Guns Used.....cont

[Tero]

If the antifun antigun atmosphere in the US momentarily makes it difficult for the gun nu..enthusiasts to enjoy the guns, move to South Africa. I hear there are lots of opportunities to shoot burglars and highway robbers. The burglars hide inside bathrooms, usually. Keep a weapon that can shoot a dozen rounds quickly through the door.

[Seth]

Whoops! Happened again...

Crime
Another Reason Why It’s a Bad Idea to Break Into a Texas Home: Armed Elderly Man Kills Home Intruder
Feb. 20, 2013 7:00pm Jason Howerton

Dallas News | myFOXdfw.com

An armed elderly man in Dallas shot and killed a suspected burglar after finding him trying to break into his Dallas home this week. However, he was also forced to defend his actions after the would-be robber’s family showed up at his home.

The homeowner, a repeat burglary victim, found 33-year-old Deyfon Pipkins attempting to climb in the house through the window and fired at least one shot at the criminal, hitting his target.

Dallas police Sgt. Calvin Johnson told KDFW-TV that the homeowner is covered by the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” which provides legal protection to gun owners in Texas and other states who are forced to use deadly force against a home intruder.

“It means they don’t actually have to retreat once someone comes in their home,” Johnson said. “You have the option of using deadly force if you believe your life is in danger.”
Armed Elderly Man Kills Home Intruder in Dallas

KDFW-TV

Once police identified the suspect as Pipkins, officers notified his family. Some of those family members showed up at the house and expressed their anger at the homeowner for not issuing a “warning.”

“He could have used a warning,” Lakesha Thompson, Pipkins’ sister-in-law, said. “He could have let him know that he did have a gun on his property and he would use it in self-defense.”

The suspect reportedly had a extensive criminal record and had served time in prison. He was previously convicted of theft, possession of a controlled substance and criminal trespassing.

Police have not charged the homeowner with any crime, but Dallas police will now refer the case to the Grand Jury to determine whether he followed the law when he killed the home intruder.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anecdotes-R-US Broadcast Corp.?

[Tero]

Well, I don't have problem here. Two idiots met and one died.

[Seth]

That's why you have a shotgun, dear. If they don't like having their tire shot out and "turn" on me, I will use the rest of the rounds to deal with that situation if and when it arises. Remember, it is THEY who are initiating the attack, and if they stop and get out it is THEY who are escalating the conflict. Since I'm not required to allow them to do so with impunity, nor am I compelled to retreat, I'll deal with whatever happens as I see fit while making a valid arrest.

Which is total idiocy.

The guys driving that vehicle could be armed with anything from a hand gun to a bazooka. After all, that is the USA, and gun control is a joke.

The smart defensive move is to get out of their way, and keep your shotgun to yourself.

That's a tactical decision that the individual gets to make in the moment. But it's still self defense and lawful arrest.

On the business of the non gun owners and their lack of self defense.

You appear to be trying to shift the goalposts, by saying that they were truly victims of crime, but only minor crime so it is OK. If that is true, then all those people you claim to use guns in successful self defense were not at much risk either, and that removes your entire argument.

First, there are other forms of self defense, second, self defense is valid as a response to ANY crime, third, even the slightest degree of risk justifies self defense.

If you want to justify carrying a gun as being needed for self defense, then there has to be something serious to defend against.

There is. Armed criminals.

If there is something serious to defend against, then all those non gun owners who cannot defend themselves are going to end up in dire straits.

Indeed.

This clearly is not happening, with the murder rate at 16,000 per year (which is still four times most western nations). But if you were correct about 2 million successful self defense with a gun cases each year, then there are 4 million non gun owners who are in dire straits. Yet only 16,000 die in murders.

So inevitable logic shows that the 'successful self defense' cases were defending against something quite minor, or else the figure is bullshit.

It means nothing of the kind. Your logical skills are highly deficient. You falsely assume that every incident of criminality that justifies self defense inevitably results in the murder of the victim. This is obviously not the case. Many victims have no other choice than to submit to being robbed, burglarized, assaulted, or otherwise victimized by criminals, and they are. If each of those victims were armed and capable of effective self defense, they might not be victimized. And since crime is unpredictable, and the individual has absolutely no way of knowing if he or she will be chosen for victimization, it is each individual's right to be armed against event the slightest possibility that they will be victimized by a criminal to even the slightest extent, because there is no way to predict whether a "minor" victimization will turn into a homicide or not.

The right of the individual to keep and bear the most effective tools of self defense against criminal victimization, so that he enjoys tactical superiority over the criminal to the greatest extent possible, is absolute. No person may be disarmed and left weaponless against criminal victimization by a just government.

If the mere presence of a handgun in the hand of a potential victim of even the most "minor" of crimes prevents or thwarts the crime and/or results in the criminal surrendering and facing justice, even if the handgun is never fired, it's both a legitimate defensive gun use and a complete justification and vindication of the right to keep and bear arm.

Law abiding citizens have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to be free of criminal victimization of any kind. Criminals have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to victimize a law abiding citizen, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore, criminals have absolutely NO right to be armed so as to facilitate their criminality, but law-abiding citizens have an absolute, inviolable, natural and inherent right to be effectively armed against the most heinous and evil crime that could possibly occur; murder. Being effectively armed against murder of course provides effective defense against all lesser crimes as well.

Therefore, handguns being the most effective tool of armed personal defense overall (rifles are better, but less concealable), and concealed handguns being appropriate and beneficial to society as a deterrent to criminality, it is the law-abiding individual's absolute right to carry a concealed handgun for self defense. Any government that infringes upon this right is both evil and illegitimate and should be disposed of by the People as quickly as possible.

[Seth]

Anecdotes-R-US Broadcast Corp.?

It's not an anecdote, it's a fact.

an·ec·dot·al
adjective \ˌa-nik-ˈdō-təl\
1
a : of, relating to, or consisting of anecdotes <an anecdotal biography>
b : anecdotic 2 <my anecdotal uncle>
2: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers <anecdotal evidence>

The report is not "unscientific" it's a statement of observed facts which have been verified by the police. It is therefore perfectly valid scientific evidence that handguns are used defensively by the victims of crimes.

[FBM]

You get somebody interested enough to collect all these anecdotes together and analyze them carefully, then what do you get? Statistics.

[Seth]

You get somebody interested enough to collect all these anecdotes together and analyze them carefully, then what do you get? Statistics.

Interestingly, that's precisely what Lott et al did...as did the DOJ.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

DOJ counted the hits and ignored the misses?

[Seth]

DOJ counted the hits and ignored the misses?

DOJ only counted incidents that were verifiable, ie: incidents that were reported to police even if the crime was not consummated.

[Seth]

...

When I was in college there was this rooster roosting in the tree outside my room. He'd start crowing at about 0300 and continue all night. The second night I went out and shot him.

Now that's one way of dealing with a sleep-depriving nuisance.

I on the other hand had to deal with some persistently noisy neighbours in an apartment downstairs from mine a few years ago. They pissed me off so much, it's probably just as well I didn't have a gun.

Well, that's why YOU shouldn't have a gun, but it's irrelevant to whether I, or anyone else, should have a gun.

[klr]

...

When I was in college there was this rooster roosting in the tree outside my room. He'd start crowing at about 0300 and continue all night. The second night I went out and shot him.

Now that's one way of dealing with a sleep-depriving nuisance.

I on the other hand had to deal with some persistently noisy neighbours in an apartment downstairs from mine a few years ago. They pissed me off so much, it's probably just as well I didn't have a gun.

Well, that's why YOU shouldn't have a gun, but it's irrelevant to whether I, or anyone else, should have a gun.

You seriously think I would have used it? Even to threaten someone?

[MrJonno]

First, there are other forms of self defense, second, self defense is valid as a response to ANY crime, third, even the slightest degree of risk justifies self defense.

Not thats not the definition of self defence, anyone who thinks it is, is the criminal a threat to society and should be locked up immediately

[Gawdzilla Sama]

First, there are other forms of self defense, second, self defense is valid as a response to ANY crime, third, even the slightest degree of risk justifies self defense.

Not thats not the definition of self defence, anyone who thinks it is, is the criminal a threat to society and should be locked up immediately

You may have noticed the pathological character of Seeth's posts?

[Jason]

I would've used a .30 cal on the cock. Hollow point. Watch it asplode!