Gun owner kills someone

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2016, 01:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Maybe inspired by the story about Pro-gun activist Jamie Gilt being shot by her 4 year old son.

You're right. A quick search found me this from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/the-macabre-truth-of-gun-control-in-the-us-is-that-toddlers-kill-more-people-than-terrorists-do

It's an opinion piece, but from what I can tell the numbers are correct, and this isn't a new thing. I saw similar stories from 2013 as well.

[Rotobeast]

A story from my neck of the woods.
http://www.coshoctontribune.com/story/news/local/2016/03/12/woman-holds-armed-intruders-gunpoint/81685856/

Quote:Woman holds armed intruders at gunpoint

COSHOCTON - A woman visiting a family member Friday afternoon saw four men fleeing the home and single-handedly apprehended two of the assailants and held them at gun point until members of the Coshocton County Sheriff's Office arrived. Shortly thereafter, another visiting family member lead deputies to the other two suspects as they were leaving the area.

According to a news release, the sheriff's office received a 911 call in reference to an active home invasion in the 4400 block of County Road 23 at 3:48 p.m. While  the officers were responding to the call, the woman pulled into the driveway and saw the armed men fleeing the home on foot. She immediately chased the individuals, capturing two. A concealed carry license holder, she lead the two back to the home where she handed them over to law enforcement.
Soon after she apprehended two of the men, another family member arrived at the home and saw the other two suspects fleeing the area in a pickup truck. He was able to flag down a responding deputy, enabling officers to quickly apprehend them.
The four men are in custody pending the outcome of the investigation and filing of formal charges.

[Sovereign Nation]

Seems a lot of people are forgetting the Minnesota stories (there were 2 of them) where the home owners were convicted of premeditated murder.

I know they didn't side with the homeowners right to defend their homes in those instances.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 03:09 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Seems a lot of people are forgetting the Minnesota stories (there were 2 of them) where the home owners were convicted of premeditated murder.

I know they didn't side with the homeowners right to defend their homes in those instances.

Don't know who you mean by "they", but pretty much everyone agreed that a homeowners should have the right to use deadly force to defend their homes.  However, most people understood the difference between "home defense" and setting a trap to intentionally try and kill an intruder.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-15-2016, 03:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't know who you mean by "they", but pretty much everyone agreed that a homeowners should have the right to use deadly force to defend their homes.  However, most people understood the difference between "home defense" and setting a trap to intentionally try and kill an intruder.

"Setting a trap"  whatever you say. Seems like a pretty weak "trap" of you ask me. 

[SteelCitySouth]

(03-15-2016, 04:07 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Seems like a pretty weak "trap" of you ask me. 

So then you agree it's a trap.  

[GMDino]

(03-15-2016, 04:07 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: "Setting a trap"  whatever you say. Seems like a pretty weak "trap" of you ask me. 

Was one of those the one where the guy shot one intruder then shot the other and called 911 and shot them again and killed her?

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 04:07 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: "Setting a trap"  whatever you say. Seems like a pretty weak "trap" of you ask me. 

I mentioned that not everyone could comprehend the legal nuance of the facts.

But no matter how you see it, you can't claim that people here do not support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from intruders in their homes.  In fact, as far as I can tell EVERYONE here agrees with that proposition.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 04:19 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: So then you agree it's a trap.  

I think is was more of a case of profiling; as he was going to shoot every criminal that broke into his house.

[SteelCitySouth]

(03-15-2016, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think is was more of a case of profiling; as he was going to shoot every criminal that broke into his house.

Okay, but what does that have to do with the fact that Sovereign Nation believes it was a trap?

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I mentioned that not everyone could comprehend the legal nuance of the facts.

Another example.

(03-15-2016, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think is was more of a case of profiling; as he was going to shoot every criminal that broke into his house.

Hint.  If you don't know then don't guess.  Just go look at what the jury found to be the facts after all evidence was presented.

This will also keep you from looking ignorant or misinformed.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Another example.




Hint.  If you don't know then don't guess.  Just go look at what the jury found to be the facts after all evidence was presented.

This will also keep you from looking ignorant or misinformed.

It was a Joke. Sorta like Ron White said he got pulled over for DUI, but blamed in on profiling, as he said the police were pulling over everyone that was driving on the sidewalk, and that was profiling and profiling is wrong.

Thanks for the advice on how to keep from looking ignorant; I take that it comes from much experience.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-15-2016, 04:41 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Okay, but what does that have to do with the fact that Sovereign Nation believes it was a trap?

I thought Fred called it a trap?

[SteelCitySouth]

(03-15-2016, 05:25 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I thought Fred called it a trap?

LOL...So did you.   

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-15-2016, 05:30 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: LOL...So did you.   

Might want to read again. Shouldn't be too difficult to see the sarcasm. Didn't see the need to explain it. Though I do see the error in that thought. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 05:37 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Might want to read again. Shouldn't be too difficult to see the sarcasm. Didn't see the need to explain it. Though I do see the error in that thought. 

I thought putting quotation marks around the word was enough

[GMDino]

(03-15-2016, 06:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought putting quotation marks around the word was enough

No.  That means he is "paraphrasing".

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 07:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: No.  That means he is "paraphrasing".

My bad, I thought quotation marks meant you were quoting.  Thanks for the lesson.

[GMDino]

(03-15-2016, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My bad, I thought quotation marks meant you were quoting.  Thanks for the lesson.

I did too until SN starting doing it.  

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-15-2016, 08:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I did too until SN starting doing it.  

It can mean both.  In this instance it was a quote to Fred's words. 

In your instance it was a paraphrase of your thoughts, to make sure everyone didn't mistake them for my own.

You know all this, but please continue with misrepresenting.  It is what makes you, you.