posted on February 5, 2003 12:24:07 PM new
Regarding the article- The homeowner committed murder not home protection. He intentionally shot and killed an unarmed person who entered his home by mistake.
It also appears that the gun nut wanted to shoot someone. By his own admission he looked out the peep hole and saw it was someone he didn't know. Instead of calling the police, he unlocked the door and allowed the man to enter and then he shot him in the head. Great case of defending the home - let the "criminal" in and shoot him.
This is the type of idiot that should not be allowed to own a gun.
posted on February 5, 2003 02:15:10 PM new
I have seen this 98% stat before, and I thought they must be including all police incidents when the gun wasn't discharged. Seems this Lott is a liar in his defence of unfettered personal firearm ownership.
The most disturbing charge, first raised by retired University of California/Santa Barbara professor Otis Dudley Duncan and pursued by Australian computer programmer Tim Lambert, is that Lott fabricated a study claiming that 98% of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing, as opposed to shooting
posted on February 5, 2003 03:02:09 PM new
Reamond - I understand how you feel and I can respect your reasons for thinking the way you do. It's just that there are many who do not agree. For all sorts of different reasons.
Many people like the 'feeling' of being able to protect themselves. They're adults who can understand that many accidents happen when a gun is in the house. They still make the decision to own one. That's their choice. And what you hear from the 'it's my right' group is you're not going to take that 'feeling' I can protect myself, my family from me. That's why you see the 'foaming at the mouth'.
We have a very low crime rate where we live. Most everyone here owns guns and many 'carry' their weapons. Our crime rates are low. Makes people think twice about breaking in to home. My FIL lives in Prescott, AZ. Same story...many carry. We lived in CA and I'd say 3/4 of the people we knew owned guns. Nothing ever happened. My point? The majority of the killings you hear about are the guns being used by criminals.
And in your article....it WAS found the homeowner was acting in self-defense.
posted on February 5, 2003 04:21:07 PM newDid you know that you can hit people with hammers and wrenches and it really doesn't harm them and it makes neat noises?
AFTER READING WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN HERE, I CAN BELIEVE IT...
Just a short except that disproves your statement, "Nothing ever happens".
a) In the years 1987 to 1996, nearly 2,200 children in the United States under the age of 15 years died in unintentional shootings. In 1996 alone, 138 children were shot and killed unintentionally. Thus, more than 11 children every month, or one child every three days, were shot or killed unintentionally in firearms-related incidents.
(b) The United States leads the industrialized world in the rates of children and youth lost to unintentional, firearms-related deaths.
A 1997 study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that for unintentional firearm-related deaths for children under the age of 15, the rate in the United States was nine times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
(c) While the number of unintentional deaths from firearms is an unacceptable toll on America's children, nearly eight times that number are treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms each year for nonfatal unintentional gunshot wounds.
(d) A study of unintentional firearm deaths among children in California found that unintentional gunshot wounds most often involve handguns.
posted on February 5, 2003 04:59:45 PM new
In a quote from the Tampa newspaper:
Pinellas sheriff's officials say McNeil, 32, banged on the front door of his neighbor's townhouse, possibly thinking it was his home. After the homeowner, John E. Arnold, opened the door, McNeil BARGED in and made a threatening move, Arnold told detectives.
Arnold, who had loaded his pistol when he heard the banging on the door, raised the gun and fired twice, hitting McNeil once below the right eye.
Detectives are trying to figure out how McNeil wound up at Arnold's door. They were investigating whether alcohol might have played a part because they found a TAPPED KEG in his truck, which was parked in Arnold's driveway.
[b]"Detectives say McNeil ... probably came home to the wrong address (and) BECAME AGIGATED when he could not get into what he thought was his own home," sheriff's spokeswoman Marianna Pasha said.
No1. The homeowner opened the door & McNeil BARGED in.
Doesn't sould like the home owner LET him in.
No2. Is it illegal for a home owner to have a loaded firearm in their own home?
NO.
No3. Was he justified to shoot someone who BARGES uninvited into his home?
Absolutely
No4 Was NcNeil to BLAME for his actions?
Absolutely, now one forced him to TAP the keg of beer.
No5 Was he agitated when he could not get into what he thought was his own home?
posted on February 5, 2003 05:30:41 PM new
HELEN, HOW MANY WERE DRIVE BYS?
BIG DIFFERENCE IN ASKING THAT GUNS HAVE TRIGGER LOCKS THAN TRYING TO GET AN HONEST OWNER TO REGISTER HIS WEAPONS, SO UNCLE SAMMY CAN COME AN GET THEM ANY TIME HE WANTS.
posted on February 5, 2003 06:15:14 PM new
Unlocking your door and allowing someone to enter, which is exactly what the homeowner did, was either patently stupid or designed to allow the man entry into the home in order to kill him. All this took place after the homeowner looked out his peep hole and established that the man was someone unknown to him. The homeowner murdered the man.
He sholud have called the police instead of unlocking the door. The homeowner actually wanted to kill someone. Even if the man was intoxicated, it is no reason to kill him. This is exactly the type of person who should never have access to firearms. His self esteem is so pathetic that he must take a life to prove and validate his manhood.
Possessing a firearm is not a right, it is a priveledge.
posted on February 5, 2003 06:22:14 PM new
Reamond - While I agree that opening our doors to strangers is becoming something we really have to think about now-a-days....most people do open their doors even if they don't recognize the person. During the warm weather only the screen door is shut. We shouldn't be required to live in fear, or keep our doors locked up all the time, doing what we use to be able to do without fear. People who enter our homes, without our invite, need to realize there may be consequences.
Our friends here had a very similar incident happen. Night..door bell rings...they look through the peep hole...don't recognize person open the door and it's a drunk. They could barely shut their door on him. Yes, they called a police and he was arrested. But our friend said next time the door rings at night....he'll go to the door prepared too.
posted on February 5, 2003 06:31:02 PM new
And from the Same CDC report:
The report also found a significant drop between 1997 and 1998 in the number of children and teens killed by firearms.
About 3,800 people younger than 20 years old died in 1998 from firearms, down 10 percent from 4,223 in 1997. The decrease translates into 10 deaths a day from firearms in 1998 - a significant drop from a high of 16 deaths a day in 1994.
Yet the Center for Disease Control, which tracks all causes of death, reports only 86 accidental deaths in kids aged 14 years-and-under in the year 2000, and 110 suicides, for a total of 198., the total of kids aged 14-and-under killed by firearms in 2000, according to the CDC, was 435.)
posted on February 5, 2003 06:32:02 PM new
Going to the door prepared is one thing. Unlocking the door is quite another at 2:00 AM in the morning to a stranger that was pounding on your garage and door is quite another thing.
Arnold told detectives someone was banging on his garage and his front door and yelling obscenities, Pasha said. So he fetched his pistol, loaded it and headed downstairs, she said
Although the front door has a peephole and Arnold didn't recognize McNeil, he opened the door. McNeil then forced his way inside, Pasha said. Sheriff's officials said Arnold was sleeping about 2 a.m. Sunday when he heard a commotion outside his home
This 2nd Amendment he-man wanted a notch in his gun. And remember, the man shot in the head can't tell his side of the story.
Letting a mistaken or disoriented or even drunk person into your home and shooting him in the head. That is what happened.
What would be wrong if it was a 19 year old retarded person ? Unlock the door and allow him to "barge" in and shoot him in the head. No difference.
I have not one iots of sympathy for the homeowner. He is a typical gun nut. I can only hope he gets life in prison and is violated in the posterior regularly.
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 5, 2003 06:36 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 5, 2003 06:37 PM ]
posted on February 5, 2003 06:44:57 PM newWhat would be wrong if it was a 19 year old retarded person ? Unlock the door and allow him to "barge" in and shoot him in the head. No difference.
You're right....no difference. It also would most likely be declared an accidential shooting. How in the world would anyone expect an awaken homeowner to know this person was a retarded person vs. a robber? They wouldn't. And really...Reamond...a retarded person? How likely would that be/how often might that be the case. You're stretching.
posted on February 5, 2003 06:56:00 PM new
No stretch at all when you have a gun nut itching to kill someone.
How is the world would you know the difference ???? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF ALL THESE PINHEADS HAVING GUNS- THEY SHOOT WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW.
"Barged" in the door- says who- the murderer that's who-- it's like OJ Simpson saying how innocent he is.
A few years back it was a Japanese exchange student knocking on a door.
This law and order BS sounds great until it is your son or daughter or spouse that makes an innocent mistake and is the one shot in the head.
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 5, 2003 06:57 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 5, 2003 06:59 PM ]
[ edited by REAMOND on Feb 5, 2003 07:02 PM ]
posted on February 5, 2003 07:46:02 PM new
" BIG DIFFERENCE IN ASKING THAT GUNS HAVE TRIGGER LOCKS THAN TRYING TO GET AN HONEST OWNER TO REGISTER HIS WEAPONS, SO UNCLE SAMMY CAN COME AN GET THEM ANY TIME HE WANTS. "
As I said before, I own lots of guns, and the ones that need to be registered, are. Thinking that the government is going to come and take your guns away is just plain silly if you think about it rationally. With all of the silent, high tech ways the government has for controlling us, many of which it is already using, our little pop guns are inconsequential. Nobody in the government is even remotely threatened by our guns. They will serve to protect us from each other maybe, sometimes, if we know how to use them ( and there is plenty of evidence to support the argument that lots of gun owners in fact DON'T), but they will be of no use when "uncle sammy" comes calling...stop worrying...when they decide they want you, you're toast, .357, Uzi, or not..
I shot another coyote 2 nights ago...had to use the shotgun as it was closest by....it wasn't pretty... and it wasn't fun...this February is drier than even last year, and the critters are hungry enough to come after our geese in broad daylight..I fully expect our resident cougar to make an appearance near the fence sometime soon instead of staying down in the arroyo where she usually lives.Spring lambing time will be more than she can bear, I'll bet..(maybe I should preemptively go get her..she is, after all a "weapon of mass destruction"..sometimes I wonder how many of the people who are howling about their 2nd amendment rights ever really use a gun, other than for amusement and "sport".
posted on February 5, 2003 07:48:38 PM new
Linda, I wrote, happens...you wrote happened ..No big diffirence in this case.
................................................................
"helen - please read more carefully."
"I said:"
"We lived in CA and I'd say 3/4 of the people we knew owned guns. Nothing ever happened."
..................................................................
linda - please *write* more carefully.
Apparently you can't support your statement. "We lived in CA and I'd say 3/4 of the people we knew owned guns. Nothing ever happened."
While you were in your ivory tower, according to the Attorney General of California children were being shot and wounded and I'll add an excerpt to that info again. You may *choose* to ignore it again if you prefer.
Just a short except that disproves your statement, "Nothing ever happened".
a) In the years 1987 to 1996, nearly 2,200 children in the United States under the age of 15 years died in unintentional shootings. In 1996 alone, 138 children were shot and killed unintentionally. Thus, more than 11 children every month, or one child every three days, were shot or killed unintentionally in firearms-related incidents.
(b) The United States leads the industrialized world in the rates of children and youth lost to unintentional, firearms-related deaths.
A 1997 study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that for unintentional firearm-related deaths for children under the age of 15, the rate in the United States was nine times higher than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
(c) While the number of unintentional deaths from firearms is an unacceptable toll on America's children, nearly eight times that number are treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms each year for nonfatal unintentional gunshot wounds.
(d) A study of unintentional firearm deaths among children in California found that unintentional gunshot wounds most often involve handguns.
posted on February 5, 2003 08:02:03 PM new
The prof is right.
If you take every NRA member and give the US Govt 2 Abrahms tanks, the NRA will be wiped out as fast as the tank weapons systems can be re-loaded. This argument about "defeating tyranny" is 100 years out dated. By the way, the govt has the mailing list for all the NRA members and every member of every other gun advocacy group any time they want it via the US Post Office.
But my slant is to let us keep our weapons. They just need to be registered, ALL SALES and tranfers must be recorded, and all records on a central data base, and tagants be used in all ammunition and also recorded in a central data base, and a safety lock system on weapons that will prevent accidental shootings.
Catching criminals is great, trying and punishing criminals is great. But preventing criminals and nuts from getting weapons in the first place is much more desirable. No penalty given a criminal will bring life or limb back to a shooting vitim.
sometimes I wonder how many of the people who are howling about their 2nd amendment rights ever really use a gun, other than for amusement and "sport"
I wonder how many have seen someone die after being shot, or have seen a child that was accidentally shot in the head. You never see the NRA in an emergency room or funeral parlor recruiting.
posted on February 5, 2003 08:40:47 PM new
MOST RATIONAL PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE GOVT. CAN AT ANYTIME COME AND "TRY" TO TAKE SOMETHING AWAY... SORT OF LIKE AT RUBY RIDGE...
BUT GIVES SOME OF A PIECE OF MIND KNOWING THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THE CONTROL, AND RIGHT NOW IS ALL THAT COUNTS.
GUN CONTROL IS GOOD FOR YOU... FINE, DO WHAT YOU FEEL IS RIGHT... I KNOW I WILL BEING DOING WHAT I FEEL IS RIGHT.
OH AND I DOUBT THAT HOMEOWNER WILL SPEND ANY TIME IN JAIL OR BE FINED...
posted on February 6, 2003 03:50:00 PM new
Pro-gunners are so adamant about this issue that they'll maintain it's perfectly justifiable to open your door to a stranger in the middle of the night, as long as you're "prepared" ...
Bear1949 said:There is a difference between opening a door & inviting someone in & opening the door & someone barging in. Since you're still clearly talking about the 2 a.m. scenario, the only difference I see is this: In the latter case, the homeowner has failed to demonstrate an IQ high enough to justify his or her continued survival on this planet. In the former case, the homeowner has generously provided a secondary confirmation of the original findings.
Good Lord! I had completely forgotten about this until the discussion brought it up ... but I was only 17 years old the first (and so far only) time I was in a house with a stranger pounding on the door in the middle of the night, and I knew what to do .... DIAL 911!
If I had actually followed the advice given on this forum, I would have probably shot my new neighbor's 19-year-old son, who was, admittedly, too drunk to realize he was at the wrong house, but certainly wasn't "asking" to be shot. He was just drunk. And stupid. What would have happened to him if I'd shot him? What would have happened to my life, having to live with the guilt of killing someone who didn't deserve it?
And I'm wondering how many of these gun-lovers have actually pointed a gun at another human being (or another living creature, for that matter) with the formed intent of ending a life? The only one who seems to have used a gun is profe51, and he's doing a very good job of making his feelings on the issue clear.
I wrote before about the efficacy of baseball bats, but cops consistently say the three most effective defensive weapons are 1) lights 2) noise and 3) a phone. I don't want to be within two counties of any home where guns are more readily accessible than those three defenses.
[ edited by msincognito on Feb 6, 2003 03:53 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2003 06:20:47 PM newAnd I'm wondering how many of these gun-lovers have actually pointed a gun at another human being (or another living creature, for that matter) with the formed intent of ending a life? The only one who seems to have used a gun is profe51, and he's doing a very good job of making his feelings on the issue clear.
Well, lets see, does VietNam count or are you refering only to instances in civilian life?
I my case the answer to both is yes. The times I have pointed a firearm at another human being (or another living creature, for that matter) with the formed intent of ending a life.
I was forced in self defense of myself & family to aim a gun at another human being and I fully intended to fire when the cops arrived & disarmed the other individual.
Also I have discharged a weapon at an individual that was fleeing after breaking into my vehicle.
I have killed, I am a hunter, I like to hunt deer, ferral hogs & javelina.
I am a VietNam vet that saw action. It was kill or be killed.
So don't cry on my shoulder. Until you have been there and stood in the shoes of someone that has been forced to take a life or to defend your own life, you don't know what you are talking about.
Prof Don't talk too loud about shooting the coyote's & cougar's, you'll have all the Bunny Huggers & PETA's decrying you name.
[ edited by bear1949 on Feb 6, 2003 06:25 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2003 08:00:26 PM newUntil you have been there and stood in the shoes of someone that has been forced to take a life or to defend your own life, you don't know what you are talking about.
So ... because I've never tried to kill anyone, I have no reasonable basis for the stated opinion that killing is generally a bad idea?
Interesting logic .... it has its merits. Applying that principle to other debates, you just wiped out any basis for men to advocate for abortion restrictions. Thanks, that line of reasoning will come in handy the next time our (male-dominated) Legislature starts debating the topic.
And along the way, you also bolstered my point that people who have guns handy tend to use them irresponsibly:
Also I have discharged a weapon at an individual that was fleeing after breaking into my vehicle.
I don't know if you've actually checked into laws on reckless discharge of a firearm/aggravated assault and the ability to assert self-defense, but you just confessed to what, in most states, is a felony. You also forfeited your claim to justifiable use of deadly force, which almost always includes a duty to retreat - unless the guy was in your driveway and your state law specifically includes curtilages in its "castle doctrine." Even so, you have to face an imminent threat, and that does not extend to the defense of property nor to individuals running away from you.
And you're someone who (based on your account) actually knows something about guns. Most of the people who buy guns for self-defense do not have the faintest, foggiest notion how to use them.
[ edited by msincognito on Feb 6, 2003 08:02 PM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 04:14:45 AM new
msincognito, bear is in Tx (I think), and this was not illegal there, at least when I lived there. There was a highly publicized case in Austin near where I lived of a homeowner killing a older teen that was stealing the car from his drive, and the homeowner was not charged. The Austin Police Department did recommend a shotgun as the best deterrent at that time.
The laws regarding firearm use for self defense are somewhat different in some Western States from the East Coast. It's not just the different view of property, but response times to a 911 call can be much longer in rural areas.
addedithinkasIcannotbepositiveofbear'slocation
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Feb 7, 2003 04:15 AM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 08:26:15 AM newI don't know if you've actually checked into laws on reckless discharge of a firearm/aggravated assault and the ability to assert self-defense, but you just confessed to what, in most states, is a felony.
Interestingly, I see that none of you have chosen to address my issues of self defense.
Yet when it comes to protecting personal property,something I worked to obtain, it's another matter. Sure just let anyone steal what they want, never mind that the damage to my vehicle. You'll say "thats what insurace if for". "Bull S###".
Let me tell you, here in Texas, it is LEGAL to shoot & kill to PROTECT your property, not just in self defense and not just on your own personal property. So as to commiting a felony, not in Texas.
This guy didn't have the sense to run when the alarm sounded & only when I approached did he chose to run, and its not like I gave him a 20 yard headstart before firing.
In fact I was critized by the police (whom I did call) for missing the suspect.
Point in fact, there have been manyinstances here in Texas, where someone after breaking into a vehicle, or stealing from a homeowners front yard, fleeing in a vehicle, were fired upon & killed by the homeowner. In these instances, the home owner was NO BILLED for their actions.
Reamond, to clearify that for you....that means no charges were filed against the homeowner
I do know firearms & am quite proficient in handling & their use.
Reamond.......
You, in your ideal little world, must have a very large brain, to hold so much ignorance and spew forth so much garbage.
All the above occured when I lived in the metro Houston (TX) area.
Now I live out in the country, response time for any emergency assistance, (police, fire, ambulance) is over 45 minutes. (I know, I have called for an ambulance).
At night, when my gate is closed & locked, if you think I will answer the door unarmed, you really need a reality check,
I know all I have responded to will fall on deaf ears to all the rabid anti gunners who have never had to depend of a firearm for self defense or to protect you property. To them I say,
I refuse to enter into a battle of wits with you - its against my moral code to attack an unarmed person
