Guns used for lawful self-defense Pt. 5

[orpheus]

To Gallstones

Here is a common situation.

Joe Blow gets very drunk and confused. He finds his door key does not work any more, so he breaks the lock to get in so he can go to bed.

Whoops, he made a mistake.
Not his home after all, and the gun crazed occupant shoots him dead.

Common?
Maybe where you live.

Did you not read where I said intruders don't get the benefit of the doubt?

Drunks aren't excused or forgiven before the fact, they can be shot like any other intruder.
I don't know that an intruder is drunk and fucking stupid. Even drunks--especially drunks--are narcissistic and violent. I don't owe them any special regard over and above any other intruder. In Montana if they come into my home uninvited I don't have to assess sobriety or motive, I can kill them, drunk or sober . You want to test that Blind Groper?

The mistake may be a fatal one. People make fatal mistakes everyday.

That by any reasonable standard is murder.

By any reasoned standard getting so drunk that you are unable to know where you live and try to break into someone else's house is just fucking stupid, especially where people can and are LEGALLY shot dead for making that mistake. The reasonable standard would be: Don't get that fucking drunk. Ever.



Tell you what, I can make you feel all kinds of better. I won't use a handgun, I'll blow a hole in his chest with the shotgun. Happy now?

And you're proud of this state of affairs?

[Gallstones]

To Gallstones

Here is a common situation.

Joe Blow gets very drunk and confused. He finds his door key does not work any more, so he breaks the lock to get in so he can go to bed.

Whoops, he made a mistake.
Not his home after all, and the gun crazed occupant shoots him dead.

Common?
Maybe where you live.

Did you not read where I said intruders don't get the benefit of the doubt?

Drunks aren't excused or forgiven before the fact, they can be shot like any other intruder.
I don't know that an intruder is drunk and fucking stupid. Even drunks--especially drunks--are narcissistic and violent. I don't owe them any special regard over and above any other intruder. In Montana if they come into my home uninvited I don't have to assess sobriety or motive, I can kill them, drunk or sober . You want to test that Blind Groper?

The mistake may be a fatal one. People make fatal mistakes everyday.

That by any reasonable standard is murder.

By any reasoned standard getting so drunk that you are unable to know where you live and try to break into someone else's house is just fucking stupid, especially where people can and are LEGALLY shot dead for making that mistake. The reasonable standard would be: Don't get that fucking drunk. Ever.



Tell you what, I can make you feel all kinds of better. I won't use a handgun, I'll blow a hole in his chest with the shotgun. Happy now?

And you're proud of this state of affairs?

Very. And I hope it is infectious.

[Blind groper]

Getting drunk to the point of total confusion is something most people do at least once in their life. It is not a crime. Nor is it subject to the death penalty.

The crime is using lethal force without taking the time to find out if it is needed. That crime is called murder.

If the person uses lethal force because they are too scared to wait and find out if it is needed, they are blithering, yellow bellied, despicable cowards.

And what of the rarer, but still occasional situation where the person intruding is doing so because of confusion brought on by a genuine medical condition? The person who shoots that unfortunate is even more clearly a disgusting murderer.

I will go further and say that those legislators who "make it OK" to commit such a murder, are themselves guilty and deserve to be locked away for a decade or more as accessory to murder.

[Seth]

Could you show your work there professor? I must have dozed off and missed it.

Certainly.

Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun.
If, as Seth claims, 80, 000 Americans save their own lives each year by using a gun in self defense, then twice that number (the ones without guns) will lose their lives due to not having a gun.

The number of murders is around 16, 000. The number who would be murdered if Seth's premise was correct, would be 160, 000. Therefore the premise is wrong.

No, your so-called reasoning is wrong, as I've pointed out before. You falsely assume that murder is evenly distributed among gun and non-gun owners. It's not.

Moreover you make the fundamental mistake of assuming that all 80,000, or 2.5 million DGUs per year stop a murder that would have happened absent the gun, and you falsely assume that everyone who doesn't have a gun will be murdered merely because they don't have a gun.

Your reasoning is idiotic, as is obvious to anyone with a lick of sense.

The thing that Seth and other gun nuts have not come to terms with, is that a claim for successful defensive gun use is not the same thing as an actual defensive gun use.

And yet you have absolutely zero evidence that the reports of successful DGUs are false. Indeed you've never even tried to refute or rebut any of the many examples of DGUs that I've posted in this thread. You just dismiss them as "anecdotes," which they are not. They are news reports gleaned from police records and witness interviews. You simply choose to disbelieve them en mass, which only points to your innate bias and inability to view the subject logically and rationally.

Thus, a survey that works by asking people if they have used a gun defensively will end up accurately reporting the number of people who believe they have used a gun defensively. Not the real number if people who have, in fact genuinely used a gun defensively.

And yet you cannot, or will not refute a single of the many examples I've provided. Moreover, you have set your own criteria for what "genuinely" means, and it's based on your peculiar notion that all DGUs are unjustified, an opinion for which you have no credible proof whatsoever. At best you have some "opinions" of known gun-haters and unidentified "judges."

And your final mistake is that you assume that unless a DGU meets your peculiar standard of "justification," it doesn't count as a DGU. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You make all sorts of asinine assumptions in your argument, and I've debunked them many times, and have just done so again.

Since 1 in 10 people are deluded to some degree (unable to tell the difference between their imagination and reality) that means 10 million American gun owners who are deluded. More than enough people living their "Dirty Harry" fantasy to totally screw survey results.

Yet another "factoid" you pulled out of your ass and then misinterpreted.

[Collector1337]

And you're proud of this state of affairs?

Yes. Very much so.

[Seth]

Getting drunk to the point of total confusion is something most people do at least once in their life. It is not a crime. Nor is it subject to the death penalty.

The crime is using lethal force without taking the time to find out if it is needed. That crime is called murder.

Not necessarily around here. There are several elements to the use of the "Castle Doctrine" law in Colorado, and most other states that have it enacted.

First, the entry must be both unlawful and uninvited. Thus, a drunk breaking into the wrong house meets the first prong of the test.

Second, the intruder must cause the occupant to reasonably believe that the intruder has, is, or is about to commit ANOTHER crime of any kind within the residence.

Third, the occupant must reasonably believe that the intruder MIGHT use any physical force no matter how slight against any occupant.

If those three criteria are met, then the use of lethal force against an intruder is not, ipso facto and de jure, a crime. It's not even a civil tort, much less murder.

Here's the Colorado statute:

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

If the person uses lethal force because they are too scared to wait and find out if it is needed, they are blithering, yellow bellied, despicable cowards.

Your rather idiotic opinion is noted. Fortunately, our legal system disagrees with you completely.

And what of the rarer, but still occasional situation where the person intruding is doing so because of confusion brought on by a genuine medical condition? The person who shoots that unfortunate is even more clearly a disgusting murderer.

Whether such a shooting is lawful depends entirely on what the drunk does after breaking in. If he stands there owlishly blinking in confusion and presents no threat of another crime (like assault) and no threat of using force, then shooting him would be unlawful.

If, however, the drunk breaks in, starts acting belligerently and attacks an occupant in his alcohol-addled state, then shooting him would NOT be a crime and would be in fact fully authorized by law. If the residents choose to use a lesser degree of force in a particular situation, then the drunk should consider himself lucky he's still alive. But being intoxicated is NOT an excuse, justification or mitigating factor when you break into SOMEONE ELSE'S home and put them in fear for their sqfety. It's an aggravating factor if anything because one gets VOLUNTARILY drunk, and therefore one gains an ADDED burden of responsibility to obey the law and not harm others, not a reduced one.

You may not like the notion that you can be lawfully shot dead for drunkenly busting into someone's home and assaulting someone, but that's the law, and it's based on our belief (unlike the UK) that a man's home actually is his castle, and he's entitled to absolute safety and security against intruders inside his home.

The servile pussies in the UK are okay with being forced to endure home invasions, but that's their problem, not ours. Our legislators have common sense and respect for the rights of the innocent over those of the guilty.

I will go further and say that those legislators who "make it OK" to commit such a murder, are themselves guilty and deserve to be locked away for a decade or more as accessory to murder.

Fortunately your opinion is worth exactly what we pay for it...nothing.

[Seth]

Fakuname
You got me there. Damn!

However, I got the original 10% deluded figure from a web site written by a psychiatrist, and I do not think he was referring to religion.

For purposes of argument, may I say that 10% of any human population will be significantly and measurably deluded apart from religious belief?

The error in your reasoning, again, is that you wrongly assume that this "delusional 10%" is evenly distributed among the population, and that therefore 10% of gun owners are delusional.

You have absolutely no evidence supporting this claim.

It may just as easily be the case that gun owners are universally, or nearly universally part of the 90% of people who are NOT delusional, and that liberal hoplophobes are in fact the ones who comprise the bulk of the delusional 10 percent.

You see, you really know fuck-all about reason, logic or statistics, which is why you keep making a fool of yourself with your ridiculous and facially false claims.

[Blind groper]

Seth

It appears that you think gun owners are atypical. I have to agree with you there. Based on what American gun enthusiasts have said on this forum, they appear to, on average compared to other Americans, be more stupid, more aggressive, less rational or reasonable, unable to understand what evidence is, and totally ruled by their gonads.

[Seth]

Seth

It appears that you think gun owners are atypical.

Indeed. The fact that they are smart enough to recognize the need for personal defensive weapons sets them apart, and high above the delusional hoplophobes who constantly try to deny reality.

I have to agree with you there. Based on what American gun enthusiasts have said on this forum, they appear to, on average compared to other Americans, be more stupid, more aggressive, less rational or reasonable, unable to understand what evidence is, and totally ruled by their gonads.

Your asinine opinion is noted. And rejected as nonsense.

[Blind groper]

they are smart enough to recognize the need for personal defensive weapons sets them apart, and high above the delusional hoplophobes who constantly try to deny reality.

This is so like the arrogant belief of others who have since fallen to crushing defeat. Like the believers in the Third Reich. Like the old time Romans. Pride comes before......

No Seth.
The distinguishing characteristics of gun nutters are stupidity, wilful blindness, and callous arrogance, and most definitely not any form of intelligence.

Incidentally, you continue to use the term "hoplophobe" incorrectly. It refers to a psychological condition which will not permit a person to even touch a firearm. I, and others who argue for sane gun control, can and have handled firearms. I have hunted rabbits with my father's old 0.22 rifle, fired a 0.303 rifle at targets, used a shotgun to hunt ducks, and even handled a loaded hand gun. A hoplophobe cannot do those things.

A failure to use the English language correctly just weakens your arguments.

[Collector1337]

they are smart enough to recognize the need for personal defensive weapons sets them apart, and high above the delusional hoplophobes who constantly try to deny reality.

This is so like the arrogant belief of others who have since fallen to crushing defeat. Like the believers in the Third Reich. Like the old time Romans. Pride comes before......

No Seth.
The distinguishing characteristics of gun nutters are stupidity, wilful blindness, and callous arrogance, and most definitely not any form of intelligence.

Incidentally, you continue to use the term "hoplophobe" incorrectly. It refers to a psychological condition which will not permit a person to even touch a firearm. I, and others who argue for sane gun control, can and have handled firearms. I have hunted rabbits with my father's old 0.22 rifle, fired a 0.303 rifle at targets, used a shotgun to hunt ducks, and even handled a loaded hand gun. A hoplophobe cannot do those things.

A failure to use the English language correctly just weakens your arguments.

Yeah, because wanting to survive is so stupid. You are so asinine and absurd, words cannot begin to describe.

[MrJonno]

The number of uses of firearms by civilians in 'defensive' use in the UK is or is very close to ZERO in any given year and I don't see 1000's of murders here which you would expect if rates were per capita the same as the US

[JimC]

The number of uses of firearms by civilians in 'defensive' use in the UK is or is very close to ZERO in any given year and I don't see 1000's of murders here which you would expect if rates were per capita the same as the US

That indeed is the critical point. Collector and Seth castigate people in countries with gun laws for failing to defend themselves, with the inference being spineless capitulation to the ever-present danger of attack by others (paranoia, anyone?).

Not defending ourselves in your gun-totin' fashion seems to result in vastly fewer murders...

they are smart enough to recognize the need for personal defensive weapons sets them apart, and high above the delusional hoplophobes who constantly try to deny reality.

This is so like the arrogant belief of others who have since fallen to crushing defeat. Like the believers in the Third Reich. Like the old time Romans. Pride comes before......

No Seth.
The distinguishing characteristics of gun nutters are stupidity, wilful blindness, and callous arrogance, and most definitely not any form of intelligence.

Incidentally, you continue to use the term "hoplophobe" incorrectly. It refers to a psychological condition which will not permit a person to even touch a firearm. I, and others who argue for sane gun control, can and have handled firearms. I have hunted rabbits with my father's old 0.22 rifle, fired a 0.303 rifle at targets, used a shotgun to hunt ducks, and even handled a loaded hand gun. A hoplophobe cannot do those things.

A failure to use the English language correctly just weakens your arguments.

Yeah, because wanting to survive is so stupid. You are so asinine and absurd, words cannot begin to describe.

If that childish rant is a reply to BG's "A failure to use the English language correctly just weakens your arguments." then it is simply aggressive, meaningless drivel.

You could, of course, attempt a logical refutation of BG's cogent analysis of the word "hoplophobe"

If you were capable of any such thing...

[Collector1337]

The number of uses of firearms by civilians in 'defensive' use in the UK is or is very close to ZERO in any given year and I don't see 1000's of murders here which you would expect if rates were per capita the same as the US

That indeed is the critical point. Collector and Seth castigate people in countries with gun laws for failing to defend themselves, with the inference being spineless capitulation to the ever-present danger of attack by others (paranoia, anyone?).

Not defending ourselves in your gun-totin' fashion seems to result in vastly fewer murders...

they are smart enough to recognize the need for personal defensive weapons sets them apart, and high above the delusional hoplophobes who constantly try to deny reality.

This is so like the arrogant belief of others who have since fallen to crushing defeat. Like the believers in the Third Reich. Like the old time Romans. Pride comes before......

No Seth.
The distinguishing characteristics of gun nutters are stupidity, wilful blindness, and callous arrogance, and most definitely not any form of intelligence.

Incidentally, you continue to use the term "hoplophobe" incorrectly. It refers to a psychological condition which will not permit a person to even touch a firearm. I, and others who argue for sane gun control, can and have handled firearms. I have hunted rabbits with my father's old 0.22 rifle, fired a 0.303 rifle at targets, used a shotgun to hunt ducks, and even handled a loaded hand gun. A hoplophobe cannot do those things.

A failure to use the English language correctly just weakens your arguments.

Yeah, because wanting to survive is so stupid. You are so asinine and absurd, words cannot begin to describe.

If that childish rant is a reply to BG's "A failure to use the English language correctly just weakens your arguments." then it is simply aggressive, meaningless drivel.

You could, of course, attempt a logical refutation of BG's cogent analysis of the word "hoplophobe"

If you were capable of any such thing...

Well, there's a lot more crimes than just murders. And there's a lot more uses for guns than just defense.

"hoplophobe?" I care about this word because why again? Because of his miniscule experience, that means he can't be one?

[JimC]

You may have just earned a lecture from Seth on the importance of his favourite word, "hoplophobe"

Not caring about it is a bit pinko...