• 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

Charlie Wilkes said:
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
fuelair said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's that NTS fallacy.


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

*Responsible Gun Owner.
 
lionking said:
And yet this church-going good guy was (almost certainly) a legal gun owner. Another very good reason to change gun ownership laws.
Click to expand...

He couldn't have been a true RGO because true RGO's always follow the rules.
 
ponderingturtle said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
seycyrus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the bad guys are more experienced in robbing homes than the home owner is in killing bad guys.
 
seycyrus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like go out the back way and avoid a violent confrontation?
 
Nessie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Nessie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Polaris said:
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.
Click to expand...

They get my guns when they take my cold dead hands?
 
NoahFence said:
You seriously think you need elite spec-ops training to kick down a door and scream "get on the floor" or shoot someone?

Wow.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tsig said:
They get my guns when they take my cold dead hands?
Click to expand...

No solution is perfect. :D

The obvious way around that is to invite Thing to permanently stay in your house and allow him access to the safe.
 
People can and do use guns successfully to defend themselves from home invaders. I could point you to any number of examples.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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 must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom