FREE TAPATALK APP

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by remirol

You know the funny part? Most of these gunbangers don't even realize that in a home invasion, if their gun isn't right at hand for them to pick up immediately, they'll just get shot while they're going for it.

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by remirol

... -- you hear the door get kicked in, BANG, and then within a few ...
And somehow a gun will save you from this.

It's amusing how you assume the bad guys are all elite forces that operate tactically and efficiently in seconds, but assume the homeowners are bumbling idiots.

Take your bias elsewhere.

squealpiggy · 30th January 2013, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Some answers here

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Suicides and homicides are the biggest killers. Accidents are pretty rare. Youths and guns are a problem. Self defence and gun use is in need of more study.

I agree with this. For one thing statistics on violent home invasions are spotty. If you're going to use this phenomenon as a major factor in justifying use of firearms for "self defense" then it would be a good idea to know how prevalent the problem is. The issue is that statistically the crimes are sorted out into separate categories. A violent home invasion resulting in robbery, rape and murder is recorded to be as many as six separate crimes - unlawfully in dwelling, murder, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement and sexual assault. There is no separate category for a violent crime committed following the entry to a dwelling through force or subterfuge, and I think that statistic is the one most needed.

What seems clear is that most break and enter/burglary type crimes do not involve violence. I'd say that because the total rate of violent crime is only a little over half the rate of all burglaries, all violent crime (including homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault and robbery) being at a rate of 386 per 100,000 while just burglary on its own is listed by the FBI at a rate of 702 per 100,000.

An important thing to remember is that most criminals don't become criminals because they are ruthless, deviant and intelligent. They become criminals because it's easy. Which is why if you want to make your house secure the first step you should take is to make it slightly more difficult to break into than your neighbour's house. If your house has new windows and better lighting and your neighbour's house has a rickety looking door they'll try the neighbour's house unless there is a particular reason to find your house attractive. And usually the reason your house is more attractive is because you are known by the criminals to have drugs or cash inside.

This doesn't count the fact that there are some criminals who plan crimes against individual homes in order to steal, say, cars or jewellery. But those criminals are statistical outliers. Almost all burglaries are through the front door which is kicked open and any valuables that are easy to carry are taken away.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by qayak

Alarms and better locks are cheaper and more effective than guns.

You didn't read his scenario properly. See, the bad guys are elite forces that can bypass alarms and locks in mere seconds.

But seriously, alarm goes off. So what? What's the response time of the police? Better locks on what? Regular doors? OK, now it takes the bad guys minutes to get inside instead of mere microseconds (read the above regarding the elite bad guyz), police still aren't there.

Certainly would be nice if you could do something with that extra time to protect yourself.

squealpiggy · 30th January 2013, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Perfectly reasonable mistake when threatened by a hispanic gang to mistake forward and backward motion of the car. And I am serious not sarcastic about that.

He was in a high stress sutuation and fired because the car moved. A minor mistake about the dirrection it moved but really how long would other responcible gun owners here wait when a hispanic gang is trying to run them over?

We just have to accept minor accidents like this to preserve our rights to self defense.

I'm sorry I missed this insane post. Two points here:

1. It was a car full of teens. The fact that you have characterised it as a "Hispanic gang" illustrates my point that guns are sold on the basis of unreasonable expectations as to the level of danger.

2. Shooting a teenager in the face is not a "minor accident".

Are you trolling?

Xulld · 30th January 2013, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by lionking

And yet this church-going good guy was (almost certainly) a legal gun owner. Another very good reason to change gun ownership laws.

I work in technology. Often someone will explain that the problem never existed before it did.

I always wonder what prompts such a statement as if it was anything but trivially true.

Can you explain?

remirol · 30th January 2013, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

It's amusing how you assume the bad guys are all elite forces that operate tactically and efficiently in seconds, but assume the homeowners are bumbling idiots.

Take your bias elsewhere.

Like I said: absolutely no clue. Take your own bias elsewhere. It doesn't require being elite or any special tactics to kick a door down, run in, and either shoot anyone who's there or point the gun at them and yell "LIE ON THE FLOOR". And that's what makes me laugh at how little y'all realize about how helpless you would be in such a situation.

ponderingturtle · 30th January 2013, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Missing a --->

<---- ??

No I am serious. The hard line self defense supporters need to know what a small minor error in perception this was. If the only issue is that he shot when the car was in reverse it seems pretty unreasonable to class that minor understandable error in perception in an old man. You have to take issue with confronting people in your crime ridden neighborhood with a gun to make it a serious error and that seems to have broad support.

squealpiggy · 30th January 2013, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

You didn't read his scenario properly. See, the bad guys are elite forces that can bypass alarms and locks in mere seconds.

But seriously, alarm goes off. So what? What's the response time of the police? Better locks on what? Regular doors? OK, now it takes the bad guys minutes to get inside instead of mere microseconds (read the above regarding the elite bad guyz), police still aren't there.

Certainly would be nice if you could do something with that extra time to protect yourself.

Unless you have a reason to be a target for a violent gang it's very unlikely that you will suffer a violent home invasion. If you have a monitored alarm then the intruders in those rare circumstances know that the clock is ticking and don't have much time to do anything to the residents. If it takes a few minutes to get into the home because your door is secured then they have even less time. Again unless there is a definite reason that you are being targeted it's unlikely that the intruders are going to stick around. They'll find an easier target.

People don't generally become criminals so that they can apply themselves and be better at their job.

Xulld · 30th January 2013, 07:07 AM

Personally I cannot imagine the desire to try to justify this person's actions as if I have any responsibility to do so.

Freedom, and responsibility are personal unless some groups decides something jointly, but even then each person has the freedom to disagree and go their own way.

This man made choices, his actions are his own, and he will face the consequences no matter what the outcome.

ponderingturtle · 30th January 2013, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Walking outside is where the responsible part ends. Best to call 911 and, if you can, leave. If you can't, stay inside where you narrow your field of fire so you lessen your chances of a stray bullet going into someone else's house. If the guy kicking in the door drops bent double, the rest aren't going to stick around.

This Sailors guy is an idiot.

Maybe but this seems like broadly supported idiocy.

ponderingturtle · 30th January 2013, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by qayak

So what you are saying is this murder is justified?

No I am saying that if the main issue someone harps on is what gear the car was in then it isn't murder. You need to take issue with grabing your gun and going to confront them. But that is a behavior that has a lot of support.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by remirol

Like I said: absolutely no clue.

You admit that you have no evidence, no experience, and no clue. Admission noted.

Originally Posted by remirol

Take your own bias elsewhere. It doesn't require being elite or any special tactics to kick a door down, run in, and either shoot anyone who's there or point the gun at them and yell "LIE ON THE FLOOR".

Military and law enforcement actually train to operate as efficiently and quickly as you describe.

Originally Posted by remirol

And that's what makes me laugh at how little y'all realize about how helpless you would be in such a situation.

Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune?

ponderingturtle · 30th January 2013, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

I'm sorry I missed this insane post. Two points here:

1. It was a car full of teens. The fact that you have characterised it as a "Hispanic gang" illustrates my point that guns are sold on the basis of unreasonable expectations as to the level of danger.

2. Shooting a teenager in the face is not a "minor accident".

Are you trolling?

No I am looking at it from the shooters point of view. And there are plenty here who support grabing your gun and confronting tresspassers.

So how does one differentiate a car full of teens from a car full of gang members in an initual glance anyway? For safeties sake he needed to presume they were gang members.

Nessie · 30th January 2013, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

I was looking into this recently. In 2011 the rate of homicide was 4.7 per 100,000 (including all methods). The rate of gun death was 10.3 per 100,000. That means that the rate of death from firearms in 2011 was more than double the total murder rate for the same period.

This means that well over half of gun deaths are not deliberate murders. They're accidents and suicides.

Correct.

But the gun homicide rate in the USA is way above other Western countries at 2.97 per 100,000. That is nearly six times worse than Canada and forty two times worse than the UK. That means if the USA got its act together and removed guns from criminals, nuts and youths it could save just over 9,000 lives a year by achieving what Canada has done and 10,800 lives by achieving what the UK has done.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

The affect on suicide with guns is way smaller, studies show that increased access, ease of use and effectiveness of a gun enhances the suicide rate to higher than it would be without guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/

Accidents are rare, the USA has a rate of 0.2 per 100,000 which is slightly better than Canada with 0.28 and way worse than the UK with 0.01.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

But that still means between six and eight hundred people a year die in accidents with guns.

Kilaak Kommander · 30th January 2013, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by remirol

If you're worried about home invasions, your #1 priority needs to be to MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE, because the odds are _always_ heavily in favor of the guy who already has his gun out

One of my Facebook friends shared a comic the other day that boggled my mind. It depicted a guy being mugged in the street. The criminal has a gun pressed into his back. The victim has his hands up saying something to the effect of, "Gee, it's too bad President Obama thinks I don't need a gun to protect myself."

What he should have been saying is, "Gee, I'm glad I'm not carrying a gun, or this crook who got a drop on me from behind would be taking my wallet AND my gun!"

Xulld · 30th January 2013, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No I am serious. The hard line self defense supporters need to know what a small minor error in perception this was. If the only issue is that he shot when the car was in reverse it seems pretty unreasonable to class that minor understandable error in perception in an old man. You have to take issue with confronting people in your crime ridden neighborhood with a gun to make it a serious error and that seems to have broad support.

I do not know all the details, but if this man went outside and did not have cover, or at least concealment from the imagined threat then he already made tactical errors.

After that the subtle errors are almost unimportant. If he was heading outside already when he discovered the imagined threat then he should have retreated to cover or concealment.

If he had time to parley, he had time to find cover/ concealment, or start to retreat.

Standing ones ground may be an option, but it does not eliminate options, and the totality of circumstances still matters.

From what I read this man is not going to enjoy the scrutiny his actions have afforded him.

ponderingturtle · 30th January 2013, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

Personally I cannot imagine the desire to try to justify this person's actions as if I have any responsibility to do so.

Freedom, and responsibility are personal unless some groups decides something jointly, but even then each person has the freedom to disagree and go their own way.

This man made choices, his actions are his own, and he will face the consequences no matter what the outcome.

My issue is people are thinking it is easy to determine if a car is moving forward or back in a stressful situation with enough time to be able to shoot and not get run over.

NoahFence · 30th January 2013, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

You didn't read his scenario properly. See, the bad guys are elite forces that can bypass alarms and locks in mere seconds.

But seriously, alarm goes off. So what? What's the response time of the police? Better locks on what? Regular doors? OK, now it takes the bad guys minutes to get inside instead of mere microseconds (read the above regarding the elite bad guyz), police still aren't there.

Certainly would be nice if you could do something with that extra time to protect yourself.

???

Xulld · 30th January 2013, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

My issue is people are thinking it is easy to determine if a car is moving forward or back in a stressful situation with enough time to be able to shoot and not get run over.

I agree that under a stressful situation that such mistakes can occur, however I am firmly on the side of being skeptical of this mans actions being reasonable.

His mistake may be reasonable, but I do not believe his actions leading to the mistake are necessarily.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Kilaak Kommander

One of my Facebook friends shared a comic the other day that boggled my mind. It depicted a guy being mugged in the street. ...

Hrm, please explained what was depicted as happening in the scenes prior to what you describe. Did the mugger ninja-materialize right behind the victim?

ponderingturtle · 30th January 2013, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

I do not know all the details, but if this man went outside and did not have cover, or at least concealment from the imagined threat then he already made tactical errors.

After that the subtle errors are almost unimportant. If he was heading outside already when he discovered the imagined threat then he should have retreated to cover or concealment.

If he had time to parley, he had time to find cover/ concealment, or start to retreat.

Standing ones ground may be an option, but it does not eliminate options, and the totality of circumstances still matters.

From what I read this man is not going to enjoy the scrutiny his actions have afforded him.

He doesn't seem to be substantively different from Joe Horn who did nothing legally wrong. Hell this guy wasn't on the phone to 911 so you cab argue he did less wrong.

Horn just shot people that many here are fine with being shot.

remirol · 30th January 2013, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

You admit that you have no evidence, no experience, and no clue. Admission noted.

Military and law enforcement actually train to operate as efficiently and quickly as you describe.

Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune?

I see you've deliberately misrepresented two of my statements instead of attempting to support your case at all. Plonk.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

???

Really? You don't understand the point? Alarms and better locks buy you time. You can use that time to do a couple things. Wait for the police to come and save you, or defend yourself.

Nessie · 30th January 2013, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

I agree with this. For one thing statistics on violent home invasions are spotty. If you're going to use this phenomenon as a major factor in justifying use of firearms for "self defense" then it would be a good idea to know how prevalent the problem is. The issue is that statistically the crimes are sorted out into separate categories. A violent home invasion resulting in robbery, rape and murder is recorded to be as many as six separate crimes - unlawfully in dwelling, murder, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement and sexual assault. There is no separate category for a violent crime committed following the entry to a dwelling through force or subterfuge, and I think that statistic is the one most needed.

What seems clear is that most break and enter/burglary type crimes do not involve violence. I'd say that because the total rate of violent crime is only a little over half the rate of all burglaries, all violent crime (including homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault and robbery) being at a rate of 386 per 100,000 while just burglary on its own is listed by the FBI at a rate of 702 per 100,000.

An important thing to remember is that most criminals don't become criminals because they are ruthless, deviant and intelligent. They become criminals because it's easy. Which is why if you want to make your house secure the first step you should take is to make it slightly more difficult to break into than your neighbour's house. If your house has new windows and better lighting and your neighbour's house has a rickety looking door they'll try the neighbour's house unless there is a particular reason to find your house attractive. And usually the reason your house is more attractive is because you are known by the criminals to have drugs or cash inside.

This doesn't count the fact that there are some criminals who plan crimes against individual homes in order to steal, say, cars or jewellery. But those criminals are statistical outliers. Almost all burglaries are through the front door which is kicked open and any valuables that are easy to carry are taken away.

There is a clear gap in what the pro-gun side claim as reasons for a gun and what there are statistics for. The fear of home invasion, claim for self defence and protection against tyranny are all lacking in definitive statistics.

I think that makes it easier to continue to make those claims. But it has to be recognised those claims are not substantiate either way by plain facts.

Since DGUs are the subject here, I think that because so many criminals are armed, guns are justified for self defence in the USA. But I also think that it is open to doubt that DGUs save more lives than they unnecessarily take.

NoahFence · 30th January 2013, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

You admit that you have no evidence, no experience, and no clue. Admission noted.

Military and law enforcement actually train to operate as efficiently and quickly as you describe.

Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune?

Unless you're on a 24/7/365 heightened state of alert, the person breaking in with a gun will have the upper hand.

PERIOD.

You frickin John McClains are a hoot.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by remirol

I see you've deliberately misrepresented two of my statements instead of attempting to support your case at all. Plonk.

Not at all. Your points are so infantile that presenting them in the light just illustrates their utter ridiculousness.

Tell me once again about the elite bad guys who tactically break into a residence in seconds, before anyone has a chance to respond.

Tell me again how much enjoyment you will take when people realize that they can't do anything to protect themselves against the elite bad guys.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Unless you're on a 24/7/365 heightened state of alert, the person breaking in with a gun will have the upper hand.

PERIOD.

You frickin John McClains are a hoot.

Will their advantage be less, if I do or don't have a gun?

Polaris · 30th January 2013, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Many of the gun lovers on this forum would run shooting and screaming at someone backing out of their driveways? Keep stroking that bigotry of yours, but the rest of us will chalk that statement up to the usual ********.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No I am serious. The hard line self defense supporters need to know what a small minor error in perception this was. If the only issue is that he shot when the car was in reverse it seems pretty unreasonable to class that minor understandable error in perception in an old man. You have to take issue with confronting people in your crime ridden neighborhood with a gun to make it a serious error and that seems to have broad support.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No I am saying that if the main issue someone harps on is what gear the car was in then it isn't murder. You need to take issue with grabing your gun and going to confront them. But that is a behavior that has a lot of support.

How in the blue **** did you get any of that from my post? The only one harping on the gear the car was in is you.

Is anybody here actually arguing this shouldn't be treated as an unjustified homicide?

The Central Scrutinizer · 30th January 2013, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

I dont know about anyone else, but I would love to see threads that are clearly baiting, with sarcastic titles be deleted.

"Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground"

From all reports this man was not responsible and does not represent me or any other gun owner. This thread is nothing more than a way to lash out against other forum members.

He was a responsible gun owner. Until he wasn't.

Kilaak Kommander · 30th January 2013, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Hrm, please explained what was depicted as happening in the scenes prior to what you describe. Did the mugger ninja-materialize right behind the victim?

It was a single-panel comic, so there was no set up. Do you find it implausible that the mugger would have been walking behind the victim? Or is ninja-materializing the more likely scenario? Although if the victim had been armed, he could have spun around with his gun drawn every time somebody was walking behind him on the street.

Cainkane1 · 30th January 2013, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Well, they were in his driveway, and they looked ~~brown~~ suspicious. So he feared they were there to hurt them.

Makes perfect sense.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

These harmless, inanimate objects sure do pack a wallop, though.

The old man should be arrested for shooting the boy. He didn't stand his ground he shot a kid who wasn't even in his house. I'm 66 and unless I'm in grave physical danger as in a home invasion or a car jacking etc I wouldn't use a gun.

Hopefully the old fool will spend many years behind bars and hopefully die there.

Dr. Keith · 30th January 2013, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

I work in technology. Often someone will explain that the problem never existed before it did.

I always wonder what prompts such a statement as if it was anything but trivially true.

Can you explain?

I hate to speak for others, but it seems like you are in agreement without noticing it.

Many see this event as the predictable outcome of very laxed gun ownership laws that require no training or certification combined with an atmosphere of unwarranted fear, wherever that fear may come from.

Others are claiming this was unpredictable and can't be blamed on anything other than the man behind the trigger: there is no systemic reason for this to occur.

Which of these approaches most closely matches with your experience in technology?

In my limited experience there is typically one guy at the back of the room scratching his chin who is willing to admit that this is something they could have caught during beta testing, but either it didn't come up or it didn't rise to the top of the bug board. It is rare that an error is completely avoidable, but not all bugs are worth avoiding. That is easy to explain to a client who set the budget and therefore knows they have to live with a few bugs.

It is harder to explain to a family when their kid is shot for pulling into the wrong driveway. And I think that is why it is easier to say this isn't predictable, that this in unavoidable in a free society. Despite the fact that we know of other free societies where this is far less likely to happen.

NoahFence · 30th January 2013, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Tell me once again about the elite bad guys who tactically break into a residence in seconds, before anyone has a chance to respond.

You seriously think you need elite spec-ops training to kick down a door and scream "get on the floor" or shoot someone?

Wow.

Polaris · 30th January 2013, 07:30 AM

I predict AAH in this thread's future.

remirol · 30th January 2013, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

I agree that under a stressful situation that such mistakes can occur, however I am firmly on the side of being skeptical of this mans actions being reasonable.

His mistake may be reasonable, but I do not believe his actions leading to the mistake are necessarily.

I think that's the point being made, however. I don't know enough about the shooter's background in this case to know how much experience he had in the past with live-fire situations or confrontations such as this one, or how much training he had as to what to do in the events he encountered, so I'm not going to say what a reasonable expectation of what he _would_ do is.

However, it probably seems perfectly reasonable to someone brought up on a steady diet of gun culture with no training to come outside and shout at the strange car full of people in your driveway, and to take your gun with you for "emphasis" or "in case you need it". From a tactical perspective, as others have pointed out, it's completely wrong; if you think someone's going to kick your front door in, you _should_ sit behind the door and wait to surprise them. But clearly he was either untrained in such things or was caught up in the adrenalin of the moment, which is extremely common for people in their first live-fire encounter.

Whether it was this guy's first? Dunno. But it unfortunately illustrates the problems quite adequately: there are too damn many people out there with guns who, for whatever reason, shouldn't have them.

squealpiggy · 30th January 2013, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Correct.

But the gun homicide rate in the USA is way above other Western countries at 2.97 per 100,000. That is nearly six times worse than Canada and forty two times worse than the UK. That means if the USA got its act together and removed guns from criminals, nuts and youths it could save just over 9,000 lives a year by achieving what Canada has done and 10,800 lives by achieving what the UK has done.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map

The affect on suicide with guns is way smaller, studies show that increased access, ease of use and effectiveness of a gun enhances the suicide rate to higher than it would be without guns.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/

Accidents are rare, the USA has a rate of 0.2 per 100,000 which is slightly better than Canada with 0.28 and way worse than the UK with 0.01.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

But that still means between six and eight hundred people a year die in accidents with guns.

Well precisely. What I mean is that although the homicide rate is high in the US compared to other places, your risk of dying as a result of gunfire increases if you own guns, whereas conventional gun-culture wisdom is that owning guns makes you safer.

This is not borne out by statistics.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No I am looking at it from the shooters point of view. And there are plenty here who support grabing your gun and confronting tresspassers.

Those people do not have a realistic perception of crime. They have a perception warped by vested interests who want you to think that every passing car could be full of rapey gangbangers just looking to fill you full of holes and only being Clint Eastwood in the first half of Gran Torino will hold them at bay.

In Gran Torino Clint Eastwood comes out of the house with a gun to save a young kid from gangbangers. In this tragic event the old guy comes out of the house and shoots an innocent teenager in the face for the crime of pulling up into his driveway.

Quote:

So how does one differentiate a car full of teens from a car full of gang members in an initual glance anyway? For safeties sake he needed to presume they were gang members.

For safety's sake he needed to presume they had pulled into the wrong driveway and wait in his house to see what they did. If it made him feel better he could pick up his phone and his gun and wait in the basement or something to see if they meant him harm.

What he did was walk out of the house with a gun, fired a shot off without even so much as finding out if, I don't know, this carload of teenagers had the wrong house, and then shot one of them in the face as he attempted to get away.

Guns in the US are marketed in two ways:

1. The country is filled with angry armed gangs who want to kill whitey in his bed and steal his wimmins
2. If you have a gun you are a badass

Both of these things are wrong. The irony is that in his fear of criminals he has now put himself in a situation where he is guaranteed to be surrounded by criminals 24/7 and he won't have even a sniff of a gun for protection.

NoahFence · 30th January 2013, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Will their advantage be less, if I do or don't have a gun?

Yippy kai ay!

In order to properly answer, you have to tell the class who you percieve you are.
Are you in a constant state of alert? Are you a robot who requires no sleep?
Are you the responsible owner with his or her firearms locked?
Are you the irresponsible owner with a loaded gun in every room?

Depends.

ponderingturtle · 30th January 2013, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Polaris

How in the blue **** did you get any of that from my post? The only one harping on the gear the car was in is you.

Is anybody here actually arguing this shouldn't be treated as an unjustified homicide?

So if the car was in drive and he was in danger of being run over it would still be murder? After all running over a maniac threatening you with a gun would be self defense too.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

You seriously think you need elite spec-ops training to kick down a door and scream "get on the floor" or shoot someone?

Wow.

The scenario as it was unrealistically presented is that of bad guys knocking down the door and securing the entire residence before the good guys have time to grab a gun.

seycyrus · 30th January 2013, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Yippy kai ay!

In order to properly answer, ...

No, you are lying to yourself and to everyone else on this forum.

In EVERY SINGLE ONE of the instances you bring up, the bad guys "upper hand" is reduced if I have a gun.

Next time, try answering the question.

30th January 2013, 06:57 AM	#81
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by remirol You know the funny part? Most of these gunbangers don't even realize that in a home invasion, if their gun isn't right at hand for them to pick up immediately, they'll just get shot while they're going for it. Citation needed. Originally Posted by remirol ... -- you hear the door get kicked in, BANG, and then within a few ... And somehow a gun will save you from this. It's amusing how you assume the bad guys are all elite forces that operate tactically and efficiently in seconds, but assume the homeowners are bumbling idiots. Take your bias elsewhere.
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

30th January 2013, 06:58 AM	#82
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772	Originally Posted by Nessie Some answers here http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Suicides and homicides are the biggest killers. Accidents are pretty rare. Youths and guns are a problem. Self defence and gun use is in need of more study. I agree with this. For one thing statistics on violent home invasions are spotty. If you're going to use this phenomenon as a major factor in justifying use of firearms for "self defense" then it would be a good idea to know how prevalent the problem is. The issue is that statistically the crimes are sorted out into separate categories. A violent home invasion resulting in robbery, rape and murder is recorded to be as many as six separate crimes - unlawfully in dwelling, murder, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement and sexual assault. There is no separate category for a violent crime committed following the entry to a dwelling through force or subterfuge, and I think that statistic is the one most needed. What seems clear is that most break and enter/burglary type crimes do not involve violence. I'd say that because the total rate of violent crime is only a little over half the rate of all burglaries, all violent crime (including homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault and robbery) being at a rate of 386 per 100,000 while just burglary on its own is listed by the FBI at a rate of 702 per 100,000. An important thing to remember is that most criminals don't become criminals because they are ruthless, deviant and intelligent. They become criminals because it's easy. Which is why if you want to make your house secure the first step you should take is to make it slightly more difficult to break into than your neighbour's house. If your house has new windows and better lighting and your neighbour's house has a rickety looking door they'll try the neighbour's house unless there is a particular reason to find your house attractive. And usually the reason your house is more attractive is because you are known by the criminals to have drugs or cash inside. This doesn't count the fact that there are some criminals who plan crimes against individual homes in order to steal, say, cars or jewellery. But those criminals are statistical outliers. Almost all burglaries are through the front door which is kicked open and any valuables that are easy to carry are taken away.
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772

30th January 2013, 07:01 AM	#83
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by qayak Alarms and better locks are cheaper and more effective than guns. You didn't read his scenario properly. See, the bad guys are elite forces that can bypass alarms and locks in mere seconds. But seriously, alarm goes off. So what? What's the response time of the police? Better locks on what? Regular doors? OK, now it takes the bad guys minutes to get inside instead of mere microseconds (read the above regarding the elite bad guyz), police still aren't there. Certainly would be nice if you could do something with that extra time to protect yourself.
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

30th January 2013, 07:02 AM	#84
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Perfectly reasonable mistake when threatened by a hispanic gang to mistake forward and backward motion of the car. And I am serious not sarcastic about that. He was in a high stress sutuation and fired because the car moved. A minor mistake about the dirrection it moved but really how long would other responcible gun owners here wait when a hispanic gang is trying to run them over? We just have to accept minor accidents like this to preserve our rights to self defense. I'm sorry I missed this insane post. Two points here: 1. It was a car full of teens. The fact that you have characterised it as a "Hispanic gang" illustrates my point that guns are sold on the basis of unreasonable expectations as to the level of danger. 2. Shooting a teenager in the face is not a "minor accident". Are you trolling?
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772

30th January 2013, 07:03 AM	#85
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 1,225	Originally Posted by lionking And yet this church-going good guy was (almost certainly) a legal gun owner. Another very good reason to change gun ownership laws. I work in technology. Often someone will explain that the problem never existed before it did. I always wonder what prompts such a statement as if it was anything but trivially true. Can you explain?
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus Last edited by Xulld; 30th January 2013 at 07:05 AM.

30th January 2013, 07:04 AM	#86
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Etlanna, Jawja Posts: 7,620	Originally Posted by seycyrus It's amusing how you assume the bad guys are all elite forces that operate tactically and efficiently in seconds, but assume the homeowners are bumbling idiots. Take your bias elsewhere. Like I said: absolutely no clue. Take your own bias elsewhere. It doesn't require being elite or any special tactics to kick a door down, run in, and either shoot anyone who's there or point the gun at them and yell "LIE ON THE FLOOR". And that's what makes me laugh at how little y'all realize about how helpless you would be in such a situation.
	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb Last edited by remirol; 30th January 2013 at 07:06 AM.

30th January 2013, 07:06 AM	#87
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,556	Re: Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground Originally Posted by NoahFence Missing a ---> <---- ?? No I am serious. The hard line self defense supporters need to know what a small minor error in perception this was. If the only issue is that he shot when the car was in reverse it seems pretty unreasonable to class that minor understandable error in perception in an old man. You have to take issue with confronting people in your crime ridden neighborhood with a gun to make it a serious error and that seems to have broad support.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th January 2013, 07:07 AM	#88
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772	Originally Posted by seycyrus You didn't read his scenario properly. See, the bad guys are elite forces that can bypass alarms and locks in mere seconds. But seriously, alarm goes off. So what? What's the response time of the police? Better locks on what? Regular doors? OK, now it takes the bad guys minutes to get inside instead of mere microseconds (read the above regarding the elite bad guyz), police still aren't there. Certainly would be nice if you could do something with that extra time to protect yourself. Unless you have a reason to be a target for a violent gang it's very unlikely that you will suffer a violent home invasion. If you have a monitored alarm then the intruders in those rare circumstances know that the clock is ticking and don't have much time to do anything to the residents. If it takes a few minutes to get into the home because your door is secured then they have even less time. Again unless there is a definite reason that you are being targeted it's unlikely that the intruders are going to stick around. They'll find an easier target. People don't generally become criminals so that they can apply themselves and be better at their job.
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772

30th January 2013, 07:08 AM	#90
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,556	Re: Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground Originally Posted by Polaris Walking outside is where the responsible part ends. Best to call 911 and, if you can, leave. If you can't, stay inside where you narrow your field of fire so you lessen your chances of a stray bullet going into someone else's house. If the guy kicking in the door drops bent double, the rest aren't going to stick around. This Sailors guy is an idiot. Maybe but this seems like broadly supported idiocy.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th January 2013, 07:10 AM	#91
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,556	Re: Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground Originally Posted by qayak So what you are saying is this murder is justified? No I am saying that if the main issue someone harps on is what gear the car was in then it isn't murder. You need to take issue with grabing your gun and going to confront them. But that is a behavior that has a lot of support.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th January 2013, 07:13 AM	#92
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by remirol Like I said: absolutely no clue. You admit that you have no evidence, no experience, and no clue. Admission noted. Originally Posted by remirol Take your own bias elsewhere. It doesn't require being elite or any special tactics to kick a door down, run in, and either shoot anyone who's there or point the gun at them and yell "LIE ON THE FLOOR". Military and law enforcement actually train to operate as efficiently and quickly as you describe. Originally Posted by remirol And that's what makes me laugh at how little y'all realize about how helpless you would be in such a situation. Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune?
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

30th January 2013, 07:14 AM	#94
Nessie Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 5,160	Originally Posted by squealpiggy I was looking into this recently. In 2011 the rate of homicide was 4.7 per 100,000 (including all methods). The rate of gun death was 10.3 per 100,000. That means that the rate of death from firearms in 2011 was more than double the total murder rate for the same period. This means that well over half of gun deaths are not deliberate murders. They're accidents and suicides. Correct. But the gun homicide rate in the USA is way above other Western countries at 2.97 per 100,000. That is nearly six times worse than Canada and forty two times worse than the UK. That means if the USA got its act together and removed guns from criminals, nuts and youths it could save just over 9,000 lives a year by achieving what Canada has done and 10,800 lives by achieving what the UK has done. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map The affect on suicide with guns is way smaller, studies show that increased access, ease of use and effectiveness of a gun enhances the suicide rate to higher than it would be without guns. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/ Accidents are rare, the USA has a rate of 0.2 per 100,000 which is slightly better than Canada with 0.28 and way worse than the UK with 0.01. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate But that still means between six and eight hundred people a year die in accidents with guns.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th January 2013, 07:15 AM	#95
Kilaak Kommander Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Happy Valley Posts: 316	Originally Posted by remirol If you're worried about home invasions, your #1 priority needs to be to MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE, because the odds are _always_ heavily in favor of the guy who already has his gun out One of my Facebook friends shared a comic the other day that boggled my mind. It depicted a guy being mugged in the street. The criminal has a gun pressed into his back. The victim has his hands up saying something to the effect of, "Gee, it's too bad President Obama thinks I don't need a gun to protect myself." What he should have been saying is, "Gee, I'm glad I'm not carrying a gun, or this crook who got a drop on me from behind would be taking my wallet AND my gun!"

30th January 2013, 07:16 AM	#97
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,556	Re: Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground Originally Posted by Xulld Personally I cannot imagine the desire to try to justify this person's actions as if I have any responsibility to do so. Freedom, and responsibility are personal unless some groups decides something jointly, but even then each person has the freedom to disagree and go their own way. This man made choices, his actions are his own, and he will face the consequences no matter what the outcome. My issue is people are thinking it is easy to determine if a car is moving forward or back in a stressful situation with enough time to be able to shoot and not get run over.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th January 2013, 07:18 AM	#98
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,417	Originally Posted by seycyrus You didn't read his scenario properly. See, the bad guys are elite forces that can bypass alarms and locks in mere seconds. But seriously, alarm goes off. So what? What's the response time of the police? Better locks on what? Regular doors? OK, now it takes the bad guys minutes to get inside instead of mere microseconds (read the above regarding the elite bad guyz), police still aren't there. Certainly would be nice if you could do something with that extra time to protect yourself. ???
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

30th January 2013, 07:19 AM	#99
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Jacksonville, Florida Posts: 1,225	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle My issue is people are thinking it is easy to determine if a car is moving forward or back in a stressful situation with enough time to be able to shoot and not get run over. I agree that under a stressful situation that such mistakes can occur, however I am firmly on the side of being skeptical of this mans actions being reasonable. His mistake may be reasonable, but I do not believe his actions leading to the mistake are necessarily.
	__________________ "Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another." -Epicurus

30th January 2013, 07:19 AM	#100
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by Kilaak Kommander One of my Facebook friends shared a comic the other day that boggled my mind. It depicted a guy being mugged in the street. ... Hrm, please explained what was depicted as happening in the scenes prior to what you describe. Did the mugger ninja-materialize right behind the victim?
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

30th January 2013, 07:20 AM	#101
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,556	Re: Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground Originally Posted by Xulld I do not know all the details, but if this man went outside and did not have cover, or at least concealment from the imagined threat then he already made tactical errors. After that the subtle errors are almost unimportant. If he was heading outside already when he discovered the imagined threat then he should have retreated to cover or concealment. If he had time to parley, he had time to find cover/ concealment, or start to retreat. Standing ones ground may be an option, but it does not eliminate options, and the totality of circumstances still matters. From what I read this man is not going to enjoy the scrutiny his actions have afforded him. He doesn't seem to be substantively different from Joe Horn who did nothing legally wrong. Hell this guy wasn't on the phone to 911 so you cab argue he did less wrong. Horn just shot people that many here are fine with being shot.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th January 2013, 07:21 AM	#102
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Etlanna, Jawja Posts: 7,620	Originally Posted by seycyrus You admit that you have no evidence, no experience, and no clue. Admission noted. Military and law enforcement actually train to operate as efficiently and quickly as you describe. Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune? I see you've deliberately misrepresented two of my statements instead of attempting to support your case at all. Plonk.
	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

30th January 2013, 07:21 AM	#103
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by NoahFence ??? Really? You don't understand the point? Alarms and better locks buy you time. You can use that time to do a couple things. Wait for the police to come and save you, or defend yourself.
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

30th January 2013, 07:22 AM	#104
Nessie Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 5,160	Originally Posted by squealpiggy I agree with this. For one thing statistics on violent home invasions are spotty. If you're going to use this phenomenon as a major factor in justifying use of firearms for "self defense" then it would be a good idea to know how prevalent the problem is. The issue is that statistically the crimes are sorted out into separate categories. A violent home invasion resulting in robbery, rape and murder is recorded to be as many as six separate crimes - unlawfully in dwelling, murder, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement and sexual assault. There is no separate category for a violent crime committed following the entry to a dwelling through force or subterfuge, and I think that statistic is the one most needed. What seems clear is that most break and enter/burglary type crimes do not involve violence. I'd say that because the total rate of violent crime is only a little over half the rate of all burglaries, all violent crime (including homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault and robbery) being at a rate of 386 per 100,000 while just burglary on its own is listed by the FBI at a rate of 702 per 100,000. An important thing to remember is that most criminals don't become criminals because they are ruthless, deviant and intelligent. They become criminals because it's easy. Which is why if you want to make your house secure the first step you should take is to make it slightly more difficult to break into than your neighbour's house. If your house has new windows and better lighting and your neighbour's house has a rickety looking door they'll try the neighbour's house unless there is a particular reason to find your house attractive. And usually the reason your house is more attractive is because you are known by the criminals to have drugs or cash inside. This doesn't count the fact that there are some criminals who plan crimes against individual homes in order to steal, say, cars or jewellery. But those criminals are statistical outliers. Almost all burglaries are through the front door which is kicked open and any valuables that are easy to carry are taken away. There is a clear gap in what the pro-gun side claim as reasons for a gun and what there are statistics for. The fear of home invasion, claim for self defence and protection against tyranny are all lacking in definitive statistics. I think that makes it easier to continue to make those claims. But it has to be recognised those claims are not substantiate either way by plain facts. Since DGUs are the subject here, I think that because so many criminals are armed, guns are justified for self defence in the USA. But I also think that it is open to doubt that DGUs save more lives than they unnecessarily take.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

30th January 2013, 07:23 AM	#105
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,417	Originally Posted by seycyrus You admit that you have no evidence, no experience, and no clue. Admission noted. Military and law enforcement actually train to operate as efficiently and quickly as you describe. Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune? Unless you're on a 24/7/365 heightened state of alert, the person breaking in with a gun will have the upper hand. PERIOD. You frickin John McClains are a hoot.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

30th January 2013, 07:24 AM	#106
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by remirol I see you've deliberately misrepresented two of my statements instead of attempting to support your case at all. Plonk. Not at all. Your points are so infantile that presenting them in the light just illustrates their utter ridiculousness. Tell me once again about the elite bad guys who tactically break into a residence in seconds, before anyone has a chance to respond. Tell me again how much enjoyment you will take when people realize that they can't do anything to protect themselves against the elite bad guys.
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

30th January 2013, 07:25 AM	#107
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134	Originally Posted by NoahFence Unless you're on a 24/7/365 heightened state of alert, the person breaking in with a gun will have the upper hand. PERIOD. You frickin John McClains are a hoot. Will their advantage be less, if I do or don't have a gun?
seycyrus Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 134

30th January 2013, 07:26 AM	#108
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,215	Originally Posted by Polaris Many of the gun lovers on this forum would run shooting and screaming at someone backing out of their driveways? Keep stroking that bigotry of yours, but the rest of us will chalk that statement up to the usual ******. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle No I am serious. The hard line self defense supporters need to know what a small minor error in perception this was. If the only issue is that he shot when the car was in reverse it seems pretty unreasonable to class that minor understandable error in perception in an old man. You have to take issue with confronting people in your crime ridden neighborhood with a gun to make it a serious error and that seems to have broad support. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle No I am saying that if the main issue someone harps on is what gear the car was in then it isn't murder. You need to take issue with grabing your gun and going to confront them. But that is a behavior that has a lot of support. How in the blue ** did you get any of that from my post? The only one harping on the gear the car was in is you. Is anybody here actually arguing this shouldn't be treated as an unjustified homicide?
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,215	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

30th January 2013, 07:28 AM	#109
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,573	Originally Posted by Xulld I dont know about anyone else, but I would love to see threads that are clearly baiting, with sarcastic titles be deleted. "Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground" From all reports this man was not responsible and does not represent me or any other gun owner. This thread is nothing more than a way to lash out against other forum members. He was a responsible gun owner. Until he wasn't.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

30th January 2013, 07:28 AM	#110
Kilaak Kommander Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Happy Valley Posts: 316	Originally Posted by seycyrus Hrm, please explained what was depicted as happening in the scenes prior to what you describe. Did the mugger ninja-materialize right behind the victim? It was a single-panel comic, so there was no set up. Do you find it implausible that the mugger would have been walking behind the victim? Or is ninja-materializing the more likely scenario? Although if the victim had been armed, he could have spun around with his gun drawn every time somebody was walking behind him on the street.

30th January 2013, 07:29 AM	#111
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,237	Originally Posted by Unabogie Well, they were in his driveway, and they looked ~~brown~~ suspicious. So he feared they were there to hurt them. Makes perfect sense. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg These harmless, inanimate objects sure do pack a wallop, though. The old man should be arrested for shooting the boy. He didn't stand his ground he shot a kid who wasn't even in his house. I'm 66 and unless I'm in grave physical danger as in a home invasion or a car jacking etc I wouldn't use a gun. Hopefully the old fool will spend many years behind bars and hopefully die there.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

30th January 2013, 07:29 AM	#112
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 3,448	Originally Posted by Xulld I work in technology. Often someone will explain that the problem never existed before it did. I always wonder what prompts such a statement as if it was anything but trivially true. Can you explain? I hate to speak for others, but it seems like you are in agreement without noticing it. Many see this event as the predictable outcome of very laxed gun ownership laws that require no training or certification combined with an atmosphere of unwarranted fear, wherever that fear may come from. Others are claiming this was unpredictable and can't be blamed on anything other than the man behind the trigger: there is no systemic reason for this to occur. Which of these approaches most closely matches with your experience in technology? In my limited experience there is typically one guy at the back of the room scratching his chin who is willing to admit that this is something they could have caught during beta testing, but either it didn't come up or it didn't rise to the top of the bug board. It is rare that an error is completely avoidable, but not all bugs are worth avoiding. That is easy to explain to a client who set the budget and therefore knows they have to live with a few bugs. It is harder to explain to a family when their kid is shot for pulling into the wrong driveway. And I think that is why it is easier to say this isn't predictable, that this in unavoidable in a free society. Despite the fact that we know of other free societies where this is far less likely to happen.
	__________________ shift key currently inoperative. sorry for the inconvenience. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Jonah Baldwin: Talk to her, dad. She's a doctor. Sam Baldwin: Of what? Her first name could be Doctor. - Sleepless in Seattle

30th January 2013, 07:29 AM	#113
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,417	Quote: Tell me once again about the elite bad guys who tactically break into a residence in seconds, before anyone has a chance to respond. You seriously think you need elite spec-ops training to kick down a door and scream "get on the floor" or shoot someone? Wow.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

30th January 2013, 07:30 AM	#114
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,215	I predict AAH in this thread's future.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,215	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

30th January 2013, 07:30 AM	#115
remirol Senior Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Etlanna, Jawja Posts: 7,620	Originally Posted by Xulld I agree that under a stressful situation that such mistakes can occur, however I am firmly on the side of being skeptical of this mans actions being reasonable. His mistake may be reasonable, but I do not believe his actions leading to the mistake are necessarily. I think that's the point being made, however. I don't know enough about the shooter's background in this case to know how much experience he had in the past with live-fire situations or confrontations such as this one, or how much training he had as to what to do in the events he encountered, so I'm not going to say what a reasonable expectation of what he _would_ do is. However, it probably seems perfectly reasonable to someone brought up on a steady diet of gun culture with no training to come outside and shout at the strange car full of people in your driveway, and to take your gun with you for "emphasis" or "in case you need it". From a tactical perspective, as others have pointed out, it's completely wrong; if you think someone's going to kick your front door in, you _should_ sit behind the door and wait to surprise them. But clearly he was either untrained in such things or was caught up in the adrenalin of the moment, which is extremely common for people in their first live-fire encounter. Whether it was this guy's first? Dunno. But it unfortunately illustrates the problems quite adequately: there are too damn many people out there with guns who, for whatever reason, shouldn't have them.
	__________________ Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com -- The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb

30th January 2013, 07:30 AM	#116
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772	Originally Posted by Nessie Correct. But the gun homicide rate in the USA is way above other Western countries at 2.97 per 100,000. That is nearly six times worse than Canada and forty two times worse than the UK. That means if the USA got its act together and removed guns from criminals, nuts and youths it could save just over 9,000 lives a year by achieving what Canada has done and 10,800 lives by achieving what the UK has done. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-homicides-map The affect on suicide with guns is way smaller, studies show that increased access, ease of use and effectiveness of a gun enhances the suicide rate to higher than it would be without guns. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/ Accidents are rare, the USA has a rate of 0.2 per 100,000 which is slightly better than Canada with 0.28 and way worse than the UK with 0.01. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate But that still means between six and eight hundred people a year die in accidents with guns. Well precisely. What I mean is that although the homicide rate is high in the US compared to other places, your risk of dying as a result of gunfire increases if you own guns, whereas conventional gun-culture wisdom is that owning guns makes you safer. This is not borne out by statistics. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle No I am looking at it from the shooters point of view. And there are plenty here who support grabing your gun and confronting tresspassers. Those people do not have a realistic perception of crime. They have a perception warped by vested interests who want you to think that every passing car could be full of rapey gangbangers just looking to fill you full of holes and only being Clint Eastwood in the first half of Gran Torino will hold them at bay. In Gran Torino Clint Eastwood comes out of the house with a gun to save a young kid from gangbangers. In this tragic event the old guy comes out of the house and shoots an innocent teenager in the face for the crime of pulling up into his driveway. Quote: So how does one differentiate a car full of teens from a car full of gang members in an initual glance anyway? For safeties sake he needed to presume they were gang members. For safety's sake he needed to presume they had pulled into the wrong driveway and wait in his house to see what they did. If it made him feel better he could pick up his phone and his gun and wait in the basement or something to see if they meant him harm. What he did was walk out of the house with a gun, fired a shot off without even so much as finding out if, I don't know, this carload of teenagers had the wrong house, and then shot one of them in the face as he attempted to get away. Guns in the US are marketed in two ways: 1. The country is filled with angry armed gangs who want to kill whitey in his bed and steal his wimmins 2. If you have a gun you are a badass Both of these things are wrong. The irony is that in his fear of criminals he has now put himself in a situation where he is guaranteed to be surrounded by criminals 24/7 and he won't have even a sniff of a gun for protection.
squealpiggy Muse Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 772

30th January 2013, 07:32 AM	#117
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,417	Originally Posted by seycyrus Will their advantage be less, if I do or don't have a gun? Yippy kai ay! In order to properly answer, you have to tell the class who you percieve you are. Are you in a constant state of alert? Are you a robot who requires no sleep? Are you the responsible owner with his or her firearms locked? Are you the irresponsible owner with a loaded gun in every room? Depends.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

30th January 2013, 07:32 AM	#118
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,556	Re: Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground Originally Posted by Polaris How in the blue **** did you get any of that from my post? The only one harping on the gear the car was in is you. Is anybody here actually arguing this shouldn't be treated as an unjustified homicide? So if the car was in drive and he was in danger of being run over it would still be murder? After all running over a maniac threatening you with a gun would be self defense too.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin