Wrong door shootings.

[Craig4]

Count me as one who doesn't understand the glib attitude about killing. If you shoot and kill someone -- even a bad guy, even someone threatening another's or your life -- don't you realize you're going to feel morally and psychologically devastated for the rest of yours? If you're incapable of feeling that -- good god, what kind of person are you?

I mean, how is that not giving your trigger finger just a little pause?

It's the short flash-to-bang. If the gun is right there and your impulse is to "defend" yourself, there's no time between the initial event and your finger on the trigger. They don't have a little pause because there is no pause.

There's also training. Almost no one who isn't in law enforcement or the military does scenario-based training. The people who do, to meet customer demand, mostly turn it into a video game. Your average gunner own goes to the range and does draw and shoot. If that's their only training it's what they'll do when they feel threatened and have a firearm handy.

Ask the average gun owner why they don't incorporate dropping the weapon to the high search position and assessing into their range training (weapon pointed out but lowered to give you the view but still covering your target) and they look at you like you've got a glass dick growing out of your forehead.

Then there's the fact that people who are armed who have not been properly screened and trained use their weapon as a substitute for the adult social skills the rest of us use to deal with little confrontations.

I've been reading accounts of the use of swords in crimes from the 17th and 18th centuries in the records of the Old Baily (long story as to why). It's clear from the accounts that most deaths from swords were from people with a small amount of training, in the heat of the moment (alcohol or oddly, coffee was often involved) who reached for their weapon in situations that were never life threatening. It's pretty clear that if you have a weapon to hand and a small amount of training, you're going to respond to a perceived threat with lethal force and think about it later. You're not going to respond using basic social skills because, with the weapon, they aren't part of your toolkit.

 

[Nessie]

....

I've been reading accounts of the use of swords in crimes from the 17th and 18th centuries in the records of the Old Baily (long story as to why). It's clear from the accounts that most deaths from swords were from people with a small amount of training, in the heat of the moment (alcohol or oddly, coffee was often involved) who reached for their weapon in situations that were never life threatening. It's pretty clear that if you have a weapon to hand and a small amount of training, you're going to respond to a perceived threat with lethal force and think about it later. You're not going to respond using basic social skills because, with the weapon, they aren't part of your toolkit.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Even if there was universal strong gun control across the USA, it would still need government, courts, public and police support to enforce that control.

Europe has strong gun control and everyone agrees with it. The USA has patchy gun control, with many disagreeing with it. That perfect strong means the USA just has to live, and die, with regular mass, gang, domestic, commission of crime, accidental and wrong door shootings.

It's not the guns on their own. It's the "I'm a REALLY angry American and I'm gonna fix EVERY problem I can imagine by shooting it with a gun!" attitude. Then add a surplus of easily available guns, and whaddayaknow...

Can't fix that attitude, I guess. Been round since 1776. So the guns part is the next best thing. And that is never going to happen. So see highlighted above.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

It's the short flash-to-bang. If the gun is right there and your impulse is to "defend" yourself, there's no time between the initial event and your finger on the trigger. They don't have a little pause because there is no pause.

There's also training. Almost no one who isn't in law enforcement or the military does scenario-based training. The people who do, to meet customer demand, mostly turn it into a video game. Your average gunner own goes to the range and does draw and shoot. If that's their only training it's what they'll do when they feel threatened and have a firearm handy.

Ask the average gun owner why they don't incorporate dropping the weapon to the high search position and assessing into their range training (weapon pointed out but lowered to give you the view but still covering your target) and they look at you like you've got a glass dick growing out of your forehead.

Then there's the fact that people who are armed who have not been properly screened and trained use their weapon as a substitute for the adult social skills the rest of us use to deal with little confrontations.

I've been reading accounts of the use of swords in crimes from the 17th and 18th centuries in the records of the Old Baily (long story as to why). It's clear from the accounts that most deaths from swords were from people with a small amount of training, in the heat of the moment (alcohol or oddly, coffee was often involved) who reached for their weapon in situations that were never life threatening. It's pretty clear that if you have a weapon to hand and a small amount of training, you're going to respond to a perceived threat with lethal force and think about it later. You're not going to respond using basic social skills because, with the weapon, they aren't part of your toolkit.

I think those are good points and probably cover a lot of wrong door shootings. On reflection, I think we also have to ask how many of these shooters are psycho/sociopaths, under the influence, or otherwise ethically deficient for reasons beyond their control...

About 1.2% of U.S. adult men and 0.3% to 0.7% of U.S. adult women are considered to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits. Those numbers rise exponentially in prison, where 15% to 25% of inmates show these characteristics (Burton, B., & Saleh, F. M., Psychiatric Times, Vol. 37, No. 10, 2020).

Link

 

[Thermal]

I think those are good points and probably cover a lot of wrong door shootings. On reflection, I think we also have to ask how many of these shooters are psycho/sociopaths, under the influence, or otherwise ethically deficient for reasons beyond their control...

Link

And if one subscribes to the theory that psychopathy is a spectrum, 30% are on the right-hand end of it. How far you would need to be over to the right to justify killing in different circumstances can really swing that percentage needle aregatding how many of us are willing to kill.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Can you connect this to the topic of the thread - you know, Wrong Door Shootings - where the shot person was doing none of the actions you describe? Do you see any moral objection to such shootings? Do you think that the shooter in such cases is likely have no remorse, no following ptsd, and will just carry on with their life as if they never shot anyone?

Do they become right wing heroes like Rittenhouse?

 

[ponderingturtle]

God love ya, Ryan, we all wish that "should" was an ingrained "will" in human nature.

Many a killer, convicted murderer or decorated hero, will tell you how easy it is to take a life.

A few members of this forum could do it.

Major killology experts say it is great for your sexlife.

 

[arthwollipot]

God love ya, Ryan, we all wish that "should" was an ingrained "will" in human nature.

Many a killer, convicted murderer or decorated hero, will tell you how easy it is to take a life.

A few members of this forum could do it.

I've seen people on this forum say that they will kill someone who enters their house without permission, and that they will sleep well afterward.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've been reading accounts of the use of swords in crimes from the 17th and 18th centuries in the records of the Old Baily (long story as to why). It's clear from the accounts that most deaths from swords were from people with a small amount of training, in the heat of the moment (alcohol or oddly, coffee was often involved) who reached for their weapon in situations that were never life threatening. It's pretty clear that if you have a weapon to hand and a small amount of training, you're going to respond to a perceived threat with lethal force and think about it later. You're not going to respond using basic social skills because, with the weapon, they aren't part of your toolkit.

I've been saying this for years. And I've received some pretty vitriolic backlash for it. A gun, for an American 2nd Amendment Advocate, is a problem-solving tool. Problems are no longer problems if you've got a gun. And we've seen the kinds of things that people consider problematic. Wrong door barely scratches the surface.

 

[Nessie]

This is the type of person who will shoot. He is winding himself up, over having his guns seized by Biden, when that will never happen. But, in winding himself up, he is preparing himself to shoot at what he thinks are threats. He is creating a fantasy, where he, as they law abiding citizen, is protecting his rights. It is easy to see how that could spill into him using his gun at another fantasy threat.

https://twitter.com/Tarquin_Helmet/status/1650148576234749953

 

[Hercules56]

I've seen people on this forum say that they will kill someone who enters their house without permission, and that they will sleep well afterward.

Nobody sleeps well at night after killing another human being. But better they die than me or my family members.

 

[catsmate]

Nobody sleeps well at night after killing another human being. But better they die than me or my family members.

What about the people negligently killed due to alcohol/drugs, stupidity or media inspired paranoia.

 

[Hercules56]

What about the people negligently killed due to alcohol/drugs, stupidity or media inspired paranoia.

Best not to break into someone else's home and threaten them with a deadly weapon.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Best not to break into someone else's home and threaten them with a deadly weapon.

Dude you've already got the gold in missing the point, you can stop trying to break your own record.

That was his point and you know it. Stop being obtuse.

If you have a gun in your home it is more likely to hurt/kill someone in your family then it is to stop a burglar. That's one of those things that used to exists in discussion... pacts, no that's not it... macts... no... ah yeah facts.

That's what he meant. You know that's what he meant. Stop acting.

 

[Hercules56]

Dude you've already got the gold in missing the point, you can stop trying to break your own record.

That was his point and you know it. Stop being obtuse.

If you have a gun in your home it is more likely to hurt/kill someone in your family then it is to stop a burglar. That's one of those things that used to exists in discussion... pacts, no that's not it... macts... no... ah yeah facts.

That's what he meant. You know that's what he meant. Stop acting.

He responded to MY post, and MY post was about home intruders looking to commit a crime, armed with a deadly weapon.

 

[jimbob]

What about the people negligently killed due to alcohol/drugs, stupidity or media inspired paranoia.

Best not to break into someone else's home and threaten them with a deadly weapon.

Dude you've already got the gold in missing the point, you can stop trying to break your own record.

That was his point and you know it. Stop being obtuse.

If you have a gun in your home it is more likely to hurt/kill someone in your family then it is to stop a burglar. That's one of those things that used to exists in discussion... pacts, no that's not it... macts... no... ah yeah facts.

That's what he meant. You know that's what he meant. Stop acting.

It also applies to those unfortunate enough to get involved in an accident and knock on the wrong door, or simply getting lost and turning into the wrong drive. Or living in your own apartment and having a paranoid stranger mistake it for their own.

 

[Hercules56]

It also applies to those unfortunate enough to get involved in an accident and knock on the wrong door, or simply getting lost and turning into the wrong drive. Or living in your own apartment and having a paranoid stranger mistake it for their own.

None of those incidents involved someone illegally entering a dwelling while possessing a deadly weapon in a threatening manner.

 

[JoeMorgue]

None of those incidents involved someone illegally entering a dwelling while possessing a deadly weapon in a threatening manner.

....
..
.

What thread do you think you're in?

How can you be so consistently wrong about what the topic is?

The little girl who's basketball rolled into a yard wasn't threatening anyone with anything.

And know you're gonna go "Well I wasn't talking about that one" despite it being the topic of the thread and for some reason you have to always be wrong and then clarify instead of just starting at not being wrong in the first place like a normal person.

Why are you always talking about something that isn't the issue?

 

[Dave Rogers]

None of those incidents involved someone illegally entering a dwelling while possessing a deadly weapon in a threatening manner.

All of them involved an incorrect belief that someone was entering a dwelling while possessing a deadly weapon in a threatening manner, though.

Dave

 

[Hercules56]

All of them involved an incorrect belief that someone was entering a dwelling while possessing a deadly weapon in a threatening manner, though.

Dave

The girl in the car in NY entered no dwelling, she possessed no weapon. Shot dead.

The black kid who pulled the handle on the screen door had no weapon.

As I said, none of these qualify under Castle Doctrine OR Stand Your Ground. Only an ignorant moron would think otherwise. These two men are going to prison for a long time due to their ignorance of the law.