If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On May 20 2013 01:46 micronesia wrote:
Um I'm going to try to steer the conversation away from whether or not doctors should be allowed to discuss gun ownership with patients, as that isn't really relevant to whether or not people should be allowed to own/carry guns.

Something I'm noticing many cases of is innocent people being shot by police. I wonder how prevalent this type of incident actually is (compared to how it is potentially portrayed/distorted by media coverage). For example, a few days ago near me:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/19/hofstra-student-killed-by-police-during-break-in/2323831/

Summary of events, although it is still under investigation:

1. Armed man breaks into off campus home with several college-age people inside at 2 or 3 in the morning
   
2. Man lets one female escape, who promptly calls the police
   
3. Man takes one female student hostage with his gun as police arrive
   
4. Man points gun at police officer, officer opens fire towards man, killing man plus female hostage

This is just one event, but since it happened close to me (I have a degree from that school actually although I never lived near campus) it got me thinking more about what threats actually are reasonable vs unreasonable to expect. On the one hand, there are people who say you don't have to worry about some random armed guy forcing his way into your home and getting you killed despite you being unarmed. It just happened. If it's extremely rare than that's a good thing, but I don't have the statistics on it.

Another thing I'm considering is how the police should react in these instances. The investigation is underway, but how should cops deal with this? If the cop didn't shoot he may have been shot himself right away. Maybe the cop didn't back away when ordered to and was partly responsible. I honestly don't know what proper procedure for this is. I think a priority should be placed on rescuing the victim over catching the criminal, though.

What would the situation have been if each person in this home had a quick-release gun safe next to their bed? It could have prevented the death of the innocent student, or it could have increased the casualty list. If the students all kept guns for self protection, and only the intruder was killed, I'm sure there would be people saying the students had no right to be the judge jury and executioner for this intruder who may not have had any intent on hurting/killing them.

Anyone who thinks this is a simple issue is deluding themselves.

edit: by the way, it probably would helped if they had locked the front door <facepalm>

edit2: Giving it more thought, it seems like it depends on what the girl said when she called the police. If she had clearly identified that it was a hostage situation, then the police probably shouldn't have entered the house like that.

On May 20 2013 01:46 micronesia wrote:
Um I'm going to try to steer the conversation away from whether or not doctors should be allowed to discuss gun ownership with patients, as that isn't really relevant to whether or not people should be allowed to own/carry guns.

Something I'm noticing many cases of is innocent people being shot by police. I wonder how prevalent this type of incident actually is (compared to how it is potentially portrayed/distorted by media coverage). For example, a few days ago near me:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/19/hofstra-student-killed-by-police-during-break-in/2323831/

Summary of events, although it is still under investigation:

1. Armed man breaks into off campus home with several college-age people inside at 2 or 3 in the morning
   
2. Man lets one female escape, who promptly calls the police
   
3. Man takes one female student hostage with his gun as police arrive
   
4. Man points gun at police officer, officer opens fire towards man, killing man plus female hostage

This is just one event, but since it happened close to me (I have a degree from that school actually although I never lived near campus) it got me thinking more about what threats actually are reasonable vs unreasonable to expect. On the one hand, there are people who say you don't have to worry about some random armed guy forcing his way into your home and getting you killed despite you being unarmed. It just happened. If it's extremely rare than that's a good thing, but I don't have the statistics on it.

Another thing I'm considering is how the police should react in these instances. The investigation is underway, but how should cops deal with this? If the cop didn't shoot he may have been shot himself right away. Maybe the cop didn't back away when ordered to and was partly responsible. I honestly don't know what proper procedure for this is. I think a priority should be placed on rescuing the victim over catching the criminal, though.

What would the situation have been if each person in this home had a quick-release gun safe next to their bed? It could have prevented the death of the innocent student, or it could have increased the casualty list. If the students all kept guns for self protection, and only the intruder was killed, I'm sure there would be people saying the students had no right to be the judge jury and executioner for this intruder who may not have had any intent on hurting/killing them.

Anyone who thinks this is a simple issue is deluding themselves.

edit: by the way, it probably would helped if they had locked the front door <facepalm>

edit2: Giving it more thought, it seems like it depends on what the girl said when she called the police. If she had clearly identified that it was a hostage situation, then the police probably shouldn't have entered the house like that.

On May 20 2013 08:31 kmillz wrote:


B-b-but the 20 feet rule says that once your attacker comes within 20 feet it's too late to shoot them.

/sarcasm

I agree, this is a great example of a terrible outcome that could have been prevented if the person had the means to defend their self with a firearm.

On May 20 2013 08:54 farvacola wrote:

Too bad your /sarcasm isn't at the end of your post, because now we have no choice but to assume that you fall under Micronesia's "deluded" camp. The presence of firearms hardly figures one way or another; we're talking college students, likely with little opportunity for training in firearm use and high stress response, against a man clearly experienced in the ways or armed robbery and the use of a gun to get what he wants. Why you think that there being a gun definitively figures in favor of the victims after the students were admittedly taken completely by surprise is beyond me; as Micro said, "Anyone who thinks this is a simple issue is deluding themselves.".

On May 20 2013 08:56 Paljas wrote:

actually, this is a pretty bad example for anything, but for showing the incompetence of some police man.
I honestly fail to see how this example adds anything relevant to the whole "gun right" discussion.

On May 20 2013 08:57 kmillz wrote:


Do you know the difference between the words would and could?



An armed victim has more of a chance than an unarmed victim. The whole point was that the officer wouldn't even be involved if the victim had the opportunity to defend their self and successfully stopped their attacker.

On May 20 2013 09:03 farvacola wrote:

Do you know the difference between explicit and implicit language? You may have used the word could, but your omission of the alternative, that being the potential futility of the presence of firearms, clearly indicates that you are figuring this scenario as pro-guns. It isn't a great example for discussing anything other than police negligence and improper procedure, as Paljas said; there are simply too many complicating factor and what ifs.

On May 20 2013 09:07 Paljas wrote:

a non armed attacker has less of a chance than armed attacker.
see, you are not the only one who can make generalized statements which add little to the discussion.
I can also post a ton of examples which are clear examples against gun rights, i you wish to go this way.
and because farvacola cant get the TLBC together, i have time for the whole night.
honestly, this whole example is pretty irrelevant.

I could just as easily say, too bad there wasn't a 5 inch blade at hand, or too bad one of the residents isn't a trained MMA fighter. These hypotheticals are pointless.

On May 20 2013 09:16 farvacola wrote:

There are more than that; the potential error in getting the firearm to bear could very well have lead to the perpetrator killing everyone in the household instead of only one person, just as well as it could have also been yet another firearm out on the street as the perp gets way with his crime and robs the entire household. If we are to play this game, this terrible occurrence is only a great example of a few things; police error, firearm related crime, and how both sides ought to resist the urge to color it in the manner they want to.

You are far more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun. In episodes where a robbery victim was injured, the injury/defense rates are:

Resisting with a gun 6%
Did nothing at all 25%
Resisted with a knife 40%
Non-violent resistance 45%

On May 20 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:





It's not my fault if people misinterpret what I say as something exactly the opposite of what I said. You think this example is irrelevant, I'll give you anecdotal, but not irrelevant. Any scenario where someone is attacked, robbed, raped, murdered, etc.. that could be realistically prevented with a defensive gun use is relevant to the discussion in my opinion.

On May 20 2013 08:57 kmillz wrote:
An armed victim has more of a chance than an unarmed victim.

Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.

“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.

On May 20 2013 08:54 farvacola wrote:

Too bad your /sarcasm isn't at the end of your post, because now we have no choice but to assume that you fall under Micronesia's "deluded" camp. The presence of firearms hardly figures one way or another; we're talking college students, likely with little opportunity for training in firearm use and high stress response, against a man clearly experienced in the ways or armed robbery and the use of a gun to get what he wants. Why you think that there being a gun definitively figures in favor of the victims after the students were admittedly taken completely by surprise is beyond me; as Micro said, "Anyone who thinks this is a simple issue is deluding themselves.".

On May 20 2013 09:35 FallDownMarigold wrote:


Not necessarily:



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp

On May 20 2013 09:33 Paljas wrote:

where did people misintepret what you are saying?
and yes, an anecdotal story is, in this context, irrelevant.

On May 20 2013 09:38 kmillz wrote:


Taking away the gun doesn't create a new opportunity to not do anything. You have that option either way.

On May 20 2013 09:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:


Here, I'll make it easier for you to understand:

Having a gun may or may not lead to a better outcome in the event you are a victim in an armed robbery or similar situation. Then to reiterate, since you ignored it:
"Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed."