If only there had been more good guys with guns

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-25-2017, 02:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I have another question about gun control and whether or not it is pointless.

Many people believe you can't own fully automatic machine guns, but you can if you have what is commonly referred to as a Class III license. So if gun control laws are pointless why don't we see more gun violence caused by weapons whose purchase, ownership, and transfer is controlled by a Class III license like we see with firearms not controlled by a Class III license? How does a Class III license not infringe upon a citizen's 2nd amendment right?

I specifically addressed this point in a past thread.  To briefly summarize, automatic weapons serve one real purpose, to suppress.  You can't really make a legitimate self defense argument for a weapon designed only to suppress.  Yes, I realize there are 2A proponents who disagree with me on this.  Surprise, we aren't a homogeneous monolith.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2017, 09:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I specifically addressed this point in a past thread.  To briefly summarize, automatic weapons serve one real purpose, to suppress.  You can't really make a legitimate self defense argument for a weapon designed only to suppress.  Yes, I realize there are 2A proponents who disagree with me on this.  Surprise, we aren't a homogeneous monolith.

Sorry to make you recover the same ground, but I missed it.

In your standard Infantry platoon, the automatic weapons are the most casualty producing weapons organic to the Infantry platoon. Yes, they suppress better than the semiautomatic rifles, but they also kill better as well. In the defense, automatic weapons like the M240B cover the front of an entire squad and form the FPL (final protective line). To say they are "designed only to suppress" is simply wrong.

I don't know what a 2A proponent is and I didn't suggest you were a homogeneous monolith.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-25-2017, 11:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Sorry to make you recover the same ground, but I missed it.

No worries, I'll live. 

Quote:In your standard Infantry platoon, the automatic weapons are the most casualty producing weapons organic to the Infantry platoon. Yes, they suppress better than the semiautomatic rifles, but they also kill better as well. In the defense, automatic weapons like the M240B cover the front of an entire squad and form the FPL (final protective line). To say they are "designed only to suppress" is simply wrong.

Sure, but why do they kill better, because they throw more lead down range.  I'll happily amend my statement to automatic weapons are designed to suppress and their lethality is caused by high firing rate, i.e. more rounds at the target increase the odds of one hitting the target.  My point about suppression is in addition to the obvious lethality of more rounds on target, which every firearm shares.  Of course, this only further reinforces my point, that automatic weapons are not viable options for civilian defense purposes.  For purposes of further discussion, you could point out to other posters why the standard infantry rifle does not have a full auto capability.

Quote:I don't know what a 2A proponent is

 
Sure you do, it's not to figure out.

Quote:and I didn't suggest you were a homogeneous monolith.

I'll apologize for the insinuation, you did not imply that.  Merely pointing out to others who may be reading that 2A proponents vary in opinion as much as any group.

[xxlt]

(05-25-2017, 09:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I'm the one who didn't "get it".

[xxlt]

(05-25-2017, 09:13 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: It's mostly about cost. The actual cost of a class 3 permit is only a few hundred bucks but the actual guns are thousands and often 10s of thousands of dollars. Your average Joe can't afford the guns. Also the only automatic guns you can legally buy are ones that were manufactured before a certain date meaning there is a limited supply and most owners dont like to come off of what they have.

Is this an argument for welfare? If average Joe had more money he wouldn't commit crimes because he could afford more expensive guns? Or is it an argument for more expensive permitting and gun pricing in general? Or just an observation that those who can afford expensive guns are not criminals, and even if we take the guns of just the poor folk they will still commit crimes, they will just have to stab rich people with forks while they try to get their $10,000 guns out of the gun safe in time to fend off the attacks?

[xxlt]

(05-25-2017, 09:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I specifically addressed this point in a past thread.  To briefly summarize, automatic weapons serve one real purpose, to suppress.  You can't really make a legitimate self defense argument for a weapon designed only to suppress.  Yes, I realize there are 2A proponents who disagree with me on this.  Surprise, we aren't a homogeneous monolith.

Unlike southpaws, aka the left, aka the gun confiscators, aka the enemies of freedom, aka the libtards, aka...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 07:23 AM)xxlt Wrote: Unlike southpaws, aka the left, aka the gun confiscators, aka the enemies of freedom, aka the libtards, aka...

I'll challenge you once again.  Find a post of mine that backs your assertions.  I've made this statement to you many times, you never seem to take me up on it.

The fact you included "the left" in that post actually made me laugh.  Given my history around here and the old board it is demonstrablyy clear that I lean left on many issues and most social issues.  But I failed your recent ideological purity test when I refused to work myself into frothing outrage at every sentence Trump has uttered.  Oh, the political litmus tests of today are a harsh mistress are they not?

[GMDino]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html

Quote:Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to reject 2nd Amendment claim by men who lost gun rights over nonviolent crimes


In January, lawyers for the outgoing Obama administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court. (May 25, 2017) (Sign up for our free video newsletter here http://bit.ly/2n6VKPR)
 
Trump administration lawyers are urging the Supreme Court to reject a 2nd Amendment claim that would restore the right to own a gun for two Pennsylvania men who were convicted more than 20 years ago of nonviolent crimes.

The case of Sessions vs. Binderup puts the new administration in a potentially awkward spot, considering President Trump’s repeated assurances during the campaign that he would protect gun-ownership rights under the 2nd Amendment.

But the Justice Department under Trump has embraced the same position in this case that was adopted under President Obama: to defend strict enforcement of a long-standing federal law that bars convicted criminals from ever owning a gun, even when their crimes did not involve violence.

The decision is in keeping with Justice Department tradition to defend federal laws in court, even if the administration may not be enthused with the statute.

Attorney Alan Gura, a gun rights advocate who represents the two men, said he was disappointed but not surprised.

“I am not shocked by it. The government never likes to have its authority limited,” said Gura, a Virginia lawyer who brought the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which resulted in the Supreme Court’s first ruling upholding an individual’s constitutional right to have a gun for self-defense. “They could dismiss the appeal at any time. But I have no reason to expect they will.”

Gura said the federal law had been misapplied to individuals whose crimes didn’t merit a lifetime ban against exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to own a gun. This has “nothing to do with disarming dangerous felons,” he said.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the case.


[/url]
During last year’s campaign, Trump made gun rights a key issue, winning the early endorsement of the [url=http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/national-rifle-association-of-america-ORCIG000080-topic.html]National Rifle Assn.

Last month, Trump told an NRA audience in Atlanta that the “eight-year assault” on the 2nd Amendment had come to “a crashing end…. I will never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The two Pennsylvania men won a federal court ruling last year, the first of its kind, that ordered the government to restore their rights to own a gun.

Daniel Binderup pleaded guilty in 1996 to a charge of corrupting a minor for having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old female employee at a bakery where they worked. He was 41. He served no jail time and was put on probation for three years.

Julio Suarez was stopped by police in 1990 and had a gun in his car but no permit for the weapon. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and served no time in jail.

However, both offenses triggered the federal ban. Since 1968, federal law has prohibited people from owning a gun if they have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail.

Gura argued it was absurd to stretch the federal law to cover state misdemeanors that did not result in a jail sentence. He also argued that because the 2nd Amendment protects a constitutional right, judges should waive the ban for people who were convicted of minor, nonviolent offenses in the past and have had a law-abiding record since then.

Last year, he won on the 2nd Amendment claim before the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. By an 8-7 vote, its judges said the men should have their gun rights restored because they had not committed a serious or violent crime. However, the judges did not agree on clear guidelines about when gun rights should be restored.

In January, lawyers for the outgoing Obama administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court. They noted the opinion in the Heller case, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, said the decision did not interfere with the “long-standing prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons.” They also said the 3rd Circuit’s ruling would “open the courthouse door to an unknown number of future challenges.”

Last month, acting Solicitor Gen. Jeffrey B. Wall, representing the Trump administration, filed another brief urging the court to hear the appeal. He said the lower court’s ruling “if allowed to stand … will place an extraordinary administrative burden” on federal judges since people with a criminal record may go to court and seek an exception to the law.

“The 3rd Circuit’s conclusion that the Constitution mandates that untenable result warrants further review,” he told the justices. He also urged the court to reject Gura’s separate claim that the law should not be stretched so far.

It is one of two significant appeals involving the 2nd Amendment that the justices are considering this week.

In Peruta vs. California, the court is being asked to strike down part of California’s law restricting the carrying of guns in public.

While California law authorizes people to seek a permit to carry a concealed weapon if they show “good cause,” county sheriffs in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco routinely deny such requests by establishing a high bar to meet that standard. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 7-4 decision, upheld this enforcement policy.

“There is no 2nd Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” the appeals court said.

Former U.S. Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement appealed on behalf of several San Diego residents and urged the court to clarify whether 2nd Amendment rights extended “outside the home.” He said the court should make clear the “Constitution guarantees ordinary, law-abiding citizens some means of bearing firearms outside the home for self-defense, whether it be open or concealed carrying.”

Because the California case involves a constitutional challenge to a state law, the Justice Department has not been involved so far.

The Supreme Court will meet Thursday to consider these and other appeals. If justices decide whether to hear or deny the appeals, the announcement could come on Tuesday.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2017, 01:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: However, both offenses triggered the federal ban. Since 1968, federal law has prohibited people from owning a gun if they have been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Although the two men pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, their crimes could have been punished by more than a year in jail.

This part of that article makes no legal sense.  I cannot speak definitively on the law in other states, but I am reasonable comfortable in asserting that misdemeanors, by definition, are crimes punishable by a year or less of confinement time.  There are crimes known as wobblers that have a confinement time of one year but can be filed as a felony or misdemeanor at the DA's discretion.  I have to think this article is omitting a very relevant detail because as written this makes no sense at all.

[Aquapod770]

(05-26-2017, 01:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html

Well Trump is a dem so..........

[xxlt]

(05-26-2017, 11:51 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll challenge you once again.  Find a post of mine that backs your assertions.  I've made this statement to you many times, you never seem to take me up on it.

The fact you included "the left" in that post actually made me laugh.  Given my history around here and the old board it is demonstrablyy clear that I lean left on many issues and most social issues.  But I failed your recent ideological purity test when I refused to work myself into frothing outrage at every sentence Trump has uttered.  Oh, the political litmus tests of today are a harsh mistress are they not?

@SSF: I'll let you continue to demonstrate your own leanings, be they left, right, forward, or backward. My assertion was not that you personally painted the left as a monolith. I merely made an observation parallel to your own. You observed that not all gun "enthusiasts" are of one mind. Neither are all gun "nuts," by the way. I merely observed that not all people who deign to question gun policies and/or practices are of one mind. To put a finer point on it, not all left wingers want to take a dump on the 2nd amendment. Some are rootin' tootin' pistol packin' "good guys." And not all who see tragedy in the slaughter of an innocent young woman want to round up all the guns in America.

I'm at a loss for why you are so insistent on not being labeled or stereotyped yet react (predictably) and "challenge" the notion that others should not be labeled or stereotyped either. It's just odd.

@SSF and everyone else: I started this thread, and the OP asserts that there is a myth about good guys with guns that is a bigger whopper than Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and Aladdin all rolled into one. Part of the reaction was to attack "my" claim (which I never made) that "more gun laws" are not the answer. See, that is making assumptions and projections based on god knows what - but not responding at all to what the OP was about, which is the good guy with a gun mythology.

For what it's worth, I didn't expect too many people here to be able to discuss the myth, or even acknowledge it, and so far those expectations were proven right. This isn't the first time on a message board that a general remark has been perceived as a personal attack be it by SSF or someone else. For the record, it wasn't. So, to recap. SSF: all gun people don't think alike. Me: neither do all leftwingers. SSF: when did I say that? Me: um, I didn't mean to suggest you personally did, that wasn't the point, the point was, yeah, don't stereotype, so I was agreeing and expanding on the point, sorry if I did so poorly.
I was simply pointing out that just as as gun guys aren't like minded many other people grouped together also are not like minded. Sorry it was perceived as criticism or attack or claim or whatever - it was just a statement.

@ everyone: If anybody wants to defend the myth of the good guy with a gun, now would be a good time to do it. If anybody wants to keep telling me more gun laws are not the answer (which I never claimed) or scream "from my cold dead hands" (I also never said I hope Trump comes for your guns since that pussyfooting Obama never got around to it - too busy killin' Bin Laden and stuff) then it would be fine to do those things too. Carry on.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2017, 09:39 AM)xxlt Wrote: @ everyone: If anybody wants to defend the myth of the good guy with a gun, now would be a good time to do it. If anybody wants to keep telling me more gun laws are not the answer (which I never claimed) or scream "from my cold dead hands" (I also never said I hope Trump comes for your guns since that pussyfooting Obama never got around to it - too busy killin' Bin Laden and stuff) then it would be fine to do those things too. Carry on.

You mean like this:
http://www.leoaffairs.com/featured/breaking-civilian-shoots-kills-man-attacking-deputy-florida/

Quote:The bystander who fatally shot Strother, likely saving the deputy’s life, has not been identified.

or this:


http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2017/01/12/az-trooper-shot-at-accident-scene-suspect-killed-by-civilian.aspx

Quote:An Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper was ambushed and shot early Thursday morning on I-10 near Tonopah. The attack against the trooper ended when a civilian shot and killed the suspect.

These are just a couple extreme examples of civilians coming to the aid of those who put their lives on the line on a daily basis to keep you and me safe.


The forum's most popular subject would pale in comparison if I took the time to paste an article every time someone was able to satd themselves, their families, or innocent bystanders by the use of a firearm.


You state you never mentioned anything about gun laws but everyone knows the intent of the OP (unless it was to slight folks with Hispanic names like the shooter and victim). It's just that the whole premise of the OP was shown to be founded from ignorance, so now you roll with "I never said anything about Gun Laws". 

At least be earnest in your motivation for creating the thread  and perhaps you will get earnest responses. Starting a thread that is designed to troll will get what it deserves. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-27-2017, 09:39 AM)xxlt Wrote: @SSF: I'll let you continue to demonstrate your own leanings, be they left, right, forward, or backward. My assertion was not that you personally painted the left as a monolith. I merely made an observation parallel to your own. You observed that not all gun "enthusiasts" are of one mind. Neither are all gun "nuts," by the way. I merely observed that not all people who deign to question gun policies and/or practices are of one mind. To put a finer point on it, not all left wingers want to take a dump on the 2nd amendment. Some are rootin' tootin' pistol packin' "good guys." And not all who see tragedy in the slaughter of an innocent young woman want to round up all the guns in America.

I'm at a loss for why you are so insistent on not being labeled or stereotyped yet react (predictably) and "challenge" the notion that others should not be labeled or stereotyped either. It's just odd.

Fair enough. 

Quote:@SSF and everyone else: I started this thread, and the OP asserts that there is a myth about good guys with guns that is a bigger whopper than Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and Aladdin all rolled into one. Part of the reaction was to attack "my" claim (which I never made) that "more gun laws" are not the answer. See, that is making assumptions and projections based on god knows what - but not responding at all to what the OP was about, which is the good guy with a gun mythology.

For what it's worth, I didn't expect too many people here to be able to discuss the myth, or even acknowledge it, and so far those expectations were proven right. This isn't the first time on a message board that a general remark has been perceived as a personal attack be it by SSF or someone else. For the record, it wasn't. So, to recap. SSF: all gun people don't think alike. Me: neither do all leftwingers. SSF: when did I say that? Me: um, I didn't mean to suggest you personally did, that wasn't the point, the point was, yeah, don't stereotype, so I was agreeing and expanding on the point, sorry if I did so poorly.
I was simply pointing out that just as as gun guys aren't like minded many other people grouped together also are not like minded. Sorry it was perceived as criticism or attack or claim or whatever - it was just a statement.

@ everyone: If anybody wants to defend the myth of the good guy with a gun, now would be a good time to do it. If anybody wants to keep telling me more gun laws are not the answer (which I never claimed) or scream "from my cold dead hands" (I also never said I hope Trump comes for your guns since that pussyfooting Obama never got around to it - too busy killin' Bin Laden and stuff) then it would be fine to do those things too. Carry on.

There are plenty of "good guy with a gun" stories if you care to look for them.  Anytime an intended victim is not victimized because they are armed you have a "good guy with a gun" scenario.  To pretend the scenario does not exist, in fact to use the word myth as you did, is the height of ignorance.

[xxlt]

(05-27-2017, 11:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough. 


There are plenty of "good guy with a gun" stories if you care to look for them.  Anytime an intended victim is not victimized because they are armed you have a "good guy with a gun" scenario.  To pretend the scenario does not exist, in fact to use the word myth as you did, is the height of ignorance.

Do tell. I do care to look for those stories. What I generally find is stories like the one in the OP. Now, some would claim that is just another MSM conspiracy, and you know, maybe it is.

But when the biggest gun promoting lobby in America - the NRA - can never provide convincing data but only the myth of the good guy with a gun, and all the data I see and all the stories I read are more reflective of the one in the OP, I am left to believe that believing the myth is the height of ignorance.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-27-2017, 11:43 AM)xxlt Wrote: Do tell. I do care to look for those stories. What I generally find is stories like the one in the OP. Now, some would claim that is just another MSM conspiracy, and you know, maybe it is.

But when the biggest gun promoting lobby in America - the NRA - can never provide convincing data but only the myth of the good guy with a gun, and all the data I see and all the stories I read are more reflective of the one in the OP, I am left to believe that believing the myth is the height of ignorance.

They generally won't get reported because nothing happened.  The vast majority of defensive gun uses won't make the news because the armed citizen prevented a crime.  As for events that have been publicized, there have been stories mentioned on this very board; the AR armed homeowner's son who killed three home invasion suspects.  I will freely admit that compiling a solid database of defensive gun uses is a difficult, if not an impossible, task due to the fact that the media has no interest in them.  I say they have no interest not because they actively choose not to promote stories that show gun owners using their gun to protect themselves (although there may be some bias in this regard) but because there is no story to promote in most instances.  You heard about the AR armed homeowner's son because three people died, in most defensive gun uses the suspect flees without shots being fired, i.e. no story for the media to promote or even to become aware of.

I personally had a defensive gun use when I was twenty.  I was watching my parent's pets, and home, and was awoken by someone trying to get in the bedroom window, the bedroom I was sleeping in.  I grabbed my father's Smith and Wesson model 39, pulled the blinds with it pointed at the window and saw the guy see me and run across the yard and over the wall in less than a second.  You are more than welcome to dismiss this an anecdotal, that would be fair.  You are also more than welcome to dismiss my explanation of why the number of defensive gun uses are hard to compile, but my explanation is logical.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Here's a, albeit limited, compilation of defensive gun uses tracked by the website The Truth About Guns.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/?s=defensive+gun+use

[xxlt]

(05-27-2017, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They generally won't get reported because nothing happened.  The vast majority of defensive gun uses won't make the news because the armed citizen prevented a crime.  As for events that have been publicized, there have been stories mentioned on this very board; the AR armed homeowner's son who killed three home invasion suspects.  I will freely admit that compiling a solid database of defensive gun uses is a difficult, if not an impossible, task due to the fact that the media has no interest in them.  I say they have no interest not because they actively choose not to promote stories that show gun owners using their gun to protect themselves (although there may be some bias in this regard) but because there is no story to promote in most instances.  You heard about the AR armed homeowner's son because three people died, in most defensive gun uses the suspect flees without shots being fired, i.e. no story for the media to promote or even to become aware of.

I personally had a defensive gun use when I was twenty.  I was watching my parent's pets, and home, and was awoken by someone trying to get in the bedroom window, the bedroom I was sleeping in.  I grabbed my father's Smith and Wesson model 39, pulled the blinds with it pointed at the window and saw the guy see me and run across the yard and over the wall in less than a second.  You are more than welcome to dismiss this an anecdotal, that would be fair.  You are also more than welcome to dismiss my explanation of why the number of defensive gun uses are hard to compile, but my explanation is logical.

You are correct, that is a logical explanation. (And anecdotal evidence, but thanks for sharing it.)

It is also logical that merely raising the blind, raising the blind with a club in your hand, or merely turning on a light may have chased away would be home invader. Of course, the advantages of those three choices is they all include no chance of accidentally shooting yourself, one of your parents pets, your buddy who knew you were there and wanted to see if you wanted to do whatever (this is a hypothetical scenario, while you and the pets were real possibilities in your anecdote and not hypothetical), or you wounding or killing the guy and having to stand trial even though you were well within your rights to protect your folks property.

I am sure you have heard the old sayings about if you shot him and he made it to the wall drag him inside. Make sure there is an entry wound on the front... yada yada. Yeah, I know, those sorts of statements are the ramblings of goofy old men but honestly...

I am happy 20 year old you did not discharge the weapon and have to live through whatever investigation in the aftermath not to mention the anguish of having taken a life had the shot been lethal. Anyone I have ever talked to who took a life no matter how justified they were says it is something they would never wish on someone else.

I am sure you are not the only one who ever chased off a burglar/assailant with a gun. But, there are likewise many incidents of family members, friends, pets, and gun owners who were wounded or killed by their own weapon which they had so counted on in similar circumstances.

[xxlt]

(05-27-2017, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's a, albeit limited, compilation of defensive gun uses tracked by the website The Truth About Guns.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/?s=defensive+gun+use

Thanks. Of course, that isn't the truth about guns. It is part of the truth. I thank you for sharing it, and I am glad that the tenders of that site tell that part of the truth.

Here is the rest of the truth: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

Again, to be clear, even though the website is called "smart gun laws" I am not arguing for legislative remedies, repealing the 2nd amendment, or confiscating guns. I am arguing for math. Math like guns kill more people in the US every two years on average than were killed during the entire Vietnam War. Maybe they save that many too, or ten times that many, I just don't think that is the case.

More than 3 deaths an hour via homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting seems like a lot to me. And it seems avoidable, particularly since this is not a problem in the vast majority of the rest of the world. Now, maybe the rest of the world is just full of better people, and because Americans are such a-holes we are stuck with 3 (or more) dying per hour here for all time because we are terrible. I would rather not believe that. I am not sure we are superior, but I hope we aren't inferior to citizens around the globe. We should be able to solve this problem.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-27-2017, 03:03 PM)xxlt Wrote: You are correct, that is a logical explanation. (And anecdotal evidence, but thanks for sharing it.)

It is also logical that merely raising the blind, raising the blind with a club in your hand, or merely turning on a light may have chased away would be home invader. Of course, the advantages of those three choices is they all include no chance of accidentally shooting yourself, one of your parents pets, your buddy who knew you were there and wanted to see if you wanted to do whatever (this is a hypothetical scenario, while you and the pets were real possibilities in your anecdote and not hypothetical), or you wounding or killing the guy and having to stand trial even though you were well within your rights to protect your folks property.

It's very possible, probable even, that he would have fled with my simply raising the blinds, my being armed or not.  Of course, there is the chance, however small, that he would not have.  In that instance my being armed would have been indispensable to my safety.  I was taught gun safety from a young age so the odds of a negligent discharge is likely less than the odds of the guy not running simply by my raising the blinds.

Quote:I am sure you have heard the old sayings about if you shot him and he made it to the wall drag him inside. Make sure there is an entry wound on the front... yada yada. Yeah, I know, those sorts of statements are the ramblings of goofy old men but honestly...

I didn't even have my finger on the trigger at that point, so shooting him wasn't yet on the table.

Quote: I am happy 20 year old you did not discharge the weapon and have to live through whatever investigation in the aftermath not to mention the anguish of having taken a life had the shot been lethal. Anyone I have ever talked to who took a life no matter how justified they were says it is something they would never wish on someone else.

I am sure you are not the only one who ever chased off a burglar/assailant with a gun. But, there are likewise many incidents of family members, friends, pets, and gun owners who were wounded or killed by their own weapon which they had so counted on in similar circumstances.

To be sure, I will absolutely concede that point.  Given that we both agree on this point it raises the real question; are the responsible gun owners who saved themselves from being the victim of a crime, and possibly their lives, worth the incidents in which people are accidentally shot and killed?  As someone who is going to fall on the side of personal responsibility for adults I am going to be in the affirmative on that question every time.  I can understand why someone would not, but, in saying so, they are taking away my right to defend myself responsibly due to the risk of another adult failing to be responsible and causing themselves or their loved ones injury.

As I have said many times, if you're going to restrict my rights as a US citizen it had better be for a damn good reason.  For me the reason that other people aren't going to be as responsible as me doesn't come remotely close to meeting that burden.

[xxlt]

(05-27-2017, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's very possible, probable even, that he would have fled with my simply raising the blinds, my being armed or not.  Of course, there is the chance, however small, that he would not have.  In that instance my being armed would have been indispensable to my safety.  I was taught gun safety from a young age so the odds of a negligent discharge is likely less than the odds of the guy not running simply by my raising the blinds.



I didn't even have my finger on the trigger at that point, so shooting him wasn't yet on the table.


To be sure, I will absolutely concede that point.  Given that we both agree on this point it raises the real question; are the responsible gun owners who saved themselves from being the victim of a crime, and possibly their lives, worth the incidents in which people are accidentally shot and killed?  As someone who is going to fall on the side of personal responsibility for adults I am going to be in the affirmative on that question every time.  I can understand why someone would not, but, in saying so, they are taking away my right to defend myself responsibly due to the risk of another adult failing to be responsible and causing themselves or their loved ones injury.

As I have said many times, if you're going to restrict my rights as a US citizen it had better be for a damn good reason.  For me the reason that other people aren't going to be as responsible as me doesn't come remotely close to meeting that burden.

Interesting. Try to look at that from the other side. I see what you are saying about being a responsible gun owner and protecting your right to be such.

Consider a scenario like the one twenty year old you faced, but it is your twenty year old co-worker's neighbor who is not responsible or trained as you were. Gun on trigger he opens the blind, and points the gun. Then the dog behind him farts, he jumps and fires a round. Your coworker was walking out to his car just as this round fired. Your coworker startles, shooter fails to identify the target, just points at your neighbors driveway and empties the magazine. Good news, you coworker hit the driveway uninjured. Bad news, his vehicle is full of bullet holes. It seems like the same policies that defend the rights of 20 year old you defend the rights of this 20 year old nitwit. Not good. There has to be a better way.

As far as restricting our rights for no damn good reason, I imagine you aren't a fan of the "war on drugs." Are you? I am not. I know scores of people who use responsibly and see no reason to infringe on their rights because some people can't use responsibly. If everyone has a right to all the guns he or she wants - whether responsible with them or not, they should certainly have a right to all the drugs they want, imo. In fact, I would rather people exercise the right to get messed up than the right to bear arms.