Subject:
|
Re: A shot in the dark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:18:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim David wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Part of Dave K’s post <http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=28472
|
|
snip
original news story:
| |
Well in this case the homeowner was definatly in the wrong. There can be no
doubt that he shot without any warning, (otherwise his daughter would have
made herself known to him) and thus he can’t claim self defence, because he
wasn’t being attacked. In my view that sort of thing is exaclty the reason
not to have guns in the house, allowing guns means people like him can have
them. To top it all off he is a policeman, what sort of training do they give
them in New Haven?
tim
|
I will agree that the homeowner was wrong, but on different grounds. He did not
properly identify his target before firing.
In many states, you are allowed to presume that any un-invited intruder in your
house is a deadly threat. Such laws are usually referred to as “castle laws”
after the phrase “a man’s home is his castle”. Generally you are not reqired to
give warning, though it may help your case in court. (note, laws vary from
state to state so check your local laws, etc)
Additionally, there are 4 basic rules of firearms safety that all gunowners
should know and abide by heart.
1. Treat every gun as if they are loaded
2. Never point the firearm at anything your aren’t willing to destroy/kill
3. Finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot (sights aligned on
target)
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond
The officer in the linked story obviously violated rule #4. As a police officer
he should have known better than to shoot at a shadow in the dark. That is why
anyone who keeps a firearm in the house for home defense should keep a
compact-highpower flash light next to or attached to said firearm. Also,
gunowners with teenagers need to have a discussion about the dangers of sneaking
themselves (and their friends) in/out of the house could pose.
While I respect your personal choice/reasons to not keep guns in your household,
I do not agree with your assertion that “keeping guns from people like him” is a
valid reason for not allowing guns in general. Thats like saying you shouldn’t
be allowed own a car because other drivers have caused crashes that have
injured, maimed and even killed people.
I see this a nothing more than an accident due to the homeowner/officer’s
negligence. Fortunately for him, he did not kill his daugther. Unfortunately,
police officers are only human, and not necessarily the firearms experts the
public and media make them out to be.
I will agree that anyone who chooses to keep and bear arms need to understand
and accept the huge responsibilites and liabilities that decision bears. That
is why owning a gun is only half the story. Training and practice are also
necessary.
drc
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A shot in the dark
|
| (...) I agree with most of what you have said, however I'm not certain your car analogy is valid. While cars can be a deadly weapon that is not what they are designd for. A well used gun is one that is never used whereas a well used car is used all (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A shot in the dark
|
| (...) Well in this case the homeowner was definatly in the wrong. There can be no doubt that he shot without any warning, (otherwise his daughter would have made herself known to him) and thus he can't claim self defence, because he wasn't being (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
