Local news reports
It's a terrible tragedy that he lost his girlfriend like this, but he should also lose his freedom and his gun rights forever.
The last time I checked, you were in violation of the 4 Rules of Gun Safety if you shoot into the darkness at a silhouette.
What's your opinion? Please laeve a comment.
Yes, you should go to jail for negligent homicide, possible manslaughter, and lose your gun rights and your guns forever.
ReplyDeleteThis just goes to show-- again --- how the gun guys are NOT AT ALL as safe as they claim over and over and over again.
This is not a rare or isolated incident; there have been plenty of incidents where people shot a family member or friend or innocent unarmed person who was NOT a genuine threat.
People with guns are too damned trigger happy too damned often. It creates the problem that this is the solution they go to instead of looking for non-violent, non-escalating responses. THIS is why we used to have the duty to retreat, in part, as a core component in Castle Doctrine, the way it is in the ENTIRE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD.
I wrote about this inherent tendency towards an escalation of violence yesterday by gun nuts specifically and right wing authoritarian types generally:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/might-makes-wrong.html
So how far does one have to retreat in one's own home? If an armed intruder breaks into my home with the intent of robbing me and my family and causing deadly bodily harm, how far am I required to retreat in your mind? Should I run out the back door and hope the rest of my family makes it too? Or should I stand my ground and fight for my life and property using whatever weapons I have available? What's your solution?
DeleteFrankly, if you're stupid enough to break into someones' house, you deserve what you get.
dog gone ... go argue with the Centers for Disease Control. They tell us that armed citizens unintentionally shoot and kill about 600 people every year. Given that 80 million or so citizens own firearms, that means 79,999,940 of them didn't kill anyone last year. If "gun guys are NOT AT ALL safe", then tell us where the Centers for Disease Control messed up their numbers.
DeleteOf course 600 unintentional deaths annually is horrible and tragic. Let's try to educate people and lower that number without making the lives of violent criminals and rapists safer -- which is exactly happens when you disarm citizens.
In order to create a civilized society, where the mighty are not free to exploit the weak, as well as maintain the rule of law, we have traded individual self-defense for the benefit of a professional police force. To guarantee life, liberty, and property for all citizens of a nation, there must be to some degree a collectivization of resources in order to protect the fundamental liberties of the persons subject to the rule of the State from infringement by their fellow citizen. Without the government there would be no rights. The twenty-first century American is very much a creation of the state, as without police officers, firefighters, social workers, and soldiers, there would be no quality of life, no liberty and no property worth defending. We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted. The collectivization of some rights in inherent to the formation of a civilized society. Police are endowed with coercive power, while mere citizens are not. The mere subject of a State (in this case the U.S.) has no reasonable claim of a "right" to "keep and bear" certain arms, the form of arms which may be lawfully possessed or the manner or place in which such arms are may lawfully used, dependent on the current prevailing interpretation of the (falsely) perceived right. Such a right (as it is claimed) being endowed to the mere person, by the current U.S. constitution, would contradict a (rather fundamental) right to civilian disarmament, which may be derived from the provisions of the preamble which specifically establish the obligation of the State to "ensure domestic tranquility" (therefore requiring a disarmed citizenry) and to "provide for the common defense" which requires State actors to have a monopoly on the lawful use of coercive power (such as the lawful use of arms)
DeleteTherefore, although a "right to keep and bear arms" exists, it does not belong to you.
Also...................
The practice of maintaining a firearm inside the confines of the domicile requires the belief that speeding bullets will be halted by flimsy drywall, and not enter adjacent rooms and structures, inflicting death upon the occupants of such.
Mr. G., you have to retreat until you are sure there is lethal threat. You can't shoot first and sort it out later.
DeleteE.N., a society in which the mighty aren't free to exploit the weak? That's exactly what a gun can prevent. But, of course, you're still going on about that nonsense about how we're the property of the state. You keep calling us subjects. That bullshit won't fly in this country. Sell it somewhere else.
DeleteMike B. if someone breaks in my door with the intention of robbing me, that is lethal intent
DeleteEN, Law enforcement isn't required to protect you. Their job is to investigate a crime after the fact and prosecute the criminal if enough evidence can be gathered to make a case.
Remember, when your life is in danger and seconds count, law enforcement is several minutes away.
Mike, you can't call it lethal intent just cause you want to. You can't read the guys mind, you can't say what his intentions are. Breaking in could mean he intends only to steal. Summary execution is too heavy for that.
DeleteBreaking into someone else's home is a violent act. We're required to be reasonable, but apparently, you're not. That's fine, since you're not a gun owner. A reasonable person would recognize that a home invader isn't there for lawful or peaceful purposes. But you feel free to take your chances.
DeleteThis in the Brady paradise of California. How is that possible? Could it be that gun control failed again?
ReplyDeleteGreg, put away your silly sarcasm and tell us is shooting at a silhouette in the dark OK?
DeleteThe tone was sarcastic, since the Brady Bunch is as silly as all other gun control advocates, but the point is valid. Gun control failed yet again.
DeleteAnonymous below gave the right answer already. A family that has guns has to talk about the responsibilities of each member. That's within the family, understand. No laws are welcome.
Freedom!
ReplyDeleteShooting at a silhouette in darkness is a really bad idea in all but the most desperate of situations. And this is why everyone should yell out a friendly greeting when they enter any home. At the very least, a greeting puts anyone inside the home at ease and at best, it saves lives.
ReplyDeleteThere are pros and cons to announcing yourself or giving a warning to a potential home invader. But if family or friends can access your locked home, then you owe it to them to verbally warn a potential home invader before shooting at a silhouette.