Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And you are making assumptions right there aswell. As far as we know, he was there just to rob the house.
And we dont know, from the sound of it, if she had enough tim to get the gun, and hide in the closet, she may have had enough time to get out of the house.

Better to err on the side of NOT getting kidnapped/raped/killed... also I don't know about this house, but in many households I know, the "house gun" lives in one of the parent's closets.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And you are making assumptions right there aswell. As far as we know, he was there just to rob the house.
And we dont know, from the sound of it, if she had enough tim to get the gun, and hide in the closet, she may have had enough time to get out of the house.

Again, you miss the fact the Intruder was already in the house by the time she called 911 and her mom. Escape was NOT an option.

We must ALWAYS assume the worst, because if you don't then if it does happen you will take the blame.


a kid hiding in a closet with a gun is a million times safer then one trying to escape and run for the neighbors, who may not be home and also may not be the best people to protect your kid.

 Jihadin wrote:
Those incarcerated live better then those of us deployed

Not under Sheriff Joe.

Well that is my belief, I see where you are coming from, you think a 12yr old with a gun is OK, and i understand that. I myself do not, I think that it is not. I do not think a child should not be allowed near a firearm because of accident that can happen. What if she shot her foot and the guy got her then?
I dont think i will come back to this thread, it just us arguing inn circles.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Well that is my belief, I see where you are coming from, you think a 12yr old with a gun is OK, and i understand that. I myself do not, I think that it is not. I do not think a child should not be allowed near a firearm because of accident that can happen. What if she shot her foot and the guy got her then?
I dont think i will come back to this thread, it just us arguing inn circles.

If he got her she's dead. So being shot in the foot won't really matter will it? Yes that's an assumption but in the U.S. at present it's a pretty safe assumption to make. Little girls who go missing don't come back home very often.

I really can't believe someone's arguing the "pro-little girls being raped/kidnapped" side to this story.

Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

Indeed.
It's just everyone here seems to assume guns and kids are allright.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

Generally I'd agree with you, but in this situation I'd rather see my kid, if trained properly and I actually had one, armed and able to defend themselves. As previously said, little grls who go missing don't tend to come home. See Maddie McCann and April Jones for proof.

Guns are only dangerous when the people handling them are improperly using them.

A kid playing with a gun is dangerous. A kid trying to be as quiet as possable while holding a gun is not, except to the person the gun is supposed to protect from.


Guns are no more dangerous then knives, cars, or any number of common household items. Dogs are MORE dangerous, more kids get hurt every year by dogs then by guns.

Um, Couldnt the dog thing be more that dogs are more common in a household then a gun? I mean i know plenty of people that have dogs bu no guns.

Approx seventy one million dogs exist as house pets in the United States today

There are something along the lines of three hundred million firearms in private ownership.

You do the math.

(P.S. for a fascinating example of why a backyard swimming pool is far more likely to kill your child then a ND with a pistol read "Superfreakonomics")

Edit:

Me personally I have been shooting since I was a wee nipper, I have NEVER sustained an injury from a firearm, self inflicted or otherwise. I have however gotten a REALLY bad bite off a dog as kid. Guns are tools, they don't have emotions, or thoughts or react to things, they're just there, an educated child around a gun is no more dangerous then that same child around a squirt gun. Dogs on the other hand do have their own emotions and thoughts and are thus a little different then a hunk of steel and plastic.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

She called her mom who told her where it was.

Maybe its just me, But i believe that guns shouldnt be handled by anyone under the age of 16.

So you believe that there is a magic moment on everyone's 16th birthday that bestows knowledge of firearms upon them?

hotsauceman1 wrote:And you are making assumptions right there aswell. As far as we know, he was there just to rob the house.
And we dont know, from the sound of it, if she had enough tim to get the gun, and hide in the closet, she may have had enough time to get out of the house.

Perhaps. But this creates a matrix of possibilities. let's examine:
1. Kid gets gun and fends off intruder.
2. Kid gets gun and injures herself.
3. Kid does not get gun, runs away successfully.
4. Kid does not get gun, is unable to run away, very bad things happen.

1. We know this, via hindsight, to be the truth.
2. The mother obviously thought this was of such a low chance, likely due to knowledge of her kid that we do not possess, but can logically infer.
3. This is a reasonable assumption.
4. This is also a reasonable assumption.

-Assuming on a black slate these four options are equally likely; 25% chance of each event taking place without additional knowledge.
-The mother had more knowledge of her kid than we do, hence why she made the call that she did.
-If the kid is aware of where the gun is and can work the safety, a reasonable assumption is that the kid has handled a firearm before; likely via parent.
-With that assumption, much of the probability from scenario 2 should be diverted to scenario 1.

We are now left with a matrix like this:

1. 45% - Kid gets gun, shoots intruder
2. 05% - Kid gets gun, shoots self
3. 25% - Kid runs away, all is well
4. 25% - Kid runs away, bad things happen

of all the options presented, the option that the mother chose, and we have the benefit of hindsight to validate, was the correct option. Had the kid run away, she would have a 50/50 chance in that situation, without knowledge of other variables, of winning or losing. Those odds pale in comparison to the 90% probability of winning in the situation where she gets the gun.

 Lordhat wrote:
http://www.news9.com/story/19858704/12-year-old-girl-shoots-intruder-during-home-invasion

BRYAN COUNTY, Oklahoma - A 12-year-old girl took matters into her own hands during a home invasion in southeast Oklahoma.
It happened on Wednesday when the girl was home alone. She told police a stranger rang the doorbell, then went around to the back door and kicked it in. She called her mom, Debra St. Clair, who told her to get the family gun, hide in a closet and call 911.

That was when St. Clair dropped what she doing and raced home.

"I drove home at a really fast pace to try to get to her, and when I got here the police were already here. And they had the suspect," she said.

The during that time, the intruder made his way through the house. St. Clair's daughter told deputies the man came into the room where she was hiding and began to open up the closet door. That was when the 12-year-old had to make a life-saving decision.

"And what we understand right now, he was turning the doorknob when she fired through the door," said the Bryan County Undersheriff Ken Golden.

The bullet hit the intruder, who deputies identified as 32-year-old Stacey Jones. He took off but did not get far before officers took him down.

"He was sitting down, the policemen had him apprehended at the end of the block. All I saw was some blood coming down his back. I'm not exactly sure where his injury was, but I saw some blood there," explained St. Clair.

Jones was taken to a Texas hospital by helicopter after the incident. An investigator on the case said Jones was released from the hospital Thursday and extradited to the Bryan County Jail.

The 12-year-old girl was not injured during the ordeal.

meowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

A pure texan cowgirl. Did her parents teach her how to shoot a gun?
loaded firearms are equally dangerous regardless of who is wielding it at a given time =^.^=

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

I for one fervently hope that whatever children you have, or may have in the future, are never faced with this type of situation. I wish that for everyone, but more so for those who feel teaching their children the means to defend themselves is just putting them further in the line of danger.

One should never begrudge a person defending themself.

The perp I'm sure had a eye opening moment on why his line of work is bad. I doubt he saw that flash of knowledge though being there was a door in the way.

Twelve yrs old is not to young to learn about fire arms. I think that was age I was introduce to firearms at Summer Camp in Boy Scouts.

thenoobbomb wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

Indeed.
It's just everyone here seems to assume guns and kids who have been properly educated and trained or instructed in the use of firearms are allright.

qualified that for you.

djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

I for one fervently hope that whatever children you have, or may have in the future, are never faced with this type of situation. I wish that for everyone, but more so for those who feel teaching their children the means to defend themselves is just putting them further in the line of danger.

One should never begrudge a person defending themself.

Im am not saying the mother was bad for letting the child defend herself, or that the girl was wrong for doing it, What im saying is that would not have been my call.

Hotsauce. You never know till you go through the experience and have the same options as the mom did. Its easy to trouble shoot and 2nd guess the mom after the incident and relate to what you would do in the same time frame.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hotsauce. You never know till you go through the experience and have the same options as the mom did. Its easy to trouble shoot and 2nd guess the mom after the incident and relate to what you would do in the same time frame.

That is exactly it. It's always easy to look back and say "this should have been done instead". It's always harder to try to put yourself in their shoes at that time and try to see it from their eyes.

Both the child and the parent were operating on pure terror when this went down. As a parent the simple thought of my children having to go through something like this makes me sick to my stomach. Keyboard commandoing the call afterwards is just pure BS. Hell... it's nearly every day lately that we've been hearing news about some child's body turning up after going missing. I sure as hell will make damn sure my children will know how to do everything possible to ensure that doesn't happen to them, and that will include teaching them the use of a fire arm.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hotsauce. You never know till you go through the experience and have the same options as the mom did. Its easy to trouble shoot and 2nd guess the mom after the incident and relate to what you would do in the same time frame.

Well hopefully I will never have to, Nor this family ever have to again or anyone i know.
Now Im off to study for a test on geology, YAY ROCKS.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Easy, the people just get billed for it like anyone that goes to the Emergency Room that doesn't have insurance.

So they are thrown into black pit of our Healthcare system, the tender mercies of crippling debt

And lets just toss on any medical bills that officers or bystanders incurr as a result of the crime in question onto their tab while we are at it.


Perpetrator resists arrest, perp cracks a rib in the scuffle, officer suffers a torn bicep. perp is billed for his medical treatment and the officers medical treatment. He also is billed for any treatment he recieves while incarcerated.

So, in addition to any criminal charges he is sentanced for, he has many thousands of dollars in medical bills. Which he must pay even if the charges are later dropped. So its a double whammy.

At which point he is completely unable to pay such bills (prisoners make gak for wages), the hospital(s) write off the debt as normal and the taxpayers end up footing the bill anyway. What's changed?

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Easy, the people just get billed for it like anyone that goes to the Emergency Room that doesn't have insurance.

So they are thrown into black pit of our Healthcare system, the tender mercies of crippling debt

And lets just toss on any medical bills that officers or bystanders incurr as a result of the crime in question onto their tab while we are at it.


Perpetrator resists arrest, perp cracks a rib in the scuffle, officer suffers a torn bicep. perp is billed for his medical treatment and the officers medical treatment. He also is billed for any treatment he recieves while incarcerated.

So, in addition to any criminal charges he is sentanced for, he has many thousands of dollars in medical bills. Which he must pay even if the charges are later dropped. So its a double whammy.

At which point he is completely unable to pay such bills (prisoners make gak for wages), the hospital(s) write off the debt as normal and the taxpayers end up footing the bill anyway. What's changed?

If the prisoner truly has nothing, then unfortunatly it will be a write off and the governement will foot the bill.

But if they do have something, anything, it can be liquidated to pay the bills. Car, house, bank accounts, etc...


I don't expect it will ever make the burden zero, but it will reduce the tax expenses on prisoner care if they pay what they can.

And in most cases, the perp will only serve for a period of time before being released. In which case he has some debt coming out of prison that he will have to work off, nothing really different from someone getting in an accident and having medical bills.

It won't make the government pay nothing for medical costs, but it will reduce the money spent if we wring the criminals for what they've got.

Hey, it might even make prison the deterrent it should be. Not only are your freedoms being restricted for some time, but you are also going to have a medical bill to pay off. That the government can take out of your personal property and savings.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sadly the tax payers will pick up his medical tab.

We should make law breakers pay for any medical treatment they recieve while incarcerated

While I agree that it's a sad state of affairs that prisoners get better healthcare than law abiding citizens who are merely poor, how do you propose we would implement such a policy?

Easy, the people just get billed for it like anyone that goes to the Emergency Room that doesn't have insurance.

So they are thrown into black pit of our Healthcare system, the tender mercies of crippling debt

And lets just toss on any medical bills that officers or bystanders incurr as a result of the crime in question onto their tab while we are at it.


Perpetrator resists arrest, perp cracks a rib in the scuffle, officer suffers a torn bicep. perp is billed for his medical treatment and the officers medical treatment. He also is billed for any treatment he recieves while incarcerated.

So, in addition to any criminal charges he is sentanced for, he has many thousands of dollars in medical bills. Which he must pay even if the charges are later dropped. So its a double whammy.

At which point he is completely unable to pay such bills (prisoners make gak for wages), the hospital(s) write off the debt as normal and the taxpayers end up footing the bill anyway. What's changed?

If the prisoner truly has nothing, then unfortunatly it will be a write off and the governement will foot the bill.

But if they do have something, anything, it can be liquidated to pay the bills. Car, house, bank accounts, etc...


I don't expect it will ever make the burden zero, but it will reduce the tax expenses on prisoner care if they pay what they can.

And in most cases, the perp will only serve for a period of time before being released. In which case he has some debt coming out of prison that he will have to work off, nothing really different from someone getting in an accident and having medical bills.

It won't make the government pay nothing for medical costs, but it will reduce the money spent if we wring the criminals for what they've got.

Hey, it might even make prison the deterrent it should be. Not only are your freedoms being restricted for some time, but you are also going to have a medical bill to pay off. That the government can take out of your personal property and savings.

Before we go too much further, let me say that I am not against punishing criminals.

However, there is already some debate over whether our prison system actually does much more than earn corporations and politicians money. There's been a lot of talk lately about focusing more on rehabilitation than simply punishment. If a prisoner gets out of prison owning nothing (which happens quite often already), and can never hope to own anything for the forseeable future (because of massive debt) is he more or less likely to return to his criminal lifestyle?

Now we all know that being in debt doesn't necessarily mean you can't own stuff or plan for a future where your lifestyle isn't hand to mouth, but criminals are known for a lack of foresightedness and a skewed concept of risk vs. reward. It's quite likely that the ex-con, perceiving that he has no hope for a *real* life will simply return to criminality to pay for necessities and wants while ignoring his debts. He knows that if he gets caught he simply goes back to jail where all of his needs and many of his wants are readily available, and until then he gets to live in a manner of his own choosing.

A good compromise (which IMHO would never be implemented) would be to put said criminal to work for the length of his sentence in a capacity befitting his knowledge and skillset if any. If the convict has no skills or trade knowledge, he is taught on the job with an eye towards qualifying the inmate for any certifications needed to obtain an entry-level position in the chosen field. Sentences are doled out according to a metric which takes into account amount of debt incurred during the commission (hospital bills, police payrolls etc.) and prosecution (public defender, court fees, etc.) of the crime, and a reasonable wage assigned to a citizen with his same 'occupation', while acknowledging that too much incarceration can be detrimental to rehabilitation. No time off for good behaviour, no parole, just sentences of reasonable length, during which the convict has to work, and work productively, each and every day he's healthy. Once the term is served the debt is discharged completely.

Ideally, this would result in ex-cons who have a skillset that they can take to the job pool, who don't have to worry about some giant debt hanging over their heads, and can make a reasonable attempt to start a new, productive life.

Granted this plan isn't perfect, but it does IMHO have several inherent benefits.

1. The prisoners can work off their debts directly, learning skills while doing so.
2. Our 'blue collar' work pool is replenished, and maybe even some of the 'white collar' pool as well, depending on the convicts.
3. In theory, recidivism would be reduced, as the ex-con would then have a skill set.
4. The Government can save money on selected private industry contracts by requiring contractors to use convicts for certain positions, for the duration of the contract, and/or hire ex-cons for certain jobs, at 'probationary' wages for set amounts of time.
5. If 4. proves successful, companies would have a pool of pre-approved experienced workers to draw from for entry-level positions.


Of course this isn't perfect, there is the whole "Go to prison get a trade school education for free" mindset, and increased competition for non-criminal workers, and the fact that this would be most effective with minimum security prisoners, but I think that getting 'free' labor from a criminal seven days a week, for a period of several years, after which we produce skilled labor instead of just broke criminals would help offset a lot of worries for our country and economy.

 Nocturn wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Those incarcerated live better then those of us deployed

Not under Sheriff Joe.

I have a feeling that's about to change.

I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm glad I have the Dakka OT to remind me of how ignorant and naive some people can be.

Dont confuse ignorance with someone of a different belief.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Guns are only dangerous when the people handling them are improperly using them.



Guns are no more dangerous then knives, cars, or any number of common household items. Dogs are MORE dangerous, more kids get hurt every year by dogs then by guns.

So THATS why all the armies of the world are armed with dogs and not guns. Makes sense as guns are clearly not dangerous if your properly using them. Unless your at the muzzle end.

OT there's clearly nothing wrong with 12 year old defending themselves with a gun in this type of situation. But it's also not wrong for others to state that this not the action they would take. The right to bear arms does not mean we have to.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Argh, Im not arguing that, Im arguing not letting kids near dangerous weapons.

No, you're arguing it's better to leave the kid unprotected near dangerous PEOPLE.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im more concerned that the 12 year old knows where the gun is, and got access to it.

Maybe the parents were responsible enough to teach the girl gun safety?

Kid gaining access to a gun does not necessarily mean a bad thing if they had the proper training.

Good to hear a scumbag got what he deserved.