Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[seycyrus]

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

Citation needed.

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

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

Take your bias elsewhere.

 

[squealpiggy]

Some answers here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

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

 

[squealpiggy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you trolling?

 

[Xulld]

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

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

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

Can you explain?

 

[remirol]

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

Take your bias elsewhere.

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

 

[squealpiggy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Xulld]

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

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

This Sailors guy is an idiot.

Maybe but this seems like broadly supported idiocy.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So what you are saying is this murder is justified?

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

 

[seycyrus]

Like I said: absolutely no clue.

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

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

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

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

Why would you take joy in someone's misfortune?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

Are you trolling?

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

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

 

[Nessie]

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

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

Correct.

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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

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

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

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

 

[Kilaak Kommander]

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

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

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

 

[Xulld]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

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

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

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

 

[NoahFence]

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

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

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

???

 

[Xulld]

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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