Some guns being used to shoot burglars

[GreenStormCloud]

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2011-04-24/man-shoots-car-burglar-police-say

Man shoots car burglar, police say

Police say an Augusta man will not be charged after he shot and wounded a juvenile breaking into his vehicle on Alene Circle Saturday afternoon.

According to a news release from the Richmond County Sheriff's Office, the man interrupted the car break-in and fired his .40-caliber handgun at the youth several times.

One bullet struck the suspect, breaking his clavicle, police said. He was taken to Medical College of Georgia hospital for treatment. A second suspect fled the area, the news release stated.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/04/chalmette_man_opens_fire_thwar.html

Chalmette man opens fire, thwarts vehicle burglary

Two young men trying to burglarize a truck in Chalmette got the worst of it when one got his arm rolled over by the getaway driver and the other was shot at by the owner of the vehicle, St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy James Pohlmann said.

Both men escaped in a gray Dodge following the 7 p.m. incident Wednesday night in the 2300 block Corinne Drive. The truck's owner, who came outside of his home with a handgun when he saw someone climbing into his vehicle, told deputies he thought he hit the driver of the getaway car when he fired twice after the driver allegedly pointed a gun at him, authorities said.

SNIP

The burglar who was trying to break into the truck ran toward the getaway vehicle when he saw the gun-wielding owner. As he tried to climb into the moving can, the suspect fell to the ground and his right arm was rolled over by the car's right rear tire, authorities said.

SNIP

No charged were filed against the vehicle owner because he appeared to have acted in self defense, Pohlmann said.

Just to remind the antis that good guys also use guns to stop crime.

[MyrnaLoy]

1. you do know that

for every one of your "good shooting" stories there are probably 20 crimes committed with a handgun right? Wanna play?

[Bold Lib]

6. You do know that you have no evidence to such. Yet there is a plethora

of evidence for lawful use of firearms in defense. I point you to the peer reviewed works of John Lott.

[whoneedstickets]

15. Have you bothered to read the criticism of Lott?

There are a number of articles that take apart his statistical analysis completely.

Edit:

Here is a link, enjoy:


http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[spin]

26. The estimates of how many times firearms are used for self defense are all over the place ...

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

Introduction

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

For kicks and grins let's use the lowest figure of 108,000 DGU's annually. That's a lot of incidents and quite possibly many could have resulted in the death or serious injury of the people who were able to successfully defend themselves because they had access to a firearm.

[whoneedstickets]

31. Yes, the ubituity of these studies should tell you something..

The gun lobby is desperate to build a case that guns are good for something other than sporting uses and:

a. Intentionally or Accidentally Killing yourself
b. Intentionally or Accidentally Killing your spouse
c. Intentionally, Accidentally or Negligently killing your children
d. Intentionally or Accidentally killing an unrelated 3rd party

So they have to trot out self defense stats or find some friendly right-wing think tank or FSU Criminology prof who they can fund to lend the imprimatur of academic legitimacy to wild estimates.

As the study "Firearms and Violence: a critical review" notes..

"The discrepancies in the prevalence estimates of defensive gun use can and should be better understood. Remarkably little scientific research has been conducted to evaluate the validity of DGU estimates, yet the possible explanations are relatively easy to categorize and study. The two surveys are either (1) measuring something different or (2) affected by response problems in different ways, or (3) both. Statistical variability, usually reflected by the standard error or confidence interval of the parameter, also plays some role but cannot explain these order of magnitude differences."


So some paranoid, talk-radio listener hears a bump in the night and grabs his gun and that's a DGU? An this number is used to offset the damage of gun murders, suicides, and fatal and debilitating accidents.

[spin]

50. Let's cut the lowest estimate of 108,000 DGUs a year and say

that only 1/4 or 27,000 times per year was the use of a firearm for self defense truly justified because had the victims of a serious attack not had a firearm available they would have suffered serious injury, rape or death.

Let's go even further and say that only 10,000 incidents would have caused such a result.

I hope that you are not so devoid of sympathy that you might say "shit happens".

[whoneedstickets]

51. Ok, you're on track. Now throw gun deaths due to ...

murder, accident, (edit: I forgot suicide), negligence into the equation. Where does it balance?

Lives protected by guns =? <? >? lives lost to guns.

Go ahead and let me know when that lightbulb goes on.

[spin]

68. Suicide is an entirely separate issue ...

a firearm is not the easiest way to commit suicide by any means. If a person didn't have access to a firearm there are many methods available.

I am being very generous in my estimates of how many times a year firearms are used for legitimate self defense. In my family both my mother and daughter were able to stop an attack because they had access to a firearm and the ability to use it. Fortunately in both cases no one was shot. The goal of both attackers was to rape. Often rape leads to murder. If my mother had been raped and murdered, I would not exist nor would my daughter. Had my daughter been raped and murdered, I wouldn't have my two grandsons to enjoy in my retirement.

I will ask once more: I hope that you are not so devoid of sympathy that you might say "shit happens"?

Maybe your light bulb will go on.

[whoneedstickets]

70. Did you look up the stats?

Check the murder, accident and yes suicide rate (if you're technically sophisticated you could compare the US overall suicide rate with that of other countries and then get a sense of the magnitude of difference likely generated by easy access to weapons).

I'm asking you whether preventing that 'shit' with guns is worth all of the gun collateral damage? Could we envision a society without guns where violence was less prevalent? Where non-lethal defense methods were the norm?

[spin]

80. Japan has very few firearms ...

Please explain their high suicide rate.

Japan targets high suicide rate
Posted 5/29/2007 10:21 AM

TOKYO (AP) — The hanging death of Japan's farm minister this week grimly illustrated the country's stubbornly high suicide rate — and the government's struggle to discourage large numbers of Japanese from killing themselves.

***snip***

More than 32,500 Japanese took their own lives in 2005, up 0.7% from the year before, according to the National Police Agency's latest statistics.

Japan has long been known for having a tradition of suicide, but the numbers exploded to over 30,000 a year in the late 1990s amid a long economic slump that forced mass restructuring at companies — and drove many men in their 50s to kill themselves.

Those numbers have remained high despite the economic recovery, leaving officials bewildered. The government set up programs to counsel the depressed and increase awareness of mental illness to no avail.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-29-japan-suicide_N.htm

That means more people in Japan in 2005 committed suicide than the total number of people who died because of firearms in the United States including those who committed suicide with a firearm.

Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides
Posted 6/30/2008 9:18 PM

ATLANTA — The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-30-3858863648_x.htm

Japan had a population of 127,076,183 in 2009. In that year the U.S. was estimated to have a population of 307,006,550. Therefore if Japan had the same size population as the United States it might have had 78000 suicides in 2005.

There are currently an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in the United States. It's actually amazing how few people are killed by firearms in a year, especially when you consider many of those deaths are the result of criminal activity.

I can envision a society where non lethal means of self defense were the norm but the phasers used in Star Trek are a way off technologically.

[NewMoonTherian]

107. What are some effective, nonlethal methods of defense? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

86. It does not matter where the balance is.

Ok, you're on track. Now throw gun deaths due to ...murder, accident, (edit: I forgot suicide), negligence into the equation. Where does it balance?

Here's the thing: Balance does not matter.

It does not matter how many criminals do criminal things with firearms. I am not going to allow the actions of criminals to be used as an excuse for allowing law-abiding people do use firearms for whatever lawful purpose they like.

Balance does not matter. Criminals will do what criminals will do no matter what. The idea that we can only allow firearms in the hands of law-abiding people if there is some sort of balance between the actions of criminals and the actions of lawful citizens is ridiculous.

[Bold Lib]

93. Rates of suicide are irrelevant to firearm ownership.

You predicate your statement on the assumption that without a firearm there is no other means of suicide. That is false.

[DWC]

82. The only statistics I care about

are my own.

Misuse of a firearm - 0

Accidental discharge of a firearm - 0

Drunk with a firearm - 0

Brandishing a firearm - 0

Wrong people accessing my firearm(s) - 0

Years carrying a defensive firearm - 42

Shooting anyone as a civilian - 0

Stopping violent criminal acts using a firearm - 2

Semper Fi,

[Bold Lib]

92. Yes I have. And they rely on false information to try and smear Lott's work.

The actual peer reviews come very close to Lott's numbers.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Almost all of your stories will be with guns that are already illegal.

Criminals are going to do criminal stuff. Even with a total gun ban they will still get them, just like they get drugs. The laws you favor are ignored by criminals and only disarm the law-abiding. So if you want to play, you need to post stories of misuse of guns by the law-abiding. Also remember that for every reported story of a DGU there are dozens of unreported stories because the criminal ran away before he got shot.

[gejohnston]

29. or Gary Kleck

[PavePusher]

53. And for every "good shooting" story....

there are dozens of incidents that result in no shots fired.

Sure, play all you want.

[WatsonT]

110. You do know that empirical statements don't become true merely by stating them emphatically? nt

[Drale]

2. If you want to go that route

Some guns are used to kill children as well. I'm not trying to start anything but its true.

[Ian David]

4. Yeah, but SOME guns are used to kill children burglars! Oh, wait... n/t

[Bold Lib]

8. Yeah, that VPC study is full of children being shot. Children shot in

drug deals gone bad or children shot by police in defense or even children burglars.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Some. Last year it was 225.

For a nation of 310,000,000 that isn't a large number.

[whoneedstickets]

14. yeah what's a few hundred dead children here or there, we have rights to protect.

Like the right to shoot unarmed thieves.

[spin]

52. An eighteen year old gang banger is not a child...

I know a neighbor who will enter the army just before his 18th birthday and who has been told he will receive training to become a Cavalry Scout.

[whoneedstickets]

3. Using deadly force to protect insured property. You think that's ethical?

I don't.

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. +1 n/t

[Bold Lib]

9. People risking their lives over property. You think that is wise?

And how do you know it is insured? My divining rod is not so sure.

[whoneedstickets]

19. No very unwise...of the owner. What if the theif had armed confederates?

He'd have been better off snapping some photos of the thieves to facilitate law enforcement work.

[Bold Lib]

94. But do you think people risking their lives over property is wise? You did not answer.

And how do you know the property is insured? My divining rod is not so sure.

As far as "confederates" goes, that's what my 30 round magazine is for.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. Yes, in many cases.

For most people, their car is their livelyhood. If it is stolen insurance will not pay the replacement value, but a depreciated value. The owner will have to add money to it to get a good replacement. Meanwhile, he can't get to work and may lose his job. Yes, I will shoot to protect my car from being stolen. Don't want to get shot? Don't steal my car.

[whoneedstickets]

13. So your car is worth a human life? Really?

That must be some car.

[krispos42]

21. The car thieves apparently thought so, yes?

Excuse me, the felons apparently thought so, yes?


Grand theft auto is a felony. Some states permit the use of deadly force to prevent a felon from escaping.


I'd love to hear how letting those two car thieves steal the truck would have been more beneficial to society. What would have happened? High-speed car chase? Innocent motorists smashed across the highways? Smeared pedestrians? Injured officers?

If they got away clean... what do they do with the money? What illegal gangs will profit and prosper? What will the gangs do with the money?

If not this time, how many more times in the future will this happen?

[whoneedstickets]

23. So you're willing to be executioner for some hypothetical scenario..

I doubt the perpetrators thought that their lives were at risk, but perhaps their socio-economic condition makes this calculation rational in any case.

What if I spin a tale about some misguided teens or young adults. Probably lower class, uneducated, few life or job prospects.

I'm not a fan of high speed car chases either. A innocent bystander was recently killed in my state by an out of control cop car. Cowboy cops or cowboy citizens shouldn't be encouraged.

[krispos42]

35. "perhaps their socio-economic condition makes this calcuation rational"

Well, that means that they have little value for human life. Or perhaps not "little" but "less".


This is a fairly common situation. Many people have risked their lives for money, honor, and/or fame, whether it's in the Guiness Book of World Records, the bloody trenches of World War One France, or rising in the ranks of an urban gang.


But if they are from that socio-economic calculation, that means that they are MORE dangerous, not less. It means they come from a culture where theft and interpersonal disrespect are routinely resolved with violence, including deadly violence. Not only will they steal your car, but they might well decide that taking your life to remove a witness that could put them in jail is rational. Or maybe because you tried to keep them from taking "their" truck, and they want to watch you die for your audacity.

So again... how is letting those felons steal your truck unmolested helping society? Yeah, I would prefer it if they were arrested and processed properly through the criminal justice system; that's best for everybody involved.


Spin your tales all you want. Maybe I'll spin one about how the critical the vehicle was to the lives of an entire family facing homelessness. Whatever. None of that is apparent at the moment the crime is committed by strangers. There is no backstory, no records, no grades... unless the victim and the perp know each other.

[whoneedstickets]

36. Right, And in the absence of backstory

I'll choose mercy and you choose violence.

I'm happy I'm a progressive.

[krispos42]

38. I never said I'd do it.

In fact, I probably wouldn't. I don't think I would want that on my conscience.

I'm pointing out that NOT doing it entails a completely different set of risks, including dozens of more crimes committed because the felons got away.

[whoneedstickets]

39. We don't have a backstory or an epilogue..

There is no way to know what might happen. Even if future crimes were to occur you're talking about the calculation

value(Humanlife) <= p(badevent) * cost(badevent)

The only way this equation works if if p approaches 1 and the event is a future murder.

As high as the murder rate may be, it seems unlikely that p(future murder) is anywhere near approaching 1 for any thief.

[krispos42]

54. No, only a small percentage of career criminals turn to murder

And many murderers were not career criminals at the time they committed their crime. Think abused or jilted spouse.

Nonetheless, the fact that a person is committing major crimes is a very good indication that they will continue to commit major crimes. So how do we deal with them while they are committing the crimes? How can a society function if crime runs rampant through it? How can people live their lives if what they work for and what they create can be stolen away by anybody bold enough to simply take it from them? How, if those that try to resist crime are punished as much as the criminals are?

Is the only alternative to have a omnipresent police force to make catching criminals a virtual certainty?

[whoneedstickets]

57. An effective police force is needed..

..but lots of places around the world have high property crime rates but aren't disintegrating into anarchy.

Take precautions, lock your stuff up, but accept that it is just stuff.

[krispos42]

69. Well, that's just good common sense

But a lot of places simply don't have anything worthwhile to steal anymore.


Eh, it's a complex problem, compounded by the fact that governments operate in generalities (overall crime rates) while the poor guy getting robbed deals with specifics ("Hey! I'M being robbed!")

And there are other things to consider... what if they're threatening? Are you obliged to risk death to avoid taking the risk of hurting the criminal? If you just roll over and shrug it off, will you be a prime target for future crime? Will you or your family be at risk in those future if they come back? What will they demand next time?

:shrug:

[whoneedstickets]

73. There is a bright line between stuff and life

Repeated victimization by theft should prompt some anti-theft strategies and police attention (its sad but true that in many places in the US the police aren't very responsive -- but that is a problem to fix with progressive policies not an excuse to lock and load).

If you think your life is in danger and that either you've tried non-violent methods or don't have time to evaluate those, then of course you have a right to defend yourself. The ethics of that are clear. I reject the Castle Doctrine idea that you shouldn't have to try avoidance (but admit that in a home invasion situation with potential dependents this is impossible).

We need, as a society, to more regularly reinforce that violence should ALWAYS be a last resort and that ANY life is more valuable than property. If we fail to do so we are developing a society where life is cheap and short.

[krispos42]

103. The problem with wanting a single human life to be worth any amount of physical property...

...is that it's not the rule that the criminals operate on. That is the first problem.

The second problem is that in most cases, the issue isn't clear-cut, which is why I support Castle Doctrine in that the homeowner has no clue as to the intruder's motives, desires, tendencies, abilities, armament, desperation, mental status, or criminal history. And I don't think that I should be putting my life and the lives of anybody else staying at my house in danger when such an intruder is in my home. I don't think the homeowner should have any fear of legal retribution when making split-second life-or-death decisions, either. Remember, prosecutors in such high-profile cases often act based on political considerations, especially if they aspirations of higher elected office. And in our two-tiered justice system, that generally means the accused gets the shaft, either unable to compete with the state's attorney in terms of legal firepower or bankrupting themselves to acquire the firepower.

I'd love to see some progressive policies enacted... but until they do, the issue of what to do remains.

[oneshooter]

96. Just "stuff" that I use to make a living for my family.

Say $2-3000 of tools. Can be replaced, eventually. But till then I have no income. No shots fired, both dropped their knives and left.

Can you afford such a loss? Would you willingly give up your means of feeding your family?

If so then post your address on the net, and let whoever wants to take your stukk. After all, it's insured.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

59. I'm sure Joey and Mikey are only going to steal a car once....

just to round out their life experience resumes.

:sarcasm:

[whoneedstickets]

61. yeah, they must be human filth.. let's kill em..

how progressive of you.

[PavePusher]

71. Who said anything about kill?

Why do you assume "kill"?

Order them to stop. If they refuse to do so, order again and call police. If they continue, and police haven't arrived yet, shoot center-of-mass. If they live, good, hopefully lesson learned. If not, they chose... poorly.

[Bold Lib]

95. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "execution" as it does not apply

in this situation.

Well, if they calculate that their lives are worth trying to steal a car that is their unwise choice.

I don't care what sob story tale you spin. Don't steal my stuff, it's not worth a person risking their life over it.

[Drale]

27. "Many who live deserve death, and many who die deserve life

can you give it to them? Then be not too quick to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for you own safety, not even the wise see all ends.’ ~ J.R.R. Tolkien

Those words hold so much truth, killing someone is not a decision to enter into lightly for you will have to live with the consequences for the rest of your life as well.

[krispos42]

37. That is very true

Many seem to think that when a homeowner pulls the trigger, he or she does so eagerly. That the person is fulfilling some deep-seated Bruce Willis/John Wayne/Sly Stallone/Arnold Schwarzenegger action-movie fantasy that they've been nurturing for years.

Or at least, that's the stereotype that's implied.


The only situation I can envision where I pull the trigger is when NOT pulling the trigger is immediately and completely worse. And I pray I'm never in that situation.

[whoneedstickets]

41. +1

[PavePusher]

56. It is entirely the criminals' decision. Some choose... poorly. n/t

[MicaelS]

87. What if it's the only work truck of an independent skilled tradesman?

Filled with $50,000 or more of tools that enables the tradesman to earn a living, and thus feed clothe and house himself and his family. If he doesn't have the truck, he doesn't work, can't pay his bills and they could all end up homeless.

Is is acceptable to you for an honest person to become destitute, just to preserve the life of a criminal?

Yes, or No?

[Logical]

49. A good chance you will spend more in time and maybe lawyer fees than the car is worth. n-t

[virgogal]

11. So an arsonist is pouring gasoline all around your insured

house----the one it took 30 years to pay for.

What then?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whoneedstickets]

17. So a monetary loss justifies killing a human being? You REALLY think that is ethical?

I'd like to hear why?

[Travis_0004]

22. Yes

Its not just monetary loss. Most criminals don't politely knock on your window, and ask if you would kindly get out and hand over the keys. People get injured or killed even if they are cooperating all the time.

If somebody is in my house, and I don't know his intentions, I'll have the upper hand if I act first and don't give him the time to respond. It doesn't mean I'm going to shoot him, but If I get in a situation where he is about to point a gun at me, I'll be the first one to pull the trigger. Its not because I want to injure somebody, but its because I am responsible for my own saftey, and aggressive action is safer for me than letting somebody else possibly get the upper hand who is armed as well.

I have little sympathy for criminals, especially those who are armed. They might be just as scared as the victims, and they might have no intention of using their gun. They might not even have a real gun, or have their gun loaded, but I don't know that. I'm going to assume their actions are hostile and respond accordingly. If they get shot in the process, then sorry about your luck. Its not that I'm cruel or want to harm somebody, I would much rather go on my life without any conflict, but I feel what is best for my saftey is to respond in an aggressive manner. If the criminal is worried about his saftey, tell him to find a new occupation.

[whoneedstickets]

24. It is amazing how your scenarios spiral...

First its a car, now its someone in your home. Of course home intruders are a scary idea. A guy in your driveway snatching your car or stealing your GPS unit? Come on there Dirty Harry.

These guys were stealing cars, or stealing stuff out of them. This is petty property crime.

[Travis_0004]

30. Ok, fine

so if somebody is stealing stuff from my car, I'm going to confront them. Why, because its my stuff. I'm bringing a shotgun with me. Not with the intent to shoot anybody, but to defend myself. If they start theating me, then I might respond.

If you don't like it, tough. I work hard to buy nice things, I'm not going to sit by and let somebody steal them. My goal is not to shoot somebody, but to defend my property. Hopefully they will leave, if so I'm not going to chase them, but what I won't do is sit inside and watch my stuff get stolen. If you don't like it, choose a safer career.

[whoneedstickets]

33. Why not just tell them the police are on the way?

Hey cowboy,great you plan to ride into town with your sixshooter. I just hope for everyone sake they don't shoot you back or you don't kill some mothers kid over your CD collection.

Criminals, as bad as they are, are people. They are making bad choices, I don't think they deserve death for that. That's pretty profound act you're willing to entertain to save a piece of property you will probably throw away in 10 years or less.


If your, or anyone's, life is threatened, kill away.

[Travis_0004]

40. I will tell them the police are on the way

First off, the odds off a stay bullet going into another house and killing a kid are exponentially low, especially where I live. I don't think criminals deserve death either, I didn't say I'm going to shoot them, I said I'm willing to defend myself.

Fine, maybe me and you have a difference of opinion. I don't really care. Hopefully criminals will rob your car. If its cold outside you can make them a cup of tea and chat while the cops arrive.


I have an uncle who some people broke into his car a few months ago. He grabbed his shotgun, and confronted them. They didn't resit, and stayed there until the police arrive. Because of my uncles actions:

1. He still had a job. He had 5 grand worth of tools in his truck at the time, and his tools are his lively hood.
2. The criminals went to jail.
3. 10-20 other people got their stuff back. They managed to track down almost all the merchandise that was stolen from other poeple in the last week and return it.

I see nothing wrong with this situation. If he did nothing, he would have been out tons of money replacing tools, and more hard working people would have been robbed.

[whoneedstickets]

44. So you leave the safety of your home, to confront a thief with a gun..

That you would only use to defend yourself.

Great way to escalate the situation. You wouldn't have to defend yourself if you didn't pull the Clint Eastwood move.

I have had my car burglarized (they took a tool kit) and my home (a laptop). In both cases I suspect it was an opportunistic teenager. I guess I should have tried to kill them, or sorry, confront them with the threat of violence.

[Travis_0004]

46. No,

You should have apologized for everything that is wrong with society, blame it on bush, then give them some milk and cookies.

[whoneedstickets]

47. blame it on Bush, so you're the type that thinks we're too hard on GW?

in the gun forum? Shock, I'm shocked I say.

This post will likely be deleted...

[oneshooter]

97. What would you do? You have yet to answer a direct question. n/t

[PavePusher]

62. Why are you being an apologist for criminals?

By your reasoning, all those bankers did nothing seriously wrong the last ten-odd years...

All they wanted was a little money... sheesh.

[whoneedstickets]

66. yeah, lets shoot em! Criminals are animals.

Criminals should be caught and subject to the rule of law. Perhaps even rehabilitated? Redeemed? I guess the easy solution is to have them executed by some cowboy with a Dirty Harry complex.

Actually you are making my point for me because no one is going to shoot the guy who steals a billion but somehow guys like you think its a great idea to pop a cap in some guy stealing stereos.

And yet somehow gun ownership is 'progressive'? Hardly. We know who its intended to protect and who's life is held cheap.

[PavePusher]

72. Not my fault if criminals hold my life cheap.

Their bad decisions are not my responsibility.

[sylvi]

28. I often have to lend financial support to other family members

That means the difference sometimes in whether they eat or not, for instance, or whether my mother gets her pain medications. So you're fucking A I'd cap their sorry asses over a "monetary loss." I wouldn't neccesarily be trying to kill them, but I would do what I had to to stop them.

If they've got the time and energy to steal my car, they can take a second job at McDonalds, or stand on the interstate off ramp and panhandle. Don't fuck with strangers' shit.

[MicaelS]

88. Absolutely I think it's ethical...

Because it might be the only work truck of an independent skilled tradesman, filled with $50,000 or more of tools that enables the tradesman to earn a living, and thus feed clothe and house himself and his family. If he doesn't have the truck, he doesn't work, can't pay his bills and they could all end up homeless.

That is why.

[whoneedstickets]

18. Surely you can see the difference between the types of acts involved..

Arson is a violent, potentially life taking act. Who knows who is in the house. If you KNEW the house was empty then killing the arsonist would seem to be a non-proportional and unethical act. Clearly anyone engaged in this activity must be mentally ill in the first place. Would you think killing someone with a treatable psychosis justifiable if he was destroying property?

[gravity556]

83. Arson of an occupied structure

is justification for lethal force.

And for the folks on the side of the individuals who decided that they deserved this guys truck more than he did-a truck he may only have liability insurance on-how long do you think this guy was going to be able to keep a roof over his head without the ability to get to work? Dunno if some of y'all have been apprised on the economic situatuion, but losing a hard to find job because some jackass thug decided that he was gonna steal your car?

If folks who insist on breaking laws feel that they should continue down that route, by all means, keep on stealing and robbing-with a little luck, Uncle Chuck will be nipping at your heels.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whoneedstickets]

25. Glad you've given this such deep ethical thought.

After all these people are probably little more than animals anyway. That's the way our society should think about all criminals right?

[Logical]

48. And this folks, is where CCW holders get a bad image! n-t

[Hoyt]

63. Dang fuckin right. WTF is in your car worth shooting someone in the back -- pack of gum.

Jesus, Judge, Jury and Jexecutioner.

[Logical]

79. We don't claim that guy! Nt

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

32. Listen up...I'm insured

but I will still defend my property and anything on it by whatever means necessary. I consider it my duty. How can you respect yourself if you allow just anyone to come and take what is yours?

[whoneedstickets]

34. Because it is STUFF! Simple, replaceable, material crap

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

No matter what it is, you will likely be throwing it away in a decade.

That thief is making some bad choices. 10 years from now, he's still a human being. Maybe a reformed one, maybe not. But even the most depraved criminal deserves more ethical consideration than your washing machine.

[Logical]

42. Because I don't want to shoot someone unless my life or another is in danger. Very simple....

Stuff can be replaced. And my deductable is not worth the hassle of even a justified shooting.

[Upton]

84. Someone invades my home..

I consider the lives of my family to be in danger immediately. It's not like you can sit there and monitor the situation and only decide to act once the criminal has crossed your imaginary line...by then it would probably be too late anyway.

[Logical]

85. I agree, but if I was pulling in the driveway and no one was home and the guy had my.....

flat panel TV I would not shoot him.

Or if I saw him stealing my car in the driveway from my bedroom window.

[spin]

65. Shooting another person is a life changing experience ...

and one I hope I never have to live through.

I personally want a damn good reason before I would use lethal force. I would use it without hesitation if I felt my life or heath or the life or health of someone I loved was in serious danger. If someone was just stealing my property I would attempt nonlethal force or simply call the police. Now if they had entered my home while I was present, I would view them as a serious threat and would seriously consider lethal force rather than leave my family helpless. Much would depend on the situation and how they reacted when I confronted them.

It's a well known fact that many police officers who have legitimately shot or killed criminals in self defense have suffered psychological trauma. A civilian also often faces significant legal problems and lawsuits if there is any question about whether or not the use of a firearm was justified.

[Hangingon]

43. It is absolutely ethical.

[whoneedstickets]

45. Argument? evidence?

I'd love to hear a life-for-property argument made.

[PavePusher]

55. Does your insurance pay 100% replacement costs?

Mine sure as hell doesn't.

Does your insurance have a way to compensate for sentimental value? Emotional distress? Ensure the criminal doesn't return?

Mine sure as hell doesn't.

There's a very easy way to keep criminals from being shot by lawful Citizens: Don't be a criminal and don't fuck with lawful Citizens.


See how simple that is?

[whoneedstickets]

58. Wow your deductible and emotional distress is worth a human life..

..you must be some important mofo, or just some self-important mofo.

[PavePusher]

64. I, as a law-abiding Citizen, am more important than a criminal. n/t

[whoneedstickets]

67. Really? So do you have a level of personhood grading system?

I'd like to see a list of your misdemeanors so I know if I should be talking up or down to you?

Why are you bothering to post on a progressive forum if you really think that there are grades of humanity?

How do you feel about gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill and jews?

[PavePusher]

74. Extrapolate from zero, much?

I merely indicate that someone who does not value me or my belongings enough to respect them, does not rate as more important than myself, and almost definitely less so.

I don't see that as a difficult equation.

[whoneedstickets]

75. So their life is worth less?

You do see the problem with the logic of differential life values right?

[PavePusher]

77. Not at all.

My belongings, even the ones without sentimental value, represent a considerable investment of my time. In other words, they represent parts of my life. If a thief steals them, they are stealing parts of my life and I can not get that back in any way, shape or form. This means the thief does not value my life as mine. Accordingly, I do not place as much value on his/her life as on my own.

I hope that makes it a little more clear.

Please note (what you have consistently ignored) that if the would-be thief does value their life, they only have to do one simple thing to avoid risking it: Don't steal other peoples' shit.

And I know all this empirically, because I've had a considerable amount of my belongings stolen on several different occasions. (Edit: No, I never got any of it back, and I lost a lot of additional time and money replacing it. Insurance? Yeah, had it. Don't make me laugh....) Oddly, almost all in places where it would be illegal to use force to resist their predations. Intersting correlation there....

Anyway, been fun discussing the issue with you, but it's getting late for me, and I have to work in the morning. Cheers!

[one-eyed fat man]

76. So, then

we should be venerating these people who have taken the initiative to redistribute wealth without waiting for a government program?

They sure must be put upon by those outdated strictures against stealing. What a shame thieves have been held in low repute for centuries.

I am sure they are all Les Miserables stealing dry crusty bread and warm curdly milk to feed their starving children. You should open up your home to these unfortunates.

Is it conceivable in your mind at all that for some thieves at least it is a deliberate choice? They steal because they want to steal. Right or wrong or the consequences of their stealing make no difference to them. Why do they deserve a pass?

Do you see a difference in a sneak thief and a robber? For my part, I would prefer not to shoot a burglar or a thief. I think it would be far more satisfying to have him submit to Sharia law. His left hand can be chopped off after Friday prayers. That way everyone will know he bears watching.

[whoneedstickets]

78. yeah, because i don't think lethal violence is justified to protect

replaceable property I'm criminal sympathizer?

What the heck is a guy advocating Sharia law and cutting off hands doing on a progressive political forum?

[one-eyed fat man]

81. Well, at least I can be sarcastic

Thinking thieves should get a pass doesn't strike me as progressive. Sounds more like you want better work rules. For as long as man has existed taking stuff that's not yours has been an open invitation to get your head bashed in.

It is that overblown sense of entitlement that thieves and their apologists imbue them that leads to much conflict.

A prime example is in kindergarten. Absent the higher authority to impose order the bullies and the bastards will take all the best toys and use force and violence to impose their will on the others. Those that fight back get left alone. Those that don't keep getting picked on.

When faced with an attack on your person or your property you can acquiesce, resist, or hope that someone will intervene on your behalf and do what you do not have the will to do for yourself.

I will say one thing about cutting off the hands of thieves. I saw a noticeable number of one-handed people in Saudi Arabia when stationed there. I don't recall seeing any with BOTH hands missing.

[NRA4EVR]

106. lethal force is justified

Well being "progressive" is a relative concept and you are a criminal sympathizer. Fortunately I can shoot any criminal on my property that I feel is a "threat" to me; that they are breaking into my car or trying to do a home invasion is just incidental. I've got a laser and flashlight installed on my home defense guns so I don't miss and hit some unfortunate passerby standing in my driveway at 3 AM in the morning.

[oneshooter]

98. A thief is a small child, if you allow him to misbehave with out

Punishment he will only get worse.

If the punishment is painful, like being shot, then perhaps he will change. If he doesn't then the next time he may kill or injure someone.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

105. Oh thanks for the teaching em a lesson. Shoot unarmed guy in the back to teach them a lesson. Sick!

Arrest em, try em, throw them in jail -- maybe. Leave justice up to a guy who has been looking for an excuse to see how his brand new gun (and object of affection) works when projectile hits a human -- Nope, ain't right.

[PavePusher]

108. Who said anything about "Shoot unarmed guy in the back"?

Only you, it seems...

[oneshooter]

111. I believe that he is projecting.

Perhaps he is the one that wants to back shoot somebody.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

60. Yep, let's shoot someone stealing a pink flamingo off your lawn.

WTF is in these people's vehicles that prompts them to blast away at someone -- nothing worth it. They are just shooting someone because they have an excuse to and have been preping that gun for a long time. I bet they carry in public too.

That is not self-defense unless you are inside the dang car.

[rl6214]

90. You are pathetic

"They are just shooting someone because they have an excuse to and have been preping that gun for a long time."

[Hoyt]

91. No, you are pathetic if you use a gun to shoot an unarmed car robber in back.

What the fuck do you gain from that, other than something to brag about to your buddies?

[oneshooter]

99. He won't be stealing anymore cars. n/t

[Hoyt]

100. That's why you shouldn't carry. He was breaking into car, not stealing it. If can't assess situation

when reading it, maybe you should leave your guns at home because you sure can't assess things in the heat of the moment.

I don't usually meet folks who say they are liberal who are chomping at the bit to shoot an unarmed person stealing something out of a car.

[oneshooter]

102. Breaking into/stealing is all the same. It's not his property. n/t

[Hoyt]

104. Judge, Jury and Executioner -- you ain't. He was not a threat to the gun toter.

[PavePusher]

109. You sure seem to make a lot of assumptions about criminals and legal gun owners.

May I ask the source of your omniscience?

[virgogal]

101. You've got that right. (Interesting thread).