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.

Herzlos wrote:
Why not shoot him in the legs (i.e. to eliminate the threat without thd killing)

Because if you're in a situation where you're safe enough to do anything other than immediately kill the person you're shooting at you aren't justified in using deadly force. Shooting someone in the legs will cause serious pain and injuries (and may kill them, which is why it's considered deadly force), but won't necessarily prevent them from fighting back. So by being willing to accept that risk of them continuing to fight back you're acknowledging that your life is not in immediate danger, and the threat they present isn't enough to scare you. So put the gun away and resolve the situation some other way.

Now, this may be different in specific police situations where the legal permission to use force is significantly expanded, the shooter has specific training in disabling a suspect without killing them, and an opportunity exists to safely do so. But that has nothing to do with self defense for the average person.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I gotta say I think some of you are really overthinking this.

I think a lot of people are bending over backwards to justify shooting a burglar. "Hes going for the kids!" must be the new "Hes reaching for a gun!"

Perfect example of what Ouze pointed out...

Don't think just shoot?

If you're in my house you're getting a full load of buckshot before the thought even enters my mind to shoot. Thinking will only occur later, before the PoPo are called.

If you're in my house you're proven you're an immediate and lethal threat to my family and my dogs. You gave up your right to breath when you did that.

 timetowaste85 wrote:


Nope. I understand it perfectly fine and I'm entitled to my opinion. If you've seen my posts in other gun threads, I generally support cops and their need for self defense. This wasn't that. This was a guy who got fed up, took drastic action, then tried to backpedal and claim it was self defense. The news station I was watching before work did a pretty good sum up of events. And discussed the judge throwing out his actions as "stand your ground". So yes...I happily say to let this foul human excrement suffer for destroying a family.

When your opinion is to deny someone a trial, your opinion is gak.

Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.

Relapse wrote:
Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.

{citation needed}

You seem so confident in this statement, so I'm sure you'll back it up with evidence about what people do and do not worry about.

So, I started to make a rebuttal to your last post, Jake, but then a startling discovery revealed itself to me: if you READ my initial post on the matter, I never even ONCE said he didn't deserve a trial; I just said I hope he gets jail for life and hope he has to give the family all his money and crap. No part of that EVER said he didn't deserve a trial. Of course everyone is entitled to one. Just that I hope that's what he gets. All of that, if it happened, would take place when? Oh, right; after a trial. Seriously, DID you even read the post you responded to? Or were you just so outraged by my use of the word "filth" to describe the posts supporting this guy that it rendered my hope invisible? The only person who ever said I want to deny him a trial is you. It is interesting that you're attacking the words you put into my mouth though.

Now, if you want me to ACTUALLY be rude, I'll let you know that Derek Zoolander wants to open a school that would be helpful for you.

Relapse wrote:
Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.

Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.

Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.

Well... some people are very angry drunks.

whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I gotta say I think some of you are really overthinking this.

I think a lot of people are bending over backwards to justify shooting a burglar. "Hes going for the kids!" must be the new "Hes reaching for a gun!"

Perfect example of what Ouze pointed out...

Don't think just shoot?

Heading towards my kid's room? Yup.

What about the possibility of accidentally shooting your kid?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.

Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.

For openers, in the U.S., almost as many people are killed by drunk drivers as by gun related homicide. In that context, it doesn't really matter what's on the person's mind when they kill someone. Then move on to the fact that 2 out of three domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, and a further 73, 000 deaths can be attributed to alcohol, not even bringing in broken families lost work and health lost.
Gun violence seems kind of puny in relation, yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

A link for you:

https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/

Another link on death rates attributed to alcohol:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/22/americans-are-drinking-themselves-to-death-at-record-rates/?utm_term=.6a8415ec9528

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

o

Just look at the posts in this thread.

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

o

Just look at the posts in this thread.

So where is the evidence we ignore the dangers of alcohol?

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

o

Just look at the posts in this thread.

Looking back at the past few pages I see exactly one person saying anything that could even be considered dismissive of the harm done by alcohol, and that's AlmightyWalrus' reply to your post (which happened after you made the "you don't care" accusation). And there's no mention of alcohol at all outside of this page, starting from your accusation. So no, you haven't provided any support at all for your accusation that "all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people" ignore problems with alcohol.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

o

Just look at the posts in this thread.

So where is the evidence we ignore the dangers of alcohol?

How many anti alcohol posts have you made compared to anti gun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

o

Just look at the posts in this thread.

Looking back at the past few pages I see exactly one person saying anything that could even be considered dismissive of the harm done by alcohol, and that's AlmightyWalrus' reply to your post (which happened after you made the "you don't care" accusation). And there's no mention of alcohol at all outside of this page, starting from your accusation. So no, you haven't provided any support at all for your accusation that "all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people" ignore problems with alcohol.

The fact that many here who say guns are bad because they're used to kill people talk in other threads about consuming alcohol bears out my point.

A quick search:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/568634.page

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/556729.page

The tiny little problem is that you're assuming I drink. I don't. You're also assuming that I wouldn't want to get rid of alcohol; I would if there were a feasible way to do so. Just like with guns in the US, though, the djinn (or, well, gin I guess) is out of the bottle. There's a major difference in that guns aren't mind-altering or addictive and thus potentially much easier to restrict.

Relapse wrote:
How many anti alcohol posts have you made compared to anti gun?

That means nothing because discussions of alcohol-related crimes and alcohol control are virtually nonexistent here, while gun-related stories are frequently in the news and gun policy is a common policy debate in politics.

The fact that many here who say guns are bad because they're used to kill people talk in other threads about consuming alcohol bears out my point.

No, it really doesn't. Discussing consuming alcohol is not the same as not caring about the harm that abuse of alcohol does. By the reasoning you're trying to use here anyone who posts in the "let's talk about our guns" thread doesn't care about the crimes committed with guns. And I think we both know that accusing everyone in the gun thread of being pro-murder would be an absurd thing to say.

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

o

Just look at the posts in this thread.

Soooo, posting about guns in a thread involving shooting and not complaining about the dangers of alcohol in a non related thread show we do not care about it?

I would talk about my dislike for alcohol, how we need better healthcare to cover alcoholism and stronger dui laws. But I'm pretty sure the mods would get upset with me for dragging this thread off topic.

I would think this alcohol thing is a totally unrelated tangent and report it to get back on track, but at this point, the main track seems to be a totally unrelated tangent about if it's OK to shoot a home invader in your house without first asking them what their motives are. Since the actual trial is probably a really long time out, and thus this thread is going to be locked imminently anyway....

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Because they know exactly where your kids room is at. I think you guys are assuming too much.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. I think it is reasonable to assume a burglar or other intruder in your home is an immediate mortal threat. As I said before, I would certainly give them an opportunity to surrender if possible but ultimately I think both the legal and moral responsibility for that situation, and it's consequences, lay with the person who chose to commit the home invasion.

lie? lay?

Mario wrote:
What about the possibility of accidentally shooting your kid?

A basic rule of gun safety is not to shoot at anything unless you know what is behind your target. You can buy ammunition that remains lethal what being unlikely/less likely to penetrate drywall, but ultimately, you should not be shooting if you think you might hit someone other than your target - you're not a cop, after all.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Relapse wrote:
yet all of the people here saying guns are evil because they kill people seem happy to ingnore the effects of stuff they consume and share out regularly.

Citation needed. If you're going to make that accusation against people I'd like to see some proof.

o

Just look at the posts in this thread.

Soooo, posting about guns in a thread involving shooting and not complaining about the dangers of alcohol in a non related thread show we do not care about it?

I would talk about my dislike for alcohol, how we need better healthcare to cover alcoholism and stronger dui laws. But I'm pretty sure the mods would get upset with me for dragging this thread off topic.

It was dragged off topic a while back. But I think I've spoken enough about my pet peeve with the double standard with guns and alcohol.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.

Because alcohol doesn't empower someone with a power fetish to kill me just because he felt like it.

That's a point often overlooked because there's no way it can be reliably measured.

I talked a few pages back about the off duty cop shooting someone in the head on a road rage incident, but there's also another incident a few weeks back when a hunter shot and killed two unarmed rural guards when they asked him for his documents.

The hunter himself called the emergency services. The audio was released to the press and makes for a powerful reminder of what having a gun does to one's psique.

Relapse wrote:
Through all of this, alcohol kills or cripples far more people and children than guns, yet the anti gun posters here don't worry about it half as much, if at all, as guns.

Not really.

What you'll find they actually do is bear in mind the vast number of people/occasions that involve alcohol that turn out absolutely fine and/or with no significant harm or even the benefits it can bring in comparison to the amount of harm it brings.

Much the same way that the pro gun people are so quick to point out what a small % gun related incidents there are compared to the number of guns/owners.





anyway, we're going nowhere here.