Let’s start with first things first, shall we? Before offering an opinion on the shooting, I’d want to know if it was absolutely necessary. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that was part of being a responsible gun owner. Did the shooter warn the guy that he had a gun, or did he just blast away without warning? Maybe the intruder was having a bad reaction to medication. Maybe the shooter is a psycho who was itching for a chance to kill someone. We don’t know because the story doesn’t give any details about them, but that doesn’t matter to Bone. Someone broke into into a house so he deserved to be killed, end of story, and Bone trumpets it as positive gun news. Why aren’t you, as a supposed responsible gun owner, calling him out on it?
How would you express the same thoughts? That was my question, which you did not answer.
That is the worse case, and the guy in his house would be dead if he didn’t shoot the intruder.
In other news, CCSO: Burglary suspect dead, another arrested after teen opens fire
2 vs 1 thirteen year old and the teen prevailed.
Bone expressed a casual attitude toward killing a human being, not me. How I would express it is irrelevant to his attitude. Sorry that wasn’t clear. I’ll try to be clearer next time, if there is a next time.
Either I’m not parsing that correctly or you got the roles reversed.
Anyway, since you’re willing to discuss hypotheticals, how about the one where the shooter (the guy in the house) just starts firing away without first warning the intruder that he has a gun and giving him a chance to flee (assuming there’s time to give a warning). Would that be “positive” use of a gun?
No, you are wrong - I did not express a casual attitude towards killing a human being. You are ascribing motivation without basis to do so - your claim unfounded. I do applaud your effort towards continuous personal improvement.
You are wrong. Absolute necessity is not the standard for responsible gun ownership or firearm use in self defense. The standard is that laws must be followed and there must be a reasonable fear of great bodily harm and in some cases, preventing other violent felonies. A person who encounters an unauthorized person who forcibly enters their residence is presumed to be in fear of great bodily harm. Did you know that?
This is irrelevant to the standard of responsible gun ownership.
Maybe the intruder really liked long walks on the beach. Maybe the intruder was one chapter away from writing the next great American novel. Maybe the intruder was actually a Jedi and was about to reveal that JJ Abrams and George Lucas were his disciples intent on spreading the word of Yoda! You are right that we don’t know if the intruder really loved bacon because the story doesn’t address these and many other points. And while each of these irrelevancies may be interesting on their own, at the point the person is an intruder all of those things, like whether or not a warning was given, are irrelevant. The fact that the person is an intruder becomes the most important issue at that moment in time.
You’re incorrect about what part of the story is positive. Let me clarify - the part where the innocent victims was able to defend themselves is the positive news. I don’t know if the person deserved to be killed - that’s a value judgment. Regardless, being killed is a potential logical consequence of their actions.
I can’t speak for Scumpup, but I suspect it’s because you’ve made fundamental mistakes in your interpretations leading you to draw incorrect conclusions.
In other news, Intruder killed by homeowner at Lake Carolina residence
I wonder what the word “retrieve” in this context is - I assume the firearm was on his person before he left his house.
Is that Police parlance to mean “He did not have it in his hand at the beginning”?
No, I didn’t know that, but I’m talking about the immorality of killing someone if it’s unnecessary, regardless of what your law says. A law doesn’t make it moral. Civilized society tends to have a little more regard for life than that. That’s kind of what civilization is all about.
Since you brought up the law, some of these stories mention that the shooter is under investigation to determine if he acted legally, yet you still present them as positive gun news without knowing the outcome. Your eagerness to validate the use of guns against other people seems to go beyond legal self-defence.
There is almost always, if not always, an investigation to determine if the shooter acted legally. This is known as ‘due diligence’.
That’s because some on this board think that as soon as someone enters your house without your consent, they deserve to be killed.
“Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
That’s interesting and all, but the law is not concerned with your individual morality. Civilized society in the US has created a system of laws. In zero states in the union is a person required to give a warning if they have a reasonable fear of great bodily injury - and the US is a civilized society.
If you have information about any incident that would indicate illegal activity, feel free to post it. If it is shown that someone acted improperly I would have no problem condemning bad behavior, though as you note, the law isn’t the same as morality. Illegal acts can be moral in some circumstances, and vice versa.
In other news, Elderly Miami woman shoots at attempted burglars
.25 caliber would not be my first choice in self defense weapons.
This is ‘positive’ gun news?? Howzat?
Tru dat, but you’re the one who has titled this thread ‘Positive Gun News.’
‘Positive’ is a value judgment, not a legal one. There is plenty of repugnant conduct that breaks no laws.
How would you prefer for events to have played out from the moment the deceased broke into the vehicle?
Call 911, and take video of the vehicle break-in from inside the house while waiting for the cops in case they don’t arrive before the burglar leaves.
Yeah, but then the guy wouldn’t have been able to legally kill another human being! Where’s the fun in that?
I suppose if you have a smart phone, or other method of taking a video sharp enough to be of use, and insurance that will cover damages to, or loss of, your vehicle, that is one way to handle it. I do not fault the homeowner for confronting the criminal. A criminal who, we must remember, could simply have unassed the AO at that point. Alas, he decided that the vehicle, or perhaps what was in it, was worth harming the owner.