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.”
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:
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.
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.
What if you make a mistake?
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.
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.
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.
Jealous? 
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.
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?
+1
Then you’re hearing it wrong.
Either way, someone in your family is dead.
Turnabout being fair play, and all that.
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 !
Or I could try not to kill a member of my family. :rolleyes:
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?
In what way is that turnabout?
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”.
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.
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?
We should definitely disarm the one that shot his pregnant wife in the head while cleaning his gun.