An Interesting Twist In The Whole "Gun Control" Issue - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-09-2002, 07:25 PM   #16
War Child
 
Sparkysgrrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under the table and screaming
Posts: 754
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Unlike a gun range, where you can calmly select your targets, the endorphin rush experienced during a robbery makes target selection difficult, if not impossible. My guess is that even those with significant handgun training could miss a person completely at short range in a surprise situation.

I doubt the newspaper guy had time to think "kneecap or chest", aim and fire.
True one would experience quite an endorphin rush, but by that logic there is no point in getting proper hand gun training, because if that "rush" is going to make it impossible to aim and shoot correctly then what is the point in even taking the time out to learn?
__________________

__________________
Sparkysgrrrl is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 07:47 PM   #17
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Unlike a gun range, where you can calmly select your targets, the endorphin rush experienced during a robbery makes target selection difficult, if not impossible. My guess is that even those with significant handgun training could miss a person completely at short range in a surprise situation.

I doubt the newspaper guy had time to think "kneecap or chest", aim and fire.
I've talked with my husband about this a lot. He has 30+ years of gun experience (he was a cop for 17 years). After he retired, in order to carry a concealed weapon, he was required to re-qualify at the police firing range every 4 years. Every time he renewed his permit, he scored in the expert marksman range.

Even with his handgun experience, he freely admits that if he was surprised in a deep sleep or saw one of his family members being threatened, he would not be able to accurately fire a gun and the situation would probably not end up in his favor. This is reason #2 we don't have guns in our home any longer.
__________________

__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 08:24 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparkysgrrrl
What I don't understand is why ppl don't just shoot to injure...
There's no need for a lot of the defensive killings that happen within the police force in the states as well as in domestic situations as well I'm sure.

If you're going to shoot someone, go for their legs or something, no need to shoot them multiple times in the chest area.
If you take a firearms course you are trained to fire "center mass". You do not aim for the legs and arms for the same reason soldiers are not trained to aim for the head. It is a smaller target=less chance to hit your target.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 08:39 PM   #19
War Child
 
Sparkysgrrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: under the table and screaming
Posts: 754
Local Time: 09:29 AM
Hopefully someone with extensive training is good at aiming, no?
I've known some damn good shooters who can pick off an object from very far off, I would assume that to an experienced shooter, aiming at ones leg or arm would be in the realm of possiblity.
__________________
Sparkysgrrrl is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 08:49 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparkysgrrrl
Hopefully someone with extensive training is good at aiming, no?
I've known some damn good shooters who can pick off an object from very far off, I would assume that to an experienced shooter, aiming at ones leg or arm would be in the realm of possiblity.
There is a difference between "picking" something off at a distance and close quarters with a hand gun.

I for one was an excellent shot with a rifle. However, I was the only one out of 160 soldiers to fail the first round of qualifications with a pistol. It is amazing though the guy next to me had 50 hits with 30 bullets. This is the reason I do not have a hand-gun in my house.

However, in the "heat" of the moment, after training after training after training time and time again, I believe even with the adrenalin pumping, people will follow their instinct which is what they have repeatedly been trained to do. "Center Mass".

The other thing I would like to point out is that the second someone is in a situation with another person posessing a gun is commiting a crime, I would expect thenon-criminal with a weapon to fire not to injure in the leg or arm, but to do what is necessary for their own survival.


Peace to all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 10:04 PM   #21
Kid A
 
The Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 12:29 PM
call me provincial, but I think you forfeit some of your "rights" when you start threatening people with demands while pointing a shotgun at their head
__________________
The Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 10:36 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sparkysgrrrl
What I don't understand is why ppl don't just shoot to injure...
There's no need for a lot of the defensive killings that happen within the police force in the states as well as in domestic situations as well I'm sure.

If you're going to shoot someone, go for their legs or something, no need to shoot them multiple times in the chest area.


Originally posted by paxetaurora
I just find it hard to believe that a shot or two to the ankle or the arm wouldn't have had the effect of preventing the robbery. Were nearly a dozen shots, which ultimately killed the man, truly necessary? I believe in self-defense, but not in manslaughter.

THIS is why (emphasis added):

He fired THREE SHOTS at the gunman. The bullets hit their mark but DIDN'T STOP THE ROBBER, Harper and Burtnett said.

"He ran toward me and I shot him TWICE MORE," Harper said. "[b]After five he fell down. But then he got up again."


Like the Energizer Bunny, this robber kept going and going and going in his attempt to go after the newspaper delivery man.

Angela Harlem:

You are trying to make synonyms out of three words that have three different meanings (murder/killing/manslaughter) and self defense, or defense of a third person, is not the same as murder or manslaughter. The newspaper man should not be charged and/or punished because he did this to stop someone who was acting violently towards the store clerk.

There have been TOO MANY cases here where the clerk gets killed. Lately, they have begun fighting back, and with success.

There is a big problem in the world these days with RESPONSIBILITY. If you go and rob a store or rob a person, and you are wounded in the act, it is NO ONE ELSE'S responsibility or fault. It is my opinion that storeowners, homeowners, individuals, whatever should not be charged for fighting off attackers. Yet society is trying to shift responsibility. When a store owner recently chased after two guys who stole from his store, he found out that the robbers had a gun as they fired at him; well, the store owner had one too, and shot both of the robbers. I'm sorry, but the store owner should not be charged, and the robbers should be put in prison ON TOP OF their injuries.

Another lousy example of the lack of responsibility occurred at a high school in the state's capital of Montgomery recently: a group of students were fighting, and two male teachers told them to stop. They did not stop, and the teachers moved in to break it up, and one of the students began throwing punches at the teachers. The teachers restrained the student and put him on the ground. The student's mom didn't think this was right, so she filed a formal complaint. The teachers were ARRESTED and put in jail! What kind of system is this that we are creating? DON'T CAUSE TROUBLE! DON'T START FIGHTS! DON'T HIT TEACHERS! DON'T ROB THE CONVENIENCE STORE ON 85th STREET! THINK!

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 11:13 PM   #23
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama

If you go and rob a store or rob a person, and you are *wounded* [emphasis mine] in the act, it is NO ONE ELSE'S responsibility or fault. It is my opinion that storeowners, homeowners, individuals, whatever should not be charged for fighting off attackers. Yet society is trying to shift responsibility.
But you say *wounded*. Naturally, no one would have too much sympathy for a robber who took a bullet to an arm or a leg. But when someone is killed, that's entirely different. They can't do their 10-to-20 (or whatever it is) for armed robbery and try to come out a better citizen. They have lost their chance, a chance which is afforded all but the most heinous murderers in our society.

I'm not saying, necessarily, that the shooter in this case really ought to be locked away for a dozen or so years. His intent was clearly self-defense. But neither should we celebrate his act and make him out to be some sort of folk hero. This reminds me of the scene in The American President when Michael Douglas's character (the President) orders an attack on a building in (Libya? Afghanistan? someplace). Even though they decide to strike at a time when the fewest casualties will be likely to occur, they know that there will probably be some loss of life. One of the President's aides commends him for the action, calling it "very Presidential." The President responds, "You've just seen me do the least Presidential thing I do."


Respect for life, like it or not, has to cut both ways.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 11:25 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora

Respect for life, like it or not, has to cut both ways.
Pax, I respect you and your posts. I just find that in this case, I have very little sympathy for someone robbing a store.

It's a simple rule......

You point a gun at people expect them to think you are going to use it.

When you point the gun at people to commit a crime, you are disrespecting life. If I think you are going to use a weapon, I am going to RESPECT life. I am going to respect my life, my wife and childrens' lives, my friends' lives, and my neighbors' lives. The choice is an easy one.


Peace to all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 11:36 PM   #25
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:29 PM
I know what you mean, dread. And I'm not saying that they were wrong to shoot the robber. It's what I would have done were I in the situation.

What I'm saying is that I don't think we should celebrate the death of the robber. I don't want this guy becoming some sort of vigilante hero. I think it's harmful for society to celebrate violent death. It sets a bad example for the youth and paints a lousy picture of us to the rest of the world.

Yes, people should protect themselves and each other. But we shouldn't pat each other on the back when that push comes to the ultimate shove, either. A life was taken. Don't lose sight of that.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 11:40 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
I know what you mean, dread. And I'm not saying that they were wrong to shoot the robber. It's what I would have done were I in the situation.

What I'm saying is that I don't think we should celebrate the death of the robber. I don't want this guy becoming some sort of vigilante hero. I think it's harmful for society to celebrate violent death. It sets a bad example for the youth and paints a lousy picture of us to the rest of the world.

Yes, people should protect themselves and each other. But we shouldn't pat each other on the back when that push comes to the ultimate shove, either. A life was taken. Don't lose sight of that.
That makes sense to me. I think I misunderstood.

As for taking a life.....I can't sleep at night if I keep a kid in for recess. I would probably be in therapy if I had to use lethal force.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 12:26 AM   #27
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 12:29 PM

There have been so many clerk shootings in the states that its been a long-running joke with Apu.

'Ah the kiss of hot lead how I missed you! I mean...I think I'm dying!'

I tend to agree with those who say if you break and enter/home invade/whatever, you forfeit your own rights and should not expect to be treated with much sympathy if your victim is armed. That said, shooting a guy that much does seem a little excessive...
__________________
brettig is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 04:18 AM   #28
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Bama/Spiral_Staircase, I do understand the difference between manslaughter and murder. However no matter what the situation, you have people getting shot. In a situation like this, I get concerned that it can be deemed somehow acceptable that someone is shot dead. Of course the circumstances are always important, and many things influence such events, I am not arguing that. I am not saying it was even wrong of the newspaper guy to do what he did-although I dont really agree with it. Self defence or not, I dont see it as ever acceptable to shoot someone. The self defence argument is fine and a good argument, but to me it just doesn't make the whole thing ok. I even admit that I would possibly do it myself given the same circumstances. Would it be ok though? Not really, I would have killed someone. I dont know if that is any clearer. But thats my view.
If guns are banned to the average citizen, you get in the long run, less shootings in self defence and less occurances of such a reaction from people defending themselves and their property as the end result is less gun possession in the hands of criminals as well.
I dont necessarily disagree with the responsibility aspect either. There was a story over here recently in the paper where a publican caught this young man breaking into his pub. The publican beat him. The young guy decided to sue the publican for his injuries to his self. The young man's mother then decided she wanted to sue and lay charges for the emotional distress she was caused by seeing her bloodied and beat up son. He was awarded I believe $50,000 and the mother received $17,000. I was disgusted with that. I strongly believe in the right to defend yourself and your property as you need, and by commiting a break and enter, yes I believe you are lessening your rights to some extent. But life? What property is worth more than someone's life? If your life is threatened by an individual wielding a gun or other weapon, it does change things again and I wouldn't be passing judgement on any individual who does shoot back in defence - like the case of this clerk and the newspaper man. But you aren't really free of culpability surely?
Thou shalt not kill right?
The law even says that one too.

Remove the guns and you remove some of the threat.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-10-2002, 04:22 AM   #29
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Just one more thought re: the robber being shot 5 times, it may be excessive, but geez, it must have been like something from an Arnie movie. Adrenalin etc and watching this guy just keep on getting up after even the 3rd shot? You wouldn't be thinking too clear. Sounds like panic shooting.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 10-24-2002, 09:37 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 11:29 AM

I intended to reply to this thread again a couple of weeks ago but I forgot about it and it dropped a few pages. Last night's arrests reminded me of it again.

First of all, Angela Harlem is on to somehing regarding the 5 shots; I have often heard from friends in law enforcement that drunk/stoned/high criminals do have something of an "invincibility" factor; much like how your senses are numbed at the dentist office when having cavities filled (it would hurt like hell if not), people under the influence are similarly numbed and often under delusions of grandeur as well. It is very likely that it REQUIRED 5 shots to put this jackass down; or else he would have continued coming after the newspaper man and the store clerk.

Now, on to what happened last night: we are hearing down here in Alabama that one or both of the suspects in the Maryland/D.C./Virginia shootings robbed a liquor store in Montgomery, Alabama back in September, and in the process killed one clerk and wounded another. Now I realize that we need to be sensitive to the needs, feelings, and safety of violent armed robbers, but I personally almost wish that one of the clerks at the liquor store in Montgomery had been armed and blown these two guys' faces off. If so, it is possible that none of the other shootings would occur.

Obvioulsy, most violent armed robbers are not going to go out on a serial killing spree (as far as we know) after their conquests, but I would wager this: they WILL go and rob/kill/rape again, because they will get away. Why did the convenience store clerk and newspaper delivery man carry weapons? Because they knew that their occupations made them targets of violent armed robbers; they did not WANT to be killed; many convenience store clerks in the Birmingham area have been arming themselves in the last few years because MANY of them are robbed by violent armed robbers, and TOO OFTEN, the clerks are killed JUST SO THAT NO ONE WILL LIVE TO TESTIFY.

Violent criminals think that they can get away with anything. I don't think they should enjoy that comfort.

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com