Sunday, January 2, 2011

San Jose Man Shoots First Asks Questions Later

The most amazing part of the story is that the homeowner is not in jail. The fact that he'll probably go on keeping guns in his home, for protection, is the tragedy.

San Jose police were investigating the circumstances of an incident early Friday morning in which a homeowner shot a 24-year-old man suspected of burglarizing his home.
The problem is there was no burglary in progress, there was only a drunk young man stumbling around the neighborhood.

In addition to saying he feared for his life the homeowner said he saw a gun in the hand of the guy. It turned out to be a cell phone.

This is a perfect illustration of why most people would be better off without a gun in the home.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Wow--a lot of shootings in California (West Dumbfuckistan) lately--three currently on the front page of the blog.

    Let me guess--you blame Virginia, right?

  2. Hey maybe there is more than 10% of the population that shouldn't get drunk.

    What do you think Mikey?

    Should we ban, er, implement common sense regulations on who should be able to drink or not?

    Maybe we should make them take a class room training of 8 hours or more.

    License them to drink -- have to show proficiency in drinking way too much and still be able to make it home.

    Maybe we should up the age in which people should be allowed to drink, eh?

    How about 30?

    Think those and many others would solve the problem?

  3. 'This is a perfect illustration of why most people would be better off without a gun in the home.'

    No, this is a perfect illistration of what happens when someone with no sense is allowed to purchase a gun. The process to get one down here is so easy it isn't funny.

    Gun purchases where I live are regarded very seriously. Weeks of going to a range with an officer who is not only assessing if you are good with the gun but also if you are right in the head. Massive government questionaires that determine if you are likely or more likely to use the weapon for criminal or mental issues. Background checks, extensive background checks. Not just if you have a felony but if you had arrests or charges of a violent or unstable nature. "Says here you punched a guy in a club, started a fight". NO GUN!

    Common sense is all that needs to be applied to both the people using and the people creating the laws for weapons.

  4. Anonymous, where do you live? Were you saying you agree with those screening requirements?

    Zorro, I don't blame Virginia, unless the guns originally came from there. Then the lax gun state itself would merit some blame.

    I mainly blame the stupid shooter, a man who obviously was not fit to own guns.

    But as long as we're passing blame around, you get a little piece of it too, don't forget. You remember how my shared responsibility thing works.

    That's how I figure all those who hinder the passing of responsible gun laws must bear some of the weight.

  5. "Anonymous, where do you live? Were you saying you agree with those screening requirements?"

    Canada. And yes, I do agree. I agree because they put guns in the hands of people who will use them responsibly (some slip through of course).

  6. Anonymous from Canada, Thanks for the comments.

    I think we could definitely use more common sense on both sides of the gun argument.

    Listen, why don't you send us some good stories to post about. Canada's got some interesting dynamics going on.