Criminals For Gun Control 1 Home Invasion ...

[spin]

Interesting video I found while doing research on another post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

The video is obviously biased toward gun rights, but it does have a valid message.

If an individual breaks into my home when I am not there, I have insurance. If he attempts a home invasion, I will feel that he is a serious threat to me or my family. I have no desire to shoot some innocent fool or teenager if I confront him and he runs or complies with my orders. However, if he acts aggressively, I will shoot to stop his attack. If he gets past me, my daughter, son in law and grandchildren may be harmed. My object is not to kill him, but unfortunately that may be the result.

Fortunately, I live in a state that has an excellent castle doctrine law.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

The majority of criminals are only after booty to sell for profit or drugs. In a state where homeowners are armed, fewer criminals attempt home invasions.

The risk outweighs the profit motive.

[sharesunited]

1. It does, however, elevate your subjective sense of fear into a license to kill.

That is barely distinguishable from vigilantism.

[rd_kent]

2. Your ignorance is stupefying.

[virgogal]

5. Ditto----unbelievable.

[paulsby]

3. the fear canard!

w00t!

[sharesunited]

4. Sense of vindictiveness then? Fleeing perp shot in the back? Open season.

[paulsby]

7. not really

it's about placing the burden on the burglar, not the homeowner

wanna burglarize a house?

take affirmative steps to ENSURE nobody is home.

fwiw, i know a lot of burglars who do this in my area. how do i know? they tell me during interrogation. they do NOT wanna get shot

if you are confronted with a homeowner, ... DO WHAT HE SAYS . and if you burglarize an occupied home, it's your life you are putting at risk.

generally speaking, at least in my jurisdiction (liberal WA state), even if perp is shot in back, it's ok if he's still in the home or just at the threshold. in the front yard? nope.

[spin]

11. Let me assure you that if I encountered an intruder in my home...

and he decided to run, I would not shoot him.

Many incidents end when the bad guy runs. No shots are fired and no one is injured.

For example, my daughter caused an intruder who was forcing the sliding glass door of our home open by pointing a large caliber revolver at him.

He ran.

No shots fired. No one injured. The best outcome.

[sharesunited]

13. I like that account Spin. I need to hear many many of them.

Until then, and properly converted, I am anti-gun anti-ammo.

Recognizing, of course, that a liberal is just a conservative who hasn't gotten mugged yet.

[spin]

27. Using a firearm for self defense ...

is a rare occurrence.

I know a lot of people who own firearms. Most, including me, have never had to use one to stop an intruder or attacker.

My mother told me of one instance. She rode a bus to at from work. One night she got off at the bus stop and still had a long walk to her house. Along the way, a man rushed her from some bushes. She carried a S&W Ladysmith .22 caliber in her purse and was able to pull it and fire two shots over the man's head. He ran. She was an excellent shot and when I asked her why she didn't shoot to hit him she explained that she merely wanted to scare him off if possible. This incident happened in the 1920s.

I remember playing with the Ladysmith. Children can easily find hidden firearms. Fortunately, my father anticipated the problem and had disabled the firing pin. I don't remember ever pulling the trigger on the little revolver, but I know I did load and unload it.

My father was very anti-gun and never owned a firearm while I was growing up. After his death, my uncle told me that my father actually had fired handguns in his youth and was a good shooter. He did carry a pistol while working as an investigator with Naval Intelligence during WWII. Once, he and his partner accidentally cornered a spy who fired at them and escaped. My father said he remember trying to dig a hole in the concrete floor of the building. Perhaps this incident turned him against firearms.



A neighbor of mine in Tampa had two teenagers attempt to gain entry to her house through the front door. She was married to a police officer who was at work, but she had a .38 special revolver in her hand, which she had never fired. She was standing terrified in her living room staring at the door. She called the neighbor directly across the street from her. The neighbor I used to call "Man Mountain Jim" just opened his door and yelled at the kids. One look at this monstrous man and the teenagers scurried away. Had the teens forced the door open, it's hard to say that the woman would have been able to defend herself with the handgun. Possibly the kids would have just run.


A locksmith I know got a call late at night from a bad section of town. When he arrived a man armed with a knife attempted to rob him. The locksmith drew his .22 mag S&W snub nosed revolver and attempted to jam it up the robber's nose. He told me, "I would have shot him, but some of his friends were watching. I was worried that they would tell the police that I shot him without good reason." The situation ended peacefully and the locksmith decided to avoid calls from that area of town.

Two of my co-workers were using a metal detector on some property in downtown Tampa on a Sunday morning. They were hoping to find some valuable items on the lot as a building had just been torn down. A man walked up and displayed a knife and asked them to hand over their wallets. One of my co-workers had a .45 auto in a shoulder holster under a light jacket. He pulled his jacket back. The robber saw the gun and turned away muttering to himself.

Another of my co-workers was on his way to work late at night when he pissed off another driver. When they reached an intersection, the angry driver got out of his truck with a tire iron and approached my co-workers vehicle. My friend drew a 9mm pistol from his glove box and placed it in his hand on the steering wheel. The enraged individual noticed it and returned to his vehicle and the incident entered peacefully. My co-worker told me that he would have merely drove through a red light to avoid the man, but he had cars in front of him and on his driver's side and a deep ditch on his passenger’s side.



I realize that this is not a lot of anecdotal evidence to support owning firearms for self defense. None of these incidents will ever make into a database or even a newspaper. Still, incidents such as these do occur.

Not everybody should own firearms.

If you suffer from anger management issues, abuse alcohol or drugs, suffer from a serious mental illness or live in volatile relationship with a significant other, then firearms are not for you.

[PavePusher]

6. Please look up the words "vigilantism" and "defense".

Post the results here.

[Glassunion]

8. "subjective sense of fear into a license to kill"

Yay! New one for my list... +1 point.

[rrneck]

9. Please elaborate. nt

[sharesunited]

14. A standard in the law which upholds reasonableness by a jury properly instructed.

I have no doubt that a jury can be inflamed to hang anybody for anything.

But one that acts as a true community standard deserving of respect takes a great criminal defense, which means succeeding with an emotionally unpopular view.

[rrneck]

16. Oh.

"I need to hear many many of them" Your post #13.

The jury only needs to hear one. That's because each and every person deserves to be understood as a real person, not as an abstraction.

Which criminal are you defending? The criminal that kicked in the door, or the criminal that shot him? In your ideology there doesn't appear to be a distinction. It seems that as far as you are concerned, if someone has a gun in their hand they are always a criminal, or not far from it. Unfortunately, when ideology trumps experience much greater injustices follow.

People who try to fit the world into a pre fabricated ideology are hopelessly narcissistic and selfish. They are willing to sacrifice anyone on the altar of their worldview. With some it becomes a messianic mission.

Enjoy your visit to the lions den.

[sharesunited]

17. It has more to do with living up to a set of ideals. A pro gun worldview drags us all down.

It accepts mere muscle and bone piercing ability as a moral imperative.

I really don't hear the humanity from you. It's mainly a dominance theme and some bastardized apologetics for being the one to act more beastly, if not first.

[rrneck]

18. While you are living up to your set of ideals

are you actually able to apply them to the real world?

[sharesunited]

20. A worldview is entirely the point. What you and I perceive as the real world differ greatly.

As evidenced by the mass slaughter of innocents by means of gunshot wounds to them.

[rrneck]

21. What you and I perceive as the real world differ greatly.

Please elaborate on your perception.

[rrneck]

25. Ah.

The kitchen got too warm again I guess. Lets have a look at this thread.

"Open season."

"I need to hear many many of them.
Until then, and properly converted, I am anti-gun anti-ammo."

"A standard in the law"

"living up to a set of ideals"

"A worldview is entirely the point...mass slaughter of innocents"

"I cannot get bogged down with who is the good guy and the bad guy."

This is a sad litany of vague generalities and platitudes. They refer to nothing in the real world. They offer no workable axiom, plan or process for dealing with interactions between real people. These musing of yours are emotional self congratulation projected through an ideology divorced from reality. You are talking to yourself.

Can you cultivate genuine compassion for anybody but yourself? Can you regard the millions of people around you as anything other than an abstraction for the application of an ersatz world view? Can you be real?

Do you have a solution for the problem of an individual who is assaulted by someone using a knife, club, fists or feet? Yes or no. Either present your solution or admit you don't have one. I'll start - I don't have a solution for that problem. I don't have one because I don't consider killing someone a solution.

Can you answer the question? Yes or no.

[SteveM]

22. YOU don't "hear the humanity." Would you recognize it? nt

[spin]

10. In what sense does it elevate my subjective level of fear?

Last night, for example, a noise in the house woke me up.

I listened for a few minutes and heard a few more suspicious noises. My cat was also alertly listening which was highly unusual.

We had a seventeen year old teenager in the house who had been kicked out his house by his mother who has a reputation of drug abuse. I assumed that in all probability one of my teen-aged grandsons and him had made the noise.

Still, being unsure of the situation, I decided to check it out. I put on a pair of shorts and dropped a S&W snub nosed revolver into my pocket. I found the bottom floor of the two story building that was once a hotel that I live in was clear but the front door was unlocked. I sat down by the fireplace and enjoyed a cigarette while listening. All had returned to quiet.

After fifteen minutes I returned to bed. I suspect the teenager, who smokes, had woke up and journeyed to the front porch for a cigarette and forgot to lock the door before he returned to his bedroom.

Was I in anyway afraid. No. If I would have encountered a person as I was checking the house out, would I have whipped my firearm out. No.

I merely would have evaluated the situation and responded in a rational manner. If I would have encountered an aggressive intruder, I would have taken appropriate action. This in no way means I would have drawn or fired my weapon. On the other hand, if attacked, I would have.

This old hotel is often a refuge for battered people that my daughter tends to help. It's not unusual to encounter someone inside the home roaming around at four in the morning. Often they are merely visiting another person in the house.

But as I said, I am not afraid. I am confident in my ability to evaluate the situation and react accordingly.

[sharesunited]

15. Very authoritative, Spin. You write and think very well. I feel good knowing you are at the helm.

You are policing your house with a humanity which will do justice.

Unfortunately, the access to guns and ammo which you have is the same access which the worst of us has.

I cannot get bogged down with who is the good guy and the bad guy.

Most importantly because the so-called good guy can go bad without a moment's notice.

I trust you, but the arsenal is just too big and easy.

[rrneck]

19. I cannot get bogged down with who is the good guy and the bad guy.

I'll bet you can't.

[burrfoot]

23. Shares-

First, I appreciate that you are willing to consider that individual gun owners may be capable of rational and judicial use (or restraint from use) of their weapon. The firearms distortion field may be weakening, which is always encouraging ;)

Also, although I disagree with a whole lot of your view on this topic, I do respect that your goal of getting rid of all guns and ammunition seems to be genuine, and coming out of a desire for the greater good.

That being said, I want to ask, without sarcasm, two things:

1) If you are asking law abiding citizens to give up their firearms, how to do you propose they protect themselves from criminals- who presumably will not?

2) Do you believe that there is a way to prevent the illegal smuggling of guns into the country, even granted the premise that all those currently here could be removed?


Threads develop into ho-hum back and forth so often here in our little gungeon :) It will be quite refreshing to get some genuine discussion going!

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Guns bring out the worst of us?

There are about 80 million gun owners in the U.S.

Even after you subtract the gun crimes, that still leaves almost everybody who didn't sink to a lower level using guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. As long as it's distinguishable in the eyes of the law. Who gives a damn?

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Very distinguishable.

Self-defense defends himself and his family against immediate threat of death or great bodily harm. Castle Doctrine laws recognize that when faced with a home invader it is unrealistic to expect the resident to attempt to figure out the exact level of threat he is facing. The resident is allowed to assume the worst and use deadly force.

A vigilante goes out hunting criminals to punish them outside of the law.

A person in their home is NOT out hunting criminals.

As usual, you FAIL.

[michreject]

24. If I find someone in my home

They're dead. I'm not waiting for a explanation.