Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4001  
Old 02-28-2014, 10:15 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Of course, the most desirable outcome of a home invasion, and the one the police always aim for, is one where the intruders go away handcuffed but unharmed.

The next most desirable is one where the intruders get away, but empty-handed and without anyone getting hurt.

The next most desirable is, again, one where they get away with their loot, and without anyone getting hurt.

Any outcome where anyone, intruder or homeowner, gets hurt is less desirable than any of the above.

Agreed?
And, yes, I'm assuming it counts as "hurt" if anyone gets raped.

Homeowner or intruder.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 02-28-2014 at 10:16 PM.
  #4002  
Old 03-01-2014, 01:37 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Would that make a difference?
Of course. There is a difference between a girl scout ringing your doorbell and 4 drug addicts breaking into your home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Of course, the most desirable outcome of a home invasion, and the one the police always aim for, is one where the intruders go away handcuffed but unharmed.

The next most desirable is one where the intruders get away, but empty-handed and without anyone getting hurt.

The next most desirable is, again, one where they get away with their loot, and without anyone getting hurt.

Any outcome where anyone, intruder or homeowner, gets hurt is less desirable than any of the above.

Agreed?
Sure, and if I know for a fact that there is only one of them and I am otherwise safe from immediate harm, I rack my shotgun slide in the international signal for "get the fuck out of my house" and if that doesn't work and the intruder approaches me anyway, I'll try to aim for the gut.

If two guys bust into a house and come at the homeowner with a tire iron, I think the best outcome there is any one where the homeowner doesn't get hurt even if that means both of the intruders get shot and killed.

Agreed?

If three teenage boys break into a house where a single mom is watching over her kids, the best outcome is one where the mother and children don't get hurt even if it means the teenagers that broke into her home get shot and killed.

Agreed?

The story about the woman is the garage is not clear. It could have been the garage owner for all I know. But if she were in her own home, I think the best outcome would be one where the woman is not hurt, even if the intruder with the gun gets killed.

Agreed?

In fact the scenario where the home intruder gets hurt of killed is so much worse than the ones where they do that (IMO) dead intruders are almost irrelevant in the analysis compared to hurt or dead homeowners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
I heartily condemn the shooting, killing or menacing of girl scouts that are trying to sell you cookies.

I am confident that every gun nut on this board would agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
And then, proceed like the Quaker who caught a burglar in his kitchen.

[click-click]

"Friend, I mean thee no harm, but thee are standing where I mean to shoot!"
"Friend, I mean thee no harm, but THOU ART standing where I mean to shoot!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
And, yes, I'm assuming it counts as "hurt" if anyone gets raped.

Homeowner or intruder.
I agree that nothing justifies the rape of a home intruder. Its really hard to justify rape as a form of self defense.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 03-01-2014 at 01:38 PM.
  #4003  
Old 03-01-2014, 02:20 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Of course, the most desirable outcome of a home invasion, and the one the police always aim for, is one where the intruders go away handcuffed but unharmed.

The next most desirable is one where the intruders get away, but empty-handed and without anyone getting hurt.

The next most desirable is, again, one where they get away with their loot, and without anyone getting hurt.

Any outcome where anyone, intruder or homeowner, gets hurt is less desirable than any of the above.

Agreed?
So far, I'm with you. However:

Any outcome where the intruder gets hurt and the homeowner does not is more desirable than any outcome where the homeowner gets hurt and the intruder does not.

Agreed?

It's nearly impossible to tell whether the person who just smashed your deadbolt with a crowbar is going to use that crowbar on your face or your safe next without being psychic.

Agreed?
  #4004  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:09 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If two guys bust into a house and come at the homeowner with a tire iron, I think the best outcome there is any one where the homeowner doesn't get hurt even if that means both of the intruders get shot and killed.

Agreed?
The best outcome remains one where nobody gets hurt.
  #4005  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:11 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
"Friend, I mean thee no harm, but THOU ART standing where I mean to shoot!"
No, Quakers say "thee" but not "thou," for some reason.
  #4006  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:21 PM
oz0ne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: The ATL
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Of course, the most desirable outcome of a home invasion, and the one the police always aim for, is one where the intruders go away handcuffed but unharmed.

The next most desirable is one where the intruders get away, but empty-handed and without anyone getting hurt.

The next most desirable is, again, one where they get away with their loot, and without anyone getting hurt.

Any outcome where anyone, intruder or homeowner, gets hurt is less desirable than any of the above.

Agreed?

Umm, no. The first desirable outcome is that anyone forcibly inside my home leaves not breathing. I guess we could try and weave friendship bracelets together while we discuss BrianGlutton's idiocy. But alas, that person will die.
__________________
Misspelling brought to you by Tapatwat
  #4007  
Old 03-01-2014, 03:21 PM
Bullitt's Avatar
Bullitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: SF Giants Nation
Posts: 25,900
From post 3997
(http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...4#post17152124)


[Numbers mine]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Of course, the most desirable outcome of a home invasion, and the one the police always aim for, is one where [1] the intruders go away handcuffed but unharmed.

The next most desirable is one where [2] the intruders get away, but empty-handed and without anyone getting hurt.

The next most desirable is, again, one where [3] they get away with their loot, and without anyone getting hurt.

(Any outcome where [4] anyone, intruder or homeowner, gets hurt is less desirable than any of the above.

Agreed?


Disagree.

2 and 3 have no deterrent value at all. The intruders have no reason not to try again. How can that be desireable?

3 actually rewards the behavior.

Similarly, 4 is also not good because there is no deterrent value for the intruders.

I am not arguing for injury to the intruder. Death or serious injury to the intruder, when compared to theft or damage to homeowner possessions, is not a desirable outcome. However that presupposes that if the homeowner encounters the intruder during the break in, that the homeowner knows with certainty what the intruder's intentions are. Is it only to steal a few bucks? Or is it to rape my wife and kill me?

One cannot know that until after the fact, and even then intentions are difficult to determine; further, during the course of the intrusion things can go wrong and if that happens one doesn't know how the intruder would react, even if their intention was to only steal a couple of bucks.

Avoid confrontation as much as possible, I believe, but be prepared to defend my family and me if the confrontation is imminent? Definitely.

Hypothetical situation: If I'm upstairs, it's late at night and I hear a commotion downstairs, I first make sure my wife is upstairs with me (it's just the two of us here), then prepare to defend myself (baseball bat, knife, whatever), then call the cops and sit tight.
  #4008  
Old 03-01-2014, 07:26 PM
bengangmo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 9,692
Well...there are thousands of cases of assault with a deadly cookie....

And you never know - perhaps she was going to....uhmmmm...

I got nothing
  #4009  
Old 03-01-2014, 08:50 PM
PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,726
An 8 year old boy was shot by a brother who thought the gun was a BB gun (they were visiting an uncle):
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...ndgun_for.html
  #4010  
Old 03-01-2014, 11:03 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
So they won't wake the kids when they blow away the burglar:
Quote:
Lawmakers in the Iowa House of Representatives passed a bill Thursday to allow the sale and possession of gun silencers, according to Radio Iowa.
http://huff.to/1hw9taD
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey
  #4011  
Old 03-01-2014, 11:07 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
The best outcome remains one where nobody gets hurt.
No. The best outcome is one where no home invasion takes place. Any other course of action should work towards that goal.

In my magical hypothetical - there is universal possession of a free nefarious intruder detector. This device will also vaporize any who enter forcibly with nefarious intent. As such every single person knows that if they attempt to invade a home they will summarily die and because that would be foolish all home invasion is eliminated.

Until then I'll use a gun.

And on weighing the value of the intruder's safety vs. other things that have been mentioned - sure it'd be nice if no one got hurt. But I value the the cost of the ammo I'll expend greater than the safety of a home intruder. Other things that rank higher than the safety of a home intruder include but are not limited to the 30 minutes of lost sleep because I potentially had to get out of bed, any cleaning supplies necessary to clean up the mess (spatter you know) the newtons of energy that I have to expend dialing the police since that's probably prudent.
  #4012  
Old 03-02-2014, 08:55 AM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
In my magical hypothetical - there is universal possession of a free nefarious intruder detector. This device will also vaporize any who enter forcibly with nefarious intent. As such every single person knows that if they attempt to invade a home they will summarily die and because that would be foolish all home invasion is eliminated.
Well... every single person except young children, people with dementia or mental disability, or those who simply forget for a moment about the existence of this human bug-zapper. But society is better off rid of these burdens anyway, and in the meantime we're doing a pretty good job culling them the old-fashioned way—lock and load, and assume that everyone has nefarious intent.
  #4013  
Old 03-02-2014, 09:27 AM
Una Persson's Avatar
Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
So they won't wake the kids when they blow away the burglar: http://huff.to/1hw9taD
It's kind of a deceptive by omssion article, wouldn't you agree? All it does is allow citizens of the state who comply with the already stringent NFA regulations to own silencers. I believe the number of crimes committed with NFA-licensed silencers over the 80+ years since the NFA was passed is around "0", but I confess that lack of finding data doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I noted that an incredibly anti-gun Salon article in late 2012 couldn't find a single murder committed with an NFA-licensed silencer. I suppose the legal eagles here can post the stats on the number of NFA-licensed silencers involved in murders?

The silencer issue is one largely driven by two things in my opinion - a driving want for something which isn't really all that effective, and a fear of something which isn't really all that effective. Silencers only reduce a weapon report by 20 dB at best (Paulson) and when attached to a handgun reduce its concealability tremendously.*

I considered getting one briefly for one of my target handguns, but realized quickly that they're not all that great and kind of a pain in the ass. There is one maker who sells a .22 rifle with an integral silenced barrel (so the entire weapon because an NFA weapon) but...why the hell do you silence a .22 in the first place? The dealer selling it said "so you can shoot squirrels in your backyard without anyone getting upset," and I said "but it's illegal to shoot animals in the city no matter what you do to silence the weapon, and why are you killing the poor squirrels in the first place?" and he just blinked and gave me that look...again, for a law-abiding citizen, the utility appears pretty useless. Add to this the fact that they wear out, and need either repair of the baffle material, or replacement...

Then we have the fact that bullets which travel though a silencer can typically be identified by ballistics (see People v. Ewell (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)), which means that once you're in the NFA registry you become a suspect any time a murder is committed with an (ostensibly) illegally silenced weapon.

This is going to be another case where BOTH the NRA and anti-gun people waste their time and effort on something which doesn't really impact public safety nor weapons utility to any significant degree in order to score a "moral" victory.


Paulson, Adam C. 1996. Silencers: History and Performance, volume 1. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.

Last edited by Una Persson; 03-02-2014 at 09:28 AM.
  #4014  
Old 03-02-2014, 03:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
The best outcome remains one where nobody gets hurt.
There is no equivalence between intruder getting hurt and the homeowner getting hurt. IOW, the safety of the home owner is SO much more important than the safety of the intruder that I would not even engage in minimal risk to ensure the safety of the intruder. The difference between noone gets hurt and the homeowner doesn't get hurt and the intruder dies is marginal compared to any scenario where the homeowner doesn't get thurt and the homeowner gets hurt. That's not to say that avoiding confrontation might sometimes be the safest course of action, but if I was ever in doubt, I think the best reaction would be to shoot for center mass and hope the intruder doesn't die.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
So they won't wake the kids when they blow away the burglar: http://huff.to/1hw9taD
They will still be subject to the laws we have for registering machine guns.

As an aside, I have never seen a "silencer" actually silence a gun, they just suppress the sound. The thwip thwip sound you see on James Bond movies is pretty hard to achieve. I have fired a suppressed 22 lr and it is still about as loud as a clap. I have fired suppressed rifles and frankly I would still use earplugs. I think we should deregulate all suppressors, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns especially on most high caliber rifles. I have a shotgun that has a shorter overall length than most short barrel shotguns and an Israeli rifle that is shorter than most short barrel rifles. If you want concealability, you just get a handgun, or if you are a criminal, you just saw off the barrel of your rifle or shotgun and polish the crown as smooth as you can. I wouldn't have such a problem with the NFA is it didn't take 6 months to get something registered (it might even be longer now).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Well... every single person except young children, people with dementia or mental disability, or those who simply forget for a moment about the existence of this human bug-zapper. But society is better off rid of these burdens anyway, and in the meantime we're doing a pretty good job culling them the old-fashioned way—lock and load, and assume that everyone has nefarious intent.
Did you miss the part where the machine can read your mind? I don't know how a mentally disabled person with nefarious intentions is any better than a sane person with nefarious intentions.
  #4015  
Old 03-05-2014, 11:23 AM
DrumBum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Luanda, Angola
Posts: 1,282
An Ohio 10 year old boy was suspended for making his finger like a gun and putting it to the head of a classmate. This seems to me to be equal parts stupid and disturbing. The school overreacted just a bit even though they had warned the kids about doing things like this, but it is disturbing that the 10 year old pretended to hold a gun to the head of classmate.

Maybe the kids are watching too much TV or perhaps this is normal schoolyard games, but this is kind of creepy to me.
  #4016  
Old 03-05-2014, 03:58 PM
BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
NRA campaigns against elephant-poaching ban.

Quote:
The NRA is disturbed about provisions of the ban related to domestic resale of items including ivory. “We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document,” the White House said in February.

While many people would make the mistake of assuming that this was about helping save endangered elephants, the NRA understands what the real motivation is. “This is another attempt by this anti-gun Administration to ban firearms based on cosmetics and would render many collections/firearms valueless,” the NRA said in its call to arms. “Any firearm, firearm accessory, or knife that contains ivory, no matter how big or small, would not be able to be sold in the United States, unless it is more than 100 years old. This means if your shotgun has an ivory bead or inlay, your revolver or pistol has ivory grips, your knife has an ivory handle, or if your firearm accessories, such as cleaning tools that contain any ivory, the item would be illegal to sell."
Seriously, guys?
  #4017  
Old 03-05-2014, 05:26 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 32,776
Mmmmmm. Elephant. Gristle?
  #4018  
Old 03-06-2014, 02:47 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrumBum View Post
An Ohio 10 year old boy was suspended for making his finger like a gun and putting it to the head of a classmate. This seems to me to be equal parts stupid and disturbing. The school overreacted just a bit even though they had warned the kids about doing things like this, but it is disturbing that the 10 year old pretended to hold a gun to the head of classmate.

Maybe the kids are watching too much TV or perhaps this is normal schoolyard games, but this is kind of creepy to me.
This kind of beyond-zero-tolerance stuff is the anti-gun equivalent of the Stand Your Ground law for pro-gun types--the ONLY thing it does is galvanize the other side and make the moderates think your team is crazy.

...and yes, I am fully in agreement that SYG's bad OUTCOMES are much, much worse.

Last edited by Zeriel; 03-06-2014 at 02:49 PM.
  #4019  
Old 03-06-2014, 02:59 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Did you miss the part where the machine can read your mind? I don't know how a mentally disabled person with nefarious intentions is any better than a sane person with nefarious intentions.
I'd be much more inclined to not want to shoot an insane person. Then again, I don't think someone who's mentally disabled can HAVE (morally speaking) "nefarious" intentions--as opposed to disordered intentions that happen to be harmful.

In any case, the magic intent-sensing machine is an idiotic argument, because it gets away from what *I* personally think is the elephant in the room regarding the Castle Doctrine and home-defense scenarios.

Namely: how the hell do I, as a gun-owning citizen, balance the risk of not shooting a burglar/murderer/rapist vs. the risk of shooting, say, my kid's boyfriend or someone who's just honestly mistaken about which door he's banging on? This is why I cannot take the position as espoused by you that the safety of the homeowner is effectively infinitely more valuable than the safety of the home "intruder"--the set of possible reasons that an unknown-to-me-at-3am person might be in my home encompasses a panoply of minor crimes and errors (both theirs and mine) that do not merit death. Hell, suppose my college-age kid comes home unexpectedly after I go to bed and lets herself in, and I wake up to the door closing and the creak on the stairs. My course of action MUST encompass an assessment of the situation that includes the possibility of an unexpected friendly person in the house--and that inherently increases my risk of being harmed by an actual malicious home intruder by reducing my reaction time.

Last edited by Zeriel; 03-06-2014 at 03:00 PM.
  #4020  
Old 03-06-2014, 03:14 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrumBum View Post
An Ohio 10 year old boy was suspended for making his finger like a gun and putting it to the head of a classmate. This seems to me to be equal parts stupid and disturbing. The school overreacted just a bit even though they had warned the kids about doing things like this, but it is disturbing that the 10 year old pretended to hold a gun to the head of classmate.

Maybe the kids are watching too much TV or perhaps this is normal schoolyard games, but this is kind of creepy to me.
It's worse than that. He made a "thip" noise because it was equipped with a finger silencer, and another child was overheard referring to "dum-dums."
  #4021  
Old 03-07-2014, 04:05 AM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,843
News from the smart-guns front:

California store’s sale of smart guns prompts furious backlash, Washington Post, March 6, 2014 (WaPo has this annoying habit of not showing the dates of their on-line articles; you have to dig to find the date), by Michael S. Rosenwald:
Quote:
The California gun store that put the nation’s first smart gun on sale is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.
The Oak Tree Gun Club became the first to put a smart gun on sale, then backed away and tried its best to pretend it never happened, in the face of massive and vitriolic backlash from the gun right folks. They are afraid that, next thing we know, there will be mandates to use these smart guns.

New Jersey, in fact, has a law mandating smart guns within three years of it first going on sale anywhere in the United States. So the gun rights folks are particularly concerned that it's going to happen there.
  #4022  
Old 03-07-2014, 10:04 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Namely: how the hell do I, as a gun-owning citizen, balance the risk of not shooting a burglar/murderer/rapist vs. the risk of shooting, say, my kid's boyfriend or someone who's just honestly mistaken about which door he's banging on? This is why I cannot take the position as espoused by you that the safety of the homeowner is effectively infinitely more valuable than the safety of the home "intruder"--the set of possible reasons that an unknown-to-me-at-3am person might be in my home encompasses a panoply of minor crimes and errors (both theirs and mine) that do not merit death. Hell, suppose my college-age kid comes home unexpectedly after I go to bed and lets herself in, and I wake up to the door closing and the creak on the stairs. My course of action MUST encompass an assessment of the situation that includes the possibility of an unexpected friendly person in the house--and that inherently increases my risk of being harmed by an actual malicious home intruder by reducing my reaction time.
I don't recall saying that the homeowner's safety is INFINITELY more valuable, can you quote where I say that? I said its not comparable, and the homeowner's safety is SO much more important that the safety of the home intruder.

This was in response to posts that said that we should take on all sorts of risks to try and mitigate the risk to the invader. I don't think the home invader's life and safety is anywhere near as important as the homeowner's life and safety.

Where do you get the impression that I would shoot blind into the darkness? Where is this caricature coming from, it borders on straw man? I thought I was pretty clear throughout this thread that I would attempt to identify the intruder first. If that was not clear, let me be clear. I would attempt to identify the intruder before I shot anyone.
  #4023  
Old 03-07-2014, 10:45 AM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I would attempt to identify the intruder before I shot anyone.
What if you make a mistake?
  #4024  
Old 03-07-2014, 12:48 PM
Death of Rats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A Humid Oven
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't recall saying that the homeowner's safety is INFINITELY more valuable, can you quote where I say that? I said its not comparable, and the homeowner's safety is SO much more important that the safety of the home intruder.

This was in response to posts that said that we should take on all sorts of risks to try and mitigate the risk to the invader. I don't think the home invader's life and safety is anywhere near as important as the homeowner's life and safety.

Where do you get the impression that I would shoot blind into the darkness? Where is this caricature coming from, it borders on straw man? I thought I was pretty clear throughout this thread that I would attempt to identify the intruder first. If that was not clear, let me be clear. I would attempt to identify the intruder before I shot anyone.

I am guessing that the impression is coming from the fact that most encounters with home invaders comes at night, in the dark and that in a situation like that you are not going to have ample lighting and only a split second to make a "shoot or no" decision. I am guessing that there is an impression that you are less likely to make a rational, well thought out decision when you encounter a dark figure in your house during a time when you are amped up from fear and uncertainty and insecure enough to have grabbed your gun in the first place, than you think sitting calm and rationally at your computer. Tha is how most of those accidental shootings happen. We have no reason to assume you will fair any better.
  #4025  
Old 03-07-2014, 02:31 PM
CannyDan's Avatar
CannyDan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,764
I think that "most of those accidental shootings happen" when the resident/shooter displays really bad judgment. Bad judgment is a problem, but it does not mean that good judgment cannot exist. For instance, I think we can all agree that shooting at shadows or through doors/walls is really bad judgment. As was said above, the devil is in the details of discerning the intruder's intent.

If somebody breaks down my door or smashes my window and comes inside, I'll take that as a pretty strong indication that I (me and mine) will be in danger. I'll still try to see if I can recognize the person, assuming it's just one, in case it turns out to be my drunken neighbor thinking he's messing with his wife. If it is more than one though, I'll be quite confident that two people aren't making the same mistake simultaneously, and conclude nefarious intent. Either way, once he or they are inside and begin gathering my artworks or kicking my dog, I'd feel justified in shooting them.

On the other hand, if I wake up to pee and see someone, or the shadow of someone, lurking in my living room or on the stairs (or whatever) I am not going to just blast away. It might indeed be some relative or friend entering with no harmful intent at all. Or it might be a really dangerous intruder. But I know my own house, and an intruder doesn't. I know where the light switches are. I can retreat to someplace else in the house, call 911, and put one hand on my pistol and the other on a light switch. If he/she comes into the room I'll turn on the lights. That should decide matters. I'll either recognize the intruder or not. He/she will either bolt for the exit, or make some threatening move toward me. If the later, I'll be prepared to shoot. If the former, I'll let him go.

Can I really be this composed, in the middle of the night, with an intruder in my house? I hope so. Might I make a mistake? Certainly. How would I feel if that happened? Horrible, for the rest of my life.

I've thought about these scenarios a few times, over the decades. I've tried to understand how a quite liberal old hippie happens to like guns and shooting sports. And, having guns in the house already, I've done some self examination regarding situations like those above. But honestly, I'm not paranoid, not fearful at all. I live in a seemingly safe residential community, and all my guns are presently under lock and key. I don't have a "bedside gun". And I know full well that many home-invasions happen much too swiftly for the victims to react even if a gun was handy. So, while I've given it some thought, it isn't an important factor in the way I live my life.
  #4026  
Old 03-07-2014, 07:45 PM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Where do you get the impression that I would shoot blind into the darkness? Where is this caricature coming from, it borders on straw man?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
the safety of the home owner is SO much more important than the safety of the intruder that I would not even engage in minimal risk to ensure the safety of the intruder
Bolding mine.

That sure SOUNDS like shooting prior to positive identification to me. Turning on a light, calling out, keeping the safety on until you have a positive ID -- all of those things involve much more than "minimal risk" to yourself.
  #4027  
Old 03-07-2014, 08:42 PM
Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 56,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Bolding mine.

That sure SOUNDS like shooting prior to positive identification to me. Turning on a light, calling out, keeping the safety on until you have a positive ID -- all of those things involve much more than "minimal risk" to yourself.
But turning on a light, calling out, and keeping the safety engaged are all steps t ensure the safety of the home residents. He didn't say he wouldn't engage in minimal risk towards that goal, did he?

You seem to have adopted the most absurd interpretation of his words possible.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #4028  
Old 03-07-2014, 08:48 PM
Lobohan's Avatar
Lobohan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leffan's Ire
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You seem to have adopted the most absurd interpretation of his words possible.
Jealous?
  #4029  
Old 03-09-2014, 10:40 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
What if you make a mistake?
I'd feel almost as bad as I would feel if I made the mistake the other way and let an intruder overpower me and kill my family. Obviously if the guy gets on the floor and puts his hands behind his head or something, I wouldn't feel the need to shoot him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Death of Rats View Post
I am guessing that the impression is coming from the fact that most encounters with home invaders comes at night, in the dark and that in a situation like that you are not going to have ample lighting and only a split second to make a "shoot or no" decision. I am guessing that there is an impression that you are less likely to make a rational, well thought out decision when you encounter a dark figure in your house during a time when you are amped up from fear and uncertainty and insecure enough to have grabbed your gun in the first place, than you think sitting calm and rationally at your computer. Tha is how most of those accidental shootings happen. We have no reason to assume you will fair any better.
If there is an unidentified intruder in my house in the middle of the night, what would you do? I've already said I would rack my shotgun in the international signal for "get the fuck out of my house" and I would attempt to identify the intruder, what more would YOU do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CannyDan View Post
I think that "most of those accidental shootings happen" when the resident/shooter displays really bad judgment. Bad judgment is a problem, but it does not mean that good judgment cannot exist. For instance, I think we can all agree that shooting at shadows or through doors/walls is really bad judgment. As was said above, the devil is in the details of discerning the intruder's intent.

If somebody breaks down my door or smashes my window and comes inside, I'll take that as a pretty strong indication that I (me and mine) will be in danger. I'll still try to see if I can recognize the person, assuming it's just one, in case it turns out to be my drunken neighbor thinking he's messing with his wife. If it is more than one though, I'll be quite confident that two people aren't making the same mistake simultaneously, and conclude nefarious intent. Either way, once he or they are inside and begin gathering my artworks or kicking my dog, I'd feel justified in shooting them.

On the other hand, if I wake up to pee and see someone, or the shadow of someone, lurking in my living room or on the stairs (or whatever) I am not going to just blast away. It might indeed be some relative or friend entering with no harmful intent at all. Or it might be a really dangerous intruder. But I know my own house, and an intruder doesn't. I know where the light switches are. I can retreat to someplace else in the house, call 911, and put one hand on my pistol and the other on a light switch. If he/she comes into the room I'll turn on the lights. That should decide matters. I'll either recognize the intruder or not. He/she will either bolt for the exit, or make some threatening move toward me. If the later, I'll be prepared to shoot. If the former, I'll let him go.

Can I really be this composed, in the middle of the night, with an intruder in my house? I hope so. Might I make a mistake? Certainly. How would I feel if that happened? Horrible, for the rest of my life.

I've thought about these scenarios a few times, over the decades. I've tried to understand how a quite liberal old hippie happens to like guns and shooting sports. And, having guns in the house already, I've done some self examination regarding situations like those above. But honestly, I'm not paranoid, not fearful at all. I live in a seemingly safe residential community, and all my guns are presently under lock and key. I don't have a "bedside gun". And I know full well that many home-invasions happen much too swiftly for the victims to react even if a gun was handy. So, while I've given it some thought, it isn't an important factor in the way I live my life.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Bolding mine.

That sure SOUNDS like shooting prior to positive identification to me. Turning on a light, calling out, keeping the safety on until you have a positive ID -- all of those things involve much more than "minimal risk" to yourself.
Then you're hearing it wrong.
  #4030  
Old 03-09-2014, 01:18 PM
Fear Itself is offline
Cecil's Inner Circle
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I'd feel almost as bad as I would feel if I made the mistake the other way and let an intruder overpower me and kill my family.
Either way, someone in your family is dead.
__________________
“If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone.” ~~Jack Handey
  #4031  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:16 AM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
You seem to have adopted the most absurd interpretation of his words possible.
Turnabout being fair play, and all that.
  #4032  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:47 PM
Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,568
Pennsylvania State Trooper blows pregnant wife's brains out with handgun.

So, it's a real toughie. Does the N.R.A. pay for his defense? Wasting your wife whilst polishing up your 2nd Amendment Rights is a no-brainer ( heh ), but..... well..... the fetus died and in SOME states, that makes him guilty of two murders. What happens when a gun nut kills an unborn child? Is he to be defended or derided?

Gosh. What a pickle !
  #4033  
Old 03-10-2014, 04:10 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
Either way, someone in your family is dead.
Or I could try not to kill a member of my family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartooniverse View Post
Pennsylvania State Trooper blows pregnant wife's brains out with handgun.

So, it's a real toughie. Does the N.R.A. pay for his defense? Wasting your wife whilst polishing up your 2nd Amendment Rights is a no-brainer ( heh ), but..... well..... the fetus died and in SOME states, that makes him guilty of two murders. What happens when a gun nut kills an unborn child? Is he to be defended or derided?

Gosh. What a pickle !
So are you saying we should take away guns from our cops too?

And BTW, when does the NRA pay for the defense of people who are guilty of negligent homicide?
  #4034  
Old 03-10-2014, 04:11 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
Turnabout being fair play, and all that.
In what way is that turnabout?
  #4035  
Old 03-10-2014, 08:33 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartooniverse View Post
Pennsylvania State Trooper blows pregnant wife's brains out with handgun.

So, it's a real toughie. Does the N.R.A. pay for his defense? Wasting your wife whilst polishing up your 2nd Amendment Rights is a no-brainer ( heh ), but..... well..... the fetus died and in SOME states, that makes him guilty of two murders. What happens when a gun nut kills an unborn child? Is he to be defended or derided?

Gosh. What a pickle !
Pretty disingenuous blaming the N.R.A., the 2nd Amendment and "gun nuts" for this when it was a STATE TROOPER- you know, the trained experts who are so much more qualified to possess guns then those drooling troglodytes we call "the public".
  #4036  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:03 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28963611&nid=148

For God's sake people, whether you like guns or not, educate your kids about how to be safe with guns at least as much as you would want them to be educated about how to be safe with sex. It might not make a difference but then again it might.
  #4037  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:55 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Pretty disingenuous blaming the N.R.A., the 2nd Amendment and "gun nuts" for this when it was a STATE TROOPER- you know, the trained experts who are so much more qualified to possess guns then those drooling troglodytes we call "the public".
The point you're so strenuously missing is that there is no one who you can confidently say can be trusted not to cause a needless death with a gun. No one.

So kindly stop pretending, drop the "law-abiding citizen" crap and the "trained professional" crap and face reality like a sane, responsible adult. Clear?
  #4038  
Old 03-10-2014, 10:08 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The point you're so strenuously missing is that there is no one who you can confidently say can be trusted not to cause a needless death with a gun. No one.

So kindly stop pretending, drop the "law-abiding citizen" crap and the "trained professional" crap and face reality like a sane, responsible adult. Clear?
No, not clear at all. Are you really suggesting disarming the police?
  #4039  
Old 03-11-2014, 09:59 AM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
No, not clear at all. Are you really suggesting disarming the police?
We should definitely disarm the one that shot his pregnant wife in the head while cleaning his gun.
  #4040  
Old 03-11-2014, 10:01 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
No, not clear at all. Are you really suggesting disarming the police?
He doesn't really have a point other than "I'm afeared of guns and I wish they didn't exist so I will start by taking yours"
  #4041  
Old 03-12-2014, 03:50 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
No, not clear at all. Are you really suggesting disarming the police?
Dear, dear binary thinker ... you'll never understand what an excluded middle is, will you?
  #4042  
Old 03-12-2014, 05:15 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Dear, dear binary thinker ... you'll never understand what an excluded middle is, will you?
Snarkiness aside, I gather you mean something like this: since even cops, who carry guns as a necessary evil still screw up with them, how much less should non-cops be trusted with them. Well sorry, but I take the opposite lesson away from the incident: that cops don't deserve to have a special privilege of arms denied the rest of the public.
  #4043  
Old 03-12-2014, 05:17 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,657
CT Cop Suspended For Threatening Remarks on Facebook:
http://madworldnews.com/cop-suspende...ent-gun-owner/
Quote:
to bang down your door and come for your gun
  #4044  
Old 03-13-2014, 10:22 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Dear, dear binary thinker ... you'll never understand what an excluded middle is, will you?
What is this excluded middle? Give the cops tasers or make them leave their guns at work?
  #4045  
Old 03-13-2014, 11:13 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
You're doing a mighty fine job of showing you're a responsible adult who can be trusted with a weapon, DA, mighty fine indeed.

  #4046  
Old 03-13-2014, 11:16 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
Snarkiness aside, I gather you mean something like this: since even cops, who carry guns as a necessary evil still screw up with them, how much less should non-cops be trusted with them.
At heart, yes. It follows that the "law-abiding citizen" and "good guy with a gun" memes are not connected with reality, however much DA and others may cherish them.

Quote:
Well sorry, but I take the opposite lesson away from the incident: that cops don't deserve to have a special privilege of arms denied the rest of the public.
Then you want to have cops disarmed along with everyone else, is that what you're saying? Granted, that does work pretty well in a number of other countries, but it's a surprise coming from you.
  #4047  
Old 03-13-2014, 02:08 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
You're doing a mighty fine job of showing you're a responsible adult who can be trusted with a weapon, DA, mighty fine indeed.

Well, its a good thing I don't have to show anyone anything. You have to show me why I CAN'T be trusted with a weapon. The burden of proof lies on you because you're the one that wants to limit my rights. its not aninsurmountable burden unless of course you want to eliminate the right altogether (as you do) in which case, you need 2/3rds of each house of congress and 3/4ths of the states on your side. And I doubt you could get 1/2 of both houses of either house of congress or even half of the states.

So far all your side has managed to do is make the AR-15 a mainstream gun by threatening to take it away. Increase gun sales so much that gun nerds are complaining about price gouging. Increase ammo sales so much that we are still suffering from an ammo shortage (extreme shortage in the case of 22lr). NRA membership went up 250,000 in one month after your side started bashing gun owners and threatening to ban guns. It doubled in NY State after the passage of the NY law. Obama had one or two sentences about guns in his state of the union and he hasn't mentioned it since. So... good job.

The gun issue is dead for now. Gun regulations are losing in the courts and it is a political loser. There are no swing state (or swing district) candidates that are going to run on tighter gun control. I fully expect to see a "leaked" picture of Hillary Clinton duck hunting in Pennsylvania sometime before the presidential season heats up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
At heart, yes. It follows that the "law-abiding citizen" and "good guy with a gun" memes are not connected with reality, however much DA and others may cherish them.
You have no regard for the facts, do you? Thats OK, noone listens to you anyway. In fact it appears that noone that matters even listens to your side of the argument anymore.

Quote:
Then you want to have cops disarmed along with everyone else, is that what you're saying? Granted, that does work pretty well in a number of other countries, but it's a surprise coming from you.
I think he is saying that everyone should have the same right to keep and bear arms as cops do.
  #4048  
Old 03-14-2014, 12:28 AM
Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: City of Brotherly Love
Posts: 7,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
At heart, yes. It follows that the "law-abiding citizen" and "good guy with a gun" memes are not connected with reality, however much DA and others may cherish them.

Then you want to have cops disarmed along with everyone else, is that what you're saying? Granted, that does work pretty well in a number of other countries, but it's a surprise coming from you.
I think the part that you're missing here is that the average cop trains with his firearm much, much less than is commonly believed. Personally, as a gun advocate, I WISH cops and other gun owners trained as hard as I do when I am of a mood to so much as own a pistol. There have been years I've shot more practice rounds in a weekend than the average city cop does in a year (which, last I did a google around, seemed to be in the range of 30-300 rounds), and probably under significantly more demanding conditions (since there's not a lot of departments who claim their yearly training standards involve anything other than fixed-target accuracy).

Then again, the middle ground I believe in is the one where there is required training/licensing and significantly more liability for accidental and negligent idiocy with guns.

Of course, this means you think I'm Ted Nugent and DA thinks I'm to the left of Sarah Brady. Which I figure is a pretty good endorsement for my position.

Last edited by Zeriel; 03-14-2014 at 12:29 AM.
  #4049  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:05 AM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Where do you get the impression that I would shoot blind into the darkness? Where is this caricature coming from, it borders on straw man? I thought I was pretty clear throughout this thread that I would attempt to identify the intruder first. If that was not clear, let me be clear. I would attempt to identify the intruder before I shot anyone.
With my security alarm system, I don't need to worry about trying to identify someone trying to enter the house at night.

Oddly enough, neither do I need to worry about my security alarm system accidentally killing someone.
  #4050  
Old 03-14-2014, 09:05 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeriel View Post
I think the part that you're missing here is that the average cop trains with his firearm much, much less than is commonly believed.
Not missing that at all, in fact it supports the point about no one being absolutely trustworthy with a firearm. Thanks for the supporting detail.

Quote:
Then again, the middle ground I believe in is the one where there is required training/licensing and significantly more liability for accidental and negligent idiocy with guns.
The training/licensing stuff does nothing to combat basic stupidity or negligence or machismo or suicidal depression or almost any other cause of the gun death rate we suffer from. Liability after the fact, your other prescription, does nothing to help the dead or maimed person.

Quote:
Of course, this means you think I'm Ted Nugent and DA thinks I'm to the left of Sarah Brady. Which I figure is a pretty good endorsement for my position.
Don't flatter yourself. You're looking for rationalizations, not solutions, too.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017