• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

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.
 
Xulld said:
From all reports this man was not responsible and does not represent me......
Click to expand...

You are probably correct, but I'm confident Mr. Sailors would have said exactly the same thing yesterday, reading about some other similar incident.



or any other gun owner.
Click to expand...

Now that's just silly.
 
Meadmaker said:
I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Really? So all the times that I've seen parents, clearly distraught about an act of violence committed against their family, asking for the person to turn themselves in, or to call if you know something, etc. etc. etc. are doing it for fun?

You don't think that justice is not a comfort, even a small one? Why?
 
triforcharity said:
Really? So all the times that I've seen parents, clearly distraught about an act of violence committed against their family, asking for the person to turn themselves in, or to call if you know something, etc. etc. etc. are doing it for fun?

You don't think that justice is not a comfort, even a small one? Why?
Click to expand...

In this case, no.

If they are normal, they will want to see the law applied, and the man go to jail, but most people would find no comfort in it at all. They would see one life (their son's) lost, and another one destroyed.

Mr. Sailors deserves the punishment he will receive, and the family of Mr. Diaz will almost certainly agree with that, but that punishment itself will be a tragedy. Sailors didn't set out to do harm. He was afraid. A frightened little man scared out of his wits who let the fear take over him, and in so doing ended one life, and destroyed his own. When next Thanksgiving rolls around, the son's chair at the table will be missing at the Diaz household, and grandpa's chair will be empty at the Sailors family.

I doubt the Diaz family will see anything comforting about it.
 
From what I know now, Mr. Sailors is not much different than many of the gun lovers on this forum. I can't help but wonder if prior to today, if Mr. Sailors could have spoken any of the words of gun lovers posting in this thread.

Repeat after me (and Mr. Sailors)....those crazy things gun haters say might happen to us law abiding citizens, will never happen to me.
 
He's a guy who owned a gun legally (probably) and probably for the purposes of self defense. And now he will be a criminal who can no longer own a gun.

The system works. Instead of ending up as one statistic he ended up as another. Actually they swapped statistics come to think of it...

A responsible gun owner doesn't have the right to leave his house and start a fight with his gun. If he thought he was being robbed he should have called the police and kept himself safe. Leaving that house was not only unsafe it's not even a practical application of defense (Unless by being in the house you are less safe say they're setting it on fire...) by which having his gun at the ready should be called for. This man is just a murderer. He was not a responsible gun owner when he walked out of his door and neither was he a responsible citizen. He was a criminal the moment he walked out that door.

But at least now AFTER the fact we can make sure he doesn't have a gun right?
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
The guy doing the shooting, was absolutely wrong. No reasonable fear, victim was driving away, and he shot anyway.
Click to expand...

Stupid shootings of retreating innocents are what you expect when you give guns to people with no training. Reasonable fear vs. unreasonable fear? Not obvious, not to a scared person full of adrenaline. Police and armed forces are taught rules of engagement, because if they weren't this sort of thing would happen.

So, oh, look: the NRA insists that anyone can buy a gun. The NRA decides that mandatory training would violate your 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA delivers its stream of rhetoric about armed bad guys poised to invade your home. Millions of scared, untrained amateurs buy guns and daydream about bad guys. Of course this leads to misjudgements. Misjudgements are practically built in to the system.

Anyway, let's compare what happens when an unreasonable, wrong home-invasion terror pops into the head of a non-gun-owner: He yells some racist garbage from his front porch. He throws a rock at the retreating car and dents it. He bars the door and calls 911. Unreasonable? Yes. Wrong? Yes. Number of dead people? Zero.
 
Last edited:
You give guns to people terrified of crimes they are unlikely to experience, what do you expect? Three times in the past few months people have mistakenly driven up my drive. Not only did I refrain from shooting them, I helped them find where they were going.
 
Unabogie said:
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/archives/2013/01/just_horrific.php?ref=fpblg



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

"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-accused-of-killing-man-who-went-to-wrong-ho/nT8xp/

Why is the shooter's family grief-stricken? They didn't even know the guy.
 
Xulld said:
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.
Click to expand...

I took it as an ironic reference to the straw man of the "responsible gun owner" who is a major part of pro-gun rhetoric.

The reality, of course, is that those rationally in favour of gun control are worried about the irresponsible, the poorly trained, the irrational, the mentally ill and all the other people who for one reason or another will have access to a gun and will use it in ways which lead predictably to bad outcomes. In particular, bad outcomes which arise predictably and frequently enough to outweigh the good outcomes of weakly-controlled gun ownership.

The case is an excellent example of why a culture of fear and gun-ownership leads to bad outcomes.
 
The guy was outnumbered, so clearly he needed to take the first shot.

On a serious note, though, we don't know enough about Sailors to make any judgments. Did he have any sort of mental problems or history of violence that would make him a high risk gun owner, let alone a legal one?

And how would this have been prevented? Let's say he was a legal, law-abiding gun owner who was overreacting to paranoid rhetoric. How do you regulate paranoid rhetoric? How do identify who will overreact to it? How do you even define what it is? Home invasion does occur. Homeowners are injured and killed in the process, albeit rarely. What is a sensible level of warning, and an appropriate level of caution?
 
Kilaak Kommander said:
The guy was outnumbered, so clearly he needed to take the first shot.

On a serious note, though, we don't know enough about Sailors to make any judgments. Did he have any sort of mental problems or history of violence that would make him a high risk gun owner, let alone a legal one?

And how would this have been prevented? Let's say he was a legal, law-abiding gun owner who was overreacting to paranoid rhetoric. How do you regulate paranoid rhetoric? How do identify who will overreact to it? How do you even define what it is? Home invasion does occur. Homeowners are injured and killed in the process, albeit rarely. What is a sensible level of warning, and an appropriate level of caution?
Click to expand...

Sailors’ friends and family said instead that the retired BellSouth employee is a dedicated volunteer at his church and has been on mission trips to Panama and other Latin American countries.

Chris Anderson, pastor of Killian Hill Baptist Church in Lilburn, called Sailors “a good man who devoted his life to serving others, and his reputation in our community has been unblemished for over 40 years.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/man-69-accused-of-killing-man-who-went-to-wrong-ho/nT8xp/

A model citizen, just the kind of guy whose rights the 2d Amendment enshrines.
 
Kilaak Kommander said:
The guy was outnumbered, so clearly he needed to take the first shot.

On a serious note, though, we don't know enough about Sailors to make any judgments. Did he have any sort of mental problems or history of violence that would make him a high risk gun owner, let alone a legal one?

And how would this have been prevented? Let's say he was a legal, law-abiding gun owner who was overreacting to paranoid rhetoric. How do you regulate paranoid rhetoric? How do identify who will overreact to it? How do you even define what it is? Home invasion does occur. Homeowners are injured and killed in the process, albeit rarely. What is a sensible level of warning, and an appropriate level of caution?
Click to expand...

That probably warrants a discussion on self defense and those laws vary from state to state. If more gun owners were well versed in what self defense means then in almost all cases of actual self defense a gun is not required unless you cannot run and you are in a situation which warrants the use of a gun (also something any gun owner interested in owning a gun for the purpose of self defense should know and understand). But I have my suspicion that the intricacies of self defense seldom meet with whether a gun owner should own a gun for self defense. I perceive that there's a push from the NRA to say that the only self defense is a good offense...with a gun.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
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/archives/2013/01/just_horrific.php?ref=fpblg



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

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.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
The NRA deserve the blame for this sort of thing. Thier ramping up the paranioa to the point where people start shooting each other for simply walking or driving onto their properties is completely crazy, but the whole NRA led gun industry wants USAers scared out of their tightie whites of each other so they'll all start packing 100 guns and a million rounds of ammo for when the gang bangers come to rape and murder them.
Click to expand...

Skip all your above, there have always been over the top "Get off my lawn you damn kids!!"ers. Those never required help from the NRA and, frankly, don't now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom