While I personally believe that the 10 year old boy should be given a big atta boy, I can also imagine the potential legal issues that still might come up. For example, in one of your postings, there was an altracation where someone's son brought mom a gun. The son was charged with possession without an FOID card. I'm thinking NYC has a similar law. So, does the son here get charged? Mom?, The guy who brought the gun and carelessly left it where a child could get it? Using your criteria, would the boy be banned from owning firearms for the rest of his life? Mom? Or that guy who brought the gun. Did that poor guy deserve to be endangered by someone who shot at him when he was most likely just looking for property to steal? Ok, let me pull my tongue out of my cheek now... Another name for a home invasion is "hot burglary". When the thieves enter knowing up front that the occupants are present or likely to be present. In the US, the percentage of hot burglaries is about 13%. Studies in which criminals were interviewed gave the main reason being that they would try to pick a time when no one is there because of the concern about getting shot by the homeowner. In the UK, where there are very few guns in private hands, the rate of hot burglaries is up near 50%. So the job hazards for burglars in the UK are much fewer.
First of all, I don't believe that stat about the UK. Secondly, I know you were being cheeky in the early part of your comment, but I call this a legitimate DGU with three stars, one because he was a kid, two because he used the bad guy's gun and three because no one got hurt.
Just because you don't believe it Mike doesn't make it false. Deal with the facts. Secondly, what ssgmarkcr said is also a real possibility with New York law. Yes, this kid deserves a real atta boy. But when you have laws and rules that have no tolerance attached to them, real hero's like this kid lose.
A kid suspended for ten days just for saying "gun" in a conversation, not threating anyone. A kid suspended for chewing his pop-tart into a gun shape. A kid suspended in possession of a GI-Joe gun the size of a quarter. A kid suspended for breaking up a fight on school grounds because the school doesn't condone heroism.
What if he had used a parent's gun? Would you still be all for charging the parents for not storing the gun in a way that this kid couldn't get to it?
Also, how did this kid successfully utilize the gun? Had he been trained? Haven't you told us that training children this young is sick and child abuse?
See, Tennessean, the kid missed, as did the bad guy. Since they're both unprepared gun users, it's all good. It's even better than that, since the only guns here belonged to the bad guys. No good citizen owned an icky gun.
Because there was no icky gun in the home, there was no chance of the kid shooting his little brother by accident or of a thief breaking in and taking the gun.
As Greg points out, the outcome of this case depended on luck. The criminal broke in with a gun, which would seem to render the idea of him breaking in and arming himself inside moot. It's more likely that a criminal willing to use a gun will bring it with him, not find and use it before grabbing something else.
Yes, the family survived here, but had the criminal been more competent, they would be dead, so there's nothing to brag about there, whereas this family might have been better protected if they had a gun in the home.
And so, I'd like to ask for an answer to the questions I posed above--we know you like the outcome here, but what about with the issues I described above?
1. The initially unarmed family is lucky to have survived. Having a gun at the start of a gun fight is a much better way to operate. But what we see here again is that a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.
2. Security cameras didn't stop this attack--I'm talking to you, Laci.
While I personally believe that the 10 year old boy should be given a big atta boy, I can also imagine the potential legal issues that still might come up.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in one of your postings, there was an altracation where someone's son brought mom a gun. The son was charged with possession without an FOID card. I'm thinking NYC has a similar law. So, does the son here get charged? Mom?, The guy who brought the gun and carelessly left it where a child could get it? Using your criteria, would the boy be banned from owning firearms for the rest of his life? Mom? Or that guy who brought the gun. Did that poor guy deserve to be endangered by someone who shot at him when he was most likely just looking for property to steal? Ok, let me pull my tongue out of my cheek now...
Another name for a home invasion is "hot burglary". When the thieves enter knowing up front that the occupants are present or likely to be present. In the US, the percentage of hot burglaries is about 13%. Studies in which criminals were interviewed gave the main reason being that they would try to pick a time when no one is there because of the concern about getting shot by the homeowner.
In the UK, where there are very few guns in private hands, the rate of hot burglaries is up near 50%. So the job hazards for burglars in the UK are much fewer.
First of all, I don't believe that stat about the UK. Secondly, I know you were being cheeky in the early part of your comment, but I call this a legitimate DGU with three stars, one because he was a kid, two because he used the bad guy's gun and three because no one got hurt.
DeleteJust because you don't believe it Mike doesn't make it false. Deal with the facts. Secondly, what ssgmarkcr said
Deleteis also a real possibility with New York law. Yes, this kid deserves a real atta boy. But when you have laws and rules that have no tolerance attached to them, real hero's like this kid lose.
A kid suspended for ten days just for saying "gun" in a conversation, not threating anyone.
A kid suspended for chewing his pop-tart into a gun shape.
A kid suspended in possession of a GI-Joe gun the size of a quarter.
A kid suspended for breaking up a fight on school grounds because the school doesn't condone heroism.
Need I go on?
What if he had used a parent's gun? Would you still be all for charging the parents for not storing the gun in a way that this kid couldn't get to it?
DeleteAlso, how did this kid successfully utilize the gun? Had he been trained? Haven't you told us that training children this young is sick and child abuse?
See, Tennessean, the kid missed, as did the bad guy. Since they're both unprepared gun users, it's all good. It's even better than that, since the only guns here belonged to the bad guys. No good citizen owned an icky gun.
DeleteBecause there was no icky gun in the home, there was no chance of the kid shooting his little brother by accident or of a thief breaking in and taking the gun.
DeleteYour case is weak here, since the guns were brought by violent criminals, and the family survived only by luck.
DeleteAs Greg points out, the outcome of this case depended on luck. The criminal broke in with a gun, which would seem to render the idea of him breaking in and arming himself inside moot. It's more likely that a criminal willing to use a gun will bring it with him, not find and use it before grabbing something else.
DeleteYes, the family survived here, but had the criminal been more competent, they would be dead, so there's nothing to brag about there, whereas this family might have been better protected if they had a gun in the home.
And so, I'd like to ask for an answer to the questions I posed above--we know you like the outcome here, but what about with the issues I described above?
1. The initially unarmed family is lucky to have survived. Having a gun at the start of a gun fight is a much better way to operate. But what we see here again is that a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.
ReplyDelete2. Security cameras didn't stop this attack--I'm talking to you, Laci.