Gunman Opens Fire in Phoenix - Page 2

triforcharity · 30th January 2013, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Smith set his son, who was in a car seat, down and then knelt down to shield the child from the gunman. He then handed over what money he had in his pockets: $40.
...
As the gunman began to leave, he turned and trained the gun back on the Smith, but Smith had already pulled his carry gun and then shot the suspect when he realized what was happening.
...
Although wounded and bleeding, the suspect was still able to flee the scene.

The guy lost his 40 dollars and tried to murder a robber by shooting him in the back.

That is spontaneously fighting off shooters exactly how ?

Shot in the back? Seems that when the gunman turned around and pointed his gun at the father, he was absolutely justified. Sorry if you or anyone else don't like that.

triforcharity · 30th January 2013, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Or you could go out the back door.

And leave my child? Bwahahahahahah!! Yeah right.

Cylinder · 30th January 2013, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by ben m

I'm still waiting for the stream of news posts about armed legal-buyer Nancy-Lanza-types spontaneously fighting off shooters. The NRA has assured us that this happens all the time, and indeed that fighting off crooks is the main thing legally-bought handguns are used for. Indeed, that gun laws of any sort---even simple registrations---will put us in danger by reducing the number of heroes fighting back in cases like this.

Unfortunately, those stories have been a bit ... um, nonexistent. Huh.

I'll be in charge of that, I guess.

TheL8Elvis · 30th January 2013, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by ben m

So, let's keep tallying up American gun culture: costs and benefits.

In the "costs" column: Lots of dead people of all ages.

In the "benefits" column: a mugger, prevented from escaping with $40. A family, prevented from being scared for a few minutes before the cops pick up the unarmed guy who's scaring them.

Actually, the mugger got away with the $40. Nothing was prevented....

triforcharity · 30th January 2013, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by ben m

The guy wasn't in the house, hadn't broken the window yet, and wasn't armed.

Which the father couldn't have known, and assuming that one is unarmed can be deadly.

Originally Posted by ben m

The father was only a few steps away and moving in, and the police were a few minutes away.

Which the father had know way of knowing.

Originally Posted by ben m

Without knowing his intentions---which for all I know were evil---it seems pretty clear that nothing too bad could have actually happened if the father had found himself unarmed.

Hindsight is great, isn't it?

Originally Posted by ben m

Short fist fight? Long fist fight? Some shoving? Some running away? I'm not able to dream up a likely scenario (short of the bad guy being a ninja) where the unarmed intruder gets past the unarmed dad and hurts anyone before the cops arrive. So I said so.

Perhaps the bad guy gets one good swing on a poor fighter with a glass jaw, wanna still conclude that nothing bad could possibly happen?

I'm not willing to bet my life on someone not getting in a good shot.

TheL8Elvis · 30th January 2013, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Shot in the back? Seems that when the gunman turned around and pointed his gun at the father, he was absolutely justified. Sorry if you or anyone else don't like that.

You avoided the question. Noted.

Again:

Quote:

armed legal-buyer Nancy-Lanza-types spontaneously fighting off shooters.

How did this story demonstrate that ?

sgtbaker · 30th January 2013, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

You avoided the question. Noted.

Again:

How did this story demonstrate that ?

Sorry to butt in here and I know it wasn't your question to begin with but what is a Nancy Lanza type?

Unabogie · 30th January 2013, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

And leave my child? Bwahahahahahah!! Yeah right.

Reading comprehension fail. Who said you would have to leave your child?

Unabogie · 30th January 2013, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Did the DA press charges for what you would classify as murder? Oh, wait, no, they didn't, and the grand jury didn't return an indictment either.

Color me surprised.....

Did I use the term "murder"? You're having a really hard time reading tonight. I merely pointed out that guns turned a situation unnecessarily into a death.

Are you saying that as long as it's not against the law we shouldn't be against it or want to avoid it? What a strange world view.

ben m · 30th January 2013, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Again, you are assuming that things wouldn't have gone horrible wrong with a crazy person on his porch and the police are still a few minutes away. In the link to the FBI statistics, 726 people were murdered without a weapon.

I'm talking about public policy, which means probabilities. Yes, this father was faced with someone hostile and was at some risk. In gun-land, with his ability to shoot the guy, he and his family were nearly 100% safe, nearly zero chance of being harmed. In no-guns-land, he and his family would have been---how safe? They were far, far, far from "as good as dead" (100% chance of harm). What are the odds that the father can delay/distract/shove/grapple the bad guy until the cops arrive and/or the kids flee? 99%? 90%? Let's say 90%, which is far too pessimistic IMO.

So if this is right, gun ownership lowered this father's risk by 10%---from "10% chance of dying in a fistfight" to "0% chance of dying while shooting someone unarmed." Cost-benefit, right? This is a benefit of the existence of guns. The fact that the probability is small is important---it'd be a bigger benefit if the probability were larger. (Which is the point of my whole argument.)

Meanwhile, across town, a convenience-store clerk gets killed during a robbery. Thanks to the robber's gun, his risk climbed from---what, 5%? 10%? The risk of getting knifed?---to 100%. Cost-benefit. This is a cost of the existence of guns. It's huge.

The cost of guns to gun-victims is larger than the benefits of guns to armed-robber-averters. Gun-violence are common, and pay a huge cost. Armed-robbery-confronters are rare, and they're mostly averting small costs---as here, improbable fistfight deaths, minor monetary losses, etc.

That's why I think that a complete handgun ban would be a good thing. (I know this has no chance of passing.) But sensible gun regulation---serious licensing and background checking, closing as many avenues as possible for gun/ammo sales to felons---would be close enough to live with.

sgtbaker · 30th January 2013, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by ben m

I'm talking about public policy, which means probabilities. Yes, this father was faced with someone hostile and was at some risk. In gun-land, with his ability to shoot the guy, he and his family were nearly 100% safe, nearly zero chance of being harmed. In no-guns-land, he and his family would have been---how safe? They were far, far, far from "as good as dead" (100% chance of harm). What are the odds that the father can delay/distract/shove/grapple the bad guy until the cops arrive and/or the kids flee? 99%? 90%? Let's say 90%, which is far too pessimistic IMO.

What method are you using to determine these odds? Do you know the size of the father; the size of the perp; if the father is in perfect health; his fighting abilities? You are basing this entirely on your own bias in the situation.

Quote:

So if this is right, gun ownership lowered this father's risk by 10%---from "10% chance of dying in a fistfight" to "0% chance of dying while shooting someone unarmed." Cost-benefit, right? This is a benefit of the existence of guns. The fact that the probability is small is important---it'd be a bigger benefit if the probability were larger. (Which is the point of my whole argument.)

Meanwhile, across town, a convenience-store clerk gets killed during a robbery. Thanks to the robber's gun, his risk climbed from---what, 5%? 10%? The risk of getting knifed?---to 100%. Cost-benefit. This is a cost of the existence of guns. It's huge.

I don't fully understand what you are saying here.

Quote:

The cost of guns to gun-victims is larger than the benefits of guns to armed-robber-averters. Gun-violence are common, and pay a huge cost. Armed-robbery-confronters are rare, and they're mostly averting small costs---as here, improbable fistfight deaths, minor monetary losses, etc.

I am not arguing for or against guns. I've only argued that in this situation, the father's reaction was reasonable. A possible robbery across town does not negated that.

Quote:

That's why I think that a complete handgun ban would be a good thing. (I know this has no chance of passing.) But sensible gun regulation---serious licensing and background checking, closing as many avenues as possible for gun/ammo sales to felons---would be close enough to live with

I have nothing against regulations, background checks, closing the private sales loophole, etc. I do feel that a handgun ban would probably not have changed this situation all that much. If his reason for having a gun was for home protection and handguns were banned, he would likely have walked out there with a rifle or a shotgun.

triforcharity · 30th January 2013, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

You avoided the question. Noted.

Again:

I dodged nothing. Your question is irrelevant, as it's almost a texas sharpshooter type question. Anything I reply with won't answer it to your satisfaction.

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

How did this story demonstrate that ?

This one may not have. Others that I cited, did. Successfully.

triforcharity · 30th January 2013, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Reading comprehension fail. Who said you would have to leave your child?

"Or you could go out the back door."

Do you forget something in this sentence? Or is it implied?

Not that I really care, as most of your posts contain about as much substance as carpet. I reply to your posts mainly to point out how silly your post is.

triforcharity · 30th January 2013, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Did I use the term "murder"? You're having a really hard time reading tonight. I merely pointed out that guns turned a situation unnecessarily into a death.

No, I was simply replying to your asinine post.

Unnecessary? That's a matter of opinion. I feel that it was the correct decision, given the fact that he had limited information to work with, and wasn't psychic.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Are you saying that as long as it's not against the law we shouldn't be against it or want to avoid it? What a strange world view.

Not at all. Just in this specific situation, it was a good call. You may not like that, and I couldn't possibly care less. Not one bit.

TheL8Elvis · 30th January 2013, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I dodged nothing.

You didn't answer the question. I think that means you dodged something.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Your question is irrelevant, as it's almost a texas sharpshooter type question. Anything I reply with won't answer it to your satisfaction.

You might want to apprise randi of your psychic powers...

Originally Posted by triforcharity

This one may not have. Others that I cited, did. Successfully.

Not might not have. Didn't. I don't know why that was so difficult to drag out of you.

triforcharity · 30th January 2013, 06:20 PM

Ok, so there's one. What about the others that I cited? Don't want to address them, do you?

Didn't think so.

ben m · 30th January 2013, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

What method are you using to determine these odds? Do you know the size of the father; the size of the perp; if the father is in perfect health; his fighting abilities? You are basing this entirely on your own bias in the situation.

Sorry, I'm talking about complete averages. Pick a number yourself, the point still stands. 20% chance of death? 50%? It sounds unlikely to me. Point is, it's not 100%.

Quote:

I am not arguing for or against guns. I've only argued that in this situation, the father's reaction was reasonable. A possible robbery across town does not negated that.

No, no, I agree. In the circumstance, the father's reaction was reasonable. I'm only talking about policy. TFC posted these links in an attempt to "demonstrate" that average-gun-owners use their guns to prevent crime. The implication is, always, "How dare you try to deprive Law Abiding Bob of his gun! If he didn't have it he'd be dead!" But in lots of these cases---no, without a gun Bob probably wouldn't be dead, he'd probably be fine---so they're not particularly strong examples of how gun laws would endanger Law-Abiding Bob.

Quote:

I have nothing against regulations, background checks, closing the private sales loophole, etc. I do feel that a handgun ban would probably not have changed this situation all that much. If his reason for having a gun was for home protection and handguns were banned, he would likely have walked out there with a rifle or a shotgun.

Agreed on all points.

This is actually one of the reasons I like handgun bans in particular. It has virtually no effect on "Castle-Doctrine" type protection of your home, because you can do that with a shotgun or rifle. Likewise, no effect on hunters. It has a huge effect on crooks (the only people for whom concealability is the most important thing).

But it's off the table politically unless the NRA implodes further. (On which front: keep it up, Wayne LaPierre is doing a great job at imploding as far as I can tell.)

Axiom_Blade · 30th January 2013, 07:57 PM

When will these senseless gun debates come to an end?

Biscuit · 31st January 2013, 08:01 AM

2 good guys with guns or 2 bad guys with guns shoot a court employee this morning.

ETA: The possible good guy with a gun in Phoenix remains at large.

Polaris · 31st January 2013, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Isn't everyone entitled to that?

Yes, they are. But attorneys aren't required to take cases unless it's court-appointed.

If I was a defense attorney I'd refuse to voluntarily take his case.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

2 good guys with guns or 2 bad guys with guns shoot a court employee this morning.

ETA: The possible good guy with a gun in Phoenix remains at large.

It's obvious he's not a good guy.

Biscuit · 31st January 2013, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Yes, they are. But attorneys aren't required to take cases unless it's court-appointed.

If I was a defense attorney I'd refuse to voluntarily take his case.

It's obvious he's not a good guy.

Was he ever is my point.

Did he purchase the guns legally for self defense against the very thing he became? Maybe he didn't maybe he did.

Polaris · 31st January 2013, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Was he ever is my point.

Did he purchase the guns legally for self defense against the very thing he became? Maybe he didn't maybe he did.

Guess we'll have to wait and see when the facts come out.

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

How about prosecuting the criminals? Unlike in Chicago?

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...t-face-charges

That is the fault of the whole community, not just the police or prosecution. The entire criminal justice system has broken down, probably due to very bad relations between the community and police as well as the gang code of silence.

"Chicago’s top cop said the “no-snitch” code of silence on the street is the biggest contributor in his department’s struggle to charge shooters.

“The challenges we have to get charges in a significant number of cases is very difficult when witnesses and victims choose not to cooperate," Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said in an interview with DNAinfo.com Chicago.

"To make cases prosecutable we need cooperative witnesses — and those go out the window right up front. We have a victim today who is an offender tomorrow. It's a vicious circle. There are a lot of people who are not going to cooperate," he said. "That's why we have to take on the no-snitch issue."

Polaris · 31st January 2013, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

That is the fault of the whole community, not just the police or prosecution. The entire criminal justice system has broken down, probably due to very bad relations between the community and police as well as the gang code of silence.

"Chicago’s top cop said the “no-snitch” code of silence on the street is the biggest contributor in his department’s struggle to charge shooters.

“The challenges we have to get charges in a significant number of cases is very difficult when witnesses and victims choose not to cooperate," Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said in an interview with DNAinfo.com Chicago.

"To make cases prosecutable we need cooperative witnesses — and those go out the window right up front. We have a victim today who is an offender tomorrow. It's a vicious circle. There are a lot of people who are not going to cooperate," he said. "That's why we have to take on the no-snitch issue."

Glad you posted this so I don't have to go digging for the topic in other threads.

Are there cases where no-snitch cultures have been effectively broken? I'd love to hear about them, and how they could be applied to Chicago's, ahem, predicament.

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Non-existent? Horse ****.

Here's one.

Lets see to what extent they are justifiable DGUs where a gun and only a gun saved the potential victim.

Quote:

http://www.guns.com/2013/01/29/conce...-gun-on-a-dad/

Here I would say yes it was a DGU even though the gun did not stop the initial crime, but it prevented possible further escalation and meant the perp was caught.

Quote:

Here's another.

http://www.guns.com/2013/01/29/new-y...rs-with-ar-15/

Unsure about this as a student house is invaded by males armed with a BB gun. Possible student prank which could have gone horribly wrong? But on the face of it we should say, yes a DGU.

Quote:

Another? Sure.

http://www.guns.com/2013/01/25/wheel...r-with-pistol/

Again, not sure as we do not know if the intruder fled just because he was disturbed. I would say dubious.

Quote:

One more? Of course!!

http://www.guns.com/2013/01/08/homeo...hters-bedroom/

An unarmed male with apparent mental health problems. I would suggest if he was trying to get into a room with his daughters the home owner should be getting his daughters away. Residents are watching him, the police have already been called. This smacks of got a gun, gonna use it and say it was the only thing I could do, which is wrong. This was not a last resort.

Quote:

Wanna try again with your "nonexistent" claim? Perhaps it's because the MSM doesn't want to cover it? Or maybe because it's usually not sensational enough?

Nope, must be non existent.

But you should look at what happens and not claim DGU every time a person pulls out their gun. What you have listed is a DGU that did more to catch the criminal than stop them, one which could have been a prank, one in which there is no evidence the gun made any difference and one where the gun was used before other options. Note, a gun did nothing to prevent a crime taking place, the best was stopping potential progress and in one out three does it appear the gun did stop progress where nothing else would have worked.

This is why more study of actual DGUs is needed and not just listing supposed DGUs.

tyr_13 · 31st January 2013, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

An unarmed male with apparent mental health problems. I would suggest if he was trying to get into a room with his daughters the home owner should be getting his daughters away. Residents are watching him, the police have already been called. This smacks of got a gun, gonna use it and say it was the only thing I could do, which is wrong. This was not a last resort.

Get his daughters away...through the door...the guy is trying to through...

Quote:

This is why more study of actual DGUs is needed and not just listing supposed DGUs.

Agreed. Although most days I could just put 'ditto' under your posts.

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I was replying to this

I disagreed with that. If you are not interested in my perspective on what I would do, you are welcome to not involve yourself in the conversation. You may feel that the ultimate question is something different because you've already decided what the answer is, but you do not define the direction of a conversation I am having with someone else.

As to the rest of your post, I would say you are a good candidate for the million dollar prize as you seem to know what the guy's intentions were and the only result would have been frightened children as well as an attempt to restrain him would have only resulted in a short fist fight. You got some mad psychic skills there.

If you are going to comment on others psychic skills, how come your psychic skills are well enough developed to know you are right to shoot someone?

It appears to me that people with guns think their ability to assess and then kill is better than those who try and deal with situations unarmed.

Fact is neither side is qualified any better than the other, but one side is far more likely try and deal with the situation without killing than the other.

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Glad you posted this so I don't have to go digging for the topic in other threads.

Are there cases where no-snitch cultures have been effectively broken? I'd love to hear about them, and how they could be applied to Chicago's, ahem, predicament.

No idea. The only thing I could think of as a means of study is areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The parts of New Orleans never rebuilt, where any of them high crime, no snitch cultures with lots of gun deaths? What became of the people who now live elsewhere? Has the culture gone with them or did breaking up the community break up the culture?

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Get his daughters away...through the door...the guy is trying to through...

I read it that he (as in the perp) was outside the house at the window into the daughters bedroom.

Quote:

Agreed. Although most days I could just put 'ditto' under your posts.

sgtbaker · 31st January 2013, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

If you are going to comment on others psychic skills, how come your psychic skills are well enough developed to know you are right to shoot someone?

It appears to me that people with guns think their ability to assess and then kill is better than those who try and deal with situations unarmed.

Fact is neither side is qualified any better than the other, but one side is far more likely try and deal with the situation without killing than the other.

Are you honestly suggesting the idea of stating a person's fear and reaction is understandable, is a matter of being psychic and on par with suggesting that nothing bad would have happened had the father not shot him? It's not a matter of right and wrong. I, personally, feel like violence is not an appropriate answer. However, if I am put in a position to defend myself, right and wrong goes out the window and doing what I feel I need to do becomes my main goal.

Polaris · 31st January 2013, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

No idea. The only thing I could think of as a means of study is areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The parts of New Orleans never rebuilt, where any of them high crime, no snitch cultures with lots of gun deaths? What became of the people who now live elsewhere? Has the culture gone with them or did breaking up the community break up the culture?

I have no idea, but my cousin is a harbor pilot there, I could ask him. I'll also look up the crime rates in Houston, San Antonia and Dallas-Ft. Worth in the year or two after Katrina, as that's where a lot of evacuees went.

I know I got robbed in that time several times but I'm statistically irrelevant.

tyr_13 · 31st January 2013, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I read it that he (as in the perp) was outside the house at the window into the daughters bedroom.

You're correct. I misread somewhere. The slain man was on the porch trying to get into the daughter's bedroom. Somehow I got the impression that he had already gained entry into a hall and was trying to get into the bedroom.

I can criticize the home owner for going out to confront, I can yell at someone from inside my house, but once the man started reaching, for what turned out to be nothing, the preferred reaction would be to retreat, but firing seems an understandable one. I wish the owner had been armed with a taser gun, but those are hard to get in many places.

Biscuit · 31st January 2013, 10:14 AM

Well it seems the man hunt is over in Arizona.

pointless.

Xulld · 31st January 2013, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by ben m

I'm still waiting for the stream of news posts about armed legal-buyer Nancy-Lanza-types spontaneously fighting off shooters.

You wont, because we feel no need to engage in these irrational, petty, and unproductive tactics.

Just makes you look like you cannot control your bias.

The entire act is one that pretends anecdote is something more than a way of sharing experience, and takes it to a whole new level of irrational.

Nessie · 31st January 2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Are you honestly suggesting the idea of stating a person's fear and reaction is understandable, is a matter of being psychic and on par with suggesting that nothing bad would have happened had the father not shot him? It's not a matter of right and wrong. I, personally, feel like violence is not an appropriate answer. However, if I am put in a position to defend myself, right and wrong goes out the window and doing what I feel I need to do becomes my main goal.

I am passing comment on the gun owner claim of I had no idea what he was going to do, so I shot him. I am very uncomfortable with that attitude, especially since the majority of Americans, let alone the rest of the Western World manage with out guns for self defence.

What makes some people think that they are gun owners who think they should be able to make instant life and death decisions without any training?

Polaris · 31st January 2013, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Heh. If he hasn't blown it to bits by now.

The critical patient is a lawyer. The shooter was at a settlement conference over some legal matter.

Originally Posted by Biscuit

Well it seems the man hunt is over in Arizona.

pointless.

Props to Ben. Called it.

Xulld · 31st January 2013, 10:22 AM

Quote:

What makes some people think that they are gun owners who think they should be able to make instant life and death decisions without any training?

Umm, because it is a fact of life. No law is going to change the fact that we all have the capability, with or without a weapon to take life.

Each and every single day we wake up and could go out and kill someone, to pretend otherwise is irrational.

Training has nothing to do with it. To those prepared for a given situation . . . well good for you. For those not . . . well good luck keeping your gene's in the pool.

No amount of fancy words changes the reality.

Dr. Keith · 31st January 2013, 10:31 AM

If everyone would read this post as if it were the trailer for a summer thriller, I think we can all have a better day:

Originally Posted by Xulld

No law is going to change the fact that we all have the capability, with or without a weapon to take life.

Each and every single day we wake up and could go out and kill someone, to pretend otherwise is irrational.

Training has nothing to do with it. To those prepared for a given situation . . . well good for you. For those not . . . well good luck keeping your gene's in the pool.

No amount of fancy words changes the reality.

NoahFence · 31st January 2013, 10:35 AM

Is this the responsible gun owner thread or the psycho cop killer thread?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...ba8_story.html

Xulld · 31st January 2013, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

If everyone would read this post as if it were the trailer for a summer thriller, I think we can all have a better day:

Do you disagree with any sentence from a purely factual perspective? Or is this just your way of poisoning the well?

30th January 2013, 05:16 PM	#41
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Smith set his son, who was in a car seat, down and then knelt down to shield the child from the gunman. He then handed over what money he had in his pockets: $40. ... As the gunman began to leave, he turned and trained the gun back on the Smith, but Smith had already pulled his carry gun and then shot the suspect when he realized what was happening. ... Although wounded and bleeding, the suspect was still able to flee the scene. The guy lost his 40 dollars and tried to murder a robber by shooting him in the back. That is spontaneously fighting off shooters exactly how ? Shot in the back? Seems that when the gunman turned around and pointed his gun at the father, he was absolutely justified. Sorry if you or anyone else don't like that.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 05:19 PM	#42
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Unabogie Or you could go out the back door. And leave my child? Bwahahahahahah!! Yeah right.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 05:19 PM	#43
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,858	Originally Posted by ben m I'm still waiting for the stream of news posts about armed legal-buyer Nancy-Lanza-types spontaneously fighting off shooters. The NRA has assured us that this happens all the time, and indeed that fighting off crooks is the main thing legally-bought handguns are used for. Indeed, that gun laws of any sort---even simple registrations---will put us in danger by reducing the number of heroes fighting back in cases like this. Unfortunately, those stories have been a bit ... um, nonexistent. Huh. I'll be in charge of that, I guess.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

30th January 2013, 05:26 PM	#44
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515	Originally Posted by ben m So, let's keep tallying up American gun culture: costs and benefits. In the "costs" column: Lots of dead people of all ages. In the "benefits" column: a mugger, prevented from escaping with $40. A family, prevented from being scared for a few minutes before the cops pick up the unarmed guy who's scaring them. Actually, the mugger got away with the $40. Nothing was prevented....
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515

30th January 2013, 05:26 PM	#45
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by ben m The guy wasn't in the house, hadn't broken the window yet, and wasn't armed. Which the father couldn't have known, and assuming that one is unarmed can be deadly. Originally Posted by ben m The father was only a few steps away and moving in, and the police were a few minutes away. Which the father had know way of knowing. Originally Posted by ben m Without knowing his intentions---which for all I know were evil---it seems pretty clear that nothing too bad could have actually happened if the father had found himself unarmed. Hindsight is great, isn't it? Originally Posted by ben m Short fist fight? Long fist fight? Some shoving? Some running away? I'm not able to dream up a likely scenario (short of the bad guy being a ninja) where the unarmed intruder gets past the unarmed dad and hurts anyone before the cops arrive. So I said so. Perhaps the bad guy gets one good swing on a poor fighter with a glass jaw, wanna still conclude that nothing bad could possibly happen? I'm not willing to bet my life on someone not getting in a good shot.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 05:28 PM	#46
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515	Originally Posted by triforcharity Shot in the back? Seems that when the gunman turned around and pointed his gun at the father, he was absolutely justified. Sorry if you or anyone else don't like that. You avoided the question. Noted. Again: Quote: armed legal-buyer Nancy-Lanza-types spontaneously fighting off shooters. How did this story demonstrate that ?
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515

30th January 2013, 05:33 PM	#47
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis You avoided the question. Noted. Again: How did this story demonstrate that ? Sorry to butt in here and I know it wasn't your question to begin with but what is a Nancy Lanza type?
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547

30th January 2013, 05:41 PM	#48
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by triforcharity And leave my child? Bwahahahahahah!! Yeah right. Reading comprehension fail. Who said you would have to leave your child?

30th January 2013, 05:44 PM	#49
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,846	Originally Posted by triforcharity Did the DA press charges for what you would classify as murder? Oh, wait, no, they didn't, and the grand jury didn't return an indictment either. Color me surprised..... Did I use the term "murder"? You're having a really hard time reading tonight. I merely pointed out that guns turned a situation unnecessarily into a death. Are you saying that as long as it's not against the law we shouldn't be against it or want to avoid it? What a strange world view.

30th January 2013, 05:44 PM	#50
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,650	Originally Posted by sgtbaker Again, you are assuming that things wouldn't have gone horrible wrong with a crazy person on his porch and the police are still a few minutes away. In the link to the FBI statistics, 726 people were murdered without a weapon. I'm talking about public policy, which means probabilities. Yes, this father was faced with someone hostile and was at some risk. In gun-land, with his ability to shoot the guy, he and his family were nearly 100% safe, nearly zero chance of being harmed. In no-guns-land, he and his family would have been---how safe? They were far, far, far from "as good as dead" (100% chance of harm). What are the odds that the father can delay/distract/shove/grapple the bad guy until the cops arrive and/or the kids flee? 99%? 90%? Let's say 90%, which is far too pessimistic IMO. So if this is right, gun ownership lowered this father's risk by 10%---from "10% chance of dying in a fistfight" to "0% chance of dying while shooting someone unarmed." Cost-benefit, right? This is a benefit of the existence of guns. The fact that the probability is small is important---it'd be a bigger benefit if the probability were larger. (Which is the point of my whole argument.) Meanwhile, across town, a convenience-store clerk gets killed during a robbery. Thanks to the robber's gun, his risk climbed from---what, 5%? 10%? The risk of getting knifed?---to 100%. Cost-benefit. This is a cost of the existence of guns. It's huge. The cost of guns to gun-victims is larger than the benefits of guns to armed-robber-averters. Gun-violence are common, and pay a huge cost. Armed-robbery-confronters are rare, and they're mostly averting small costs---as here, improbable fistfight deaths, minor monetary losses, etc. That's why I think that a complete handgun ban would be a good thing. (I know this has no chance of passing.) But sensible gun regulation---serious licensing and background checking, closing as many avenues as possible for gun/ammo sales to felons---would be close enough to live with.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,650

30th January 2013, 06:05 PM	#51
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547	Originally Posted by ben m I'm talking about public policy, which means probabilities. Yes, this father was faced with someone hostile and was at some risk. In gun-land, with his ability to shoot the guy, he and his family were nearly 100% safe, nearly zero chance of being harmed. In no-guns-land, he and his family would have been---how safe? They were far, far, far from "as good as dead" (100% chance of harm). What are the odds that the father can delay/distract/shove/grapple the bad guy until the cops arrive and/or the kids flee? 99%? 90%? Let's say 90%, which is far too pessimistic IMO. What method are you using to determine these odds? Do you know the size of the father; the size of the perp; if the father is in perfect health; his fighting abilities? You are basing this entirely on your own bias in the situation. Quote: So if this is right, gun ownership lowered this father's risk by 10%---from "10% chance of dying in a fistfight" to "0% chance of dying while shooting someone unarmed." Cost-benefit, right? This is a benefit of the existence of guns. The fact that the probability is small is important---it'd be a bigger benefit if the probability were larger. (Which is the point of my whole argument.) Meanwhile, across town, a convenience-store clerk gets killed during a robbery. Thanks to the robber's gun, his risk climbed from---what, 5%? 10%? The risk of getting knifed?---to 100%. Cost-benefit. This is a cost of the existence of guns. It's huge. I don't fully understand what you are saying here. Quote: The cost of guns to gun-victims is larger than the benefits of guns to armed-robber-averters. Gun-violence are common, and pay a huge cost. Armed-robbery-confronters are rare, and they're mostly averting small costs---as here, improbable fistfight deaths, minor monetary losses, etc. I am not arguing for or against guns. I've only argued that in this situation, the father's reaction was reasonable. A possible robbery across town does not negated that. Quote: That's why I think that a complete handgun ban would be a good thing. (I know this has no chance of passing.) But sensible gun regulation---serious licensing and background checking, closing as many avenues as possible for gun/ammo sales to felons---would be close enough to live with I have nothing against regulations, background checks, closing the private sales loophole, etc. I do feel that a handgun ban would probably not have changed this situation all that much. If his reason for having a gun was for home protection and handguns were banned, he would likely have walked out there with a rifle or a shotgun.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547	Last edited by sgtbaker; 30th January 2013 at 06:09 PM.

30th January 2013, 06:10 PM	#52
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis You avoided the question. Noted. Again: I dodged nothing. Your question is irrelevant, as it's almost a texas sharpshooter type question. Anything I reply with won't answer it to your satisfaction. Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis How did this story demonstrate that ? This one may not have. Others that I cited, did. Successfully.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 06:12 PM	#53
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Unabogie Reading comprehension fail. Who said you would have to leave your child? "Or you could go out the back door." Do you forget something in this sentence? Or is it implied? Not that I really care, as most of your posts contain about as much substance as carpet. I reply to your posts mainly to point out how silly your post is.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 06:16 PM	#54
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Unabogie Did I use the term "murder"? You're having a really hard time reading tonight. I merely pointed out that guns turned a situation unnecessarily into a death. No, I was simply replying to your asinine post. Unnecessary? That's a matter of opinion. I feel that it was the correct decision, given the fact that he had limited information to work with, and wasn't psychic. Originally Posted by Unabogie Are you saying that as long as it's not against the law we shouldn't be against it or want to avoid it? What a strange world view. Not at all. Just in this specific situation, it was a good call. You may not like that, and I couldn't possibly care less. Not one bit.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 06:19 PM	#55
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515	Originally Posted by triforcharity I dodged nothing. You didn't answer the question. I think that means you dodged something. Originally Posted by triforcharity Your question is irrelevant, as it's almost a texas sharpshooter type question. Anything I reply with won't answer it to your satisfaction. You might want to apprise randi of your psychic powers... Originally Posted by triforcharity This one may not have. Others that I cited, did. Successfully. Not might not have. Didn't. I don't know why that was so difficult to drag out of you.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,515

30th January 2013, 06:20 PM	#56
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Ok, so there's one. What about the others that I cited? Don't want to address them, do you? Didn't think so.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th January 2013, 06:56 PM	#57
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,650	Originally Posted by sgtbaker What method are you using to determine these odds? Do you know the size of the father; the size of the perp; if the father is in perfect health; his fighting abilities? You are basing this entirely on your own bias in the situation. Sorry, I'm talking about complete averages. Pick a number yourself, the point still stands. 20% chance of death? 50%? It sounds unlikely to me. Point is, it's not 100%. Quote: I am not arguing for or against guns. I've only argued that in this situation, the father's reaction was reasonable. A possible robbery across town does not negated that. No, no, I agree. In the circumstance, the father's reaction was reasonable. I'm only talking about policy. TFC posted these links in an attempt to "demonstrate" that average-gun-owners use their guns to prevent crime. The implication is, always, "How dare you try to deprive Law Abiding Bob of his gun! If he didn't have it he'd be dead!" But in lots of these cases---no, without a gun Bob probably wouldn't be dead, he'd probably be fine---so they're not particularly strong examples of how gun laws would endanger Law-Abiding Bob. Quote: I have nothing against regulations, background checks, closing the private sales loophole, etc. I do feel that a handgun ban would probably not have changed this situation all that much. If his reason for having a gun was for home protection and handguns were banned, he would likely have walked out there with a rifle or a shotgun. Agreed on all points. This is actually one of the reasons I like handgun bans in particular. It has virtually no effect on "Castle-Doctrine" type protection of your home, because you can do that with a shotgun or rifle. Likewise, no effect on hunters. It has a huge effect on crooks (the only people for whom concealability is the most important thing). But it's off the table politically unless the NRA implodes further. (On which front: keep it up, Wayne LaPierre is doing a great job at imploding as far as I can tell.)
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,650

30th January 2013, 07:57 PM	#58
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,743	When will these senseless gun debates come to an end?

31st January 2013, 08:01 AM	#59
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	2 good guys with guns or 2 bad guys with guns shoot a court employee this morning. ETA: The possible good guy with a gun in Phoenix remains at large.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

31st January 2013, 08:20 AM	#60
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	Originally Posted by angrysoba Isn't everyone entitled to that? Yes, they are. But attorneys aren't required to take cases unless it's court-appointed. If I was a defense attorney I'd refuse to voluntarily take his case. Originally Posted by Biscuit 2 good guys with guns or 2 bad guys with guns shoot a court employee this morning. ETA: The possible good guy with a gun in Phoenix remains at large. It's obvious he's not a good guy.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	__________________ "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

31st January 2013, 08:28 AM	#61
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	Originally Posted by Polaris Yes, they are. But attorneys aren't required to take cases unless it's court-appointed. If I was a defense attorney I'd refuse to voluntarily take his case. It's obvious he's not a good guy. Was he ever is my point. Did he purchase the guns legally for self defense against the very thing he became? Maybe he didn't maybe he did.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

31st January 2013, 08:34 AM	#62
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	Originally Posted by Biscuit Was he ever is my point. Did he purchase the guns legally for self defense against the very thing he became? Maybe he didn't maybe he did. Guess we'll have to wait and see when the facts come out.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	__________________ "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

31st January 2013, 08:39 AM	#63
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 How about prosecuting the criminals? Unlike in Chicago? http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130...t-face-charges That is the fault of the whole community, not just the police or prosecution. The entire criminal justice system has broken down, probably due to very bad relations between the community and police as well as the gang code of silence. "Chicago’s top cop said the “no-snitch” code of silence on the street is the biggest contributor in his department’s struggle to charge shooters. “The challenges we have to get charges in a significant number of cases is very difficult when witnesses and victims choose not to cooperate," Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said in an interview with DNAinfo.com Chicago. "To make cases prosecutable we need cooperative witnesses — and those go out the window right up front. We have a victim today who is an offender tomorrow. It's a vicious circle. There are a lot of people who are not going to cooperate," he said. "That's why we have to take on the no-snitch issue."
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

31st January 2013, 08:43 AM	#64
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	Originally Posted by Nessie That is the fault of the whole community, not just the police or prosecution. The entire criminal justice system has broken down, probably due to very bad relations between the community and police as well as the gang code of silence. "Chicago’s top cop said the “no-snitch” code of silence on the street is the biggest contributor in his department’s struggle to charge shooters. “The challenges we have to get charges in a significant number of cases is very difficult when witnesses and victims choose not to cooperate," Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said in an interview with DNAinfo.com Chicago. "To make cases prosecutable we need cooperative witnesses — and those go out the window right up front. We have a victim today who is an offender tomorrow. It's a vicious circle. There are a lot of people who are not going to cooperate," he said. "That's why we have to take on the no-snitch issue." Glad you posted this so I don't have to go digging for the topic in other threads. Are there cases where no-snitch cultures have been effectively broken? I'd love to hear about them, and how they could be applied to Chicago's, ahem, predicament.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	__________________ "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

31st January 2013, 08:58 AM	#65
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by triforcharity Non-existent? Horse ****. Here's one. Lets see to what extent they are justifiable DGUs where a gun and only a gun saved the potential victim. Quote: http://www.guns.com/2013/01/29/conce...-gun-on-a-dad/ Here I would say yes it was a DGU even though the gun did not stop the initial crime, but it prevented possible further escalation and meant the perp was caught. Quote: Here's another. http://www.guns.com/2013/01/29/new-y...rs-with-ar-15/ Unsure about this as a student house is invaded by males armed with a BB gun. Possible student prank which could have gone horribly wrong? But on the face of it we should say, yes a DGU. Quote: Another? Sure. http://www.guns.com/2013/01/25/wheel...r-with-pistol/ Again, not sure as we do not know if the intruder fled just because he was disturbed. I would say dubious. Quote: One more? Of course!! http://www.guns.com/2013/01/08/homeo...hters-bedroom/ An unarmed male with apparent mental health problems. I would suggest if he was trying to get into a room with his daughters the home owner should be getting his daughters away. Residents are watching him, the police have already been called. This smacks of got a gun, gonna use it and say it was the only thing I could do, which is wrong. This was not a last resort. Quote: Wanna try again with your "nonexistent" claim? Perhaps it's because the MSM doesn't want to cover it? Or maybe because it's usually not sensational enough? Nope, must be non existent. But you should look at what happens and not claim DGU every time a person pulls out their gun. What you have listed is a DGU that did more to catch the criminal than stop them, one which could have been a prank, one in which there is no evidence the gun made any difference and one where the gun was used before other options. Note, a gun did nothing to prevent a crime taking place, the best was stopping potential progress and in one out three does it appear the gun did stop progress where nothing else would have worked. This is why more study of actual DGUs is needed and not just listing supposed DGUs.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

31st January 2013, 09:05 AM	#66
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,658	Originally Posted by Nessie An unarmed male with apparent mental health problems. I would suggest if he was trying to get into a room with his daughters the home owner should be getting his daughters away. Residents are watching him, the police have already been called. This smacks of got a gun, gonna use it and say it was the only thing I could do, which is wrong. This was not a last resort. Get his daughters away...through the door...the guy is trying to through... Quote: This is why more study of actual DGUs is needed and not just listing supposed DGUs. Agreed. Although most days I could just put 'ditto' under your posts.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

31st January 2013, 09:06 AM	#67
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by sgtbaker I was replying to this I disagreed with that. If you are not interested in my perspective on what I would do, you are welcome to not involve yourself in the conversation. You may feel that the ultimate question is something different because you've already decided what the answer is, but you do not define the direction of a conversation I am having with someone else. As to the rest of your post, I would say you are a good candidate for the million dollar prize as you seem to know what the guy's intentions were and the only result would have been frightened children as well as an attempt to restrain him would have only resulted in a short fist fight. You got some mad psychic skills there. If you are going to comment on others psychic skills, how come your psychic skills are well enough developed to know you are right to shoot someone? It appears to me that people with guns think their ability to assess and then kill is better than those who try and deal with situations unarmed. Fact is neither side is qualified any better than the other, but one side is far more likely try and deal with the situation without killing than the other.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

31st January 2013, 09:18 AM	#68
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by Polaris Glad you posted this so I don't have to go digging for the topic in other threads. Are there cases where no-snitch cultures have been effectively broken? I'd love to hear about them, and how they could be applied to Chicago's, ahem, predicament. No idea. The only thing I could think of as a means of study is areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The parts of New Orleans never rebuilt, where any of them high crime, no snitch cultures with lots of gun deaths? What became of the people who now live elsewhere? Has the culture gone with them or did breaking up the community break up the culture?
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

31st January 2013, 09:21 AM	#69
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by tyr_13 Get his daughters away...through the door...the guy is trying to through... I read it that he (as in the perp) was outside the house at the window into the daughters bedroom. Quote: Agreed. Although most days I could just put 'ditto' under your posts.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

31st January 2013, 09:33 AM	#70
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547	Originally Posted by Nessie If you are going to comment on others psychic skills, how come your psychic skills are well enough developed to know you are right to shoot someone? It appears to me that people with guns think their ability to assess and then kill is better than those who try and deal with situations unarmed. Fact is neither side is qualified any better than the other, but one side is far more likely try and deal with the situation without killing than the other. Are you honestly suggesting the idea of stating a person's fear and reaction is understandable, is a matter of being psychic and on par with suggesting that nothing bad would have happened had the father not shot him? It's not a matter of right and wrong. I, personally, feel like violence is not an appropriate answer. However, if I am put in a position to defend myself, right and wrong goes out the window and doing what I feel I need to do becomes my main goal.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547

31st January 2013, 09:58 AM	#71
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	Originally Posted by Nessie No idea. The only thing I could think of as a means of study is areas affected by Hurricane Katrina. The parts of New Orleans never rebuilt, where any of them high crime, no snitch cultures with lots of gun deaths? What became of the people who now live elsewhere? Has the culture gone with them or did breaking up the community break up the culture? I have no idea, but my cousin is a harbor pilot there, I could ask him. I'll also look up the crime rates in Houston, San Antonia and Dallas-Ft. Worth in the year or two after Katrina, as that's where a lot of evacuees went. I know I got robbed in that time several times but I'm statistically irrelevant.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,168	__________________ "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

31st January 2013, 10:02 AM	#72
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,658	Originally Posted by Nessie I read it that he (as in the perp) was outside the house at the window into the daughters bedroom. You're correct. I misread somewhere. The slain man was on the porch trying to get into the daughter's bedroom. Somehow I got the impression that he had already gained entry into a hall and was trying to get into the bedroom. I can criticize the home owner for going out to confront, I can yell at someone from inside my house, but once the man started reaching, for what turned out to be nothing, the preferred reaction would be to retreat, but firing seems an understandable one. I wish the owner had been armed with a taser gun, but those are hard to get in many places.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

31st January 2013, 10:14 AM	#73
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	Well it seems the man hunt is over in Arizona. pointless.
Biscuit Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,767	__________________ “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

31st January 2013, 10:15 AM	#74
Xulld Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 1,113	Originally Posted by ben m I'm still waiting for the stream of news posts about armed legal-buyer Nancy-Lanza-types spontaneously fighting off shooters. You wont, because we feel no need to engage in these irrational, petty, and unproductive tactics. Just makes you look like you cannot control your bias. The entire act is one that pretends anecdote is something more than a way of sharing experience, and takes it to a whole new level of irrational.
	__________________ "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; 31st January 2013 at 10:20 AM.

31st January 2013, 10:19 AM	#75
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,790	Originally Posted by sgtbaker Are you honestly suggesting the idea of stating a person's fear and reaction is understandable, is a matter of being psychic and on par with suggesting that nothing bad would have happened had the father not shot him? It's not a matter of right and wrong. I, personally, feel like violence is not an appropriate answer. However, if I am put in a position to defend myself, right and wrong goes out the window and doing what I feel I need to do becomes my main goal. I am passing comment on the gun owner claim of I had no idea what he was going to do, so I shot him. I am very uncomfortable with that attitude, especially since the majority of Americans, let alone the rest of the Western World manage with out guns for self defence. What makes some people think that they are gun owners who think they should be able to make instant life and death decisions without any training?
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic