Subject:
|
Re: A shot in the dark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:57:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5211 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Douglas R. Clark wrote:
| |
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
|
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 the time (OK, ignoring any environmental issues)
In this country (IK) armed police officers are highly trained (or so one would
hope, certain incidents might lead
you to believe otherwise). Also, they don’t take their weapons home at night
(would that be a taxable perk?)
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: A shot in the dark
|
| (...) 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 (...) (17 years ago, 11-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
|
|
|
|
