evil, self serving, malevolent power who throughout history has in it's own course of purpose killed more people and destroyed more lives that would make in sheer numbers all those killed by individuals seem like a grain of sand to the entirity of all the deserts and beaches on the planet.

Again, if you are consistent but then there's always room we can find for you in TOS's new thread, Hypocrisy 101!

 

[bbsam]

According to this 2008' article more than 500 children per year die of accidential gunshot. Now whether this is accurate or not, others can judge but I want to address the point made by bbsam where he/she (sorry I don't know your gender but didn't want to offend either by assuming) said more people killed accidentially than are saved. I'm not here to prove or disprove because like bbsam doesn't have data to support (per own admmission), I don't have data to disprove either. What I do look at is root cause and what in fact does pose the greatest threat to children and I contend that the individual with a gun is by far and away a much lesser threat to the children while we completely ignore the real root cause and greatest threat. Case in point.

YouTube- Madeleine Albright - 60 Minutes

Now if you are gonna be consistant about "protecting the children" "protecting the innocent" you will seek to ban all threats to children and the innocent!

And here's a true fact if you dare follow the trail and I'll use Colt Arms as a case in point. Right from their website is a history of the company itself and I'd invite you to read it and you'll see a very common thread that at the end, if you are an honest person, would ask, had there been no State, no State involvement at all, would there even be a Colt Industries today? If you look at the mid-1800's and Colt's Walker pistol and are honest, you'd have to answer in all probability, no there would be no Colt. And if no Colt, how many revolvers, semi-automatic pistols or how many civilian AR-15's and the many knockoffs would not be around.

The State has always been the silent partner in the arms bidness and without the gov't contracts, those mass production lines are economically unsustainable and at best, the firearms industry would be small in scale on the order of a large machine shop at best (and I speak as a former tool and die machinist myself before my UPS career) with the vast majority of guns being hand built which is a slower process compared to mass production lines. Even with more advanced weaponry, the State at some points via treaty and alliances (after effective lobbying from weapon makers and banking interests who benefit from financing with US Taxpayer supports) allow weapon makers to sell their wares to foreign interests which quite often comes back to haunt us. Case in point, Albright's focus of her "it's worth it" cause!

Go ahead and blame the individual because it is the easiest to do but the simple fact is that the State itself, in pursuit of it's own self interests has created the environment to which you protest and now you seek to further grant greater monopoly to a greedy, tyranntical, evil, self serving, malevolent power who throughout history has in it's own course of purpose killed more people and destroyed more lives that would make in sheer numbers all those killed by individuals seem like a grain of sand to the entirity of all the deserts and beaches on the planet.

Again, if you are consistent but then there's always room we can find for you in TOS's new thread, Hypocrisy 101!

I do intend to be consistent in my assertion that I have no desire to ban fire-arms whatsoever. I believe myself quite realistic in the knowledge that kids will die in gun accidents. Tragic though it may be, that is the world we live in. I am not out to "save the children". The point I am making that in more cases than not, a fire-arm kept for protection ends up injuring an unintended victim. I believe that those excercising the right to bear arms must be held responsible for the arms they bear. Call it a "well regulated militia" if you will.

 

[moreluck]

This just happened close by me yesterday...........

Dec 15, 2009 7:47 am US/Pacific
2 Women, 2 Kids Found Dead In San Clemente Home

SAN CLEMENTE, Calif. (AP)
Four people were found dead inside a San Clemente home. CBS

Orange County authorities say a woman has killed herself and three other family members, including two young children, in what may have started as a child custody dispute.

Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino says the bodies were discovered Monday afternoon in an upscale, gated community in San Clemente.

A 2-year-old girl, her 4-year-old sister, their 38-year-old mother and a relative in her 60s were found dead.

Officials say one of the women apparently shot the others and then herself. Their names aren't being released.

Authorities say the killings apparently stemmed from a domestic dispute and may have involved child custody matters.

Amormino says the children's parents were estranged and the father didn't live at the home.

(© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

 

[cachsux]

Sober, You consistently provide a great perspective on this topic. No emotion; good analogies; good examples. I am not currently a gun owner, but am open minded. Your points are very valid. As Dilli said, we don't know if he actually breached the door, was standing outside of it, came inside and was threatening, or what. Although tragic, the home owner seemed to be justified I(based on the very little we read).
Is he obligated to give a waring shot? No. Should he have? Did he have time? WE do not know.
I hope the shooter prays for the victim daily, and does not feel so bad that his life is ruined. It was a tragic mistake. That's all. IMHO

A warning shot,while noble from a humanitarian aspect,is the worst thing to do from a legal standpoint. It shows one had a chance to choose a warning shot therefore it means the danger was not as imminent and the intruder could have been allowed,or chose, to leave. This is straight from the mouths of both cops and our lawyer.
You have two choices,hold the intruder at gunpoint until the police arrive,or shoot them dead. Anything else opens you up to much greater,successful,legal liability from an intruder or their dependents.

 

[bbsam]

A warning shot,while noble from a humanitarian aspect,is the worst thing to do from a legal standpoint. It shows one had a chance to choose a warning shot therefore it means the danger was not as imminent and the intruder could have been allowed,or chose, to leave. This is straight from the mouths of both cops and our lawyer.
You have two choices,hold the intruder at gunpoint until the police arrive,or shoot them dead. Anything else opens you up to much greater,successful,legal liability from an intruder or their dependents.

Shoot them dead and hope the foresics department is out of the 1930's?

 

[cachsux]

Shoot them dead and hope the foresics department is out of the 1930's?

No,but if they`re dead there is only one side of the story,yours. There won`t be "I some poor individual,desperate to feed my babies,trying to recover from drugs,just need help to get a second chance in this tough economy,etc,etc" from some a-hole in a court room as he sues you for,and could very well win,everything you got. You`re not trying to hide the fact that you shot them.

We belong to a gun range and shoot with the local law enforcement people and to a man they say the exact same thing. Hold the intruder without a shot at gunpoint,or if you justifiably feel you are in imminent danger then shoot to kill.

 

[Dis-organized Labor]

BB: you have got to be kiddin' me????

It was the Klein comment

 

[ol'browneye]

I do intend to be consistent in my assertion that I have no desire to ban fire-arms whatsoever. I believe myself quite realistic in the knowledge that kids will die in gun accidents. Tragic though it may be, that is the world we live in. I am not out to "save the children". The point I am making that in more cases than not, a fire-arm kept for protection ends up injuring an unintended victim. I believe that those excercising the right to bear arms must be held responsible for the arms they bear. Call it a "well regulated militia" if you will.

More cases than not? Listen to what you just said. Compare the number of guns in homes for self-protection with the number of accidents or unintended victims, and I think you will see just how erroneous and exaggerated your claims are. For a person that has no desire to ban firearms, you sure talk like one!

 

[brett636]

I do agree that the kid made several stupid decisions but did he deserve to lose his life over those decisions?

I would not say he "deserved" to die, but that was the result and I find little reason to fret over it. People find interesting ways to remove themselves from the gene pool when they are inebriated, and this is no different. I just have to put myself in that then 68 year old man's shoes to understand why he did what he did. Its early in the morning, and a shadowy figure is attempting to enter my front door. I'm not expecting anybody, and being so early in the morning I'm assuming that person has some kind of ill intentions for me and or my property. The home owner could not have known the kid was drunk, and he took the actions necessary to defend himself. I only see a need to feel sorry for the man who obviously had to take another human's life, and since I've never had to do that I imagine its a tough decision to make. I find it appalling that this many years after that incident the home owner is still fighting to keep his freedom when he was simply doing what he believed was right at the time based on what little information he had.