Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

"Puglise [lawyer for Sailors, the shooter] said the Sailors family is grief-stricken and is lifting the family of Diaz up in prayer."

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/man-69-...rong-ho/nT8xp/

Why is the shooter's family grief-stricken? They didn't even know the guy.

You don't believe if someone acted rashly and killed someone they could not be grief stricken about the suffering they caused and the life they took.
Or if someone in your family killed someone you could not be grief stricken for the dead mans family.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by fuelair

The shooter was, in no way, a responsible gun owner - except he was responsible for what looks clearly to me to be murder. Which he has been responsibly arrested and charged for IIRC. Stand your ground (were it a state with that) means just that. It does not give you anything resembling the right to run out at such as this thing did and start blazing away - not even if, as happened, a person rolls down the window (unless a gun protrudes from same and is pointed at you).


ETA: Did not pay attention to where - Texas mileage and that of portions of Arizona may vary.

There's that NTS fallacy.


Apparently the was a RGO* right up til the moment he wasn't.

*Responsible Gun Owner.

[tsig]

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.

He couldn't have been a true RGO because true RGO's always follow the rules.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Sure what makes them so immune to having difficulty noting minor things like dirrection of motion in a high stress situation.

He was in a high crime area and a car full of hispanic teens pulls into his driveway for no reason, I think many responsible gun owners would grab their gun and walk out side. Then one little mistake when you see a car you are afraid will run you down start to move and who wouldn't shoot?

It was truly irresponsible of him to only take a .22 I'd think a Bushmaster with a 30 round clip would have been more appropriate.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by tsig

there's that nts fallacy.


Apparently the was a rgo* right up til the moment he wasn't.

*responsible gun owner.

qed.

Damn forum software, replacing my caps by non-caps.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

Citation needed.



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.

I'm sure the bad guys are more experienced in robbing homes than the home owner is in killing bad guys.

[tsig]

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.

Like go out the back way and avoid a violent confrontation?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Nessie

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.

A lot of gun luggers seem to anticipate that home invasion in a "Make my day" kind of way.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

I did answer the question. It ----> DEPENDS <-----


If you're sleeping and your guns are locked in their safe - as should be the case with responsible owners - you're screwed.

I disagree, there are loads of safes designed for quick access in such situations

http://www.gunvault.com/

There was an advert for a Glock (I cannot find it) where a young lady is home alone and scared by a potential intruder. She reached under her bed and there was a gun safe hidden and screwed to the floor, but she accessed it in seconds. If you are that concerned as to home invasions you can be both gun safe and have your gun secure.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I disagree, there are loads of safes designed for quick access in such situations

http://www.gunvault.com/

There was an advert for a Glock (I cannot find it) where a young lady is home alone and scared by a potential intruder. She reached under her bed and there was a gun safe hidden and screwed to the floor, but she accessed it in seconds. If you are that concerned as to home invasions you can be both gun safe and have your gun secure.

Not all safes are the kind in the movies with a dial. There are biometrics and have been for years. Just put your hand where it's supposed to go and voila, it opens.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Not all safes are the kind in the movies with a dial. There are biometrics and have been for years. Just put your hand where it's supposed to go and voila, it opens.

They get my guns when they take my cold dead hands?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Mostly gangbangers shooting each other with handguns to protect the drug turf our Prohibitionists have handed them.

The evidence says that claim is wrong

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0310.pdf

In 2009 out of 13,756 homicides, 892 were described as gang land or juvenile gang homicides. Gun use during crimes and arguments made up the vast majority of instances with 495 attributed to narcotics.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by tsig

Like go out the back way and avoid a violent confrontation?

No that is wrong see castle doctrine. You can't require that kind of responsible behavior.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No that is wrong see castle doctrine. You can't require that kind of responsible behavior.

Plus he forgot that the vast majority of Americans live on the 30th floor and therefore have no back entrance to their homes.

[Charlie Wilkes]

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.

People can and do use guns successfully to defend themselves from home invaders. I could point you to any number of examples.

But, as this thread illustrates, owning a gun is a big responsibility. It should entail stringent licensing requirements, IMO. Perhaps if this bozo had been properly trained in the law and the tactics of using a gun defensively, he would have stayed in his home, and the matter would have been resolved verbally.

If he had been up against dangerous criminals, rather than kids who went to the wrong address, he might have been shot the second he stepped outside and they saw that he was armed.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by tsig

They get my guns when they take my cold dead hands?

No solution is perfect.

The obvious way around that is to invite Thing to permanently stay in your house and allow him access to the safe.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

People can and do use guns successfully to defend themselves from home invaders. I could point you to any number of examples.

I'm sure they do - and I never implied otherwise. The person I was engaged with was a troll, so regardless of what I say he or she will just be contrary. All i was trying to say is the advantage is with the burgler, who presumably knew he was breaking into a house before he did it.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No that is wrong see castle doctrine. You can't require that kind of responsible behavior.

Why should someone have to flee their house, even if it's possible? If you have the means, defend yourself!

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Why should someone have to flee their house, even if it's possible? If you have the means, defend yourself!

Because it's much safer than getting in a shootout with an armed intruder (or in this case, a carload of lost kids?)

[jimbob]

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.

As a non American this is a key point.

You have the right to have firearms, but so does the conspiracy nut or the incompetent fool.

By definition, the responsible gun owners are not the problem - the probem is that there are a lot if irresponsible gun owners and little way of determining whether a potential gun owner is responsible or not.

This is particularly difficult with people who are competent but with very odd survivalist/conspiracy beliefs.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Missing a ---> <---- ??

It's the only explanation I can think of. That and subsequent posts.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I think the point is that if the victim had been a non-minority, he might still be alive. Not sure it's true, but that's what I glean from the post.

I think he was suggesting an even stronger point: that the reason the guy was shot was because he was "brown". Of course he offers no evidence of this, since he has none.

Also noteworthy is that the brother of the victim of the shooting says he does not think the shooting was motivated by racism.

I find it fascinating how eager many on this forum are to imagine incidents of racism.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Because it's much safer than getting in a shootout with an armed intruder (or in this case, a carload of lost kids?)

I don't think it's an unsafe assumption that if someone breaks into your house and you're there (to say nothing of date rapists) they may have worse things in mind than taking your TV. Castle Doctrine is based on this safe assumption.

I've lived in apartments without back doors, and my current house has windows too small to climb out of in any hurry. The only way out is up the hallway toward the back door. If someone's in the hallway, anybody in the bedrooms or guest bath is trapped. I'm not in a wheelchair anymore, but I'm still not 100% functional and never will be. Other people are in wheelchairs, and not in insignificant numbers. What would you suggest for them (please don't say "use a kitchen knife" like thaiboxerken did) when flight isn't an option.

It's not foolproof, but I do have a reasonable plan in case this unlikely event occurs. Yes, it includes calling 911, but it also includes a shotgun (I like to keep the odds of missing low and overpenetration even lower, just in case).

What Sailors did doesn't fall under Castle Doctrine - it was actively coming out of his house, charging a strange vehicle in his driveway via recon by fire.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Really ? Where do you keep your gun, sir ? In a safe with the ammunition in a separate compartment, as you should ? If so, how fast could you retrieve and arm your gun once you hear people tear down your front door in the middle of the night ?

The purpose of a gun safe is to keep gun(s) from being stolen in a burglary that takes place when the owner is away. It's reasonable for someone who is at home, and feels he needs a gun for personal protection, to have the gun loaded and available without the need to retrieve it from a safe.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Plus he forgot that the vast majority of Americans live on the 30th floor and therefore have no back entrance to their homes.

Evidence?

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

The purpose of a gun safe is to keep gun(s) from being stolen in a burglary that takes place when the owner is away. It's reasonable for someone who is at home, and feels he needs a gun for personal protection, to have the gun loaded and available without the need to retrieve it from a safe.

Tut tut, that is irresponsible according to some on this forum.

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Evidence?

That was regarding a post in one of the seven seas of gun control threads lately. See also: posts mentioning swimming pools.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

You don't believe if someone acted rashly and killed someone they could not be grief stricken about the suffering they caused and the life they took.
Or if someone in your family killed someone you could not be grief stricken for the dead mans family.

I think they're freaked out because their gun-nut grandpa got himself in serious trouble.

I could stomach the message if they extended condolences, or said they were praying for the victim's family. But lifting up the victim's family in prayer is a little too much, especially coming through a lawyer.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Tut tut, that is irresponsible according to some on this forum.



......

If you at that level of risk fine sleep with your gun under the pillow, but when you wake up and the kids are up and about, lock it away.

How many people are seriously at such a risk they absolutely need/want to have instant access to a gun 24/7? Is the USA really that dangerous a place to live? The statistics do not suggest the USA is a particularly crime ridden country

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crim...ecdjan2012.pdf

The fear must be particularly bad.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Really ? Where do you keep your gun, sir ? In a safe with the ammunition in a separate compartment, as you should ? If so, how fast could you retrieve and arm your gun once you hear people tear down your front door in the middle of the night ?

Agreed.

Meanwhile we have to ask how likely a scenario this really is anyway. Others have pointed out that burglars (armed or not) go out of their way to recce a house and break in when they believe it's empty. Their objective is theft, not mayhem. Unexpectedly disturbed what will a typical burglar do? Blow the brains out of any residents or get the **** out of there pdq?

Meanwhile the idea (as you describe) of getting a properly stored AR-15 up+ready for home defence after detecting a break-in strikes me as so deeply implausible that's it's beyond plumbing.

There is a deep well of rationalisation in the USA that attempts to justifiy the ownership of weapons that are unsuitable for general consumption. Yes, it would be a shame if hobbyist target-shooters were denied a well-established sport, or even if it were made more expensive or inconvenient. Tough, frankly, if (in time) it saved a bunch of lives.

One of Stephen King's major points in his recent polemic was that it's when people flip that easy access to semiautomatics with large-capacity magazines becomes a danger, as they can then mow-down dozens within seconds. This is not a burglar, or even a gangsta we're talking about. It's unpredictable insanity where kids in a school or folks at the movies become the victims.

Gabrielle Gifford's husband, at today's Congressional hearing, described that scenario graphically, and he was speaking as a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, as is Gifford herself. The right to bear arms and the need to rein in easy ownership of high-capacity semiautomatics are not incompatible.

[SomedayGirl]

Originally Posted by Polaris

What Sailors did doesn't fall under Castle Doctrine - it was actively coming out of his house, charging a strange vehicle in his driveway via recon by fire.

According to a Harris County grand jury, it might indeed fall under Castle Doctrine. Remember this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy

Came out of his house to shoot two people who robbed a neighbor's house. He was no billed because the grand jury believed the robbers stepped into his yard.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl

According to a Harris County grand jury, it might indeed fall under Castle Doctrine. Remember this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hor...ng_controversy

Came out of his house to shoot two people who robbed a neighbor's house. He was no billed because the grand jury believed the robbers stepped into his yard.

I find it odd how many of his supporters here are not taking Sailors side. Very similar cases.

[ben m]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Why should someone have to flee their house, even if it's possible? If you have the means, defend yourself!

Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

They do not arm their employees. They do not teach them to stand their ground. They teach them to give up the valuables, avoid conflict ... and turn security-camera footage over to the police later.

Why? Because the long, long list of things that can go wrong---missed shots hitting bystanders, mistaking non-robbers for robbers, wrongful-death lawsuits even from people you shoot "legitimately", and escalation of "robberies" into "shootouts"---are more expensive than just walking away. (Also: employees may play with the store's gun and have accidents; the store's gun may get stolen; the store's gun may get used in intra-employee arguments having nothing to do with robbers; etc.) The same is true of home defense. It's cheaper (in lives and in money) to make a policy of run/hide/call-911.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

I think he was suggesting an even stronger point: that the reason the guy was shot was because he was "brown". Of course he offers no evidence of this, since he has none.

Also noteworthy is that the brother of the victim of the shooting says he does not think the shooting was motivated by racism.

I find it fascinating how eager many on this forum are to imagine incidents of racism.

Considering the facts that we know of, I don't think this was the case, but you never know.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If you at that level of risk fine sleep with your gun under the pillow, but when you wake up and the kids are up and about, lock it away.

How many people are seriously at such a risk they absolutely need/want to have instant access to a gun 24/7? Is the USA really that dangerous a place to live? The statistics do not suggest the USA is a particularly crime ridden country

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crim...ecdjan2012.pdf

The fear must be particularly bad.

No kids here, and while I have caught one of the cats sneaking into my pantry I don't see either of the varmints being able to work the slide on my riot gun. If I eventually have kids I'll take the necessary steps to secure my guns.

Personally I don't see myself at a lot of risk. It's not a bad neighborhood, what Vanilla Ice said to the contrary (I'm up the street from where he went to high school). I keep the 870 because it's suitable to my needs, should they arise. Sort of the same concept as a fire extinguisher. It's not good for much else, really. I suppose it could be used for skeet shooting or hunting but I don't do those. Hell, currently I don't have a gun that I would take to the range, that's why I want the ACR (or, if it's banned, a lever action Marlin). The only others I have in the house are three .22s, two of which are broken and one which is merely a curiosity I've never fired.

The instant-access thing is because you never know when an emergency might arise. With the exception of weather events they tend to not announce themselves.

Crime really isn't all that bad. It's horrific in some areas - as Wildcat has noted, Chicago has a murder rate as bad as Congo - and that's as much, if not more, a social issue surrounding disparity in income and opportunity, gangs and disenfranchisement, and the War on Drugs issue than it is about guns.

I hate to even bring the piece of garbage up, but what Ann Coulter said about among white society in the US crime is about the same as in western Europe (where I take issue with her is the unspoken part of her statement, which is "so who cares?").

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by ben m

Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

They do not arm their employees. They do not teach them to stand their ground. They teach them to give up the valuables, avoid conflict ... and turn security-camera footage over to the police later.

Why? Because the long, long list of things that can go wrong---missed shots hitting bystanders, mistaking non-robbers for robbers, wrongful-death lawsuits even from people you shoot "legitimately", and escalation of "robberies" into "shootouts"---are more expensive than just walking away. (Also: employees may play with the store's gun and have accidents; the store's gun may get stolen; the store's gun may get used in intra-employee arguments having nothing to do with robbers; etc.) The same is true of home defense. It's cheaper (in lives and in money) to make a policy of run/hide/call-911.

That is a very good point.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by ben m

Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

Let me know when people call 7-11, Quik-Mart and Dairy Queen "home".

I know a little more about why employees shouldn't confront robbers at convenience stores, because I was there when one did, and I got slugged in the glasses when he went berserk as a result. Luckily, he wasn't armed.

I should also mention that intruders aren't always there to rob a homeowner.

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by jimbob

As a non American this is a key point.

You have the right to have firearms, but so does the conspiracy nut or the incompetent fool.

By definition, the responsible gun owners are not the problem - the probem is that there are a lot if irresponsible gun owners and little way of determining whether a potential gun owner is responsible or not.

This is particularly difficult with people who are competent but with very odd survivalist/conspiracy beliefs.

You make an important point, which is why the US 2d Amendment is different from the 1st, and why most countries that respect free speech do not vest their citizens with an unrestricted right to own guns. Someone who is overall law-abiding, but has paranoid ideas and poor judgment, can exercise his right to free speech, and no one is seriously harmed. When the same person picks up a gun, an innocent person might get killed.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by seycyrus

You should look into that statistic. It's been addressed in other threads. Forgive me, but I don't have the time to go through that with you right now.

Thanks for sparing me the embarrassment. I'm sure you feel as confident in your assessment as I do in mine.

Quote:

We are discussing a certain specific scenario.

And that is the problem. Life is not a scenario.

You are likely to own a gun for 40 years without ever facing that scenario. What you do in that 40 years of not being in that scenario is far more important to you and your family than what could happen in a scenario that is very unlikely to ever occur.

And even then, as I have already posted, owning a gun will not always give you an advantage. It will often be a disadvantage, as it was for Mr Sailors.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Evidence?

You need evidence that the majority of Americans live or don't live specifically on the 30th floor?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by ben m

Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

They do not arm their employees. They do not teach them to stand their ground. They teach them to give up the valuables, avoid conflict ... and turn security-camera footage over to the police later.

Why? Because the long, long list of things that can go wrong---missed shots hitting bystanders, mistaking non-robbers for robbers, wrongful-death lawsuits even from people you shoot "legitimately", and escalation of "robberies" into "shootouts"---are more expensive than just walking away. (Also: employees may play with the store's gun and have accidents; the store's gun may get stolen; the store's gun may get used in intra-employee arguments having nothing to do with robbers; etc.) The same is true of home defense. It's cheaper (in lives and in money) to make a policy of run/hide/call-911.

that's because they are all owned by communists