Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Polaris]

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.

I remember him quite well. I also remember commenting at the time that the best possible outcome would be Horn in jail for murder and two burglars still dead.

I'm not sure how this Quarrell X guy equates Castle Doctrine as being racist. The Grand Jury decision? Possibly. I wouldn't see it as impossible that the jurors saw the case and thought "I would hope my neighbor blows away anybody robbing me when I'm on vacation".

 

[quadraginta]

Yes.


So it's your contention that Sailor shot just because he heard his accent, or because he can tell a Colombian from an Italian from a Greek from an Arab from a Jew from a Frenchman from a Brit etc etc etc?

Or are you just trying to shoehorn a racial element into this when there's no evidence it's the case?

I offered no contention at all.

I merely pointed out that the car window was indeed rolled down, in contradiction to the state which your own contentions were allegedly based upon.

Don't try to transfer your issues to me. That is a very weak sort of tactic.

 

[tsig]

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?").

True, that's why I make sure my tin foil hat is properly grounded so if lightning hits I'll be OK.

 

[Polaris]

True, that's why I make sure my tin foil hat is properly grounded so if lightning hits I'll be OK.

The eff

 

[NoahFence]

I lol'd...

 

[Ranb]

The NRA deserve the blame for this sort of thing.

Really? Instead of putting it all on the person (people?) at the scene the NRA is to blame too? Sounds kind of woo to me. I get e-mail from the NRA and catch their sound bytes in the media at times, hasn't made me paranoid in the slightest.

Ranb

 

[Xulld]

He doesn't seem to be substantively different from Joe Horn who did nothing legally wrong. Hell this guy wasn't on the phone to 911 so you cab argue he did less wrong.

Horn just shot people that many here are fine with being shot.

Arguing what the law is or is not, is not the same as supporting the actions of Horn.

Representing the support of some vague group of people from another thread is not exactly on topic for this thread now is it?

 

[Xulld]

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.

The only way (That I know of . . ) to objectively determine if someone is responsible is by examining their actions within the totality of the circumstances.

 

[ben m]

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.

Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

 

[jimbob]

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.

The only way (That I know of . . ) to objectively determine if someone is responsible is by examining their actions within the totality of the circumstances.

True, but by then it is often too late.

After a shooting one might find that there were plenty indicators that could have been taken to be warning signs, but I don't know how many false positives or indeed false negatives there would be.

 

[jimbob]

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.

]Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

[/QUOTE]


And it is worth pointing out that Tunisia had strict gun laws yet started the Arab Spring. Egypt was mainly brought about by civil disobedience and the army refusing to crush the rebellion.

Many successful overthrows of tyranny have depended on free speech, but not on gun ownership.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

I would love to get rid of it completely.

In the US, it is entrenched in the political ecosystem. A gun is a fetish item for beat-down people who are too stupid to understand the forces that shape their lives, much less exercise any real control over those forces. But they can pick up a gun and pretend that they're in control.

Of course that makes them easy marks for political demagogues. Congressman Teabagger can stand up on the podium and bloviate about how he supports the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and the drooling sycophants are beside themselves with joy, completely unaware that their elected rep has a completely different agenda, one that is directed by his big money sponsors.

So, the US is stuck with the 2d Amendment.

 

[squealpiggy]

Your evidence that burglars enter homes with gun drawn is...?

Oh, right, you're just slaying that strawman you constructed.

Burglars may not even have a gun. Nearly twice as many burglaries as violent crimes all put together. Most burglars are avoiding confrontation. Any indication that someone is home and they're gone!

Burglary and armed robbery after a forced entry into a dwelling are different in impact, intent and frequency.

Almost all of the remainder are suicides, not accidents. And there's no evidence whatsoever anywhere that gun laws have an effect on suicide rates.

There is evidence that availability of guns, especially handguns, increase the rate of successful suicides.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Lax gun laws and strong gun culture leads to more guns. More guns means more suicides.

Why should someone have to flee their house, even if it's possible? If you have the means, defend yourself!

This is rather like the weak arguments made by people attacking self defense advice such as "Try not to walk around alone" and "avoid secluded areas" and "don't leave your drink unattended". Why should you? Because doing so is more likely to lead to a positive outcome, which is you surviving uninjured.

Leaving means two things:

1. You're out of harm's way
2. The intruder knows the clock is ticking, their time is limited before the authorities arrive.

Sure, having a pistols at dawn shoot-out might make for a cooler scene in a Western. It's just going to suck for the person who lives next door or the person across the street whose house is peppered with your crossfire. That's if you survive.

 

[fuelair]

I would love to get rid of it completely.

In the US, it is entrenched in the political ecosystem. A gun is a fetish item for beat-down people who are too stupid to understand the forces that shape their lives, much less exercise any real control over those forces. But they can pick up a gun and pretend that they're in control.

Of course that makes them easy marks for political demagogues. Congressman Teabagger can stand up on the podium and bloviate about how he supports the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, and the drooling sycophants are beside themselves with joy, completely unaware that their elected rep has a completely different agenda, one that is directed by his big money sponsors.

So, the US is stuck with the 2d Amendment.

Not to pick nits, but: I am not beat down, I loathe the teabaggers and am not a fan of republickers or the NRA. I like the people in my neighborhood and get along fine with all of them I know/of and voted for Obama. But I still have guns where I can reach them (as can my wife), I have not fired any (except at targets and gun range locally) recently and they are just here in case of naughtiness from externals.

 

[Nessie]

Other differences:

• Occasional libel/offense/obscenity are downsides of unrestricted 1st Amendment rights ... but the upside is a functioning democracy.
• 30,000 deaths (+ untold injuries, robberies, etc.) are the downsides of unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights ... but the upside is ... um, no one is quite sure. Maybe that "the people" might mount a hypothetical rebellion (against tanks and airplanes)? Maybe it's a right to self-defense (why with this one strange tool)? Maybe game hunting? Maybe skeet? Anyway, the 2nd Amendment's upside is take-your-pick between (a) paranoid delusions and (b) minor hobbies, as though we had a Constitutional right to glassblowing supplies.

• The First Amendment's civil intentions are so obvious they don't need to be stated. It doesn't say "A free press being necessary to monitor and criticize the Government ...". It just says "no law abridging freedom of the press."
• The Second Amendment needs to explain why it's there. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ..." before saying what right it's establishing. The 2nd is, in fact, the only amendment with such a preface.

Indeed and furthermore there is a clue in the name, the Second Amendment. So amendments are allowed and there have been twenty eight so far including an amendment of an amendment.

 

[Polaris]

This is rather like the weak arguments made by people attacking self defense advice such as "Try not to walk around alone" and "avoid secluded areas" and "don't leave your drink unattended". Why should you? Because doing so is more likely to lead to a positive outcome, which is you surviving uninjured.

Leaving means two things:

1. You're out of harm's way
2. The intruder knows the clock is ticking, their time is limited before the authorities arrive.

Sure, having a pistols at dawn shoot-out might make for a cooler scene in a Western. It's just going to suck for the person who lives next door or the person across the street whose house is peppered with your crossfire. That's if you survive.

Actually any intruder would have to kick down my door and find themselves blinded by a flood light as I point a riot gun at their neck from behind my bed, offering as small a target as possible. And the police will be on their way (like I said before, I've thought this out). But I'm in a somewhat unique situation where I will likely be unable to leave based on physical impairment and the actual layout of the house.

All the same, I wouldn't fault someone who doesn't leave - because at that point if you can't be secure in your own house where else can you be secure?

 

[Nessie]

My plan is not to be anywhere where I need a plan.

 

[Polaris]

My plan is not to be anywhere where I need a plan.

So you don't do fire drills in the UK?

 

[jimbob]

There is evidence that availability of guns, especially handguns, increase the rate of successful suicides.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Lax gun laws and strong gun culture leads to more guns. More guns means more suicides.

There is other evidence - this concerns the change in the suicide rate in the UK during the period when moving the gas supply from toxic "Town Gas" to non toxic natural gas

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00022-0018.pdf

I won't copy as this is a 1976 paper, and not sufficiently well scanned for text browsers, although perfectly legible..

On Page 88 (it starts at page 86, don't worry) there is are two key graphs.

In the UK, the main form of suicide used to be using the gas oven which was "town gas " and rich in Carbon monoxide. On the change from that to natural gas, this suicide rate fell for males, but other rates remained roughly the same so the overall suicide rate fell sharply. With Females the rate also fell sharply as this method became unavailable, but there was some compensation with other methods rising.

Looks as if removing easy access to methods of suicide reduce suicide rates.

 

[Xulld]

True, but by then it is often too late.

After a shooting one might find that there were plenty indicators that could have been taken to be warning signs, but I don't know how many false positives or indeed false negatives there would be.

We could just remove all people's rights to do anything which could lead to dangerous behavior the moment they first show they cannot control their temper.

Regardless of extremes this is an epic concept for the worlds biggest slippery slope slide.

I believe outside of tightly defined objective standards no one should have the ability to preemptively remove another persons rights, no less permanently.

Anything else sends you down the slip n slide of making government everyone's parent, no one grows up, permanent children who need to be watched all day for any signs of trouble.

No thanks. I would rather accept the reality that people can be unpredictable at times and focus on the big stuff and leave these niche cases to the exceptions and not try to make a rule for everything restricting all possible freedom in order to marginally increase my perceived safety.

The REAL problem is that as individuals we have lost our personal responsibility.

No one is responsible for your safety but you.

I am not responsible for your lack of safety even if my guns are stolen and they are used to kill you. YOU are responsible for preventing your own death, for protecting your family, for protecting your wealth and happiness.

I am not responsible for protecting any of those things for anyone else.

My principles are such that if some person was slaughtering helpless people I would feel compelled to get involved and stop it, but that is not the same as being responsible to stop it, no more than being responsible to prevent someone from killing you or anyone else no matter what the circumstance regarding the perpetrators decisions to use a given weapon or not.

Trying to blame everyone in the world for your own lack of responsibility is the hallmark of all such protectionist legislation.