ratbert90 posted:

Open fire? At least she attempted to call out and warn the guy.


All good points, but a stray bullet is still a stray bullet. If you open fire at somebody you should always intend to kill.

Taerkar posted:

The woman had some practice with the weapon but it was a high-stress situation for her, expecting precision from her in that case is unrealistic, quite frankly. We can't even get anything close to precision from the police and they're in theory supposed to be trained for such.

Sporadic posted:

we shouldn't expect everybody else to adjust their behavior so that the misbehavers' actions do not have any negative effects

->

Nobody has said that.

->

I don't think anybody would have said anything about this event if she scared the guy off by yelling she had a gun

ratbert90 posted:

She didn't have to answer the door.

If she was scared, especially when he came back with a crowbar, she SHOULD have pointed the gun at the door and yelled at him that she had a gun pointed at him.


I am more concerned that this yahoo lady shot at a man SIX loving TIMES and failed to kill him. That means, in a residential neighborhood, more than likely several rounds flew in random directions at a random house with people more than likely inside. She WASN'T PROPERLY TRAINED to use the gun, and endangered innocent people in the attempt to kill a intruder.


Killing over a B&E is never ever justified.
Killing over assault is.

Preemptively killing someone because they "could have" done something is not justified. That would be stupid and anybody who is claiming that is the correct thing to do is also wrong.

Sporadic posted:

Nobody has said that.

I don't think anybody (left and right) would have said anything about this event if she scared the guy off by yelling she had a gun or if the cops captured him afterwards or even if she shot him once in the heat of the moment.

But my favorite part about that story nobody is mentioning is that she hid her kids, waited for the guy to break in, emptied her gun into him and then fled to her neighbor's house.

- edit If you guys are going to talk about it, read the whole story.

peak debt posted:

Don't you realize you just did say that? You wanted her to choose a different course of action that would have resulted in less risk to the burglar and more risk to her.

peak debt posted:

we shouldn't expect everybody else to adjust their behavior so that the misbehavers' actions do not have any negative effects.

Taerkar posted:

Maybe it would have been a good idea for her to, but it's not something that should be a "You must follow these steps before you can shoot someone." approach.

seiferguy posted:

A staunch conservative military guy posted this on FB:

Pitch posted:

A tenured professor of mine (of engineering, natch) who's been edging toward libertarian-nutty for a while now just sent his entire student mailing list a link to some World Net Daily videos about an anti-gun conspiracy behind the Sandy Hook shooting. I can't even bear to watch them myself.

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/sandy-hook-media-myths/

His commentary was "Question of the day. Are we getting played????"

Pitch posted:

A tenured professor of mine (of engineering, natch) who's been edging toward libertarian-nutty for a while now just sent his entire student mailing list a link to some World Net Daily videos about an anti-gun conspiracy behind the Sandy Hook shooting. I can't even bear to watch them myself.

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/sandy-hook-media-myths/

His commentary was "Question of the day. Are we getting played????"

DarkHorse posted:

So it's okay to point the gun at him when he's at the door with a crowbar, but it's not okay when he's in her house and trying to enter the crawlspace she and her children are hiding in?

quote:

Pointing a gun at somebody is a threat escalation and involves the use of deadly force. Legally, it's only justified in cases where you feel your life is in danger. Whether that's ultimately the case or not doesn't matter, just as long as a jury agrees that a reasonable person in the same situation could come to the same conclusion. She locked the door, called police, fled to a secure area, and the guy continued to where she was - at that point I think he's a credible threat to her and her kids' safety, especially since they probably didn't have anywhere else to flee.

quote:

Debating if the guy deserved to die for burglary is missing the point, just as the crazies that are lauding her for shooting a burglar are missing the point. He was shot in a context in which he was a threat to her life and safety, and without knowing his state of mind there's no way to tell if he "deserved" it.

quote:

As for shooting six times and not killing him, it happens more often than you'd think, even with highly-trained personnel shooting to kill. And while there is a credible risk of overpenetration it's unlikely to make it through a person and several walls of a house and still have enough energy to hurt someone. An immediate threat to your life trumps the unlikely chance of injuring someone outside the house.

quote:

Did she have any other means of leaving the house? It doesn't sound unreasonable to shelter in your own home, and once it's been invaded you might not be able to escape without crossing paths with the intruder, in which case she'd be risking a confrontation with her kids and putting herself in danger. It's pretty disingenuous to say she was waiting for him, like a trap-door spider lying in wait or something.

Pitch posted:

A tenured professor of mine (of engineering, natch) who's been edging toward libertarian-nutty for a while now just sent his entire student mailing list a link to some World Net Daily videos about an anti-gun conspiracy behind the Sandy Hook shooting. I can't even bear to watch them myself.

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/sandy-hook-media-myths/

His commentary was "Question of the day. Are we getting played????"

Boondock Saint posted:

Guilty Spork posted:

The logic behind this one

"Hey, criminals won't bother obeying the law anyways, so why bother having laws to begin with?"

Guilty Spork posted:

My Uncle posted:

quote:

Excerpt from Muad'Dib's January 7th, 2013 Critical Mass Radio interview:

..They used a poster child for this to get everybody's sympathy and to get everybody's emotions up so that they could hopefully bring in a gun ban. They used a little poster child, a little blonde-haired blue-eyed six year old girl. She was the face, the poster child. She was supposedly killed along with the other 19 six year olds and seven year olds at Sandy Hook. Three days later Obama was there doing a photo op and she's sitting on his knee. She's supposed to be dead, used as a poster child, this little girl died - she's sitting on Obama's knee three days later. The same little girl.

And then they have her parents interviewed. It shows that they're all actors. It never really happened, because the guy that was supposedly her dad, is shown in the video where he's to the side and he's laughing and joking with other people and then he's called up in front of the camera. He's off to the left. Then he's called to the center, to the focus of the camera to be interviewed and to give his speech about Sandy Hook and about his daughter. And he goes from on the side from laughing and joking with everybody, he comes up to the center and ... he takes the joking, smiling face off and you can see him physically trying to force his face to look sad and then he starts talking about how his daughter's been killed. They're actors. There were no bodies.

It was a made for TV drama to try to ram through the gun control laws, because they want to kill the American people and they can't kill armed people. That's why Hitler disarmed the Germans, it's why Stalin disarmed the Russians, it's why chairman Mao disarmed the Chinese and they killed between them something like 120 million of their own people. And that's what they want to do in America and they can't do it because the people have the Second Amendment and they have guns. So they have to do all of this, and they'll keep doing it. There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions!
of guns.

Internet Webguy posted:

I guess it depends on how you feel about taking a human life.

Internet Webguy posted:

I guess it depends on how you feel about taking a human life.

CommieGIR posted:

This was directly emailed to me from what I can only assume is an AM Radio show:

from VoiceOfFreedom@inter.net


This makes me want to PUKE

quote:

There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions!
of guns.

Guilty Spork posted:

swiss_army_chainsaw posted:

Law enforcement officers kill armed people all the drat time. I can't wait for some armed idiot to take out a police officer or federal agent with the claim that he was defending himself against tyranny. Oh wait, that's happened before and nobody ever loving believes it.

ultimateforce posted:

Has no one else seen anything about the shooting in California?

Fandyien posted:

So this "Stalin, Mao, and Hitler enacted gun control!" thing seems to be a really popular talking point right now. I know that Hitler restricted guns for Jews and loosened more restrictive Weimar-era laws for Germans, but what about Stalin and Mao? My instinct is that there weren't a ton of privately owned guns in the hands of Chinese peasants in 1950, but it seems like WWII might have inundated the USSR with weapons. Did either Stalin or Mao actually enact any kind of meaningful gun control like the right seems to be fantasizing about Obama implementing?

Amused to Death posted:

If you're talking about Vietnam, most people from that generation were the people who wound putting Reagan into office and began to dismantle New Deal and Great Society programs. Although if you're calling WW2 a bullshit war, I don't know what to tell you in that case.

Kavak posted:

Kind of an aside to Fandyien's point, but what I find interesting about the "Hitler banned guns!" meme is the countries that are not brought up- Poland, France, Denmark and the whole rest of occupied Europe. Why is it only gun control in Germany that mattered in hypothetically stopping the war and/or Holocaust?

Armyman25 posted:

It raises a good point. Other than the consequences of losing the war, were the Nazis really that bad for the average German? They were horrific for Jews/Gypsies and other minorities, but were they really unpopular with the populace as a whole?

I haven't read or listened to any of Hitler's speeches. I am happy to be proven wrong, but I doubt they were full of anti-freedom rhetoric or read like someone making a really obvious statement about taking away rights.

Armyman25 posted:

What percentage of the population was that though?