No such thing as a righteous shooting, I must disagree.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

People here were quite up in arms when a shooting was described as righteous, I remembered about a shooting that seemed pretty righteous to me. Maybe we can agree about this one.

Cape woman shoots, kills rapist in her home

Before shooting and killing her rapist early Friday morning, a Cape Girardeau woman had never fired a shotgun in her life. Though the woman, whose name has been withheld, lived alone, she'd always felt safe in her neighborhood, where she'd lived for the past four years. When Ronnie W. Preyer, a registered sex offender who was about to be charged with assaulting her a week earlier, broke into her home shortly after 2 a.m. Friday, she said a calm settled over her as she shot him in the chest before running to a neighbor's to get help. Preyer, 47, of Cape Girardeau was pronounced dead a few hours later at Saint Francis Medical Center.

A dark bruise still marring the side of her face, the rape victim described the previous assault. She had been watching TV around midnight Oct. 25 when she heard a crash. She knew her basement door, leading up to her kitchen, was unlocked, and the noise had come from the basement. Realizing an intruder had broken into the house, she made a beeline for the back door, but Preyer was waiting for her. "You fight, you try to think of all the things you can do, but it's happening so fast," she said. Though she did put up a fight, Preyer punched her — twice, she thinks. At first, she couldn't believe it was really happening and feared someone was playing a horrible joke. He told her "Don't tell anybody. I know where you live," she said. The woman sat quietly for several hours before deciding she needed to notify the police. "I wasn't going to tell, but the more I thought about it, the worse I felt," she said.

She told her daughter and her landlord what happened, and her landlord repaired the window, added security devices to all the doors and, in a gesture that may have saved her life, purchased a shotgun for her. "I've never shot a shotgun before," she said. Her landlord instructed her on how to load the firearm, and she kept it near her for a week. Meanwhile, Cape Girardeau police began investigating the rape and made frequent rounds past her residence to check on things.
On Friday morning, about two hours after an officer had checked on her, she was still awake. "You can't sleep. You can't do anything. You're just listening," she said. When the lights went out, her first thought was that she remembered having paid her electric bill. "I knew something wasn't right," she said. She got her gun.

snip

http://www.semissourian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/NEWS01/711019994

David

[sandnsea]

1. With a shotgun, inside of her home

Well I'll be dang, a shotgun is the best form of home protection someone can have, and you don't have to blast somebody on the sidewalk to protect yourself.

[grantcart]

2. Everyone has a right to defend themselves

If there was an effective non lethal alternative and she had used that instead would she be even more righteous?

[cliffordu]

4. A flamethrower would have been nice, but that's just me.....

:hi:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Lot of collateral damage there.

I'd say thats why the landlord didn't buy her one.

David

[cliffordu]

11. Well, there IS that. Gotta break a few eggs if you wanna cook an omelette.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Morally justified in either instance, in my opinion.

What people choose to use for home defense is their business. Since most home invaders in my area seem to use firearms, my wife and I have chosen firearms to defend our home with.

David

[panader0]

3. Righteous to me implies some religious meaning

I am not religious, but I don't think killing can be "righteous". Understandable, or justified yes. Self defense is very understandable, defense of loved ones even more.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. The dictionary says morally right or justifiable.

I don't think this woman's actions were immoral and they were legally justified. I believe they were morally justifiable. I would guess that most people wouldn't find her actions immoral.

David

[rrneck]

15. I would find

her actions immoral. Killing people is always wrong. That's just where I draw the line. To say otherwise, to say that sometimes killing someone is the morally right thing to do, is to say that one life is less valuable than another. If we start down that road, and we go far enough, we wind up burning people alive, cutting off their heads or putting them in ovens.

There is a big difference between legal and right. And an even bigger difference between right and necessary. All three conditions may not hold true in a given circumstance. That's why they call it the human condition.

If any perp is killed in the course of assaulting somebody, and died in the course of the assault because the individual being assaulted had no other option, there has been a multiple tragedy. Someone was assaulted unnecessarily, someone else lost his or her life in the attempt, and someone was denied their rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

I have found gun owners in general, myself included, sometimes suffer from cognitive dissonance. On the one hand I can say that if some asshole scumbag kicked my door down I am quite capable and adequately equipped to blow his ass right back out in the yard. And if the judge asks me why I shot him seven times I'll tell him, "cuz I ran outta bullets yer honor". But at the same time I can offer erudite discourse on the need to "shoot to stop" an assailant by aiming center mass and firing twice. In a court of law, there is an important distinction to be made between the two. In the real world, a double tap center mass will stop him by killing him.

The only solution that I know of out of this dilemma of double think is to start with one hard and fast proposition; killing people is wrong. If we give that up, we will never be able to adequately craft legislation to deal with the tools, methods, reasons, or results of killing people either by individuals or entire armies.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

17. Heh. You had to come back and edit for the expletive? Can't you think

any further ahead than that?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

23. You got another one. The first letter in a sentence is capitalized.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. You would find her actions immoral. Please tell me you are kidding.

Regardless of opinion, society doesn't find killing in self defense to be immoral. I would be guess that a majority doesn't find mercy killings or assisted suicide immoral although I'd guess it's more of a narrow majority. So if a police officer shot someone while they were in the middle of a killing spree inside a pre-school you would say that persons actions were immoral?

david

[rrneck]

22. Yes. I would say

that the killing of anyone is immoral. I would also say that it was necessary. I would add that given the same circumstances I would be the first one to kill the motherfucker. But it wouldn't be right.

In the case of euthanasia it would also be wrong. But the suffering of the afflicted in question would make the need to end that suffering necessary.

Just because you have to do something doesn't make it right.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. Okay just wanted to make sure.

We'll have to disagree. I could more understand an argument for amoral, but to each there own.

David

[rrneck]

25. No problem.

[iverglas]

14. it's a meme

The gun militant brigade has its own language. Their discourse is in code most of the time.

Normal people regard a killing (or any other assault, or any other crime) as either justified or unjustified. Gun militants have to have terminology to suit their purposes. Calling the use of a firearm to kill someone "righteous" suits their purposes. One such purpose is to banalize the possession and carrying and use of firearms. Lionizing the people who do those things helps to further the agenda of eliminating controls on the possession, carrying and use of firearms.

If you browse a few threads here in the Guns forum (oh oh, didn't know where you were? many people don't!), you will see that many of our friends don't actually give a shit whether a firearms homicide is justified or unjustified, in legal terms -- that is, under the concepts that have long governed civilized societies, the big one one being that assault (including homicide) is generally not permitted unless someone believes it is necessary in order to avoid injury or death, and that such assaults must be proportionate to the assault being defended against, and must not be intended to cause death.

To our little friends, it is "righteous" to shoot and kill a scumbag, even if there is no serious reason to believe that serious injury or death would occur otherwise. It cleans the gene pool, it saves the taxpayer money, yada yada.

It is also vigilantism, and if a society permits it, it is contrary to constitutional guarantees like the right not to be deprived of life without due process, but that doesn't actually bother them. In spite of their constant proclamations of their love for the Bill of Rights, all of it.

Strange things to read on a liberal / progressive / d/Democratic forum, but strange things go on in the Guns forum.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. The gun militants and that conservative bastion of hollywood.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. So you would find this woman's actions immoral?

[iverglas]

26. so you think it's acceptable to beat your dog?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. No I don't, now do you find this woman's actions moral, immoral or amoral?

[iverglas]

28. no, you first

Why did you say to me:

So you would find this woman's actions immoral?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. To ask if you found this woman's actions immoral.

[gorfle]

33. Don't expect an answer.

When she is painted into such corners, all you will hear are crickets chirping.

It's a simple, straightfoward question, though.

[iverglas]

38. what I don't expect

is civility in this forum. I am occasionally disappointed in my expectations.

No, So you would find this woman's actions immoral? was not a simple, straightforward question.

It is a question that, if asked in a forum where there is an arbiter, would be ruled out of order -- a question asked for no reason other than to paint the person to whom it is addressed as abhorrent, and with not a shred of evidence for that insinuation.

It needs to be withdrawn from the table, now.

[gorfle]

41. Chirp, Chirp, Chirp?

No, So you would find this woman's actions immoral? was not a simple, straightforward question.

Of course it is a simple, straightforward question.

Do you find this woman's actions, specifically, killing the person who had raped her previously and had just broken in to her home again, immoral?

How more straightforward could it be?

It is a question that, if asked in a forum where there is an arbiter, would be ruled out of order -- a question asked for no reason other than to paint the person to whom it is addressed as abhorrent, and with not a shred of evidence for that insinuation.

Your answer will indeed either paint you as abhorrent or not. This doesn't mean the question is out of order.

It's a very simple question that has a direct bearing on one of the primary threads of discussion in this forum - the morality of deadly self-defense.

So, what color is your paint?

[iverglas]

46. I think you know what your answer is

so I don't need to spell it out.

[gorfle]

49. Of course I do.

I suspect you think the woman's actions were immoral.

But your unwillingness to spell it out makes me suspect you are ashamed of admitting it.

[iverglas]

56. You had every oppotunity to read my answer

-- posted before the post you have replied to, and a good 10 minutes before you composed your reply -- and yet you chose to state a "suspicion" you ought to have known was false.

If you still wish to assert this suspicion, you need to provide grounds for it. Because what you would be doing, in that event, is calling me a liar.

Your decent course of action now is to withdraw the claim you should not have made in the first place.

[gorfle]

67. provide links.

-- posted before the post you have replied to, and a good 10 minutes before you composed your reply -- and yet you chose to state a "suspicion" you ought to have known was false.

If you still wish to assert this suspicion, you need to provide grounds for it. Because what you would be doing, in that event, is calling me a liar.

Your decent course of action now is to withdraw the claim you should not have made in the first place.

Please provide links to the posts that contain your answer.

[iverglas]

68. 45

Titled, obscurely, "and the answer is".

[gorfle]

69. I guess I missed it in all the verbiage.

So what she did was not immoral. It wasn't "amoral", because that makes no sense. (Look the word up.) And it wasn't "moral" because it wasn't an act that fulfilled some duty.

So after a whole lot of waffling verbiage, ultimately what we get from you is that what she did is neither immoral nor moral. I did look up "amoral", and it says:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoral
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.

Since you are saying that what this woman did is neither moral nor immoral, it sounds like you are saying what she did is amoral.

I think it's very telling that to answer a question most people would answer with a simple yes or no, you have to go on for a whole page dissecting the nuances of morality.

Most people would say, "Wow, she blew away the attacker who had already raped her the week before in a previous break-in? Good on her!" Most people would consider it moral simply by the fact that she saved herself, and a good portion of folks would consider it doubly-moral for ridding the world of such a shit of a person. And then we have the choice few who will question the morality of her actions because she might have run away or done something else to avoid killing the scumbag.

Well I guess at least we finally, begrudgingly as it may have been, get it from you that blowing away your assailant is not immoral, at least in this case.

[iverglas]

70. yeah; odd, that

I think it's very telling that to answer a question most people would answer with a simple yes or no, you have to go on for a whole page dissecting the nuances of morality.

The entire world isn't simple-minded.


Most people would say, "Wow, she blew away the attacker who had already raped her the week before in a previous break-in? Good on her!"

Most people in your universe. Thankfully, it isn't mine. And it's really a rather small subset of the real world.


Most people would consider it moral simply by the fact that she saved herself

Yuppers. If I don't eat, I will die. So I'm sure the reaction of most people (in your universe) when I order a pizza would be: "Wow, what a moral thing you just did!"


and a good portion of folks would consider it doubly-moral for ridding the world of such a shit of a person.

Let's call it a bad portion of folks. Folks who disgust me, and disgust everyone in the real universe who believe in rights and the rule of law.


And then we have the choice few who will question the morality of her actions because she might have run away or done something else to avoid killing the scumbag.

If they have good grounds for saying that she could have done that, their questions would well-founded.


Well I guess at least we finally, begrudgingly as it may have been, get it from you that blowing away your assailant is not immoral, at least in this case.

Nope, you got an answer to a finally honest and straightforward question.

How much easier it would have been to ask one of them in the first place, hm?

[gorfle]

71. Not odd at all.

The entire world isn't simple-minded.

I don't think this has anything to do with simple-mindedness. It's simply that you can't, except under the utmost duress and couched in much caveated, fence-sitting verbiage, concede that what this woman did was right.

Most people in your universe. Thankfully, it isn't mine. And it's really a rather small subset of the real world.

Thankfully, I doubt very much this is true.

Yuppers. If I don't eat, I will die. So I'm sure the reaction of most people (in your universe) when I order a pizza would be: "Wow, what a moral thing you just did!"

If your sense of values is such that eating to live is the moral equivalent with killing your attacker who has already raped you once before, all I can say is you have a very fucked up sense of values.

Let's call it a bad portion of folks. Folks who disgust me, and disgust everyone in the real universe who believe in rights and the rule of law.

Let's call it a good portion of folks. Folks who, regardless of law, rejoice in seeing good triumph over evil. People who see a repeat-rapist being blown away by his victim as justice, regardless of rights and the rule of law.

If they have good grounds for saying that she could have done that, their questions would well-founded.

Gee, I'd think you'd rather spend your time congratulating the woman who saved herself and rid the world of a scumbag. I, again, am found asking myself why you don't root for the good guys for once? Why do you again seem more sympathetic towards the perpetrator than the victim? Why is there this sense of resentment towards this woman? Could it be because in your own experience with assault your only option was to flee?

Nope, you got an answer to a finally honest and straightforward question.

Too bad your answer wasn't as straightforward as the question was.

How much easier it would have been to ask one of them in the first place, hm?

It was clearly asked from the beginning.

[iverglas]

72. "could it be"

that you are so disrespectful of other people that you will say the most despicable and dishonest things you can come up with in your desperate attempt to discredit someone whose words you have no other way of disputing?

It could be.

[gorfle]

75. Or could it be...

that you are so disrespectful of other people that you will say the most despicable and dishonest things you can come up with in your desperate attempt to discredit someone whose words you have no other way of disputing?

It could be.

Or could it be that I'm accurately calling a fig a fig?

It could be.

[iverglas]

37. that is not what you asked me

First, you withdraw the nasty insinuation you did make:

So you would find this woman's actions immoral?

and you admit that it was baseless and vile.

I've had enough of this bullshit, and I won't be responding to anything of yours until you stop it.

You can start stopping it by withdrawing that one. Then ask a civil question, and you can expect an answer.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. So do you find this woman's actions immoral, moral or amoral?

I hereby withdraw the question you found offensive.

David

[iverglas]

45. and the answer is:

I have no idea. I don't judge people or their actions on the basis of newspaper reports. I have no idea whether the report is accurate and complete, or she is telling the truth.

If I were to assume that the report was an accurate and complete, and she was telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, my impression would be that what she did was not at all immoral. In her position, I would likely have feared for my life, especially if I knew that the individual was aware I had gone to the police.

That's the bit I'm not getting. He was "about to be charged with assaulting her a week earlier". How in the hell can this be explained?? "About to be charged"? She reported the assault within a few hours. He had a record. Why was he still loose? Police "began investigating the rape". Maybe she had not been able to identify him. I don't know. I find it odd. But I can imagine circumstances in which they took that long to identify / arrest him, I suppose.

He had said "Don't tell anybody. I know where you live".

So the landlord "repaired the window, added security devices to all the doors and, in a gesture that may have saved her life, purchased a shotgun for her". What kind of security device??

The first time this tale was told here, there was talk of breaking windows and such.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=191176&mesg_id=191190
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/9C58494B45470714862574F3006D0CA6?OpenDocument

In the first incident, the woman heard glass breaking in her basement about midnight on Saturday. She went to leave the house, and the man attacked when she opened the front door. ...

The victim reported the crime to police, and her landlord repaired the broken window.

She was home alone again Friday about 2:15 a.m. when Preyer broke the same basement window.

Now, it's "her basement door, leading up to her kitchen, was unlocked", and the basement was where she heard sounds, in the first incident. I could easily put this down to journalistic inaccuracy.

I guess what I'm getting at is: she was assaulted, her life was threatened, she knew the individual had not been arrested; did she know an arrest was imminent?

Had it been me, I would have stayed somewhere else until he was arrested, if I knew that the police had identified him and an arrest was imminent. Obviously, not for the next six months if the investigation was going nowhere or he couldn't be found.

I might also have shot at the door as he was busting it down, rather than waiting for him to come through. I'm sure there's some gunhead reason not to do this, of course.

I don't know how many doors her dwelling had. In the first instance, she went out the "back door", evidently not the same as the basement door. Was there no front door? It took him a while to crash through the basement door; if there was a front door, *I* would have used it. Especially if I was now in possession of a shotgun. The shotgun was a last resort, because it really is not a magical cloaking device. She'd never shot it before, and there was just no guarantee that it would do the trick in the moment it was needed. Avoidance was still the most sensible course to take, if it was available, any issue of morality completely apart.

She was under no obligation to do any of those things, obviously, except avoid killing if it seemed reasonably possible somehow.

But "moral" is relative, and all that. To me, it is more moral to avoid doing harm than to do harm, even if it is not immoral to do the harm.

I can't think of when I've considered something "moral". I think in terms of immoral / not immoral. This comes up in discussions of abortion. ... Bah, I can't find an example. My position is that abortion is not "moral", it is simply neutral. I can think of "immoral" abortions (like coerced abortions). But the choice to have an abortion is simply a choice, no "moral" overtones to it.

I would say the same about the choice to use force in self-defence. It is not immoral, so long as it actually is a matter of self-defence and meets all the proper standards in that regard. It is not "moral". It just is.

It isn't "moral" for me to brush my teeth, or go to work, or eat pizza. I suppose that if someone does something that fulfils some "moral responsibility" -- I feed my cat, or hold the door for a person with a disability -- I might call that a "moral" act.

But absent some duty to be met, and absent any evidence of wrongdoing of some sort, I just don't go around passing judgment on people's actions. Very seriously. And it simply makes no sense to me to call an action that wasn't a fulfilment of some "moral responsibility" a "moral" act. It just doesn't. Quite simply.

So what she did was not immoral. It wasn't "amoral", because that makes no sense. (Look the word up.) And it wasn't "moral" because it wasn't an act that fulfilled some duty.

You asked, and that is your answer. And I imagine it's going to make everybody very happy.

So if I cook dinner tomorrow, would that be moral, amoral or immoral?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. I think that's about what everyone was expecting.

Thanks for the very long attempt at an answer.

David

[iverglas]

55. I thought of one more way to try to help you

But you are going to have to put your thinking cap on and try to understand an analogy.


In the 1970s, it was immoral to buy South African wine.

It was moral not to buy South African wine, at least if some conscious decision were being made to avoid buying South African wine. If the only wine on the list had been South African, and if you really really had a taste for a glass of red wine, and you chose not to have it because it would have meant buying South African wine, that would have been the moral thing to do.

But say you just walked into a liquor store and grabbed a bottle of Niagara red off the shelf and went home and drank it.

You didn't buy South African wine. Buying South African wine would have been an immoral thing to do, and you didn't do it. You did something else instead. So was what you did -- buying Niagara wine -- a/the moral thing to do?

Wouldn't it just sound pretty weird to you to say that? "I did a moral thing. I bought a bottle of Niagara red."

Was buying Niagara wine not just a completely neutral thing to do? (Assuming no other moral considerations, of course.)

Now, let's say you had a forced choice. Someone held a gun to your head and said "buy red wine or I will kill you". Your choices are South African and Niagara. You buy the Niagara; you have made the moral choice. You buy South African, and you have made the immoral choice.


Someone who has threatened your life in the past breaks down your door and the message you understand from this action is "shoot me or I will kill you". Those are the only two choices you perceive as being available to you. You shoot.

You have made a neutral choice. It was not immoral to shoot, and it would not have been immoral not to shoot.

You had no moral duty to shoot. And you had no moral duty not to shoot. Your action was neither moral nor immoral.


So there is the objection to "righteous shoot" in a nutshell -- when the shooting involves self-defence, there is nothing either righteous or sinful about it.

When the shooting involves defence of other people, yes, there can be a moral aspect to it, as we generally believe we have a moral duty to come to the aid of other people in danger. It could be moral/righteous to act, and immoral/sinful not to act.

This does not mean that every action undertaken with the stated aim of protecting other people will be moral, and every failure to act will be immoral. And reasonable people of goodwill can disagree. (The nuclear bombing of Japan might be one example of such disagreement; arguments can be marshalled on both sides that are based on principles that reasonable people of goodwill agree to.)


And it does not mean that the parrot-squawk "righteous shoot" is a useful term to use, because it very obviously is used in situations that do not involve any moral duty. And so when it is used by the same people in situations that arguably do involve a moral duty, it is obviously the gun militant code equivalent of brawwk.

The shooting in the situation at issue in this thread was neither moral nor immoral (assuming a certain set of facts), and neither righteous nor sinful.


So your question -- So do you find this woman's actions immoral or moral? (leaving aside the inapplicable "amoral") -- was a false dichotomy, although not necessarily deliberatel so. The answer is "No, I do not find the woman's actions immoral or moral."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. That sounds an awful lot like amoral to me.

[TPaine7]

60. I think a strong case can be made for the morality of self-defense...

and, for that matter for the immorality of failure to defend oneself.

I make some of the arguments here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196944 .

[iverglas]

61. perhaps you do

And the arguments you marshalled to support what you think simply demonstrate that you don't have a clue.

Jefferson, quoted by you:

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

The rights being discussed in that case clearly are collective rights of THE PEOPLE, and the duty to which he refers is clearly an individual duty TO THE COLLECTIVE, not to the individual's self.

How anybody could miss it, I don't know. Odd that your ancestors understood collective rights, and you don't have a clue. The security of a free state and all that.


That’s a strange concept to modern ears—a “duty to be at all times armed.” Uncivilized. Barbaric. Primitive.

Yup. Because it is.


One of the most elementary rules of right conduct is to choose the best option. If there are two equally effective ways to save the patient’s life, but one gives him a 95% chance of walking again and the other gives him a 42% chance the emergency room surgeon has a duty to choose the better option.
This rule is easy for most to see when defense of others is involved.

Yup. I was just making that point myself. That there are situations in which there is a "moral" choice and an "immoral" choice.

And this is not the case for self-defence, because it is neither moral nor immoral to protect one's own self from injury or death.


A father kills a home invader who is pointing a gun at his daughter. He makes the best available choice. Not the best choice available in an imaginary perfect world, mind you, just the best choice available in the world he inhabits.

What gives him the right to choose his daughter over the criminal? How can he stand as judge over the value of human life? Is he playing God?

I maintain that the innocent child’s life is worth more than the criminal’s. From a strictly utilitarian view, society is better off populated with innocents than with predators. This is society’s judgment. It’s why we have prisons.

Nope. Bullshit. The value of anyone's life simply does not come into it. You're making shit up, and you know it.

We have a consensus that it is acceptable to use force to protect someone else at risk of serious injury or death from an assault by a third party. Not because the third party's life is not valuable -- it is entirely possible to protect someone from an assault without killing anyone at all. In fact, obviously most instances where people act to protect themselves or a third party result in no deaths at all.

We have a consensus that there is justification for using force in this situation because we cannot compel anyone to submit to injury or death from an assault by another person.

If our laws prohibited self-defence, we would be compelling people to submit to death or injury, on pain of punishment (the way we compel anyone to do anything, by law). That would be contrary to our notions of rights, as entrenched in constitutions. It would violate the right not to be deprived of life without due process (or contrary to the rules of fundamental justice, as it is expressed in the Constitution of Canada).

That is the justification. NOT that one life is worth more than another. That it is impermissible to compel someone to submit to injury or death. That we will not punish people who use force to protect themselves. Period. That is all the "right of self-defence" is. A right not to be punished for using force to protect one's self.

We often extend that to third parties. This can be a greyer area, because someone's perception/belief as to who is the aggressor and who is the victim can be wrong.

What I don't understand is why this perfectly straightforward explanation of the self-defence justification -- that to preclude it would violate the right not to be deprived of life without due process because it would compel individuals to submit to injury or death on pain of punishment for using force to protect themselves -- isn't enough for you. It's correct, it's clear, it is in no way objectionable. What's the problem?


If I were to invade another man’s home, point a weapon at his daughter and die as a result it would not be because he had condemned me. It would not be because his daughter had condemned me. No, I would have condemned myself.

Nope. Utter and complete bullshit.

It would be regarded as justified, and the individual would not be liable to punishment, because we may not compel people to submit to injury or death at the hands of another person, and because we extend that exception to people who act to protect third parties in certain circumstances.


I think most people will agree so far, but here comes the interesting part. Let’s say that dad has left his little girl at home, safe with mom. He is threatened on the street, and either he or the criminal will likely die. If it is in his power to choose, it appears that he has several clear moral reasons to choose to live himself (over and beyond his clear instinct for self-preservation):

1) It is better that his little daughter’s daddy live to support her and to raise her with love than that a predator live to attack other innocents.
2) It is better that his wife’s husband live to love and share her life than that a predator live to attack other innocents.
3) In any dispute between guilty and innocent, the innocent should prevail. This is why we have courts.
4) Society is better off populated with innocents than with predators. This is why we have prisons.
5) There is nothing arbitrary about concluding that he should prevail, if necessary by force, even deadly force. The choice was not made by the victim but by the perpetrator.

Indeed, there can occasionally be a moral element to such choices. In the abortion analogy I raised, it would very arguably be more moral for a woman to terminate a pregnancy where continuing it presented a risk to her life, if she had young children who needed her financial and emotional support and would be harmed if she died.

That covers No. 1.

No. 2 is silly. Hell, maybe he's an abusive parent/spouse and they'd all be better off without him. Is it then the moral choice for him to raise his hands and the mugger to kill him?

No. 3 is a rather bizarre restatement of the principle that people may not be compelled to submit to injury or death at the hands of another person. The "innocent" may not be punished for protecting themselves. Again, there is simply nothing moral about the choice to protect one's self, barring considerations such as No. 1.

No. 4 is vigilantism. Pure and simple. Not you nor anyone else is permitted to make and act on decisions about how "society" is better off when those decisions involve harm to other people. You have simply stated the very foundation of vigilantism: individuals/groups making and acting on decisions that are not theirs to act on.

No. 5 is, again, pure bullshit. The choice to use force in self-defence is made by the person who makes it. If that choice is not immoral, why can't those people, and you who are chooseing to speak on their behalf, just OWN the damned thing?


There ya go. Your undergraduate treatise got the attention it didn't get first time around. Happy?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. and I thought of a way to try and help you.

Righteous in this sense means morally justifiable. I believe that most people would agree that the taking of someone else's life involves some moral aspect. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to wonder if in cases where a life is taken if the actions of the person that took that life were morally justifiable or righteous.

David

[tburnsten]

78. The word for your thought is "amoral"

"You have made a neutral choice. It was not immoral to shoot, and it would not have been immoral not to shoot.

You had no moral duty to shoot. And you had no moral duty not to shoot. Your action was neither moral nor immoral."




It is what you have described to a tee.

[iverglas]

80. so we shall disagree

I am in agreement with the description in this wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorality

Amorality is the absence of the concept of morality. For example, a rock which falls on a person is amoral. While this may be bad for the person, the rock cannot be said to have acted either rightly or wrongly, as the rock is not an entity to which such concepts can meaningfully apply.

THE ROCK is amoral. Not: the falling of the rock on the head is amoral.

More generally, amorality is the belief that moral right and wrong do not exist, or are meaningless. Amorality is distinct from immorality, although in common use the terms are often conflated. An amoral person denies the existence of morality, whereas an immoral person believes in the existence of morality but chooses not to comply with it. An immoral person who violates a certain moral code may still believe in the underlying truth of that moral code. For example, a thief may not deny that stealing is immoral, but may attempt to deflect the blame or offer excuses in order to justify their actions.

The PERSON is amoral. Not: the person's actions are amoral.

I would consider it confusing and possibly misleading to refer to the act of using force in self-defence as "amoral". And so would anyone who is familiar with the usage of the word.



formatting fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. It's perfectly in line with the definition in several dictionaries.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Amoral-being neither moral or immoral. How exactly does that not make sense?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. Amoral-being neither moral or immoral. How exactly does that not make sense?

[iverglas]

54. amoral

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/amoral


amoral

a·mor·al (-môrl, -mr-)
adj.
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
a·moral·ism n.
amo·rali·ty (mô-rl-t, -m-) n.
a·moral·ly adv.

amoral
Adjective
without moral standards or principles
amorality n
USAGE: Amoral is often wrongly used where immoral is meant. Immoral should be used to talk about the breaking of moral rules, amoral about people who have no moral code or about places or situations where moral considerations do not apply.



A person is amoral. And act is not amoral.

The situation in question here might be described as "amoral", if no moral considerations apply -- except moral considerations do apply, if there are choices that are more moral or less moral, as there arguably almost always are.

Actions are not ordinarily or correctly referred to as "amoral".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. amoral

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amoral

amor·al
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)ā-ˈmȯr-əl, (ˌ)a-, -ˈmär-\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1779
1 a: being neither moral nor immoral ; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral — W. S. Thompson> b: lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2: being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>


You'll notice the second definition talks about amoral customs. I see no reason why actions would be excluded using this definition.

David

[gorfle]

73. Might as well give up, Dave.

Dave, Iverglas is going to waffle every which way she can to avoid having to come out and say that she things this woman was wrong in what she did. It's quite obvious that she holds nothing but doubt in the woman's story and contempt for her purported actions. But she can't come out and say she acted immorally in blowing away the rapist as obviously this will blatantly betray her position that she is effectively siding with the criminal.

So instead she's going to engage in endless debate over the meaning of "moral" and "immoral".

If you instead asked her if she thought this woman's actions were "good" or "bad" she would likewise engage in a lengthy diatribe on the meaning of "good" and "bad".

[iverglas]

74. what's the point here?

Dave wants me to describe the action as "amoral".

I am of the view that "amoral" is most widely understood to refer to a person who acts without consideration for moral standards.

I think that using the word "amoral" to describe an action lends itself unnecessarily to confusion.

I have stated that the action is neither moral nor immoral (assuming a certain set of circumstances).

Dave wants to call that "amoral". I don't. I want to spell out that it is neither moral nor immoral, which is the meaning Dave ascribes to "amoral".

But hairy fucking deal.

If I call this colour



"purplish pink" and you call it "fuschia", will you consider this to be the meat of some meaningful discussion?

I sure won't.

[gorfle]

76. Naw...

"purplish pink" and you call it "fuschia", will you consider this to be the meat of some meaningful discussion?

Naw, the real meat here is that this woman did a good thing, and you'll wrangle every word you can to keep from admitting it without condemning it.

And that, I'm sure, is something we will all here agree on, whether you admit it or not.

[iverglas]

77. so you won't admit you beat your dog?

Nice.

[gorfle]

79. No, only dead horses.

Naw, the real meat here is that this woman did a good thing, and you'll wrangle every word you can to keep from admitting it without condemning it.

[TPaine7]

53. "I don't judge people or their actions on the basis of newspaper reports."

I have no idea. I don't judge people or their actions on the basis of newspaper reports. I have no idea whether the report is accurate and complete, or she is telling the truth.

6. looks like a cowardly asshole to me


If I observed someone beating someone about the head with a bottle, I'm pretty sure I'd grab the nearest object and smack him/her, or simply grab something and pull, without even thinking twice.

Taking the time to go out to a vehicle and get a gun ... the victim could have been dead by then, while the big brave rescuer was busy getting his fetish object, and making sure he didn't break a fingernail.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196259#196288

[beevul]

65. Ouch. Thats gonna leave a mark. N/T

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

82. funny how you missed those two little words

"looks like"

Not to mention that whole hyperbole thing.

But you all continue your dancing now.

[FLAprogressive]

83. haha wow....we're getting technical here aren't we.

It "looks like" you're a hypocrite.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. My apologies then Ivy, I certainly wasn't trying to offend you.

I can't say as I understand those who find her actions immoral. They obviously have a different moral base than I do. I can understand people who find it amoral. I am curious as to where you stand on this issue.

David

[TPaine7]

30. Fascinating

The language policewoman is out in full dress uniform.

Goosestepping.

The gun militant brigade has its own language. Their discourse is in code most of the time.

Code. Code, you call it. Code is

2. a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings.

Source: dictionary.com

In other words' there is no connection between the ordinary use of a selected word (in this case "righteous") and its common usage--its dictionary definition. Right?

Of course that would be true outside of the gun control reality distortion field. But in iverglas' reality, that isn't necessarily so. It isn't so in this case. For authority I will cite... iverglas.*

A killing is a killing. It may be justified, but I would be hard pressed to find a killing I would describe as "righteous". Nauseating demagoguery and abuse of language is what I would describe that as.

And yes, one dictionary definition of "righteous" is "morally justified". If that were the impression that the use of the word were intended to convey, I can't think of why someone would not simply say "justified".

Source:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196259#196501

Now iverglas, you like to--in your official police capacity--berate people for mixing up "its" and "it's." You scold and belittle them over minor grammatical flaws in their writing. You mock them when they misuse words. But when people get the grammar right, and the spelling, and the meaning it seems they deserve a break.

But no. Then you become a style critic. "One meaning of righteous is 'morally justified'" you admit, so the word use is permissible--per the dictionary. But the officer on duty finds the word use to be "nauseating demagoguery" and arrests the citizen...

...for "compliance with the law not in harmony with the duty officer's taste"!

Wow.

But there's more.

Admittedly the poor citizen is guilty as charged. And of course, justice will be swift and sure. But even as you were handcuffing the suspect for not jaywalking, you were purchasing cocaine on your cell phone, weren't you? Remember the misuse of the word "code"? That's a real crime. It's on the books.

And don't think we forgot that hit you pulled last week. In cold blood. For cash and drugs.

A robber pointed a gun at a customer and her baby. A citizen shot the robber, killing him. You called it "murder and mayhem":

Gotta love the armchair cheerleaders for murder and mayhem, though.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x194772#194774

A cold-blooded contract killing as language crimes go. But when confronted with the body and the widow you misrepresented the facts, claiming that "murder and mayhem" was an "idiom" (Post 7). Of course that was false as shown in post 14. It didn't matter to the "officer of the language."

I don't know why anyone is impressed with anything you say. You make the sound and fury of an educated person. You know some grammar, you can quote the classics, and you can intimidate some folks who don't excel at language or aren't used to dealing with professional sophists. But poke the facade and there's usually no real structure. There's lots of emotion. Lots of the trappings of learning. Lots of profanity. Lots of sound. And most definitely lots of fury. But actual intellectual substance? Not so much.




*I know this is dubious, and may even open me up to charges of my own hypocrisy. I cite her because: 1) she happens to be right in this case and, 2) I think that even under the reality distortion field it will be hard for her to refute herself.

[iverglas]

40. doncha love dictionaries?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meme

meme (mm)
n.
A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parrot

par·rot (prt)
n.
1. Any of numerous tropical and semitropical birds of the order Psittaciformes, characterized by a short hooked bill, brightly colored plumage, and, in some species, the ability to mimic human speech or other sounds.
2. One who imitates the words or actions of another, especially without understanding them.
tr.v. par·rot·ed, par·rot·ing, par·rots
To repeat or imitate, especially without understanding.


A robber pointed a gun at a customer and her baby. A citizen shot the robber, killing him. You called it "murder and mayhem":

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie

lie 1 (l)
intr.v. lay (l), lain (ln), ly·ing (lng), lies
1. To be or place oneself at rest in a flat, horizontal, or recumbent position; recline: He lay under a tree to sleep.
2. To be placed on or supported by a surface that is usually horizontal: Dirty dishes lay on the table. See Usage Note at lay1.
3. To be or remain in a specified condition: The dust has lain undisturbed for years. He lay sick in bed.
4.
a. To exist; reside: Our sympathies lie with the plaintiff.
b. To consist or have as a basis. Often used with in: The strength of his performance lies in his training.
5. To occupy a position or place: The lake lies beyond this hill.
6. To extend: Our land lies between these trees and the river.
7. To be buried in a specified place.
8. Law To be admissible or maintainable.
9. Archaic To stay for a night or short while.
n.
1. The manner or position in which something is situated.
2. A haunt or hiding place of an animal.
3. Sports The position of a golf ball that has come to a stop.
Phrasal Verbs:
lie down
To do little or nothing: He's lying down on the job.
lie in
To be in confinement for childbirth.
lie to Nautical
To remain stationary while facing the wind.
lie with
1. To be decided by, dependent on, or up to: The choice lies with you.
2. Archaic To have sexual intercourse with.
Idiom:
lie/lay low
1. To keep oneself or one's plans hidden.
2. To bide one's time but remain ready for action.

lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing (lng), lies
v.intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
v.tr.
To cause to be in a specific condition or affect in a specific way by telling falsehoods: You have lied yourself into trouble.
Idiom:
lie through one's teeth
To lie outrageously or brazenly.

Synonyms: lie2, equivocate, fib, palter, prevaricate
These verbs mean to evade or depart from the truth: a witness who lied under oath; didn't equivocate about her real purpose; fibbed to escape being scolded; paltering with an irate customer; didn't prevaricate but answered honestly.
lie 1
Verb

1. to speak untruthfully with the intention of deceiving
2. to convey a false impression: the camera cannot lie
Noun
1. an untrue statement deliberately used to mislead
2. something that is deliberately intended to deceive
3. give the lie to
a. to disprove
b. to accuse of lying
USAGE: See at lay1.
lie 2
Verb

1. (often foll. by down)to place oneself or be in a horizontal position
2. to be situated: I left the money lying on the table, Nepal became the only country lying between China and India
3. to be and remain (in a particular state or condition): others of their species lie asleep
4. to stretch or extend: an enormous task lies ahead
5. (usually foll. by in)to exist or comprise: her charm lies in her inner beauty
6. (foll. by with)to rest (with): the fault lies with them
Noun
1. the manner, place, or style in which something is situated
2. an animal's lair
3. lie of the land the way in which a situation is developing
See also lie down, lie in

[57_TomCat]

35. I beg to differ on a few points.

vigilantism is NOT the result of a private citizen defending their life and/or limb or that of another.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante

vigilante

Main Entry: vig·i·lan·te
Pronunciation: \ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date: 1856
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
— vig·i·lan·tism \-ˈlan-ˌti-zəm\ noun

To use a weapon to inflict harm or death on another for the purpose of defense is a morally and legally justified action with no hint of vigilantism. That vigilantes might attempt to cover their illegal acts by claiming self defense or defense of others is despicable.


I might mention however that I am a member of two vigilance committees. One is the local neighborhood watch program. The other is as a gun toting member of the Weewahootee Vigilance Committee. A band of "Cowboy Action Shooting" guys and gals in Central FL. Our annual big bash "The Last Stand" is going on this weekend! :D

http://www.laststand.org/

The use of the word "righteous shooting" by me in the original topic I posted was simply a semantic choice for justified. I felt it better described what the local legal gun owning/using public was doing in the area. My use of "Righteous" in the scheme of legal gun carry has NOTHING to do with Killing.

First off as a LE Firearms instructor I train and teach others to only use firearms as a last resort and to shoot to STOP illegal aggression of others. The official standards of the agency I work for has our officers firing three shots before assessing the effect of the firearms discharge. Most of the competitions I engage in as well as other official training I have taken use two shots as the minimum to engage a target with. These two or three shots are the rule not the exception. I might add that more often than not the bad guy survives. Historically about 25% of people hit by handgun fire die. The other 75% live on. Many of those hit do however suffer from minimal to great disability from being shot.

I have never killed anyone in my career as a cop and gun toting citizen but I have used my handgun to stop several people from continuing their aggression.

I will stipulate some people, both LE and non LE believe that "shoot to kill" is a legitimate term for deadly force but in this day and age it is not. We in LE and those not in LE but granted the authority to pack heat (code word for "firearm") must accept the fact that killing is not and never will be the goal of the use of deadly force. Even so every time deadly force is used it must acknowledged that the chance of death exists (it IS deadly force.)and therefor NOT to be used unless necessary and "righteous". (or "justified" for those offended by the term righteous)

[iverglas]

47. go differ with your invisible straw friend

vigilantism is NOT the result of a private citizen defending their life and/or limb or that of another.

Nobody said it was.

Buy the straw fella a drink on me.

[beevul]

66. The irony is strong with this one.

"Gun militants have to have terminology to suit their purposes."

ROFL.

[gorfle]

32. I'm the one who said it.

I'm the one who described a shooting as "righteous", and I'm not religious either.

What I mean by a righteous shooting is when an obviously dangerous person is shot dead while in the act of committing criminal violence. When a violent thug like the criminal in the above story, who has already committed one rape and beating returns to try his hand again and is killed in the process, this is a good thing. Society is improved by the permanent removal of such violent scum. Such killings go beyond being merely "justified". This is what I mean when I say "righteous".

[iverglas]

48. 'This is what I mean when I say "righteous". '

And your post is what I mean when I say what I've said.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I don't what is righteous and what is not righteous, but better him than her.

If someone like that broke into my house, and I had a shotgun, I would shoot the guy.

Seems like a shame to waste all of that meat though...

[RC]

12. Maybe not. That meat might be full of drugs. And who knows what kind.

[katandmoon]

9. I have no problem with blowing a rapist's head off. Unfortunately that is not the norm with guns in

Homes. Much more often guns in the home are used by intruders against homeowners, are stolen from homeowners and used in other crimes, or used by the homeowner or his/her family member(s) to shoot another resident of the home, either deliberately or accidentally.

The typical gun worshipper's fantasy that owning a gun translates into magical self-righteous (guns are given religious significance being that they are worshipped by those with this mindset) protection is just that, a fantasy. Much more often having a gun in the house translates into a tragedy for the gunowner.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. Do you have any stats to back that up?

[TPaine7]

13. Thanks for your thought-provoking and informative contribution

"Much more often guns in the home are used by intruders against homeowners, are stolen from homeowners and used in other crimes, or used by the homeowner or his/her family member(s) to shoot another resident of the home, either deliberately or accidentally."

Would you cite your sources, please, so we can share your level of confidence in your statistical data?

"...guns are given religious significance being that they are worshipped by those with this mindset..."

Can you give me the address of one of the churches? Or the web site of the denomination? I would like to watch people worshiping guns, and take photos for skeptics to view.

Btw, what is magical self-righteousness, and how does it differ from the garden variety type?

Thanks again for your calm and deliberate wisdom.

[happyslug]

29. The Department of Justice points out that stat.

The problem is the Department of Justice is comparing apples an oranges, in 1993 62,000 people defended themselves with their guns, but 340,000 guns were stolen (and presumingly used in crime, including the crime of selling the gun without a license). Thus you are NOT comparing violent vs Violent crime or even even non-violent with non-violent crime, but the number of crimes of violence stop by a gun against against the total number of guns stolen (Even if no violence occurred, which is most of the time in such robberies). Given these 1993 figures, one out of every six and half guns involved in a crime (including those stolen AND used to stop a crime) was used to stop a crime.

In 1993 62,000 people defended themselves with their weapons, but 340,000 guns were stolen.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr

Remember figures don't lie but liars figure. Given the above, the gun in your home has a greater chance of being stolen (340,000 in 1993) then being used to defend yourself (62,000 in 1993). Since theft is a CRIME, you have a five time greater chance of your gun being involved in a crime i.e. theft) then using that gun to defend yourself. If you add in domestic violence cases, these number are even worse. The number of people who defend themselves against someone else in their household get added to the stats cited by the writer, while the total number of incidents go up (i.e. you have to add in the number of people who are harmed by a gun by a family member which is about

Also in 1993, 70% of all murders were done with firearms (70% of about 24,000 or about 17,000). Over a million crimes in 1993 were done with firearms (this includes murders, rape, robberies etc). There are over 2 million stolen hand guns unaccounted for (4.4 million total guns, 60 % of them handguns).
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/guic.pr

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fidc9397.pdf

My point is simple, if you want to see the number you have to look them up, but like any statistic be careful. The statistic may be accurate but all it is measuring is what the stat states, the result may be misleading, for example comparing theft of guns with use of guns. A gun is six times more likely to be stolen then used to defend oneself and that will affect any statistic comparing use to defend with guns used in crime.

[gorfle]

34. Thank you for this data.

This really drives home the importance of secure firearm storage.

It is a sobering statistic that your firearms are more likely to be stolen than to be used in self defense.

[happyslug]

36. The real important stat is that Pistols are the problem NOT Rifles or Shotguns

Less then 5% of all crimes involved Rifles or Shotguns, Knives AND Clubs both beat out Rifles and Shotguns (This is a development of the 1990s, before the 1990s the FBI statistics clearly show knives and clubs falling below Shotguns and Rifles, but Shotguns OR Rifles beat out Knives OR clubs. Since the early 1990s this has changed, the number of people killed by Rifles and Shotguns have continued to drop (They have been dropping like ALL murder rates since the 1960s) more then murders done by Knives and Clubs so since the early 1990s the number of people killed by Knives or clubs is greater then the number of people killed by Rifles AND Shotguns. Just a change in the FBI stat over the last 30 years.

Murder by state and type of Weapon 2007:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

General Stat in the US by the FBI:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html

1995 Statistics:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf

which shows 68% of all murders were done by "Firearms" but the vast majority was done with pistols, 11,497 out of 12,373 done with pistols (or almost 80%).
.............................1991.....1992....1993.... 1995....1996
Total Firearms........14,373..15,489..16,136...15,463...13,673
Handguns..............11,497..12,580..13,212...12,775...11,198
Rifles........................745......706......757........724.......637
Shotguns................1,124....1,111....1,057.......953.......917
Other guns..................30........42........37.........19.........29
Firearms–not stated....977...1,050...1,073........992........892
Knives or cutting
instruments............3,430...3,296...2,967....,,2,802...,.2,538
Blunt objects (clubs,
hammers, etc.)........1,099...1,040...1,022........912.......904
Personal weapons (hands,
fists, feet, etc.).......1,202...1,131..1,151.......1,165.....1,182
Poison........................12.......13..........9..........10.........12
Explosives...................16.......19........23..........10.......190
Fire..........................195......203......217.........196.......166
Narcotics....................22.......24........22..........22.........22
Drowning....................40.......29........23..........25.........29
Strangulation............327......314......331.........287........232
Asphyxiation.............113......115......111.........113........135
Other weapons or
weapons not stated..1847..1,043..1,168........1,079........960

And you can see the tail end of the switch, in 1991 1169 murders where done by Rifles AND Shotguns, while 4,529 murders were done by Knives and blunt instruments (i.e. clubs). My point is the problem is NOT firearms, but pistols, for if these number continue after 1996 (And there have) personal instruments, feet, fists etc will exceed the number of people killed by Shotguns (they already in 1996 exceeded the numbers killed by rifles).

[gorfle]

42. This does not surprise me.

Handguns are both portable and concealable and thus most suitable for crime. Of course, this also makes them most suitable for defense when on-the-go.

[57_TomCat]

44. I must admit that...

I find it a lot easier to carry my pistol for defense when out and about. If I pack the rifle it keeps falling off the shoulder making a clatter and scaring the pigeons. :)

[krispos42]

62. The Kleck study determined that guns were used in self-defense

about 1.2 million times a year, probably a bit more. This was ten years ago; things are a bit quieter now.

I believe that most defensive gun uses are not reported to the police, while most armed robberies are,

[iverglas]

63. you're not going to give it up, are you?

The Kleck study is total bullshit, and you are perfectly aware of it.

But don't let that stop you from citing it as if it weren't.

[krispos42]

64. Nope n/t