NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/cleveland_man_caught_in_gun_co.html

Damon Wells is the man gun supporters imagined when they fought for the right to carry concealed weapons.

He had a permit to carry his gun, and he had the gun on him when a pair of teenage thieves approached him Saturday night on his front porch.

When one of the youths pulled a gun, Wells whipped out his and shot one of the boys multiple times in the chest, police said.

Arthur Buford, 15, died after stumbling away and collapsing on a sidewalk near East 134th Street and Kinsman Road.

City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged for what appears to be the first time a concealed-carry permit holder has shot and killed an attacker.

In your opinion, when someone points a gun at you while you are sitting on your own property, should you have the right to defend yourself against what appears to be imminent threat of death?

Or should you not have that right? Should you, while being confronted with armed force, ask them to wait a minute while you call the police?

Shooting a 15 year old 'multiple times' is in no way 'reasonable force'.

I'm in agreance.
Whether or not I supported it anyway it is a constitutional right, and a legally accepted policy here int he US.

Shooting a 15 year old 'multiple times' is in no way 'reasonable force'.

In the US, the legality for "reasonable force" usually implies that you shot someone until they stopped whatever they were doing.

Shooting them until they fall down, or shooting them until they try to run away, or shooting them until the drop the gun and give up is not considered unreasonable.

Considering how many times a simple pistol can be fired in a few seconds...

I can empty a 38 revolver in just over 1 second. That's not a whole lot of time.

I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. When someone pulls a gun on you your gonna have a huge rush of adrenaline. He was probably surprised with how many times he shot the kid. Sad story.

I don't believe I have any possessions worth more than a human life.

In the US, the legality for "reasonable force" usually implies that you shot someone until they stopped whatever they were doing.

Shooting them until they fall down, or shooting them until they try to run away, or shooting them until the drop the gun and give up is not considered unreasonable.

Considering how many times a simple pistol can be fired in a few seconds...

I can empty a 38 revolver in just over 1 second. That's not a whole lot of time.

Just pulling a gun would seem sufficient, and, if not, then a single shot is going to do a lot of damage.

The guy overreacted in panic, with the result that a young kid is dead. A very strong argument against guns if there ever was one.

I'm not real clear on the point of this thread. What if the thief had been jumpy and shot the man the second he twitched. Would that make him eligible for the death penalty? I mean, we can what if this situation all day long if you want--using one example to try to prove the benefits of a larger policy is generally an unwise idea, since anyone can point to a single instance where a policy worked out, but it doesn't say anything about the wisdom of the policy as a whole.

I don't believe I have any possessions worth more than a human life.

Not even your own life?

Your body's orifices?

it seems a no brainer to me. of course you have the right to defend yourself in that situation.

it would be wrong to prosecute such an obvious case of self defense.

I believe that survival instinct tells me that my life is more valuable than his. If it hadn't been for the gun he held chances are the man may not have shot him.
Humanity did not get on top because we are smart (in fact I think most of us are really fucking stupid). We got on top because we as a species are not at all afraid to kill first, without question, without rmeorse, and without compromise. A wild bear will at least give some warning to something they beleive is a threat to them, a human being will pull the trigger and shout "Take that bitch!"

I'm not real clear on the point of this thread. What if the thief had been jumpy and shot the man the second he twitched. Would that make him eligible for the death penalty? I mean, we can what if this situation all day long if you want--using one example to try to prove the benefits of a larger policy is generally an unwise idea, since anyone can point to a single instance where a policy worked out, but it doesn't say anything about the wisdom of the policy as a whole.

I'm not talking about the policy as a whole.

I am talking about your OPINION of this instance AND

what you would have done in THAT instance

Shouldn't there be a "When did you stop beating your wife" option in the poll for balance?

Not even your own life?

Your body's orifices?
I don't know that he's going to kill me even if I hand over my wallet. Remember, this was armed robbery, not some kids killing or assaulting some random person for kicks.
I believe that survival instinct tells me that my life is more valuable than his. If it hadn't been for the gun he held chances are the man may not have shot him.
Humanity did not get on top because we are smart (in fact I think most of us are really fucking stupid). We got on top because we as a species are not at all afraid to kill first, without question, without rmeorse, and without compromise. A wild bear will at least give some warning to something they beleive is a threat to them, a human being will pull the trigger and shout "Take that bitch!"

We're not top not because we're the smartest creatures on this planet(as far as we can tell), but because we have little or no regard for each other's lives?

I'm not talking about the policy as a whole.

I am talking about your OPINION of this instance AND

what you would have done in THAT instance

For me it's easy. I don't own a gun and don't plan on it. I'm not opposed to gun ownership per se--it's just not for me. I've had a gun pulled on me before, and in that situation, even if I had been carrying one, it wouldn't have done me any good, so I imagine in this situation, I'd have reacted just as I did then--stayed calm and let them take what they wanted and leave.

We're not top not because we're the smartest creatures on this planet(as far as we can tell), but because we have little or no regard for each other's lives?

We have little or no regard for each others lives, or the lives of other species. Some of us try to change the very nature of our species into a compasionate and caring creature but it still holds to fact that many of us are as stupid and twice as violent as the creatures that compete against us in the natural world.

Don't mess with humanity... they are crazy mother fuckers.

Just pulling a gun would seem sufficient, and, if not, then a single shot is going to do a lot of damage.

False. One shot is no guarantee of a "lot of damage".

Newgard, Ken, M.D.: "The Physiological Effects of Handgun Bullets: The Mechanisms of Wounding and Incapacitation." Wound Ballistics Review, 1(3): 12-17; 1992.

This article examines the physiological mechanisms of the human body to provide a medical answer to the question: How many times is it necessary to shoot an assailant before he is incapacitated?

Newgard reviews the physiological mechanisms of gunshot wound trauma incapacitation:

"The only method of reliably stopping a human with a handgun is to decrease the functioning capability of the central nervous system (CNS) and specifically, the brain and cervical spinal cord. There are two ways to accomplish this goal: 1) direct trauma to the CNS tissue resulting in tissue destruction and 2) lack of oxygen to the brain caused by bleeding and loss of blood pressure."

Newgard discusses the body's blood loss sensory and compensatory mechanisms (venous constriction, increased cardiac output and vascular fluid transfer), and the degree in which these mechanisms respond to, and compensate for, hemorrhagic shock. He reviews clinical tests of human tolerance for blood loss, which "demonstrate that adequate blood pressure can be maintained with minimal symptoms until a 20% blood deficit was reached." Newgard provides the following example:

"For an average 70 kg (155 lb.)* male the cardiac output will be 5.5 liters (~1.4 gallons) per minute. His blood volume will be 60 ml per kg (0.92 fl. oz. per lb.) or 4200 ml (~1.1 gallons). Assuming his cardiac output can double under stress (as his heart beats faster and with greater force). his aortic blood flow can reach 11 liters (~2.8 gallons) per minute. If one assumes a wound that totally severs the thoracic aorta, then it would take 4.6 seconds to lose 20% of his blood volume from one point of injury. This is the minimum time in which a person could lose 20% of his blood volume.... This analysis does not account for oxygen contained in the blood already perfusing the brain, that will keep the brain functioning for an even longer period of time.

"Most wounds will not bleed at this rate because: 1) bullets usually do not transect (completely sever) blood vessels, 2) as blood pressure falls, the bleeding slows, 3) surrounding tissue acts as a barrier to blood loss, 4) the bullet may only penetrate smaller blood vessels, 5) bullets can disrupt tissue without hitting any major blood vessels resulting in a slow ooze rather than rapid bleeding, and 6) the above mentioned compensatory mechanisms."

Newgard investigates the survival times of persons who received fatal gunshot wounds to determine if the person who was shot had enough time to shoot back. He concludes:

"Instantaneous incapacitation is not possible with non central nervous system wounds and does not always occur with central nervous system wounds. The intrinsic physiologic compensatory mechanisms of humans makes it difficult to inhibit a determined, aggressive person's activities until he has lost enough blood to cause hemorrhagic shock. The body's compensatory mechanisms designed to save a person's life after sustaining a bleeding wound, allow a person to continue to be a threat after receiving an eventually fatal wound, thus necessitating more rounds being fired in order to incapacitate or stop the assailant."


So, unless you can hit someone in the brain stem, and put them down instantly, you are in a position where you have to fire as many shots as possible in order to merely incapacitate your assailant. Otherwise, they remain in a position to shoot back.

We have little or no regard for each others lives, or the lives of other species. Some of us try to change the very nature of our species into a compasionate and caring creature but it still holds to fact that many of us are as stupid and twice as violent as the creatures that compete against us in the natural world.

Don't mess with humanity... they are crazy mother fuckers.

How can you act as though our violent animal instincts are such wonderful things, yet still remain a part of civilisation as a whole?

I would had shot. Maybe because I live in a really dangerous country. If someone aims a gun at me, I would shot.

And yes, even if that "someone" holds a badge in his hand. No uniform, you get shot.

IF I had been in that position, I would have shot the kid probably out of sheer reflex.

I oppose guns for civilian use but I will not deny that I wouldn't have done the same thing.

How can you act as though our violent animal instincts are such wonderful things, yet still remain a part of civilisation as a whole?

Did I ever once say its a wonderful thing? I'm am a passivist person, I do not believe in bringing violence to other people but I do beleive that if somene brings violence to you you have the right to defend yourself. If you pay close attention, I'm insulting the condition of the human species as a whole. We are violent, rude, crude, stupid, panicky, and dangerous creatures with little regard for our surounding neighbors or even our envireonment. As a whole, I think our species should either die out, or educate itself past this brutish function.

In your opinion, when someone points a gun at you while you are sitting on your own property, should you have the right to defend yourself against what appears to be imminent threat of death?

Or should you not have that right? Should you, while being confronted with armed force, ask them to wait a minute while you call the police?

If someone points a gun at me without any right to do so (doesn't matter if I'm on my property or no), I have the right of self-defence. Of course.

Anyway, you shouldn't mix the "denial of the right of self-defence" with "stopping the typical US trigger-happy attitude". Having a gun with you - and being trained to use it correctly and promptly and only when the need arises - might be useful in some neighbourhoods. Keeping a dozen of different firearms at home is just calling for an accidental discharge and for kids to grow up with the unhealthy idea of realise themselves through violence. Having firearms being sold freely at any shop without even looking into the criminal record of the buyer is just calling for Columbine.

Back on topic: self-defence stops when you have disabled the potential aggressor. Discharging a whole clip into the aggressor's body means that the defending party didn't shoot just to protect himself; he shot to kill. I don't know about US laws, but in Italy, such behaviour would be prosecuted at least as a manslaughter in excess of self-defence - the outcome of the trial depends on oh-so-many factors, of course.

As a counter-example, some months ago here in Milan an elderly man caught a thief breaking into his home. The thief punched him and threatened to kill the man's wife if he wasn't to give him his money. The old man feigned to give the thief what he wanted; instead he pulled out a pistol from a cabinet and threatened back the thief, asking him to go away. The thief wouldn't go away and punched him again, so the old man fired two shots at the thief's legs. The wounded thief backed away, the old man called the police saying that he had to wound a man to protect himself, the police arrived in the area, found the bleeding thief, arrested him and called an ambulance.
Result: no criminal charges for the old man, no deaths, a thief in prison.
This is a good example of self-defence done pretty well.

I don't know that he's going to kill me even if I hand over my wallet. Remember, this was armed robbery, not some kids killing or assaulting some random person for kicks.

It wasn't much of anything due to that whole 'being shot' thing.

Waste of ammo, probably could of bluffed his way out of it, or just shot him in the head.

he should not have killed him. one shot to the shoulder of the kid's gun arm would have been the maximum i would have considered reasonable.

snip

that's assuming that the person is absolutely determined to kill you with no regard for their own safety. i would reckon that the majority of armed robbers faced with an armed victim would cut and run.

he should not have killed him. one shot to the shoulder of the kid's gun arm would have been the maximum i would have considered reasonable.
Let's see you aim that well -_-. Don't you dare answer that you've been extensively trained and could, in fact, aim that well under pressure. I'd have to hate you for it.

I don't believe I have any possessions worth more than a human life.

Well, then you support the shooting considering this kid would probably end-up killing more people.

Let's see you aim that well -_-.
Don't you dare answer that you've been extensively trained and could, in fact, aim that well under pressure. I'd have to hate you for it.

no, i personally couldn't. but then i wouldn't apply for a concealed carry licence either. uncanny accuracy and supreme level-headedness (that is so a word :P) under pressure should be minimum requirements for someone who is basically acting as an untrained judge, jury and executioner so that they don't end up actually prosecuting that execution in error.

he should not have killed him. one shot to the shoulder of the kid's gun arm would have been the maximum i would have considered reasonable.

You think he has time to aim? Do you know what's like when someone can take your life away by a movement of their fingers? Even if he could muster-up the willpower to override his his instincts and aim for the shoulder, the kid probably would have killed him while he was aiming, even if it were just for a breif second. Once again you have no idea the fright of someone holding your life in their hands threatening to steal it in an instant.

Surely if the kid got shot in the shoulder / side then he would spin around a bit or is that just in hollywood?
If so then the additional shots were not necessary because of the force of impact of the first couple of bullets.
I think that the amount of blood loss would not be relevent due to the shock of being shot in the first place, considering the kid must have thought that the other guy was unarmed, after all, one of the problems with Kevlar vests is that you can still be incapacitated by a shot which breaks your ribs rather than going through you (admittedly we are not talking about high calibre weapons).

I think that the guy definitely overreacted with sending a whole clip into the boy, especially since there was still the other one he could shoot.

However, on the issue of gun ownership, how would 15 year olds get hold of guns anyway?
I am not familiar with US gun rules but I am certain that they are not allowed to minors.

that's assuming that the person is absolutely determined to kill you with no regard for their own safety. i would reckon that the majority of armed robbers faced with an armed victim would cut and run.

Well I wouldn't take that risk. I wouldn't risk my life and hope a guy with a gun trained on me would run away.

Surely if the kid got shot in the shoulder / side then he would spin around a bit or is that just in hollywood?


Hollywood. In the Old West often one shooter would pop his advesary and the advesary would take aim and pop him back. Then they would both die in the hospital. We're talkin' .44 Colt here. The only time a bullet stops someone is when it hits the vitals, or if it is an exceptional bullet (.44 Magnum, .50 Action Express.)
That said, an inexperianced kid might drop his gun and get frightened, but he might also shoot you. I myself wouldn't risk hoping for the former. He obviously can't be that timid if he can demand money with a gun.

However, on the issue of gun ownership, how would 15 year olds get hold of guns anyway?
I am not familiar with US gun rules but I am certain that they are not allowed to minors.

Shockingly criminals often break rules.

Shooting a 15 year old 'multiple times' is in no way 'reasonable force'.

A 15 year old pointing a gun at you is a serious threat. 15 year olds are likely to do something very stupid. One always shoots multiple times. This isn't a John Wayne movie where the bad guy gets shot once and drops.

A 15 year old pointing a gun at you is a serious threat. 15 year olds are likely to do something very stupid. One always shoots multiple times. This isn't a John Wayne movie where the bad guy gets shot once and drops.
Which is why, when a 15 year old had a gun at my head, I was very calm and did whatever he wanted. It cost me a bicycle (my only transportation at the time), a wallet with two dollars, an expired drivers license, and a maxed out credit card in it. I walked away from it alive and unharmed.

A 15 year old pointing a gun at you is a serious threat. 15 year olds are likely to do something very stupid. One always shoots multiple times. This isn't a John Wayne movie where the bad guy gets shot once and drops.

Short of blowing someone's head completely off a single shot won't stop anyone. Even shooting them multiple times fatally won't keep them from returning fire. A gun fight isn't pretty.

Which is why, when a 15 year old had a gun at my head, I was very calm and did whatever he wanted. It cost me a bicycle (my only transportation at the time), a wallet with two dollars, an expired drivers license, and a maxed out credit card in it. I walked away from it alive and unharmed.

Not really the way to conduct things. Had the rest of the world acted like this in the 40's Hitler would have conquered all. "Oh pleeeeeeze Mister-- er HERR Fuher don't harm us, we'll give you whatever you want!"

Short of blowing someone's head completely off a single shot won't stop anyone. Even shooting them multiple times fatally won't keep them from returning fire. A gun fight isn't pretty.

Study the shoot-out at the O.K. corral (which really was near a photo-gallery). It supports this.

If you point a gun at me, I dont care if you´re 15 or 65, I´m going to kill you.

I dont care if this kid was 15 or 18: he pointed a gun at someone else, and when you do that you´ve just forfeit all your legal rights.

The kid was a victim? HELL NO, he was a criminal. I dont care if he was 15, he was a criminal and had a gun that could kill someone. And those youths are trying to protect him like he was Jesus.

Since the little punk pulled a gun first the man had every right to shoot him.

I don't believe I have any possessions worth more than a human life.

Yes you do. If you own a single penny it is worth more than the life of a bandit.

In your opinion, when someone points a gun at you while you are sitting on your own property, should you have the right to defend yourself against what appears to be imminent threat of death?
Certainly. But, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, why continue to support lethal defence when the development of effective non-lethal alternatives hinges on there being a sufficient demand for them?

I am not sure how relevant the point of being on your own land is when the question is whether people are justified in defending themselves. I know that we are supposed to respect our hosts but if I was invited to someone's house and he started going psycho and tried to kill me and I killed him in defense I think this is just as justifiable as a murderer coming into my house to kill me.

Yes you do. If you own a single penny it is worth more than the life of a bandit.

Nah. The worth of a human life is equal to... one human life. That's what a human life is worth.

(And... "bandit?" What is this, the fucking 19th century?)

Yes you do. If you own a single penny it is worth more than the life of a bandit.
Banditry is relative. Setting up shop overseas, hiring cheap labour and making massive profits is "Business"; refusing to give taxes and letting other people pay for your public services is "Capitalism"; taking excessive taxes from hardworking individuals so politicians get a wage rise without bothering the big businesses is "Politics". Yet it is on the back of these ideals that your pennies have value at all.

Nah. The worth of a human life is equal to... one human life. That's what a human life is worth.

(And... "bandit?" What is this, the fucking 19th century?)

A bandit is someone that uses force to steal from others without necessarily entering a building to do so. The article described them as thieves but technically thieves steal without violence and without entering your home first. Those who break into homes are burglars.

A human life is worth the life that lived it. Therefore, a hero's life is worth more than a child molester's. We are all born human and equal. We can lose our humanity and become adominations by doing monstrous things. If we lose our humanity, the fact that we are a featherless biped does not make us human. Where it becomes tricky and more contraversial is when a monster starts redeeming himself through repentance and good acts. Does this matter? This I guess is more of a philosophical or religious question. However, an unrepentant thug killed by a victim in self defense is nobody to cry about because this monster thought that he had the right to use viloence to take what he wanted. We do not need people like that to share our air with us.

Uhh...I think if someone pulls a weapon on you, you should have the right to defend yourself even if it's not on your own property.

I don't believe I have any possessions worth more than a human life.

What about your own life?

What about your own life?

He sold it to the devil, along with his soul.

A human life is worth the life that lived it. Therefore, a hero's life is worth more than a child molester's. We are all born human and equal. We can lose our humanity and become adominations by doing monstrous things. If we lose our humanity, the fact that we are a featherless biped does not make us human. Where it becomes tricky and more contraversial is when a monster starts redeeming himself through repentance and good acts. Does this matter? This I guess is more of a philosophical or religious question. However, an unrepentant thug killed by a victim in self defense is nobody to cry about because this monster thought that he had the right to use viloence to take what he wanted. We do not need people like that to share our air with us.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's naive to think that life has value in and of itself. When people resort to violence or threats of violence in order to take from others what is rightfully theirs, they forfeit their right to equal consideration, at least in the short term.

Shooting a 15 year old 'multiple times' is in no way 'reasonable force'.

It is if the little shit cake baker pulls a gun on you.

Face it, the kid was probably to stupid to have survived much longer anyway so no harm done really. Let's just hope he got it before he had a chance to reproduce.

I'd have his friend who survived sterilized while we are at it.

Shooting a 15 year old 'multiple times' is in no way 'reasonable force'.
I'd have to agree, that's a little excessive... But he was in the right.

why doesn't the poll include less non-lethal ways of retaliation?

Oh thats right for DK it's either kill or be killed.

He sold it to the devil, along with his soul.

Yes, how completely EEEEEVILLLLLLLLL of him to put anothers life before his own because he doesn't believe in killing people even if they are wronging him.

Oh wait, did I just answer sarcasm with more sarcasm?

why doesn't the poll include less non-lethal ways of retaliation?

Oh thats right for DK it's either kill or be killed.

I think when someone is pointing a gun at you, those are pretty much the options, kill or capitulate. Now if you have a tazer handy more power to you.

I'd have to agree, that's a little excessive... But he was in the right.

Yes, he was indeed in the right if he truely thought the kid was going to shoot him. This does of course lead to the question of whether the 15 year old would have been able to gain access to a gun in any way if gun were banned throughout the country.

And before you all pipe up with "Oh but there is gun crime in the UK aswell" the please remember this:
Most of the criminals are getting the guns from the USA or europe
It is more unlikely that it will be teenagers as it is much more difficult to obtain a gun.
Gun crime is much much lower in the UK.

Yes, he was indeed in the right if he truely thought the kid was going to shoot him. This does of course lead to the question of whether the 15 year old would have been able to gain access to a gun in any way if gun were banned throughout the country.

And before you all pipe up with "Oh but there is gun crime in the UK aswell" the please remember this:
Most of the criminals are getting the guns from the USA or europe
It is more unlikely that it will be teenagers as it is much more difficult to obtain a gun.
Gun crime is much much lower in the UK.
Indeed, I'm seconding this post.
In the US, the legality for "reasonable force" usually implies that you shot someone until they stopped whatever they were doing.
...like breathing...

I think when someone is pointing a gun at you, those are pretty much the options, kill or capitulate. Now if you have a tazer handy more power to you.

Mind if i ask what a tazer actually does (as in, will it stop someone, will it stop them as fast as a gun, and is it possible to accidentally kill someone with it)?

Not really the way to conduct things. Had the rest of the world acted like this in the 40's Hitler would have conquered all. "Oh pleeeeeeze Mister-- er HERR Fuher don't harm us, we'll give you whatever you want!"

How do you compare someone givving up a bunch of useless crap like a maxed out credit card, an expired drivers lecense, 2 dollars to a defense against a growing Authoritarian Dictatorship?

Hell, the only thing of real value on him was his bike...

I think when someone is pointing a gun at you, those are pretty much the options, kill or capitulate. Now if you have a tazer handy more power to you.

There's a difference between "kill or be killed," which is what SB said, and "kill or capitulate." As I noted elsewhere on this thread, capitulation is often a very successful option.

Mind if i ask what a tazer actually does (as in, will it stop someone, will it stop them as fast as a gun, and is it possible to accidentally kill someone with it)?

A tazer fires a positive, and a negatively charged barb at someone and shocks them with a potentially lethal amount of electricity for less than a second. Usually it has the effect of merely stunning and disconcerting the target but in some rare cases it is potentially lethal. Does it work as good as a gunf or stopping people? IN some cases more so. Might it kill them? About a 1 million in on chance. It has a range of usualy around 10-20 feet and is perfectly legal in most places.

A tazer fires a positive, and a negatively charged barb at someone and shocks them with a potentially lethal amount of electricity for less than a second. Usually it has the effect of merely stunning and disconcerting the target but in some rare cases it is potentially lethal. Does it work as good as a gunf or stopping people? IN some cases more so. Might it kill them? About a 1 million in on chance. It has a range of usualy around 10-20 feet and is perfectly legal in most places.

So why the feck do all these people say they want to get a gun to defend themselves with then??

I am probably being at least slightly innocent (comming from an incredibly safe city and all) but i simply cant understand how guns can be legal in first world countries when there are other options for self defence.

One flaw in the argument being that a non-lethal weapon with a range of 20 feet (or about 5-6 meters) is not as effective as a lethal weapon with ranges exceeding 5 km. Another being, its against human nature not to kill things, and the third being in some places it is a garanteed right to be able to own them and that is the only reason many people do.

Most of the criminals are getting the guns from the USA or europe

That's illegal too, isn't it? And what do you mean 'most'? What about the rest?

Gun crime is much much lower in the UK.

...

And?

One flaw in the argument being that a non-lethal weapon with a range of 20 feet (or about 5-6 meters) is not as effective as a lethal weapon with ranges exceeding 5 km. Another being, its against human nature not to kill things, and the third being in some places it is a garanteed right to be able to own them and that is the only reason many people do.

How is it against human nature NOT to kill things? Have you ever killed anyone? Have you even ever had a serious desire to kill someone???

Anyway, with the first point, then yes it is possible to kill from much further away with a gun, but the further the distance the less accurate your going to be and also most arguments for using guns for self defence implies that it will mostly take place in the city, where i would like to see you find a street that you can fire at someone from a serious distance.

That's illegal too, isn't it? And what do you mean 'most'? What about the rest?



...

And?

Yes, its illegal to bring guns into the country (but then they are criminals, does it look like they care?), however if no-where in the world allowed you to own guns then where on earth would you bring guns in from?
And the reason i said MOST was to cover my bases, i dont know enough about how to illegally get my hands on guns to rule out the possibility of there being a few illegal suppliers within the UK.

And the reason i mentioned that gun crime was lower in the UK was to point out that in a country where guns are banned then less people (as a percentage of the population, as well as in total, as well as as a percentage or number of crimes. No i am not just playing with statistics) are killed by guns.
Generally less people being killed is a good thing, therefore as a direct and not too difficult leap of logic then banning guns is also a good thing.

Mind if i ask what a tazer actually does (as in, will it stop someone, will it stop them as fast as a gun, and is it possible to accidentally kill someone with it)?

A tazer sends out two metal prongs attached to wire leads that lead back to the gun end of the device. These prongs sink into your flesh a bit and then proceed to deliver a massive jolt of electricity, hopefully incapacitating you.


Unusually works, rarely kills. They're not real common here, police use them quite a bit though. Some commotion because people have died because of them, guess those whining would just as soon the cops shoot 'em.

How is it against human nature NOT to kill things? Have you ever killed anyone? Have you even ever had a serious desire to kill someone???

Anyway, with the first point, then yes it is possible to kill from much further away with a gun, but the further the distance the less accurate your going to be and also most arguments for using guns for self defence implies that it will mostly take place in the city, where i would like to see you find a street that you can fire at someone from a serious distance.

If it wasn't in our nature to kill things our pathetic little species with exactly 0 natural weapons, that runs slowly when compared to many animals, and can hardly be considered by anythings standards tough to kill would have perished long ago. The first tools were also the first weapons.. that should say much about the nature of our species... as should current world politics. I don't like it but there is no denying that we enjoy it.

We Hunt for the pure pleasure of killing... the only other creature in the world I can think of that does that are cats (yes they do) and as a species.. we find cats adoreable! That tells me volumes.

Shooting a 15 year old 'multiple times' is in no way 'reasonable force'.

What does his age have to do with anything? Do 15 year olds lack the strength to pull a trigger with their index finger.

Second, how would this guy even know the 15 year olds age, check his ID? Good luck being able to determine a guys age if they just run up and pull a gun on you. Maybe if he was 6, you could say "hey, its a kid" but not once someone hits 6 foot tall and starts growing a beard, especially when they start robbing people at gunpoint. When you start acting like a grownup (robbing people at gunpoint) prepare to be treated like one (encountering resistance.)


Also, at the people who think any civilian off the street can shoot a single shot to someones shoulder and disable them while having a gun aimed at their face. Did you read the article when it mentioned how only after having his chest filled with bullets did he decide under his own free will to leave? How is a single bullet to a nonvital area supposed to instantly drop him when a slew of bullets to the chest couldnt even do it?

Yes, its illegal to bring guns into the country (but then they are criminals, does it look like they care?), however if no-where in the world allowed you to own guns then where on earth would you bring guns in from?
And the reason i said MOST was to cover my bases, i dont know enough about how to illegally get my hands on guns to rule out the possibility of there being a few illegal suppliers within the UK.

Like..I dunno...Home Depot?

therefore as a direct and not too difficult leap of logic then banning guns is also a good thing.

Err.

The UK is also distinctly more involved, culturally, with football (soccer) than the US. And it has less gun crime. Therefore...

I don't want any leaps in logic when making these laws. Much less ones that are quite arguable in how 'direct' they are. Why has gun crime in the US been going down, as laws get looser? No, I think a bit more rigor is required in our logic.

To those of you that said one shot should have been enough...

Police officers are trained to do a double tap, which means to shoot the target twice. If the threat has not been negated, then you double tap him again. Before I left the PD I was working with, we were being taught to double tap and then one to the head, in case the bad guy was wearing body armor.

To those that say that showing him your gun should have been enough, why don't you try pulling a gun on a police officer? You will be lucky if he tells you to drop your gun.

Once you pull a gun on someone, you have given every indication that you are ready to use deadly force.

The kid forgot that there are 2 types of person out in the world...those whose ass you can kick, and those that will kick your ass. He took a gamble and lost, that simple.

Pull a gun on me, I will not bother to ask you anything or tell you anything. I will simply draw my weapon and I will keep shooting until you are no longer a threat.

Vic

Pull a gun on me, I will not bother to ask you anything or tell you anything. I will simply draw my weapon and I will keep shooting until you are no longer a threat.

Vic
Assuming you hit him first, that is. There's always the chance that you could wind up on the receiving end of things.

Assuming you hit him first, that is. There's always the chance that you could wind up on the receiving end of things.

With the other one having pulled before you by definition, that's a distinct possibility...

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/04/cleveland_man_caught_in_gun_co.html

In your opinion, when someone points a gun at you while you are sitting on your own property, should you have the right to defend yourself against what appears to be imminent threat of death?

Or should you not have that right? Should you, while being confronted with armed force, ask them to wait a minute while you call the police?
Ummmm......your poll is skewed to say the least, but that is usual for gun lubbers???

This is not as cut and dried as it may seem and at least one individual asks the right questions in the Comment section to the story:

DutchMasters says...

Oi, where to begin...

Buford was shot "multiple" times. How many? 2? 4? 6? Did Wells empty the clip into him?

Was there a gun on Buford? The story says they found a revolver elsewhere, so I guess there wasn't one on him. Did the other suspect pick up the (presumably) dropped gun or was he the one who drew? Did Wells shoot the unarmed of the pair?

How did the police determine it was self-defense? Were there any witnesses to the incident?

Way to stir up "debate", PD. A little more digging and a few more facts could really clear this up.
And the answer to those very important questions????

The shooter in this case gets away with manslaughter or murder?????

Assuming you hit him first, that is. There's always the chance that you could wind up on the receiving end of things.yep. Just like there was a chance that you could've been shot and your wallet stolen (yes, even with an expired licence and maxxed credit card.)

A human life is worth the life that lived it. Therefore, a hero's life is worth more than a child molester's. We are all born human and equal. We can lose our humanity and become adominations by doing monstrous things. If we lose our humanity, the fact that we are a featherless biped does not make us human. Where it becomes tricky and more contraversial is when a monster starts redeeming himself through repentance and good acts. Does this matter? This I guess is more of a philosophical or religious question. However, an unrepentant thug killed by a victim in self defense is nobody to cry about because this monster thought that he had the right to use viloence to take what he wanted. We do not need people like that to share our air with us.

The bolded part is the thing that proves that those you call "monsters" (from latin "monstrare", "monstrum" means literally "something worthy to be shown"; although you use it to separate the "monsters" from the "humans") are just... humans. :rolleyes: Social deviancy, anti-social behaviour, criminality are typical HUMAN behaviours.

There are two roads to be walked simultaneously to cope with criminality: prevention and repression.
Prevention is the action of society on single individuals focused on building better members of the society. This comprises education, social services, welfare, better distribution of buying power.
Repression is the action of society on individuals who already have committed crimes (that is, anti-social behaviour). This comprises investigation, police forces, trials, forced re-education through temporary loss of rights (prison), permanent isolation of deviants from the society (lifelong sentences). I left out death sentence because it has never had any "prevention through fear" effect. And, of course, giving everyone a free rein to shoot at any potential offender won't scare the criminals: it will merely start an excalation of violence, because the root reasons leading a person to infringe the rules of society wouldn't have been removed.

Self-defence, while a right of every individual - provided it doesn't exceed some limitations - , isn't a proper response to the criminality issue. It is the proper response of a single individual to a local, momentary threat. The goal of society should be higher than that.

Just labelling a person, albeit socially deviant, as a non-human, is just an easy circumvention of sociology based on low-level, easy moralism. "They're evil, we're good" looks like a "Gott mit uns" to me. Might I remember that the canon of "good behaviour" are subject to change throughout the ages and society. Example: stealing a horse in Texas in 1860 would have been enough to earn you a quick hanging-on-the-spot; hunting pandas in today's China will earn you a death sentence; killing a cheating wife and her lover in Sicily in 1960 would have earned you a 7-years sentence and the general approvation of the populace for the "honour murder". Hence, we cannot speak of absolute "evil" and "good" about criminality, because laws, society and individuals change. Remember, if the laws were to change, even the most law-abiding individual could discover that suddenly he's considered a criminal.

And, of course, giving everyone a free rein to shoot at any potential offender won't scare the criminals: it will merely start an excalation of violence, because the root reasons leading a person to infringe the rules of society wouldn't have been removed.
This is definitely a large part of the problem that persists in the US today.

Just pulling a gun would seem sufficient, and, if not, then a single shot is going to do a lot of damage.

The guy overreacted in panic, with the result that a young kid is dead. A very strong argument against guns if there ever was one.

A single shot will do damage but also has a high chance of killing him.

this man was not an action hero who could pull of a perfect one shot disabling hit on the guys hand.

That's overkill...a shot in the legs or a warning shot should scare a teenager off.

Sounds pretty straightforward.

Hopefully, the whole affair will end in a life sentence for the 15-year old's accomplice.