• 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

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

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

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

I find it fascinating how eager many on this forum are to imagine incidents of racism.
 
Unabogie said:
Because it's much safer than getting in a shootout with an armed intruder (or in this case, a carload of lost kids?)
Click to expand...

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

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

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

What Sailors did doesn't fall under Castle Doctrine - it was actively coming out of his house, charging a strange vehicle in his driveway via recon by fire.
 
Belz... said:
Really ? Where do you keep your gun, sir ? In a safe with the ammunition in a separate compartment, as you should ? If so, how fast could you retrieve and arm your gun once you hear people tear down your front door in the middle of the night ?
Click to expand...

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

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

sir drinks-a-lot said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

That was regarding a post in one of the seven seas of gun control threads lately. See also: posts mentioning swimming pools.
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

I could stomach the message if they extended condolences, or said they were praying for the victim's family. But lifting up the victim's family in prayer is a little too much, especially coming through a lawyer.
 
Polaris said:
Tut tut, that is irresponsible according to some on this forum.



......
Click to expand...

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

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

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

The fear must be particularly bad.
 
Belz... said:
Really ? Where do you keep your gun, sir ? In a safe with the ammunition in a separate compartment, as you should ? If so, how fast could you retrieve and arm your gun once you hear people tear down your front door in the middle of the night ?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

Gabrielle Gifford's husband, at today's Congressional hearing, described that scenario graphically, and he was speaking as a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment, as is Gifford herself. The right to bear arms and the need to rein in easy ownership of high-capacity semiautomatics are not incompatible.
 
Polaris said:
What Sailors did doesn't fall under Castle Doctrine - it was actively coming out of his house, charging a strange vehicle in his driveway via recon by fire.
Click to expand...

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

Came out of his house to shoot two people who robbed a neighbor's house. He was no billed because the grand jury believed the robbers stepped into his yard.
 
Polaris said:
Why should someone have to flee their house, even if it's possible? If you have the means, defend yourself!
Click to expand...

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

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

Why? Because the long, long list of things that can go wrong---missed shots hitting bystanders, mistaking non-robbers for robbers, wrongful-death lawsuits even from people you shoot "legitimately", and escalation of "robberies" into "shootouts"---are more expensive than just walking away. (Also: employees may play with the store's gun and have accidents; the store's gun may get stolen; the store's gun may get used in intra-employee arguments having nothing to do with robbers; etc.) The same is true of home defense. It's cheaper (in lives and in money) to make a policy of run/hide/call-911.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I think he was suggesting an even stronger point: that the reason the guy was shot was because he was "brown". Of course he offers no evidence of this, since he has none.

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

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

Considering the facts that we know of, I don't think this was the case, but you never know.
 
Nessie said:
If you at that level of risk fine sleep with your gun under the pillow, but when you wake up and the kids are up and about, lock it away.

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

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

The fear must be particularly bad.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

I hate to even bring the piece of garbage up, but what Ann Coulter said about among white society in the US crime is about the same as in western Europe (where I take issue with her is the unspoken part of her statement, which is "so who cares?").
 
ben m said:
Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

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

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

That is a very good point.
 
ben m said:
Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.
Click to expand...

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

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

I should also mention that intruders aren't always there to rob a homeowner.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
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.
Click to expand...

You make an important point, which is why the US 2d Amendment is different from the 1st, and why most countries that respect free speech do not vest their citizens with an unrestricted right to own guns. Someone who is overall law-abiding, but has paranoid ideas and poor judgment, can exercise his right to free speech, and no one is seriously harmed. When the same person picks up a gun, an innocent person might get killed.
 
seycyrus said:
You should look into that statistic. It's been addressed in other threads. Forgive me, but I don't have the time to go through that with you right now.
Click to expand...

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

We are discussing a certain specific scenario.
Click to expand...

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

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

And even then, as I have already posted, owning a gun will not always give you an advantage. It will often be a disadvantage, as it was for Mr Sailors.
 
ben m said:
Let's ask the 7-11, Quik-Mart, and Dairy Queen corporations. Unlike Nancy L. Suburbanite, they're actually likely to get robbed---probably repeatedly.

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

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

that's because they are all owned by communists
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom