Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[SomedayGirl]

I do not think I should make this decision, but neither do I think the NRA should preclude the conversation necessary to make this decision. We, as a society, need to determine what reasonable precautions should be taken. That may even vary state to state, but I would hope a federal base would be nice.



They are not exclusive. Responsibility is not a limited quantity.



Yeah, they both can be completely responsible. Joint and several liability is one example of this in the civil context.

In a criminal context, this is also the case for getaway drivers. Just as guilty as the clerk shooter. It is also the case for the person hiring the hitman. Just as guilty.

It seems very odd to me that gun rights advocates maintain that most crime is perpetrated by people who came by the weapon illegally, but then refuse to accept any responsibility for curtailing one of the ways that happens. That seems awfully convenient.

 

[Belz...]

I disagree with it. The force should be proportional.

Although that seems reasonable in principle, how is one to estimate, in the dead of the night when confronted with intruders, what the appropriate response is, especially if flight is impossible ?

 

[Polaris]

In a criminal context, this is also the case for getaway drivers. Just as guilty as the clerk shooter. It is also the case for the person hiring the hitman. Just as guilty.

No, it's not. In all those cases you present the person is intentionally aiding the criminal. People don't leave their guns outside of safes with the intent that they be stolen by criminals during robberies and used in further crimes.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No, it's not. In all those cases you present the person is intentionally aiding the criminal. People don't leave their guns outside of safes with the intent that they be stolen by criminals during robberies and used in further crimes.

The point is that holding the driver completely responsible in no way reduces the shooter's responsibility. Both are completely responsible.

 

[Nessie]

I understand your irrational position that gun owners should be responsible for the actions of criminals.

That is not my position

I do not agree with it at any point along the continuum.

Neither do I. That is why it is not my position.

You are trying to avoiding having to deal with the real issue by making up a straw man and arguing against it.

 

[jimbob]

Nobody Not many disagree with that.

Where we disagree is that I consider pro-gun advocates to be making the following mistakes:

1. overestimating the likelihood of such an event occuring in the first place (specifically, a breakin while the owner is home)
2. overestimating the likelihood of that owner being both ready and capable of successfully defending themselves during such an event
3. underestimating the likelihood of an accidental misuse event occurring
4. underestimating the likelihood of a deliberate misuse event occurring

In my experience, vocal pro-gun advocates tend to hold themselves up as the measuring stick for #2, #3, and #4 when considering "the average person"; I base this on how frequently those same advocates will go into extensive detail about their training, how often they shoot, their knowledge of firearms, etc. yada. yada., tl;dr.

However, I consider the average person to be barely capable of tying their shoes on a good day without written directions*. There is no way in hell that you are going to convince me that the same Quality Individuals™ who made Honey Boo Boo a household name are ever... EVER... going to be individuals who can be trusted to, in a high-risk pressure situation with only a tiny amount of time to make a decision:

a) correctly identify their target
b) ensure that no innocents are downrange of that target
c) operate their weapon properly

This is probably the root of where we disagree. Pro-gun advocates tend to hold up their holy grail of "more training!", and to this I would offer up as a counter all 50 individual state DMVs, and the general skill level of American drivers compared to many other First World countries. We can mandate a certain level of training all we like, and what will happen is that the equivalent of diploma mills will spring up run by "well-meaning citizens", just like "pill mills" and various other certification-acquisition factories for various other industries.






* For the humor-impaired, hyperbole sometimes serves a purpose.
** ETA: In the time it took me to write the post, two people disagreed.

It is frustrating to have the model citizen gun owner come in here and tell us how awesome they are and then defend the rights of idiots without an an ounce of awesome to take on the same responsibilities.

Reminds me of the insurance commercial where the guy is asking the the chainsaw juggler to pass him one, he's got this. That one can safely handle a responsibility does not mean that all can.

Yes.

And there is little way of determining who is "responsible".

Either the pro gun advocates should admit that there is a problem with irresponsible gun owners, or they stop complaining that people are lumping responsible and irresponsible gun owners together. Which seems fair as the second amendment says nothing about the competence of the gun owner - just that the militia has to be "well-ordered".

 

[Nessie]

Not at all. I've been robbed four times since 2007. Six times in my life. I sleep soundly, even if lightly. I still have no problem going to convenience stores after being assaulted in one.

I didn't get the shotgun for home defense - I got it when I lived five miles from a town and smack in the middle of the woods where there are rabid animals and the occasional pack of feral dogs. Only two times I've ever used it had to do with wildlife. Only fired it one of those times.

The only thing that changed was before I was robbed I would have maybe had some sympathy for a burglar who was shot during a burglary. Now I say string them all up.

You have an open invitation to come and live with me. No rabid animals, home invasions, corner shop robberies. You may find it a bit boring

 

[Belz...]

Immediate as in without any time to determine why they are there or any warning at all? What if you are not in the house at the time?

If I'm not there, then obviously I cannot respond with any force at all. That sounds like a stupid question, but perhaps you just worded it wrong.

 

[Polaris]

You have an open invitation to come and live with me. No rabid animals, home invasions, corner shop robberies. You may find it a bit boring

I should add I don't think about this stuff all that often, it's only because it's come up here.

And thank you. Should the fundies come to power in the US I'll need a place to flee to, but I'll likely have to bring the Polaress. Boring is fine as long as it comes with haggis, scenery and scotch (I like the Speyside malts).

I'll miss my tigers and mountain lions.

 

[Nessie]

No, it's because the person BROKE INTO MY HOUSE. Didn't knock or ask for help. Broke in. Are you going to take a chance with the lives of your family ?

No of course not. Bear in mind you have decided to take a chance with your family by having a gun about the house, which unarmed people do not. It is about weighing up risk.

I can understand why people feel the need/want to have a gun around when there are so many armed criminals, nuts and youths.

I wonder to what extent people are making the right decisions as to whether or not the should have a gun about the house or not. The majority of Americans manage without, yet the minority who have guns ready at home for self defence seem to be absolutely sure that is the right thing to do, despite the statistics which show high rates of accidental deaths, massacres using lawfully held guns, guns used to kill in arguments, inappropriate use of supposed self defence and complete lack of training in DGUs.

Its when people arm themselves in low crime areas you do wonder about judgement.

 

[Nessie]

Although that seems reasonable in principle, how is one to estimate, in the dead of the night when confronted with intruders, what the appropriate response is, especially if flight is impossible ?

Since the USA has laws to do with reasonable force and people do get charged with murder who claimed self defence, there must and has to be a way to use a scale of force, starting with the obvious shout a warning. The police are expected to use a scale of force and reasonable force. The armed citizen should be required to do the same and get training to help them.

 

[SomedayGirl]

No, it's not. In all those cases you present the person is intentionally aiding the criminal. People don't leave their guns outside of safes with the intent that they be stolen by criminals during robberies and used in further crimes.

The getaway driver probably had no intent for the clerk to be killed. They figured it was a simple stick up, but something goes wrong. The law view that this person should have foreseen that possible outcome.

If a firearm is hanging over the fireplace in your living room, or leaning in the corner of a hallway, or laying on a bedside table, it's certainly possible to foresee how that could go wrong whether by falling into the hands of a child or the hands of a criminal. It follows to me that there should be legal consequences if either of those things happen to an improperly secured firearm.

It still seems like the best of both worlds to be able to blame illegally obtained weapons for gun violence but then eschew any responsibility for one of the ways that can happen.

 

[Polaris]

The getaway driver probably had no intent for the clerk to be killed. They figured it was a simple stick up, but something goes wrong. The law view that this person should have foreseen that possible outcome.

If a firearm is hanging over the fireplace in your living room, or leaning in the corner of a hallway, or laying on a bedside table, it's certainly possible to foresee how that could go wrong whether by falling into the hands of a child or the hands of a criminal. It follows to me that there should be legal consequences if either of those things happen to an improperly secured firearm.

It still seems like the best of both worlds to be able to blame illegally obtained weapons for gun violence but then eschew any responsibility for one of the ways that can happen.

Are we talking criminal or civil liability here? Because the getaway driver is already a knowing accessory to the commission of a crime. There are already laws on the books that if a murder takes place during the commission of a crime you are taking part in - such as an armed robbery - you are accessory to that murder. Even if the driver didn't intend to commit murder, the intent to criminal mischief was already there.

Now, if the law was that firearms need to be properly (as described in the law) stored when their owner was not home, and they were stolen and used in a homicide, then I can see legal accessory being leveled at the gun owner. But at the moment, intent matters a great deal in prosecution.

It rubs me the wrong way to have someone come home, find their house ransacked and property stolen, and then the cops come and slap HIM in handcuffs. Especially since they do a piss poor job of finding the actual burglars. Hell, they never arrested the guy who robbed me and they knew who he was and where he lived! But he stole my .44, and by your view I should have been the one to go to jail.

 

[Belz...]

No of course not. Bear in mind you have decided to take a chance with your family by having a gun about the house, which unarmed people do not. It is about weighing up risk.

I'm not talking about guns, which I don't own, and don't like, but about the application of maximum force when defending oneself against an unknown threat.

Since the USA has laws to do with reasonable force and people do get charged with murder who claimed self defence, there must and has to be a way to use a scale of force, starting with the obvious shout a warning.

Again, very nice in principle.

 

[SomedayGirl]

Are we talking criminal or civil liability here? Because the getaway driver is already a knowing accessory to the commission of a crime. There are already laws on the books that if a murder takes place during the commission of a crime you are taking part in - such as an armed robbery - you are accessory to that murder. Even if the driver didn't intend to commit murder, the intent to criminal mischief was already there.

Now, if the law was that firearms need to be properly (as described in the law) stored when their owner was not home, and they were stolen and used in a homicide, then I can see legal accessory being leveled at the gun owner. But at the moment, intent matters a great deal in prosecution.

It rubs me the wrong way to have someone come home, find their house ransacked and property stolen, and then the cops come and slap HIM in handcuffs. Especially since they do a piss poor job of finding the actual burglars. Hell, they never arrested the guy who robbed me and they knew who he was and where he lived! But he stole my .44, and by your view I should have been the one to go to jail.

No, not at all. Part of my motive in wanting to see a criminal charge for stolen weapons is that is an excuse used by straw purchasers - "That was my gun but it was stolen several months ago." If they could go to jail over it, that avenue will largely dry up.

And the simple fact is gun owners ARE a law abiding lot...if you tell them they need to take stronger steps to secure their weapons they will. That's how it went down with the criminal charge (Class A or C misdemeanor, depending on circumstances) for a child gaining access to firearms. The legislation was spurred by a rash of accidental child/ child shootings. Those numbers plummeted after the law was passed. I can see the same thing happening with a heightened requirement to secure - fewer weapons ending up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and I think that's what we all want. I'd be willing to take a civil penalty instead, a fine let's say, if it was substantial. I think the outcome would be the same...law abiding owners obeying the law, straw purchasers being unwillng to do it that way anymore.

 

[Polaris]

No, not at all. Part of my motive in wanting to see a criminal charge for stolen weapons is that is an excuse used by straw purchasers - "That was my gun but it was stolen several months ago." If they could go to jail over it, that avenue will largely dry up.

And the simple fact is gun owners ARE a law abiding lot...if you tell them they need to take stronger steps to secure their weapons they will. That's how it went down with the criminal charge (Class A or C misdemeanor, depending on circumstances) for a child gaining access to firearms. The legislation was spurred by a rash of accidental child/ child shootings. Those numbers plummeted after the law was passed. I can see the same thing happening with a heightened requirement to secure - fewer weapons ending up in the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and I think that's what we all want. I'd be willing to take a civil penalty instead, a fine let's say, if it was substantial. I think the outcome would be the same...law abiding owners obeying the law, straw purchasers being unwillng to do it that way anymore.

Hey, I'm all for that. I'd have no problem with that law, or new laws on registration and computerized tracking of firearms, same as with cars. Most gun owners (NRA notwithstanding, but they're in the business of selling as many as possible, to whom it matters not) have no problem with actual gun control that works. Nobody likes being a scapegoat.

 

[Unabogie]

Hey, I'm all for that. I'd have no problem with that law, or new laws on registration and computerized tracking of firearms, same as with cars. Most gun owners (NRA notwithstanding, but they're in the business of selling as many as possible, to whom it matters not) have no problem with actual gun control that works. Nobody likes being a scapegoat.

It may not come off in my posts, but I've written many times in these threads that I don't necessarily want to ban all guns. If we instead managed to make guns much more restricted, I think that would go a long way towards not only solving the problem, but breaking the fever of the 2nd amendment absolutists who pollute the debate with fantasies of Red Dawn style heroics.

I'd personally like to see the following:

1) Background checks for every purchase, private or licensed dealers.
2) Licenses for gun users that work like driver's licenses. You take tests, can have your license suspended for infractions, etc. That's a good way to let people have guns but provide a way to take them away from people like the school bus hostage taker, who should not have had any guns.
3) If people must play with powerful guns, store those at ranges and never let them out. You can rent them or own your own, but they stay there. Have fun! Just don't keep them out in public.
4) Abolish open carry laws. I should never, ever have idiots walking around with guns in my neighborhood, like they did here in Sellwood.
5) This one will get panned, but abolish CCW permits. If you want to defend you home, keep your weapons there. I don't want people bringing their guns to places that I'm at. Keep them away from me and we'll be fine. Your right to carry is running into my right to be away from your weapons.

If we did those things, we'd be a much safer country and people could still own their guns.

 

[remirol]

That is you advocating summary execution and arguing against reasonable force. That attitude is why Americans shoot each other way more than anyone else. You can't just assume the worst and kill.

In a life or death situation, it will be you or him. If you are not prepared for it to be him, then you can rest assured that it will almost certainly be you.

I am surprised to read that after you first paragraph where you appear to advocate showing no risk judgement and shooting no matter what.

So why advocate use of deadly force in one paragraph and then advocate a far less deadly option of avoidance in the second two

There's some text hidden between the lines here.

If you can identify your target accurately, deadly force is the correct option in the situation described. But despite my having excellent eyesight, superb reaction time, and a host of other things that would seem to cater to my own competence with a firearm... there's no way for me to correctly 100% identify that target in the short period of time given to me, and the situation is not one where I will be able to afford to take extra time. Doing things like shouting "STOP!" or "DROP YOUR WEAPON!" are likely to get me killed if the guy has his gun out already.

So, while the correct decision from the perspective of "what action gives me the best chance to preserve my own life" is to shoot immediately without warning, that is also the decision that has a not-insignificant probability of killing an innocent or an unarmed burglar who could either identify themselves or would be deterred by shouted warnings. Shouting a warning, however, could get me killed.

Thus, the overall correct decision is not to escalate into a shootout in the first place, which means that -- especially given the risk scenarios I outlined previously regarding accidental or deliberate misuse -- I have no reason to keep a firearm in my home. As such there is zero chance of accidental or deliberate misuse of my own gun, and in the noticeably more rare chance that someone is stupid enough to accidentally break in while I'm home, I have the option of knocking my tall dresser over in front of my bedroom door (i'm upstairs, the front door is downstairs), calling 911, and shouting to the burglar that I have called 911 and the police are on their way. They may indeed get out with my TV, DVD player, Xbox, and some other token electronic crap which insurance will happily replace, but the odds that they get _me_ are near-zero, and the odds that *I* get an innocent victim are precisely zero.

Does this make more sense now?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are we talking criminal or civil liability here? Because the getaway driver is already a knowing accessory to the commission of a crime. There are already laws on the books that if a murder takes place during the commission of a crime you are taking part in - such as an armed robbery - you are accessory to that murder. Even if the driver didn't intend to commit murder, the intent to criminal mischief was already there.

Now, if the law was that firearms need to be properly (as described in the law) stored when their owner was not home, and they were stolen and used in a homicide, then I can see legal accessory being leveled at the gun owner. But at the moment, intent matters a great deal in prosecution.

It rubs me the wrong way to have someone come home, find their house ransacked and property stolen, and then the cops come and slap HIM in handcuffs. Especially since they do a piss poor job of finding the actual burglars. Hell, they never arrested the guy who robbed me and they knew who he was and where he lived! But he stole my .44, and by your view I should have been the one to go to jail.

I like this. We need to stop all these crazy laws about fences and such around backyard pools. A few trespassers will be shot signs and shooting s few neighborhood kids who tresspas and the problem solves itself.

 

[Polaris]

I like this. We need to stop all these crazy laws about fences and such around backyard pools. A few trespassers will be shot signs and shooting s few neighborhood kids who tresspas and the problem solves itself.

The hell?