Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumFather Shoots 1 of 3 Armed Home Invaders Who Were Holding His Son Hostage
http://www.khou.com/home/12-year-old-parents-terrorized-in-Harris-County-home-invasion-150953355.htmlHARRIS COUNTY, Texas—A northwest Harris County family was terrorized Thursday morning by three home invasion suspects. One of the suspects was shot by the homeowner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Always be aware when you open your garage doors.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bowens43
(16,064 posts)A father in DeSoto Parish shot and killed his two young children and then turned the gun on himself in the early-morning hours today.
The shooter has been identified as Scott Swanson, 39, who first shot his sons, Alton Swanson, 7, and Jacob Swanson, 4, and then himself. Alton was a student at North DeSoto Elementary School.
DeSoto Parish Sheriff's Deputies responded to a shooting on Roach Lane in Frierson, La., at 1:15 a.m.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
Clames
(2,038 posts)..."I have nothing useful to post so to make myself feel better I'm just going to crap in somebody else's thread." day.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)get'ch'er gun...."
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)because this story/post has absolutely NOTHING to do with the OP.
DanM
(341 posts)...of the validity of the concepts that self-defense is a natural right and the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)to OWN a firearm, much less to use it to so rudely perforate another human being.
Not that it's necessary, but: (sarcasm)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)...then he would probably be too old and senile to warrant owning a gun. At least to those who hold to mikeb's school of thought 
rl6214
(8,142 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Makes one wonder what these guys wanted at eight in the morning. Definitely not breakfast.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)... you don't have a problem with this guy defending his family at home. From your other posts, however, I gather that you don't think he should have that right when they leave home? If I'm reading you correctly, I'm curious as to how you arrive at such disparate beliefs. (Honest question - no sarcasm intended.)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)When outside the home, I don't think it should be a question of rights, but rather need. As long as guns are legally available to some, then they should be available to all. That said, both local and national government should have the right to establish gun free zones.
My issue is not with guns, but with behavior. The kind of society I want to live in is not one where people routinely carry guns. I don't want to legislate behavior, but discourage it. It is not healthy for a society to be driven by fear.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)... but how do you know when you will or won't need one? (Yet another serious question, and the facts that have led to my conclusions are below.)
I don't put my first aid kit in my car only when I might need it; it's there all the time, as is my fire extinguisher. I don't buckle up only when I might need it. Would you consider me to be living in fear because of those actions?
On the other hand, I DO only wear a motorcycle helmet only when I think I need to.
It seems that many people consider me terribly stupid for this, and have no problem calling me "stupid," "organ donor," "already brain dead," etc. They can't imagine only wearing protective equipment when I think I might need it. "You never know when you'll need your helmet," they tell me.
Most people wouldn't consider you to be "driven by fear" for buckling up or carrying a first aid kit or fire extinguisher, and many (most?) people WOULD consider you stupid for only taking protective gear (helmet) when you think you might need it. Why do guns seem to draw an opposite reaction? The only conclusion that springs to mind is that among gun control advocates, a gun is not considered a personal protective device, or a defensive weapon.
Would you agree with that conclusion? If not, could you write a little about where you differ? You're one of the few gun control advocates here who does more than dump hit-and-run postings with no discussion, so I'm interested in your positions
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)First, though, let me reiterate that I do not consider myself a gun control advocate. If I advocate for control of anything, it would be self control rather than legislative control. That applies to everything from guns to littering. I am not so naive, though, to think that every person is so mindful that society does not need legislation to rein in those who would spoil the party for everyone else.
Now, as to guns. Very dangerous in the wrong hands, lots of fun to shoot, great tools for hunting and home defense. Not so good for self defense outside the home. Why? Because, once you take it into the public arena, the possibilities of something going awry increases enormously.
The comparison to fire extinguishers and first aid kits don't apply. People have the "right" to be stupid or irresponsible toward themselves. Smoke detectors and fire extinguishers may be required under building safety codes, because there is a social responsibility component. There is no law requiring one in a car. The seat belt law makes sense because the consequence of not wearing one is a burden on society in terms of manpower and resources and costs the taxpayer billions annually. Same with wearing your helmet. I have scraped too many bodies from highways to know how foolish it is to not use these simple tools. Point is, they are designed to prevent injury and save lives. Guns are designed to do the exact opposite. Repeating the mantra "guns are defensive tools" doesn't make it true. The only time that is ever true, ironically, is in the classic Mexican standoff, and who would ever want to be in that situation. I'm not saying that it is impossible for someone to use a gun to save their own life, either by shooting another or brandishing. Either way, it would have been saved by assaulting the other. I'm also aware that many shootings are justified.
I don't put my first aid kit in my car only when I might need it; it's there all the time, as is my fire extinguisher. I don't buckle up only when I might need it. Would you consider me to be living in fear because of those actions?
No, I don't think you live in fear. I'm impressed. I've never carried either a fire extinguisher or first aid kit in my car. And I take very long road trips, often in remote areas, rarely using major highways. I carry flashlights, spare tire, water, laptop and phone. After several million miles driving in 30+ countries I've never needed a fire extinguisher or first aid kit. There were occasions when I wished, for a moment, that I had a gun; and was always thankful later that I didn't.
On the other hand, I DO only wear a motorcycle helmet only when I think I need to.
It seems that many people consider me terribly stupid for this, and have no problem calling me "stupid," "organ donor," "already brain dead," etc. They can't imagine only wearing protective equipment when I think I might need it. "You never know when you'll need your helmet," they tell me.
I'd say you need it only when you ride your bike. That said, I ride my bicycle (not motorized) almost daily and have never worn a helmet. Been doing that for over 60 years and haven't hurt my head yet.
Point is, helmets and first aid kits and fire extinguishers are all designed to protect and save lives, without endangering others. Body armor is defensive, castles (homes) are defensive. Streets and markets are where we come together and interact and conduct commerce and take our chances. Do we really want them to be our battlefields too?
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)I'll answer your questions from the bottom. Great discussion, but I don't see either of us changing our minds, so I'll respond to the facts that led to your position by listing the facts that led to mine.
Do we want them to be our battlefields, too?
No, but if someone with bad intentions chooses to turn them into battlefields, do we want to be unable to defend ourselves? (See: Luby's Cafeteria, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, Lane Bryant, etc. All public places that had no business being battlefields, but even less business being the sites of mass murders.)
No, I don't think you live in fear. I'm impressed. I've never carried either a fire extinguisher or first aid kit in my car. And I take very long road trips, often in remote areas, rarely using major highways. I carry flashlights, spare tire, water, laptop and phone. After several million miles driving in 30+ countries I've never needed a fire extinguisher or first aid kit.
You're lucky; I've needed a fire extinguisher and not had one, and I've needed a LOT of first aid supplies and not had enough. (Tourist van full of Japanese exchange students had a rollover accident in Death Valley with multiple ejections, serious injuries, and at least two fatalities in 1999. We were the first on the scene, trying to help those we could, and finding the scattered bodies of those we couldn't. Took almost 3 hours for the helicopters from Las Vegas to arrive and we were out of supplies and water by then.)
I might drive a million more miles and never encounter something like that again, but I carry those supplies "just in case." I never want to feel that helpless again.
Point is, they are designed to prevent injury and save lives. Guns are designed to do the exact opposite. Repeating the mantra "guns are defensive tools" doesn't make it true. The only time that is ever true, ironically, is in the classic Mexican standoff, and who would ever want to be in that situation. I'm not saying that it is impossible for someone to use a gun to save their own life, either by shooting another or brandishing. Either way, it would have been saved by assaulting the other. I'm also aware that many shootings are justified.
I think here's where our beliefs and experiences diverge. My dad never owned a gun until the Brady Bill was passed. When that happened, he (like many other people) went out and bought several, "before the government takes away that right." Although he's never fired any of them, he's had at least two experiences - one that I was present for - where having the gun prevented possible crimes.
One involved a family trip across country in our van. He stopped to sleep in a rest area parking lot and we woke up to somebody trying the doors on the van. The sight of a pistol in his hand when he turned on the interior lights was enough to convince the guy that he'd be better off driving to the next rest area to look for a hookup, or fix up, or whatever he was after.
The other took place when he owned a restaurant in a strip mall. He used to pull the cash every night after closing to make the bank deposits. One night someone was waiting in the dark outside the restaurant. Luckily he noticed the guy before he went outside, so he paused at the counter and emptied his pockets as if he was looking for his keys or phone. His pistol was one of the things that came out and was set in plain view on the counter. By the time he sorted things and repocketed them, the lurker was gone.
Both simple situations, both times the mere presence of a gun deterred a possible crime. He's had those things for 20 years and still never shot them, but at least twice he was glad he had one with him.
I may never again encounter a mass casualty accident that has me wishing for a trunkful of first aid supplies. I may never again encounter someone trying to jump start a car at the same time they're trying to "prime the carb" with raw gasoline. Even so, I'll continue to carry equipment to help out in those situations.
Similarly, I hope (and expect) to never encounter a situation where I need a gun. If I ever do, though, I'd feel awfully foolish knowing it was safely locked up at home.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Really didn't appear to be your routine home invasion. More like a settling of accounts between fellow miscreants.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Most reports of home invasions I've read turn out to be ongoing feuds, robberies of drug dealers, or dealers settling unpaid drug debts. Anything but random invasions.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Makes one wonder how much violent crime is actually aimed at law abiding folk. Burglars are not usually armed, that's why they are burglars and not robbers. When you've got 3 armed individuals charging into your home at 8 a.m., they are not coming to steal your stereo or your Rolex. They are there to collect what they think they are owed, or that they consider you have no more right to than they do.
