More guns, no guns, gun control? *BANG! BANG!!*

[DHKold]

Can I get an atomic weapon if I promise only to use it for self defense?

[Feud]

Oh, I never claimed that you're obsessed, but I recall you posting multiples times about your latest acquisition an whatnot (pictures included) while knowing full well that we wouldn't really appreciate it. That's what I meant with fascination

Also, out of morbid curiosity, any specific European "norm" that you find unsettling which you're willing to share?

Who's "we"?

On the sillier end, male swimwear. Seems like every time I see a picture of European beaches it's a dazzling display speedos and male thongs.

[Xocrates]

Who's "we"?

Compare the number of people who seem to enjoy you posting about it Vs the people that clearly don't

On the sillier end, male swimwear. Seems like every time I see a picture of European beaches it's a dazzling display speedos and male thongs.

Well, that's unsettling to us too you know.

That said, I don't recall the last time I saw someone in a speedo.

[madison11]

hahahaha, this would be the best one: "I don't own one right now, but I seek to acquire some soon as I'm planning a massacre." Hope I can try massacre...

<suspicious spam snipped>

[Ace Rimmer]

^ Spam or nut?

LOGANVILLE, Ga. [USA] — A Georgia mother hid her two 9-year-old twins and shot an intruder, Paul Ali Slater, several times during a home invasion on Friday, according to multiple media reports.

The Loganville mother said she didn’t initially answer when someone knocked on her door around 1 p.m. Friday. When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. He then dialed 911 and his 37-year-old wife gathered their 9-year-old twins and hid them in a crawlspace inside the home. According to the report, the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings. When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

The woman fled to a neighbor’s home with her children. The woman and her two children were not injured. The injured intruder stumbled out of the home and attempted to flee in his car. However, he crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway, according to WSB-TV. The suspect was arrested at the scene. He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive. The victim’s husband said he’s proud of his wife.

“My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner,” Donnie Herman told WSB-TV.

Question 1: Did the gun 'save' her and/or her kids. If not, what could/should she have done to avoid potential danger without a gun.

Questoin 2: Do you agree with her husband?

Lastly, point blank range six times and he lives... I hope he is very thankful to be alive.

[Xocrates]

Question 1: Did the gun 'save' her and/or her kids.

Who knows? Frankly the story has enough holes to make it questionable if the use of the gun was even necessary (did the intruder know there was someone in the house? The article implies he didn't, which makes me question what makes them so sure he would break in even if he knew they were there).

The gun "saving" them makes sense if we assume a worst case scenario, which of course raises the question of why is it that a million to one chance justifies all the other worst case scenarios of owning a gun in a house with two kids.

Frankly, the article does a crap job at supporting either side. It does not make the gun seem a necessity, but the use of it does not seem inappropriate (although, perhaps, a bit exaggerated)

[Ace Rimmer]

Frankly, the article does a crap job at supporting either side. It does not make the gun seem a necessity, but the use of it does not seem inappropriate (although, perhaps, a bit exaggerated)

I thought that was the point of reporting, to just state the facts (as known), not editorialize.

[Xocrates]

I thought that was the point of reporting, to just state the facts (as known), not editorialize.

My point was more along the lines of "the known facts do a crap job at supporting either side"

Or in other words, that article is pretty useless for this discussion since it doesn't bring anything new to the table.

[zjoere]

The door banging and ringing seems to suggest he was trying to confirm if someone was home? And since noone answered maybe he thought it was safe to do a bit of burglary. What she could have done was turn on the lights in the house. We once heard strange noises at our front door and turned on the lights in the house. The next morning it turned someone had tried to break open the front door. So the lights and the fact that people are home is enough to scare some criminals away.
She could have called the cops first instead of her husband and just hide and wait without a gun.

Also getting shot in the face 5 times sounds painful.

[Feud]

Where does the article imply that he didn't know anyone was home?

It says she didn't initially answer the door, which suggests that the answer wasn't immediate, not that it didn't happen at all. (Other articles mention her yelling to her children nearest the door not to open it to a stranger, as she was in a different part of the house when the stranger began knocking/ringing.) It is also worth stating that the burglar was armed with a crowbar.

Also, it should be noted that the police in America have no legal obligation to protect either person or property, unless they specifically extend it to a person. Otherwise they would be liable for any crime thus committed. It should also be kept in mind that even under the best of circumstances, police response times are usually four or five minutes or more. In rural areas, this can increase to upwards of half an hour.

That all being said, while there may have been things that might have been done to further discourage the intruder, that he forced himself into an occupied private residence is justification enough to use a gun. There is a great way not to get shot by homeowners in this country: don't break into their homes. Didn't know someone was home? Well, that problem could have been easily solved by not breaking in.

When an intruder has entered into a private domain, they give those within every reason to fear for their own safety, and the safety of their family. It should not be the duty of a homeowner to, at that point, then determine whether they mean to only break this law or that one, whether they mean to only smash things but also people. A person who has forced themselves into a home is a reasonable risk to the occupants thereof, and a parent not only has the right, they have a moral duty, to protect the family therein in the most effective means available at that time.

****************

By the way: the minimum safe distance for a trained person armed with a gun to be from an aggressor without one is considered to be about 21'. At distances shorter than that, if the person with the gun does not act first then the aggressor is likely able to close the distance before effective stopping fire can be delivered. Police pratice it with what's called the Tueller Drill.

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

[Xocrates]

Where does the article imply that he didn't know anyone was home?

It says she didn't initially answer the door, which suggests that the answer wasn't immediate, not that it didn't happen at all.

Likewise, it doesn't state it did happen. Furthermore, it describes that the intruder rummaged through their belongings before heading to the closet, which seems mighty odd if he knew there was people home.
Also, the article linked did not state much of what you said.

that he forced himself into an occupied private residence is justification enough to use a gun.

This straight up scares me.

[Ace Rimmer]

that he forced himself into an occupied private residence is justification enough to use a gun.

This straight up scares me.

For the sake of argument, given the situation as it was and we are aware of it (it's actually real life history now), and assuming it was your wife/mother/sister, would she be justified in using the gun (also assuming she somehow had one in spite of your clear objections)?

[Xocrates]

that he forced himself into an occupied private residence is justification enough to use a gun.

This straight up scares me.

For the sake of argument, given the situation as it was and we are aware of it (it's actually real life history now), and assuming it was your wife/mother/sister, would she be justified in using the gun (also assuming she somehow had one in spite of your clear objections)?

It does not make the gun seem a necessity, but the use of it does not seem inappropriate (although, perhaps, a bit exaggerated)

I had answered that already

Let me be perfectly clear here: I do not object to people defending themselves with whatever means available. Although I vastly prefer the "minimum force necessary" approach to the "shoot on sight" approach (which is the part that scared me).

[Ace Rimmer]

Ah, sorry, didn't take that as a direct answer. My apologies. Though, it seems you are the only one brave enough to answer.

[Feud]

Let me be perfectly clear here: I do not object to people defending themselves with whatever means available. Although I vastly prefer the "minimum force necessary" approach to the "shoot on sight" approach (which is the part that scared me).

How do you determine the minimum force necessary to stop an intruder in the home? A person who is scared, adrenaline filled, and caught off guard is not in an ideal condition to make either lengthy or complete determinations of force escalation.

Suppose the minimum force necessary is substantial violence. Is the home owner to start with asking trying to wrestle the intruder out, then graduate to clubs, knives, and eventually firearms as each process fails? Is the intruder to calmly respect he homeowner's decision process as they determine the minimum force necessary?

I propose an alternative doctrine: I think that when a homeowner is faced with a forced intruder that rather than being required to find the minimum force necessary to end the danger they instead should be allowed to exercise the most effective means. They are the victim, they have had their home, their safety, and the safety of their family put in jeopardy against their wishes. Their civil liberties are being actively ignored, and their fundamental right to life and liberty imperiled. When choosing whether to defend themselves they shouldn't have to worry if grabbing the club or the knife is appropriate, and whether they might find themselves in jail for being unfairly effective in defending themselves or their children.

As I said, there is an exceptionally effective way for criminals not to get shot by homeowners: don't break into homes. If you choose however to make someone fear for their lives, you shouldn't be surprised if they fight for them.

People like her, like most gun owners, don't sit around waiting for the opportunity to kill people. They aren't salivating to "shoot on sight". They simple want to win if someone else endangers them, and they realize that using too little force means you might not get a second chance.