Is it ever ok to shoot at a person who not a threat?

[Indy Lurker]

Outside of war, is it ever ok to shoot at a person with a firearm who is not posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to you or another?

Legally, morally, or otherwise.





Many gun prohibitionists seem to think gun enthusiasts just want to shoot someone.

I'd like to clearly set the record straight.



As a gun enthusiast I would like to go on record and say it is never ok to shoot at someone who is not a threat.

It's ok to hold a criminal at gun point, but I would never shoot unless they were a threat. If they turned and ran in a non threating manner, I would not shoot, but that's just me.

[DesertFlower]

1. i'm also a gun owner and i

agree with you.

[virgogal]

2. Of course it's not okay--------silly question.

[Tim01]

3. Gun owner here. Absolutely not.

[Abq_Sarah]

4. Never fire

Unless your life or the life of someone in the area is in imminent danger. Never point a weapon at someone to threaten or intimidate them. The only time you point a weapon at another person is when you're preparing to fire.

[Oregone]

5. I personally think its ok, but still not legal

Try living next to a paranoid schizophrenic meth head who threatens your life and has multiple altercations with you (involving the police). You know, they may not be an imminent threat, but they will eventually cause harm to someone and their family. In the old days, people like that get snuffed out pretty early.

Yeah, personally, I think its ok if someone put a bullet through the head of a guy like that (being that people are primitive savages who are only human to feel this way), though its never ok for a government body to endorse such a policy.

Just my two cents

[pipoman]

115. Wow

[KansDem]

6. Apparently in Pasadena, Texas, it's okay...

Local Pasadena, Texas Hero Joe Horn Blows away 2 Unarmed Hispanics

As a gun owner, I don't think it's okay...

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indy Lurker]

23. Do you see much of that attitude here?

It also appears you are not well informed of the facts.

Assuming "the crazy old man on the 9-11 call who just HAD to go out and shoot some fleeing burglars" is a reference to Joe Horn, you were misinformed.

While it is true he went outside to confront burglars (which is neither illegal nor morally corrupt), he did not shoot at fleeing burglars.

The burglars he confronted began approaching him, and he did not shoot until he was in imminent danger of great bodily harm.

If all of your "evidence" of gun enthusiasts just wanting to shoot someone is as equally misinformed, it's no wonder you have such a skewed view of the issue.

[depakid]

33. Actually, yes- it's implied rather frequently

and even discussed.

Gotta get those "bad guys."

At times, it's bordered on "Please let it be me."

I mean, why else would some people be so adamant about carrying guns around? Fearfulness alone doesn't explain it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Do you have any links? I haven't seen a single serious post like that.

[Indy Lurker]

49. It appears there's some misunderstanding

When you read:

Gotta get those "bad guys."

and "Please let it be me."

Do you believe they are talking about intentionally shooting someone who is not an imminent threat to anyone?

Do you believe that are talking about committing criminal acts in a public forum?



Is it not more likely they are talking about preventing violent crimes through legal means, up to and including the use of deadly force when necessary?

Is you view of the world so dark that you think so many are out to inflict intention harm?

[X_Digger]

50. That sounds like projection..

.. ie, the only reason that you could imagine YOU carrying a gun is because you'd want to shoot someone.

O Great Carnac, please read our minds again..

[depakid]

60. Wrong word and concept

Doubtless that there are other psychological motivations, but fear and the desire to be some sort of "tough guy" and potentially shoot someone would seem to be predominant themes.

[X_Digger]

66. You ascribe desire. Yet you speak of things being implied.

So you're reading into the situation, rather than relating something that you could actually quote.

Actually, yes- it's implied rather frequently and even discussed. *snip* I mean, why else would some people be so adamant about carrying guns around?

So you put your own interpretation on it, and that seems to be the reason that you would 'carry a gun around'.

Seems like projection to me.

[depakid]

68. Anyone who reads between the lines (or actually just reads) some comments gets the implication

When it's not said straight up on public fora- it's not far from the surface...

Coming at it from a public health angle, stated motivations are always interesting, but more often than not- there's much more going on unsaid with risky and unhealthy behaviors.

[X_Digger]

73. If it's so prevalent, should be easy to find one to quote.. n/t

[SteveM]

99. I'd like to "read" some cites, some examples. (chirp, chirp) nt

[SteveM]

98. Hhhhhhh-h-h-h-h! Hhh--h-h-h-h. He said "seem to be." Seems to you? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Insulting.

When I see a story about some defenseless person that got murdered, yes, indeed, even though I abhor killing, and will not go out of my way to 'start shit', some part of me does wish that the scumbag would attack, if not me, someone like me.

Think of it like a soldier, finding out some civilians from his nation were attacked by an enemy nation, without resistance. You wish you could have done something to prevent it.

It need not be about killing either. There have been situations where someone collapsed at my company (I work for a VERY large corporation), and even though it's a bad situation, and someone was dying, I do wish I was there. I am equipped and trained to deliver CPR and a whole host of first aid, and some elements of trauma care. I don't walk around all day dreaming of encountering some bloody wreck of a human so I can 'be a hero' and fix them, but when it happens somewhere out there, yes, I feel some element of remorse that I was not there to help.

Innocent non-combatants are automatically good guys, but bear with me, I'm going to generalize to an enormous degree here. When you train, and prepare, and make a conscious effort to BE on 'team good guy', actively choosing sides, making that shift in mindset that you are willing to risk your own life to protect others, there is an element of 'us versus them'. When some scumbag manages to kill or maim, or even terrorize someone 'on your side' there is a sense of loss, of defeat.

But tone back the braggadocio inferences, please. If people like me were so gung-ho to kill 'bad guys', we'd have a serious problem with vigilanteeism, and extra-judicial killings. You'd see shit on the nightly news like some guy laying waste to a crack house, or a gang den. We don't have that.

And people like me, we know the potential fate that awaits us. Look up Mark Allen Wilson, of Tyler, Tx. He responded to a courthouse shooting across the street. He went up against a guy with a rifle and body armor, and all he had was a pistol. He died. But you know what? He saved at least one life, if by no other method than making himself a target. He stopped the gunman from murdering his own son. Delayed him so long that more police arrived on scene, and he was forced to flee. Still tragic, but Wilson made a conscious effort to fight, engaged in the fight knowing he might die. Better him than an innocent child dying, don't you think?

As far as I know, none of us eagerly look forward to it, but many of us would risk taking a bullet, to protect YOU, never having even known or met you. So please, can we keep the derision to a dull roar?

http://www.famouspictures.org/index.php?title=Tyler_Courthouse_Shooting

[GreenStormCloud]

93. Actions speak louder than words.

Take a look at the actions of CCWers as a group. We have established a safety record far better than either the general public or the police. That is solidly documented. So it is obvious that, as a group, we are not acting on what you claim is our group fantasy.

[SteveM]

95. Hhh-h-h-h, Hhhh-h-h-h. He said "implied." Cites? Sources? "Borderedon?" nt

[krispos42]

108. I think what it may be...

...is that people that own guns for self-defense don't have a problem with seriously contemplating discussing the preparation, act, art, or equipment of defensive killing. And I think that that frankness is very disturbing to a lot of people, who fear that the same mental process will be used to use cold-blooded murder to solve interpersonal problems. That a lot of people simply don't want such things thought of and such tools available.


I've stated before that I hope I never have to kill anybody. I also recognize the fact that life may not be so accomodating. I also hope that if I do have to kill somebody in self-defense I have the knowledge and tools to do it.

And that I can psychologically deal with it afterwards. :-(

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

8. When my dad showed me how to shoot his pistol, he also made it clear that

you never so much as pointed a gun at someone, loaded OR unloaded, unless you fully intended to kill them.

[aliendroid]

81. that's part of the rules of gun ownership.

While in your hand, never point the gun in a direction that you are not willing to shoot. Don't point the gun at a person when it is in your hand. Don't put your finger in the trigger until you are ready to shoot at the paper target or whatever animal you are hunting.

[truedelphi]

9. The police in most jurisdictions in Calif. seem to think so

far too many developmentally abled people end up being killed.

A mentally challenged adult in Novato Calif. was killed by police for standing on the roof
of his car, and twirling a broom.

Rather than waste time talking him down (Lots of times such erratic behaviors bottom out after twenty to forty minutes) the cops shot him

Said the neighbor who had called the police, "I am a gun owner. If I thought he deserved to be shot, I could have done it myself and saved them the trouble." :-(

[Callisto32]

54. Another example of the dangers of taking your troubles to the altar of the state for resolution.

[TheWraith]

10. I can't think of any realistic scenarios in which it would be.

I can't rule out the possibility that there might be some case in which it would be necessary. Maybe if you were shooting to wound some escaping person who absolutely needed to be restrained, but that's pretty unlikely.

[farmout rightarm]

11. I can't think of an example but "never say never" comes to mind.

We probably cannot conceive of every possible scenario...but generally I say no with the reservation that an exception could conceivably arise.

How's that for dissembling? ;-)

[Don Caballero]

12. It is never okay to shoot someone

Unless you are a police officer or member of the military

[rrneck]

16. So,

what solution do you offer an individual who is assaulted by another using a knife, club, fists or feet?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. So it's wrong to shoot someone who is about to murder a small child? That's your position?

[Don Caballero]

48. My position is quite simple really

Civilians have no right to own firearms.

[Indy Lurker]

51. Did this notion just come to you?

Or do you have a logical position on the subject?


Just to be clear, when you say civilians, you mean everyone but police and military?


No firearms for security guards, armored car drivers, politicians, or bodyguards.

[Callisto32]

57. Let me show you how you are wrong.

In the United States, we (presumably) have a republic. In a republic, sovereignty resides with the populace, as sovereign individuals. The government is set up, (ostensibly) as a representation of that body politic. The sovereign, as the ultimate power, is where human powers originate. If the state has a right to possess firearms, they must have gotten it from the sovereign. You cannot give what you do not have, thus the populace, MUST have a right to possess arms. Have a nice day.

[PavePusher]

64. Well, it is quite established by now...

That you are wrong.

Care to address the question put to you previously?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Fortunately we have a Constitution that says differently.

[cognoscere]

107. Yes, it is. n/t

[TPaine7]

30. ?

:rofl:

[Callisto32]

55. You're funny.

[SteveM]

100. Did you see Post #9 above? nt

[Hoopla Phil]

13. I can't think of one.

[JDPriestly]

14. I wouldn't ever run a red light. I wouldn't every speed.

I wouldn't ever forget to move my car. I wouldn't ever get angry. I wouldn't ever eat too many sweets.

I'm way better than that. It couldn't happen to me. I never forget. I never make a mistake. I never get anxious. I never over-react. I am perfect. Therefore, if I had a gun, I'm sure I would never shoot anyone in a moment of carelessness. I would never shoot anyone because I made mistake. I would never shoot anyone because I felt scared when I didn't need to. I would never shoot anyone as an over-reaction. I would never, ever shoot anyone because I lost my temper. I'm too perfect to ever crash my car. I'm too perfect to ever shoot a gun at the wrong time or mistakenly in the wrong direction.

Dick Cheney might make a mistake like that. But I never would. I'm way better.

Never say never.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Saying it's never OK to do it and saying you would never do it are two different things.

You spent too much time erecting that strawman.
Feel free to try again.

[rfranklin]

18. The question was not about whether you would lose control of yourself...

it was whether it was acceptable to shoot a gun at someone without an imminent threat.

[Abq_Sarah]

19. In 25 years of owning firearms

I've never shot anyone, never had an "accidental" misfire, never fired a weapon in anger.

The people who come through my classes leave understanding they have an obligation to diffuse a potentially violent confrontation if at all possible.

[Callisto32]

59. You are lucky.

I have had ONE ND, and it scared the CRAP out of me.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. I have been around guns all my life, and I am now a senior citizen.

I have never done any of the gun things that you speak of. I have never shot anyone - period. Yes, I carry a loaded handgun for self-defense.

I have pointed my gun at a person exactly once. That was back in my days as a private investigator, and the other guy was a burglar whom I had caught in the act. He was smart enough to know that I would not shoot him is he wasn't a threat so he put down the stuff he was stealing and ran away.

[TPaine7]

35. I guess we can trust you

to control over a ton of steel traveling at 65 mph down a highway that little children are traveling with their parents.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. So I guess you don't drive anymore right? You wouldn't want to endanger the public would you?

[Indy Lurker]

40. You are confusing accidents and deliberate evil acts.

In the OP I used the words "shoot at" as in a deliberate action, not an accident.

This eliminates:

I'm way better than that.
It couldn't happen to me.
I never forget.
I am perfect.
I never make a mistake.
I'm sure I would never shoot anyone in a moment of carelessness.
I would never shoot anyone because I made mistake.
I'm too perfect to ever crash my car.
I'm too perfect to ever shoot a gun at the wrong time or mistakenly in the wrong direction.

If you would like to start a thread on gun accidents, thats fine, but it's not this thread.


That leaves:

I never get anxious.
I would never shoot anyone because I felt scared when I didn't need to.
I would never shoot anyone as an over-reaction.
I would never, ever shoot anyone because I lost my temper.

It's ok to be anxious, many people are. that doesn't hurt anyone.
It's also ok to be scare when you don't need to. Being scared doesn't hurt anyone.

If your shooting because you are scare when you don't need to be, you are over-reacting.

That leaves:

I would never shoot anyone as an over-reaction. (including being scared)
I would never, ever shoot anyone because I lost my temper.

If either of these cases are true, you are not fit to be free in society.
Such a person has no regard for human life.
They are unsafe in any situation, not just with a gun.

The tool they use is of little importance.

They could push someone off a train platform, drive over a pedestrian, or set your house on fire.

Thankfully there are very few people like this in society. Many are locked up, or have a criminal record that prevents them from legally buying a firearm.

Most people in society are good people, including the 80 million gun owners.

Is it really in the best interest of our society to restrict 80 million gun owners in hopes of deterring the few evil people who would harm society?

[JDPriestly]

67. I'm not in favor of gun bans. I just think people should realize

that intentional shootings are only part of the picture.

Can people use guns safely? Yes. I have family members who are avid hunters. I see nothing wrong with lawful hunting. There are other perfectly legitimate reasons for possessing a gun. In fact, I once urged someone to renew his gun permit -- because his work put him at risk.

But, should we ever downplay the danger of guns? No. We should ever be mindful with guns, with cars, with other deadly instruments that we deal with, that they are dangerous and that we are human. It is highly unlikely that I would ever intentionally run over someone -- it would never happen, but people lose their tempers and their reason and do the strangest things.

The secret is humility. A lot of murders occur in the heat of passion. The loss of life is just as tragic when it occurs because someone momentarily lost reason as it is when someone intentionally kills someone.

Just for some balance here.


Yearly Statistics

As each year passes on, a minimum of around 35,000 people die from gun injuries in the Untited States. But those are just the deaths, a little over three times as many people are injured and hospitalized from guns. When you narrow this down to a specific group, of the 35,000 deaths, 85% of those deaths were white males between the age groups of 10 to 34 years old. The most common age in that age group was 19 years old. For the estimated (3 times as much as 35,000deaths) 105,000 gun injuries in a year, 56% of those injuries occur in a home and are reported to be accidental injuries. But of those 105,000 injuries and 56% that occur in homes, 34% of those injuries are with victims 17 years old and younger.

Self Inflicted Injuries

When you take the amount of injuries and deaths that occur in homes around the Untited States, half of those injuries are self-inflicted. In that category of self-inflicted, it includes suicide as well. When a parent or just a person who lives in a home owns a gun, the increase in the possiblity of suicide for that owner or whoever lives with them goes up by 25%. While that increase in possiblity goes up, the chance of self inflicted or any home gun injury goes up by 32%. A child is more likely, in these cases, to be the victim of suicide or accidental injury than an adult if the adult leaves the gun exposed to the child.

http://ericwalczak0.tripod.com/id10.html

[GreenStormCloud]

94. About those "heat of passion" murders.

Almost always they are done by a person who already has a history of violence and arrests, often convictions. Average Joe/Jane Citizen just doesn't fly off the handle and kill someone like you fear they do. It is odd that you don't trust people with guns but you do trust them with kitchen knives, fireplace pokers (A favorite of old mystery novels.), baseball bats, thin steel wire, household poisons, etc.

[Euromutt]

96. You do realize your cited reference is a 9th grader's school project, right?

We're not exactly talking peer reviewed criminological studies here.

Let's take a look at some of the claims made.

As each year passes on, a minimum of around 35,000 people die from gun injuries in the United States.

Let's take a look at the CDC's WISQARS to see if that claim is true.
2006: 30,896
2005: 30,694
2004: 29,569
2003: 30,196
2002: 30,242
2001: 29,573
2000: 28,663
1999: 28,874
1998: 30,708
1997: 32,436
1996: 30,040
1995: 35,957

Okay, so that claim hasn't actually been true since Clinton's first term in office. Since Skyview Junior High was built in 1993, I have to wonder where Master Walczak got his figures.
And what is "a minimum of around 35,000" supposed to mean? Why the fudging? If it's consistently higher than 35K, say "a minimum of 35,000"; if not, don't suggest it is.

But those are just the deaths, a little over three times as many people are injured and hospitalized from guns.

Back to WISQARS...
2006: 71,417 (~2.3 times the death toll for that year)
2005: 69,825 (~2.3 times)
2004: 64,389 (~2.2 times)
2003: 65,834 (~2.2 times)
2002: 58,841 (~1.9 times)

I could go on, but you get the idea; 2 ≠ 3.

I was about to note that Walczak didn't bother to break down the fatalities, when I saw that he did, in the next paragraph.

When you take the amount of injuries and deaths that occur in homes around the Untited States, half of those injuries are self-inflicted. In that category of self-inflicted, it includes suicide as well. When a parent or just a person who lives in a home owns a gun, the increase in the possiblity of suicide for that owner or whoever lives with them goes up by 25%. While that increase in possiblity goes up, the chance of self inflicted or any home gun injury goes up by 32%.

Yes, over half the deaths from gunshot wounds annually are indeed suicides (or as the CDC terms it, "intentional self-harm"). But here's the thing: while the United States certainly has the highest rate per capita of suicide by firearm, the American suicide rate is by no means remarkable. France, Sweden, Japan and Russia are just a few countries that have suicides that are higher than the United States'. In the case of Japan and Russia, the suicide rates are double or more the American rate.

Even David Hemenway and Matthew Miller, public health researchers noted for having an anti-gun bias, have had to acknowledge (http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001/miller.htm) that:

The evidence, however, is far from convincing that gun ownership levels are related to overall suicide rates for all age groups. The U.S., for example, has the highest levels of gun ownership, but its overall suicide rate is only 16th out of 26 high-income countries.

So basically, Americans who decide to commit suicide opt for guns because they can; people in other countries hang themselves, or jump in front of trains or from high drops, and wind up just as dead, and in comparatively higher numbers than Americans. The idea that the presence of a firearm in the household is an independent risk factor for suicide is very, very tenuous. Sure, you can use econometric modeling to twiddle the numbers until they say what you want them to say (which pulic health researchers with an anti-gun bias very frequently do, though in fairness, they are by no means unique in this), but the findings just aren't consistent with a conclusion you'd draw from the raw data.

I'm sorry, but if that's your idea of providing "balance," I have to remain unimpressed.

[JDPriestly]

117. Have you ever talked to a person who "made a mistake" with a gun?

Let's say for example someone who got carried away and drew a gun on a group of police officers?

Have you ever really talked to such a person?

A conversation like that makes quite an impression.

Mind you. I am not opposed to gun ownership. I am just opposed to any kind of smug, "That can never happen to me" attitude. That is what gets people who own guns into trouble. That and mixing guns and alcohol -- a very lethal mix if there every was one.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Drawing a gun on anyone can't be classified as just a "mistake".

[JDPriestly]

125. Yes. When a person with poor judgment gets excited and just reacts,

it is a mistake. That person would not do that if he or she were in a calm, rational state. If we are feeling well, are calm and rational and thinking, we don't make mistakes. Somebody gets into a fight, has a gun and instinctively reaches for the gun and points it. That person would not do that if he or she were feeling well and calm and rational. That is a mistake. A very serious mistake, yes. But if you talk to the person, the person will say they panicked or they don't know why they did it or they just weren't thinking. Sometimes the person will deny he or she did it.

I am not opposed to guns per se, but anyone who owns a gun should realize that just owning a gun is a huge responsibility. I would not want to live in a household in which there was a gun and also a person with anger management problems of any kind. And remember, stress such as loss of a loved one, loss of a job, serious illness, disappointment in love, problems with children, loss of a home or having to move for example, can cause anger management problems even in a person who is normally pretty calm.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Drawing a gun is a deliberate act, it is not using baking soda instead of baking powder.

Regardless statistics show that the behavior you are referring to is extremely rare in people who have no history of violence.

[Euromutt]

128. Fascinating, but not particularly relevant to my points above

To answer your question, no, I've never had a conversation with anyone who succumbed to the stupid quite as badly as to draw a firearm on a group of police officers. At worst, I've been in presence of, and on the receiving end, of some bad firearm handling, mostly during my military service, though none of it resulted in anyone getting injured.

None of which invalidates the points I made in my previous post: to wit, that your source was some 9th grader's school project, that he overstated the number of annual gun deaths by ~14% and the number of nonfatal GSWs by ~70%, and unquestioningly parroted some bollocks (excuse me, "tendentious 'research'") about how having a gun in the house makes you more likely to commit suicide. The errors are forgivable on the part of a 15 year-old, but for you to cite it as providing "balance" to the discussion is not.

Mind you. I am not opposed to gun ownership.

I'm sure your dog doesn't bite either.

I am just opposed to any kind of smug, "That can never happen to me" attitude.

I can't say for certain that I will never do something stupid with a firearm, even though I had firearms safety drummed into me very thoroughly during basic training (an infantry NCO had been killed the month before by a negligent discharge from a 25mm gun mounted on a YPR-765 PRI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIFV#Dutch_variants and everyone was on their toes). But the fact that one guy somewhere was stupid enough to draw on a group of cops doesn't make it likely that a significant number of gun owners will, let alone all of them. This is the first time I've even heard of such an occurrence, and it's not for want of people posting those kinds of story on this forum.

[JDPriestly]

129. Spend a few weeks sitting around criminal courts. You might learn a lot.

It's amazing how seemingly normal people do absolutely insane things.

Better yet, talk to a few criminal lawyers. They could tell you some stories you would never, never believe -- if you could get them to talk.

[Euromutt]

130. To paraphrase Han Solo, "I can believe quite a bit."

I spent over three years working in the Office of The Prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I've probably heard/read some stories that you would have a hard time wrapping your mind around as well.

The problem remains that basing your notion of humanity in general on defendants in criminal cases is equivalent to making an assessment on the state of marriage by polling shelters for battered women.

[Callisto32]

58. Nobody ever said mistakes are not made.

That people make mistakes is not a basis for removing their rights.

[Dappleganger]

71. And I'd never deliberately run over someone.

Or choke a baby with my own two hands.

Why? Because most people have self-control and understand the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, self-control and lawlessness. Those who don't understand it are criminals, sociopaths and aren't fit to mix with free society without outside constraints.

[SteveM]

101. Follow Eleanor's example: she packed. nt

[rrneck]

17. It's never ok, sometimes it's just unavoidable. nt

[htuttle]

20. Johnny Cash used to sing about this guy...

Shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

[SteveM]

102. A Johnny Cash song. Sure beats the "Gunsmoke" sources used by gun-controllers. nt

[damntexdem]

21. Sure, just come to Texas.

Hey, Cheney got away with it.

And under TX law, one can protect one's home (as one's "castle") on only the flimsiest excuse for thinking there was a threat.

As for moral considerations, since when have they had anything to do with guns in the U.S.?

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Illegal forced entry into an occupied dwelling is not a "flimsy excuse". N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

22. No, it isn't. However, the precise level of threat can be difficult to determine at times.

For some such situations, the law has set some clear sign posts for evaluating the threat. I am refering to Castle Doctrine laws. If someone has illegally broken into my residence while I am there (Or I arrive while they are there.) then I do not have the luxury of determining their exact level of threat to me. I am legally, and I believe morally, allowed to assume that they are a maximum threat and to respond accordingly.

[sharesunited]

25. How reassuring. Your ability to shoot whomever you want for any or no reason is my concern.

Maybe you would never do it, but the access you have to guns and ammo is the same access anyone else has.

And maybe you only THINK you would never do it, but may actually surprise yourself as to what you're capable of.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. I perfectly capable of deciding who is a grave threat and who is not.

[sharesunited]

37. Unless you happen to be suffering from a glioma which sends you up to the top of a clock tower.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. I guess that's a chance you'll have to take. Don't worry though I feel fine.

Although I do have to take a lot of excedrin and I deal with a tremendous amount of stress. I had a wonderful upbringing though so you are probably safe.

[Callisto32]

61. Or through a farmers market in a half ton pickup?

Pour a little more methicone on that slope.

[sharesunited]

63. The principal use of the pickup at the farmers market is to haul goods.

The principal use of guns and ammo is to kill.

[Callisto32]

65. It's "principle."

Not "principal."

The principLE use of anything is what it is being used for at the time. The principLE use of my firearms is to perforate paper. The principLE use of a truck being run through a farmers market by a man who has been driven to madness by a tumor is to kill people.

To get more technical, the principle use of a vehicle is to move. The principle use of a firearm is to propel a missile at high velocity.

The principal is a guy who runs a school.

[sharesunited]

72. No, I think you were to eager to correct.

Oops, I mean too eager.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal

[Callisto32]

87. Third definition from Mirriam Webster

a: an underlying faculty or endowment <such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity> b : an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality. Who knows, I'm willing to admit you may be right on this, I went on the above definition.

[aliendroid]

84. yet the pickup has the higher risk factor for killing a human being.

Too bad for your argument that the pickup truck will more likely kill a human being than any given gun.

[SteveM]

104. So?

[aliendroid]

83. more anecdotal evidence for your cause

So you want to use anecdotal evidence. Don't worry dude, the people practicing their new right to conceal carry are reducing the number of sob stories you can post up, but you on the other hand are doing nothing to reduce crime by promoting increased gun restriction.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. In the history of the country, that has happened how many times? Once. N/T

[Indy Lurker]

44. You are incorrect

Not everyone has the same access to guns and ammo.

Individuals who have been convicted of felonies or violent crimes do not have have the same access.

If you actually knew me at all, I would take great offense at the ideal that you think I could be capable of shooting a gun at a person who was not a threat.

Do you really hold that much contempt for society at large?

Do you know people who would really use deadly force needlessly?

[sharesunited]

62. "Needlessly" is entirely subjective. The measure of need is for the shooter to decide.

Don't call it a contempt for society. Call it abject skepticism for having the means of administering convenient, efficient death to their fellow citizens in the hands of the general public.

It's true that convicted felons do not have the same access to guns and ammo, inasmuch as ordinary retail sales are to be denied them upon disclosure of their criminal record.

Children and the adjudicated insane are likewise denied access.

The real "everyone" to whom I was referring is everyone else, for whom no prohibition exists. Which means essentially the entire gamut of the U.S. population regardless of their knowledge, intellect, emotional stability, personal discipline, biases, or formal training.

Certainly, you must agree with me that some number of those people who are not legally prohibited from owning firearms present a danger to themselves and others by having them.

To wit, any of those who are law abiding gun owners right up until the moment they are not.

I object to the dice roll, and to the insistence that the dice will be rolled on my behalf even when I do not choose to play.

[Indy Lurker]

69. "Needlessly" is not entirely subjective

If you are defending yourself or another from imminent death or harm, your actions are legally and morally acceptable.

If a shoot someone when a "Reasonable" person could not see any threat of harm or death, your actions are "Needless"

This is a long standing legal and moral concept called self defense.

By eliminating convicted criminals and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others, you have significantly reduced the number of people who would pose a danger to others.


Does that cover everyone who would act illegally, of course not. So to that extent I agree with you.

Obviously, some number of those people who are not legally prohibited from owning firearms present a danger to themselves and others by having them.

But I do not agree that this is sufficient cause to limit access to all of those who would not are not a danger to themselves or others.

I also fobject to the statement that people are "law abiding gun owners right up until the moment they are not."

While the statement is true, it is not provide any insight into the discussion.

One could easily say people are "law abiding X right up until the moment they are not."

Whether it is beer drinkers and DUI's or Gasoline owners and arson.

We should not curtail behavior based on potential abuses.

As a free society, we should not limit access to otherwise legal products based on potential misuse.

Your right "not to play" extends as far as not owning a firearm. When you advocate limiting access to firearms for other law abiding citizens, you have left the realm of your rights, and are infringing on the rights of others.

[rrneck]

77. GLORY!

Praise Dog! Harps and trumpets sound! Cherubs dance in the streets! Sharesunited said something that makes sense!

The measure of need is for the shooter to decide.

Of course that is a qualified celebration, since:

I object to the dice roll, and to the insistence that the dice will be rolled on my behalf even when I do not choose to play.

Everybody else would object to the dice roll that Sharesunited would throw for them, but it's a first step and a welcome step it is!

[Glassunion]

56. I'm glad the we don't live in the world you do.

Where everyone is a threat to society. Perhaps we can lock everyone up? Of course who would run the prisons?

[aliendroid]

82. so based on your argument...

"Maybe you would never do it, but the access you have to guns and ammo is the same access anyone else has.

And maybe you only THINK you would never do it, but may actually surprise yourself as to what you're capable of."


So if what you said was true then New Hampshire and vermont should have the highest violent crime and murder rate in the USA because there pretty much anything goes with guns including open carry in the street.

You need me to post up the chart again?

[SteveM]

103. Shares, you really just don't trust people. But you have to in a democracy. nt

[baldguy]

31. And yet, non-threatening people get shot every day.

By law enforcement, by security guards, by supposed law-abiding gun owners.

The correct question is: do you favor prosecution of people who shoot those who aren't a threat?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. Do you have any statistics to back that up? and.....

If a grand jury finds grounds to indict someone then of course they should be prosecuted.

[Indy Lurker]

46. Absolutely

As long as it wasn't reasonable to assume they were a threat.

Such as this Darwin Award grade tattoo:







I can just hear the police yelling "Drop the gun." before he is shot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. One possible exception would be....

the shooting of someone you saw murder an innocent person, if the murderer was fleeing the scene. I would think that exact circumstance would be exceedingly rare.

[doc03]

39. I agree and I am a CCW holder. n/t

[jody]

42. The judgment of "posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm" is obviously subjective.

IMO grand juries will err on the side of the person using a firearm defensively where "defensively" is the key.

[Mike K]

45. My decision in this question -

- would be based mainly on who, the degree of opportunity and the level of risk of being caught.

[Mike K]

47. If this is strictly a moral question -

- then go ahead and round up every one of the sonsabitches who conspired to wreck this nation's economy through the implementation of various schemes and scams for the purpose of satisfying their greed, tie them to posts, turn me loose with an M-1 rifle and a bandoleer of ammo and you'll have your answer in about five minutes.

[gorfle]

52. Yes. It is OK to shoot people in defense of property.

Outside of war, is it ever ok to shoot at a person with a firearm who is not posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to you or another?

I am a staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and I fully support shooting people in defense of property.

Firstly, when an intruder is discovered in your home you have no idea what their intentions are. They might just be after your TV, but they might be there to kidnap your kids. You have no idea. The safest approach is to assume the worst case and assume an imminent thread of death or great bodily harm.

But even if they were only after my property, in my view, that is still sufficient cause for killing them. I know this is contrary to the opinion of many that "No one's life is worth a television," but I disagree. Everything I own represents portions of my life that I traded to acquire them. These pieces of my life are gone forever, and cannot be replaced. They are priceless. Thus anyone who steals my property is, by extension, stealing portions of my life that are irreplaceable. I would not tolerate someone taking one minute of my life and will defend every second of my life's work with extreme prejudice.

I am thus a big proponent of "Castle Doctrine" laws which dictate that homeowners do not have a legal obligation to retreat in the face of an intruder and laws which allow the use of deadly force in the protection of property. Such laws are or should be well known by those who would commit crimes, and those who decide to commit such crimes in spite of such laws obviously hold their manhoods cheap compared to the price of a television. I will oblige them.

[aliendroid]

80. if someone is in your home

if someone is in your home without permission they may be a threat, you have to use judgment on how to deal with them. If it's a lost child, you help the child. If the person looks normal but frightened, you should ask them why they are there. If they have a gun/knife or bat with a mask on, they are a threat.

[Indy Lurker]

86. Let me ask some questions

Since your comments are the most agressive.

And said "It is OK to shoot people in defense of property."


If you were to walk into your home, and clearly see a single individual stealing your TV, would you immediately shoot the individual?

Or draw your firearm, and keep them at gun point until the police arrive?


What about if you have them at gunpoint and they slowly set down the TV and slowly back towards the door. Would you shoot them at this point?

[gorfle]

92. Each situation would have to be looked at individually.

If you were to walk into your home, and clearly see a single individual stealing your TV, would you immediately shoot the individual?

Or draw your firearm, and keep them at gun point until the police arrive?

I have never had to use a firearm against someone, so it is hard to say exactly what I would do in such a situation. Further, I do not actually carry a firearm on my person, so if I walked into my home and found a burglary in progress I would not actually have a firearm on my person to draw.

Typically when I envision finding an intruder in my home I envision it as late at night and I am awoken by someone breaking in or in my home. In which case I envision myself retrieving my loaded firearm from my gun safe in the bedroom closet and investigating. If I found someone in my home at that point I would very likely shoot on sight, after determining that the person was not someone I knew.

In the two hypothetical situations you describe I don't know what I would do. It would probably greatly depend on the demeanor of the thief. Bear in mind that I'm saying that I don't have a problem shooting someone over defense of property, not that I necessarily would do so. For example, if I caught someone stealing food out of my kitchen I almost certainly would not shoot them, even though the food cost me to procure just as my property did.

If a thief tried to escape, I don't know what I'd do. I'd be strongly tempted to stop them from getting away with their crime by shooting them. I'm not sure what Alabama law is in regards to home invasion shootings.

[Callisto32]

53. The initiation of force is always wrong.

[rrneck]

78. +1 nt

[spin]

74. No. Period. (n/t)

[Katya Mullethov]

75. How many times ?

Is there a moon ?

Of course you dont shoot people just because you can . If you can afford it , more power to ya . Just dont get upset when you find out it'll cost more than a cape buffalo , and you aint gettin' your money back .

[Glassunion]

76. Only...

Er.... Uh... Well...

I was going to make an attempt at levity, however I thought better of it. So my answer...

No. It is not ok. EVER.

[aliendroid]

79. I'm a gun nut and I plan to try to avoid ever shooting someone

Even if someone is about to attack me I'll try to avoid it if possible. and if someone is not a threat, NEVER, that's outrageous to even think about.

[Euromutt]

85. Perhaps someone who is fleeing with one or more stolen firearms?

I'm just floating the idea, and I'd be keen to hear arguments against, but I think there's a case to be made.

Back when I was in the Dutch army, we received classroom instruction in the permissible use of force while guarding the barracks, and pretty much the only situation in which we were permitted to shoot other than self-defense was if we caught an unauthorized person fleeing a building used to store firearms, ammunition or classified documents. The obvious rationale being that, even if there was no imminent threat to life or limb, those items could--ad very probably would--be used to create such a threat at some future date.

Now, I doubt any of us keep any classified documents at home, but a number of certainly have firearms. Let's say you're armed with a "nightstand" or carry gun. You come into the room where your gun safe is and catch a burglar about to exit the window with a brace of your firearms, and let's say for the sake of the argument that you know none of them are loaded. The burglar's in the process of fleeing, and he presents no threat to you, but if he gets away with your firearms, those firearms will very likely end up in the criminal circuit, and may very well be used to unlawfully inflict harm on--maybe even kill--somebody else. Rather than relying on the less-than-certain option of reporting the theft to the police and hoping they catch the guy in time, might it not be better for the common weal ("general welfare," "public interest," whatever you want to call it) if you stopped the burglar from escaping with the guns?

Like I say, I'm not wholly sold on this myself, but I'm positing it as a possible answer to the OP.

[old mark]

88. You mean, like.....for FUN?

Antis love the think we gun owners are revening idiot knuckle draggers, and I am very tired of their idiotic assumptions.

I personally think most of them are profoundly ignorant delusional nazis, but, hey that's just me.

Shooting at people for no reason is illegal, even here in PA.


mark

[crispini]

89. What about IMAGINED threats?

Is it OK to shoot someone who you just THINK is going to hurt you, but in fact was not?

[Indy Lurker]

116. IMAGINED threats, No.

You may only use deadly force is there is "Reasonable" and imminent threat of harm or death.


A "Reasonable" threat is one that a "Reasonable Person" would see as a threat.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person


The first appearance of the reasonable person standard was in the English case of Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) In Menlove, the defendant had stacked hay on his rental property in a manner prone to spontaneous ignition. After repeated warnings over the course of five weeks, the hay ignited and burned the defendant's barns and stable, and then spread to the landlord's two cottages on the adjacent property. Menlove's attorney admitted his client's "misfortune of not possessing the highest order of intelligence," arguing that negligence should only be found if the jury decided Menlove had not acted with "bona fide to the best of his judgment."
The Menlove court disagreed, reasoning that such a standard would be too subjective, instead preferring to set an objective standard by which to adjudicate cases:
The care taken by a prudent man has always been the rule laid down; and as to the supposed difficulty of applying it, a jury has always been able to say, whether, taking that rule as their guide, there has been negligence on the occasion in question. Instead, therefore, of saying that the liability for negligence should be co-extensive with the judgment of each individual, which would be as variable as the length of the foot of each individual, we ought rather to adhere to the rule which requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. That was, in substance, the criterion presented to the jury in this case and, therefore, the present rule must be discharged.
English courts upheld the standard again nearly 20 years later in Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the Birmingham Water Works,<6> holding:
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

[unblock]

90. strawman: "Many gun prohibitionists seem to think gun enthusiasts just want to shoot someone"

well, i can't say that's not your impression, but i think the reality of those in favor of control is more refined than that. i'd say:

"many gun control advocates think gun enthusiasts fantasize about being shooting someone in a situation where it would be justified."

the thought is, they don't want to randomly shoot people or do so simply because they think they're right and the other guy is wrong or whatever; instead, they get off on the idea of being in a situation (war, intruder, mugger, etc.) where they could experience the skill and thrill of shooting someone *who deserved it*.

my own perspective is that, for the most part, "gun nuts" who know someone who has actually shot someone know enough to NOT want to ever be in that situation (but still want guns, just in case). it's the ones who are completely unfamiliar with the actual emotional impact of both the situation and of actually shooting of someone who lust after that situation.


oh, and by the way, i've never met a "gun prohibitionist". i've met plenty of "gun control advocates" but never met anyone who actually wanted to ban guns. if you say so, i'm sure there are some out there, but i'm quite certain that they're a small minority even among those generally opposed to guns.

[SteveM]

105. Concerning "gun prohibitionists." There are more than you think...

Of course, this depends on one's notion of "prohibition." There are absolute prohibitionists who post on these threads (some today), and there are those who say: "It's okay to own deer rifles and shotguns for hunting only." In absolutist terms, the latter is not a prohibitionist, but in practical terms this person is. Some 80+ per center of gun-owners DO NOT hunt. So what happens to the others -20%? They are prohibited from owning guns.

IMO, what motivates gun-controllers/prohibitionists is a distrust of the body politic -- their fellow citizens -- and a desire to disarm and (if it could be done) prevent their fellow citizens from defending themselves. These gun-controllers/prohibitionists rely on the wholly mistaken belief that LEOs should be the ones to defend citizens. LEOs are not charged with that "defense" function.

I would add that most of the gun-control organizations have, at one time or another, tried to ban this gun, or that gun, or maybe another gun; whatever seems politically expedient. This was noted by some of the early gun-control advocates, to even their own dismay. But it points up the general, overriding desire to de facto prohibit guns.

[unblock]

112. this is taking the other side's position to an implausible extreme.

advocating the banning of any one particular weapon doesn't translate AT ALL to a desire to ban ALL weapons -- any more than a desire to ban excessive interest rates means a desire to ban all lending, or a desire to ban lead-painted toys means a desire to ban all toys.

advocating the banning of one particular kind of gun may not be wise (in terms of politics or policy) but it's very different from advocating the banning of ALL guns.


also, i'm not clear on how one could ban non-hunters from owning guns but permit the same for hunters. i mean, would you somehow require everyone with a gun to go hunting at least once per year? as a practical matter, if you let hunters have guns, you let non-hunters have guns as well.

[X_Digger]

113. Had there not been a demonstrated link between one kind of gun being banned to another..

.. you'd have a point.

The Brady Coalition (aka Handgun Control, Inc., nee National Council to Control Handguns) started out in 1974 trying to ban handguns, period, end of sentence. They gave up the moniker, but not the goal, and expanded it to "assault weapons" in 1987.

Given their definition of "assault weapon", and how it would have applied, it would effectively ban any semi-automatic rifle, pistol, or shotgun, any hunting rifle (newspeak: "high-power sniper rifle"), and any post-1860 sized ammunition feeding device.

If the effect of banning 'one kind of weapon' in practice bans a huge swath of weapons, can you really say that it's taking it to an implausible extreme?

[SteveM]

121. That's just the problem...

"also, i'm not clear on how one could ban non-hunters from owning guns but permit the same for hunters. i mean, would you somehow require everyone with a gun to go hunting at least once per year? as a practical matter, if you let hunters have guns, you let non-hunters have guns as well."

Bans on all guns except those designed and used for hunting is a common proposal by gun-controllers/prohibitionists. Certainly, folks could buy guns for hunting and not go. But if the number of people who "hunt" increases by 2 or 3 fold, would the controller/prohibitionist stand by? Hardly. THEY, not I, would require the purchase of hunting licenses, or submission of hunting-lands sign-in forms, etc. In any case, the "practical matter" you see is really a grand subterfuge and would corruption this "twilight" prohibition; a speak-easy existence of gun ownership which would make this prohibitionist scheme sag under the weight of fiscal costs and ineffectiveness. But this is a prohibitionist model, and takes on the characteristics of other prohibitions.

Bans on particular types of weapons have been proposed by a variety of control/prohibitionist groups; one says all handguns, another says semi-auto pistols, another says "assault weapons" (and those same congresspersons have pushed for broadening "assault weapons" to include still more guns)(see DNC platform), bans on magazine capacity (meaningless), bans on caliber (sometimes not even differentiating between .50 Browning machine gun and a .50 black power muzzle-loader), bans on the hoary old .30-30. At times the same groups change from seeking the banning of one weapon, then switch to banning another (see Violence Policy Center), and some groups want to ban multiple firearms. In the aggregate, this clearly represents a desire for banning the vast majority of weapons. Organizations which have haphazard knowledge of what they want to ban, inconsistent and changing agenda, and demonstrated histories of outright hostility to tens of millions of gun-owners cannot be trusted to merely "control guns."

[DirkGently]

91. We had a

"fleeing felon" statute here in Florida (may still have) allowing the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing person reasonably suspected of having committed a felony. So ... car thief. There was a barely-debated incident I recall with a Sheriff's deputy fatally shooting a fleeing burglary suspect in the back with a shotgun. There was no suggestion the suspect was even thought to be armed. Ruled justified.

One reason I largely avoid this whole range of topics is that it seems to be mostly reasonable people angry about what they perceive unreasonable people think.

You don't have to spend much time on the Internet to find extreme assumptions on any opinion out there. I don't think extreme views of any perspective are typical, but I will say that my ad hoc, anecdotal experience of Internet Crazies is that extreme pro-gun views seem firmly in the lead.

Maybe it's just on the side of the fence I'm on, but it wasn't but yesterday I scanned the comment section on some local story where the only facts presented were that teenagers entered a man's yard and he shot at them from inside the house. No mention they were trying to break in. No mention they were armed. I saw nothing but "Shoulda killed 'em all / that'll teach 'em" type comments. Along with a raft of "Gun haters want to disarm us so we can't protect ourselves" type thoughts as well.

Typical gun owners? Maybe not, but my perception is that those opinions, at least in the quasi-reality of the Internet, are in the vast majority.

Can anyone help me balance my view here? Where is the perception that gun control advocates are largely fearful, gun-hating absolutists coming from? Who's fighting the bigger army of strawmen?

[SteveM]

106. No.

While there may be some "what ifs" and unusual circumstances, this is my belief.

[DirkGently]

109. Here's an example

of where my perceptions come from:

(CBS) The 911 call came from a Pasadena, Tex., resident, who alerted police to two burglary suspects on a neighbor's property. Before he hung up, two men were dead by his hand.

Joe Horn, 61, told the dispatcher what he intended to do: Walk out his front door with a shotgun.



"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.

"Hurry up man, catch these guys, will you? 'Cause I'm ain't gonna let 'em go, I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not gonna let 'em go. I'm not gonna let 'em get away with this ----."

(there's a lengthy transcript, but the message comes through clearly that Mr. Horn is safe inside his house, but is determined to 1) confront the thieves stealing from his neighbor and 2) considers it his right to shoot them if they attempt to flee).

And from what I understand, he may have been within his rights in Texas, which indicates that, as in Florida, MANY people, and presumably many gun owners, believe in the right to kill to defend property -- even someone else's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/national/main3517564.shtml

Then the comments section. There are a few going the other way, but I note zero comments to the effect that guns or deadly force are never justified:

"I like what happened here because it will make criminals think twice before robbing a home, unknowing whether a neighbor as crazy as mr horn might be next door to blow their brains out."

"I do not know what third-world hell hole you crawled out of but first of all you cannot just stereotype an entire nation on the actions of one man, and second, this man has a right to defend his or his neighbors property. The commandment against killing is misinterpreted. I study theology. The real English translation is though shalt not MURDER. What Joe did was not in cold blood, he defended himself. Oh and by the way... grow a set you misinformed, stereotyping, bigot."

... just for flavor. So again, I don't see a tidal wave of anti-gun absolutists running around out there, but based on both the extant legislation and the general background noise out here in cyberspace, there is at least a very vocal contingent of gun owners who absolutely support shooting someone in the absence of a physical threat.

Is this not a reasonable basis for people to receive that " . . . gun enthusiasts just want to shoot someone?" (in the absence of a physical threat)?

Edit: Again, I get that both presumptions are strawmen, but who is being more unfair to the "other" here? Do we not have more "Kill 'em all!" gun enthusiasts than "Ban 'em all!" anti-gun absolutists?"

[Euromutt]

110. If you think people who comment on news media articles form a representative sample...

...then maybe. But I rather strongly doubt that commentators on news media articles are indeed a representative sample of much of anything. The quality of discussion in the comments sections is only marginally better than that on YouTube. I'd certainly be hesitant to extrapolate those comments to even a fraction of the estimated 80 million gun owners in this country.

And I do hope you picked up somewhere on this forum that while Horn did confront the burglars, he only opened fire when, instead of fleeing or surrendering, they advanced on him. I dont know that you can attribute Horn's actions to a desire to shoot someone, rather than simply to an unwillingness to stand by and look on while his neighbor's house was being burgled, and he had an opportunity to try and stop it. I mean, what would you say? "Gosh yeah, damn shame about all your electronics and those family heirlooms that held so much sentimental value. I saw the whole thing; too bad the cops didn't get here on time to stop them, huh?"

[DirkGently]

114. But we agree that

... he went outside with the intention of shooting them rather than letting them escape, right? It's clear from the transcript. "I ain't lettin' 'em get away." Etc. And you support that, which cuts against the OP suggestion that gun enthusiasts are unfairly depicted as being willing to kill without a physical threat.

I'd agree comment boards are far from a scientific example, but we are talking about perceptions here. I'm still trying to see where it's unfair to perceive that gun owners are willing to kill without a physical threat when the typical background noise out here in cyberspace is that shooting burglars is a great thing.

So which is it? If you think shooting to defend property is justified, then it is not unfair for people to think that gun owners are willing to kill without a physical threat, right?

On the flipside, I'm still asking where the perception that most gun control advocates are absolutists looking for a total ban comes from. I've scanned a lot of those "Shooting the Trespasser" article comment sections and -- while I will completely agree such comment sections are Crazy Magnets -- can we agree that we ALL perceive more "Kill the Trespasser / Burglar" advocates than "Guns. All bad. All the time" posters? Isn't the perception of gun enthusiasts willing to kill without a threat somewhat reasonable?

Again, it's a question of who more correctly perceives irrationality or extremiism on the other side.

[Euromutt]

122. No, we do not agree

I think that's an unwarranted assumption on your part. This was not the kind of situation in which one has time to calmly consider one's words and carefully add caveats and qualifiers. For all I know (and for all you know), what Horn may have meant was that he did not intend to let the burglars escape with this neighbor's possessions. He might have been perfectly content to drive the burglars to flight without the loot. (Additionally, Horn said this before he went to get his shotgun.)

Moreover, even if my surmise is incorrect (and I'll concede that it might be), that still left the burglars the option of avoiding being shot by surrendering. It's a valid option. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think residential burglars are scum to a man, and I am unsympathetic to the idea that refusing to allow a burglar to escape--especially with stolen goods--is somehow unreasonable, or unsporting, or something.

In short, it's not unambiguously clear that Horn intended to shoot no matter what. Even his statement "I'm going to kill them" was made in response to the 911 operator telling him "You’re going to get yourself shot," and can therefore be interpreted as meaning "I'm going to kill them if they try to shoot me."

And you support that, <...>

Kindly don't tell me what I think. I'm capable of studying an issue with some measure of detachment. The fact is, I haven't entirely made up my mind about this incident yet.

<...> the OP suggestion that gun enthusiasts are unfairly depicted as being willing to kill without a physical threat.

There's a distinction between being prepared to shoot someone on the one hand and actively wanting to shoot someone on the other. The insinuation is that people who possess a firearm for defensive purposes are actively looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.

On the flipside, I'm still asking where the perception that most gun control advocates are absolutists looking for a total ban comes from.

Speaking for myself, I don't think that most gun control advocates are absolutists. I think most people who favor increased restrictions on private firearms ownership have good (albeit somewhat misguided) intentions; they favor a number of restrictions because they (have been led to) believe that these will reduce violent crime.
Gun control activists are a different story. While organizations like the Brady Campaign say they don't favor wholesale prohibition, the fact that they will seize on any high-profile shooting incident to demand a ban on the firearm in question, regardless of what type of firearm it actually is. In other words, they'll opportunistically support a ban on any firearm, if the political support for such a ban can be mustered. In this regard, it's telling that two groups, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence changed their names, from Handgun Control Inc. and the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, respectively; a strong indication that both organizations were no longer content to limit themselves to lobbying for bans on handguns alone.

Where gun control activists do tend to be absolutists is in the aspect of private ownership and use of firearms for self-defense. The Brady Campaign et al. oppose just about any legislation that facilitates this, such as "shall issue" laws (which "force police chiefs and state sheriffs to give concealed carry permits (CCW) to anyone who can buy a handgun"), "stand your ground" laws (or "shoot first" laws, as the Brady Campaign tendentiously calls them), Castle Doctrine laws, etc. Other activists advocate that gun owners (who may only own guns for hunting and target shooting) be required to store their guns at their gun club, or a government-controlled armory.

And thanks to the manufactroversy concerning so-called "assault weapons," hunters and target shooters would be considerably restricted in their choice of firearms if the activists had their way. The AR platform is both versatile and accurate, and has lent itself well to being adapted to both hunting and target shooting. But because the design is derived from a military design (the M16), and has (horrors!) a pistol grip, gun control activists consider it an "assault weapon," suited only for "mowing down large numbers of innocent people." Curiously, these groups, news media editorial boards, and legislators have no issue with law enforcement agencies adopting similar semi-auto-only AR-pattern rifles as "patrol rifles"; nobody stops to ask why beat cops need guns that are suited only for "mowing down large numbers of innocent people." One can only wonder why.

To a person like myself, who owns firearms primarily for self-defense (and an overwhelming majority of American gun owners own firearms at least partly for defensive purposes), criminalizing the keeping and use of firearms in self-defense is tantamount to prohibition. I'm not interested in going through a rigmarole of licensing and registration and approval of the local police chief just so that I can "own" a .22 target pistol and an over/under shotgun that I have to keep at the gun club. Sorry.

I've scanned a lot of those "Shooting the Trespasser" article comment sections and -- while I will completely agree such comment sections are Crazy Magnets -- can we agree that we ALL perceive more "Kill the Trespasser / Burglar" advocates than "Guns. All bad. All the time" posters? Isn't the perception of gun enthusiasts willing to kill without a threat somewhat reasonable?

Even allowing that your perception is correct, and the "kill the burglar" crowd greatly outnumbers the "ban all guns for private citizens" crowd, it's still not reasonable to extrapolate the expressed opinions of the (as you acknowledge) crazies to gun enthusiasts in general, just like it isn't reasonable to draw conclusions about the state of social interaction in society at large based on the behavior of YouTube commenters.

[DirkGently]

124. Can't say I agree

That this was the question:

"it's still not reasonable to extrapolate the expressed opinions of the (as you acknowledge) crazies to gun enthusiasts in general."

My read of the OP was that if asked, NO gun enthusiast would actually support killing outside of the context of a *physical threat*. But even in this uncharacterisically reasonable forum, we have at least one poster (not you) willing to overtly support killing in defense of property. I apologize if I mischaracterized your own view, but you have at least clearly left the door open to supporting killing in defense of property.

So we have a couple distinctions here, which maybe is progress. We can agree that if anyone can actually be found suggesting that all gun owners are bloodthirsty lunatics, that this would be unfair. But let's also be clear that

1) That's largely a strawman to begin with. While you could no doubt find someone with such a harsh view of gun enthusiasts, it's actually gun enthusiasts "extrapolating" when they suggest they are unfairly accused of wanton bloodthirstiness.

Why then, are such imaginary claims of persecution such a large part of pro-gun argument? It's simply disingenuous.

2) There is a real, vocal, easily-located contingent of gun enthusiasts who at least mouth support for a liberal policy of killing in the absence of a *physical threat.* This is not the same as general bloodthirstiness, but the OP made a good point in bringing it up, because there is a large gap in personal and societal ethics between those who support the use of force in self-defense (all but true pacifists) and those willing to shoot someone to protect a neighbor's TV. It appears that at least two states actually support killing to defend property as a matter of law, so it's clearly not an uncommon view.

So let's at least keep the argument honest. The bulk of gun-related debate is not being generated by a baseless assumption that gun enthusiasts are bloodthirsty lunatics, OR by lack of moral support for using deadly force in self defense. There is NOT a large, vocal contingent of anti-gun absolutists, and that view is not the drive behind most proposed gun regulation.

And finally, there are large, vocal groups of gun enthusiasts who embrace the rationally contested view that killing to protect property is justified, as well a highly visible, highly vocal, presumably minority (???) group of gun enthusiasts who actually do sound like bloodthirsty vigilantes.

[rrneck]

126. The "store your gun at a gun club" argument

has always amused me. The best gun club facility I have ever been to had a large Confederate flag and a portrait of Robert E. Lee on the wall. That's where they suggest we create an arsenal? And those are the people they want to have control of the facility?

Follow through is the secret to a good swing.

[burrfoot]

111. If we're ONLY having a hypothetical debate about a

question of morality, I'll throw this out there- what about serial offenders of serious crimes?

Child rapist with multiple offenses lives next door. You hear a scream, call the cops, check it out. Guy has a 12 year old in the house and his pants off. You open the door with your gun out, guy backs away from the girl with his hands up. You then...


how does this end?

1)cover the guy with your gun until the police arrive. When you see the flashing lights and hear the sirens you place your gun on the ground and cooperate fully.

2)decide that the guy has had enough chances and the world will be better off without him in it.


(I know this is a contrived situation, but we're talking hypothetically here so what the hay.)

If somebody picks choice number two and you're sitting on the jury, do you vote for a guilty of murder verdict?

:shrug:


:shrug:

[Katya Mullethov]

123. Body language it's all about the body language

And the actions of the courts and prisons say

"Citizen police thyself"


"This is expensive and perilous .........you deal with it "

fine

[AtheistCrusader]

119. No.

There is no other answer. Why is this thread so large?

If you are not at war, there is no plausible excuse to shoot someone unless yourself, or someone you intend to protect is in danger. Anything else is murder/extrajudicial killing.

Why is this thread so big... what the hell is going on