Being pushed is a deadly threat for Idaho gun carrier - shoots 2

[RealityInSeattle]

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2009/dec/28/shooting-suspect-claims-self-defense/

Most likely drunk, since he was in a bar all night before the incident, and carrying his gun with him.

Charged with 2nd degree murder, and being sued by the victims.

Luckily, several *unarmed* bystanders tackled him to the ground and subdued him before he could shoot anyone else.

[Katya Mullethov]

1. This just in

Generalissimo Francisco Franco ......................is still dead .

[east texas lib]

2. WHAT?!!

Damn! Thanks for the intel. This changes everything!

[mike_c]

3. this story epitomizes my objections to guns and my support for strict gun control....

I firmly believe that MOST personal confrontations in a gunless world would be settled by less fatal means. A black eye, or a bloody nose. Some bruises, and some ego damage. This case epitomizes that. Couple of guys get into a pissing match in a bar after a few drinks. Without weapons, they either grumble and walk away or repair to the parking lot to wail at one another until they tire of taking punishment. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, that sort of scenario ends with someone either avoiding a fight or waking up in the morning feeling sore and stupid. But waking up nonetheless.

People have this idea that "self defense" gives them the right to kill someone to avoid some bruises or a busted nose-- or in many cases, to avoid simple ego damage. There are few confrontations that can't be solved by running away, or at worst, taking a few punches. NO ONE HAS TO DIE TO PROTECT OUR EGOS.

Still, I read frequent comments-- here and elsewhere-- that justify killing to avoid simple assault. No one's ego, no one's petty property, and no one's pride is EVER worth a life. Ever. Period.

[TheWraith]

4. What you describe has nothing to do with guns.

"I firmly believe that MOST personal confrontations in a gunless world would be settled by less fatal means."

"Less fatal," yes. Ask England, where the preferred weapons are now knives, which they're ALSO trying to ban, including kitchen knives. And glasses made of glass. There is ALWAYS going to be a weapon on hand, even if that's as simple as grabbing a chair. Trying to create a nanny state situation where everyone is FORCED to behave the way you want rapidly slides downhill into fascism. Again, look at England, where they're sacrificing bigger and bigger chunks of their privacy with every passing year, and yet you can't be safe from being mugged while you walk down the street.

If you take isolated cases of someone behaving badly as an excuse to say "X is bad and needs to be banned," then pretty soon everything that isn't mandatory is forbidden. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck abuse their right to free speech--does that prove free speech is bad? If not, then why do you assume based on a handful of anecdotes that the same is true of anything else, including the right to self defense? Banning something because it MIGHT be abused leads you not just to banning guns, but also free speech, freedom of religion, free association, and everything else right down to kitchen knives and peanut butter.

"Still, I read frequent comments-- here and elsewhere-- that justify killing to avoid simple assault."

No, you've read comments here that justify killing to stop a violent assault with unknown intent. You don't have the opportunity to stop and ask someone who's robbing you whether they've got a knife, or whether they plan to rape you, or if they might be desperate or panicked enough to kill you to avoid you identifying them.

You might want to read the research of an FSU academic named Gary Kleck, who's generally regarded as the foremost statistician on the subject of the defensive use of guns in the US. He's said in the past that his research has led him to be strongly supportive of people's right to bear arms. He's also a Democrat and a card-carrying ACLU member, by the way.

[skepticscott]

5. Your post begs the question

of how much physical punishment someone should be required to endure from someone else before they are allowed to respond with enough force to stop the attack for good? Should anyone be required to take it on faith that the person beating on them will stop at just a black eye or a bloody nose? Should they have to wait until they're on the ground being kicked hard enough to break ribs and fracture skulls before they're allowed to get their gun out and protect themselves (assuming they still can)?

[jefflrrp]

6. the problem with your assumptions . . .

is that pretty much none of the RKBA posters on this board have ever advocated that sort of thing. So, in effect, your post is full of shit.

If Im not home, or my family is not home, and a bad guy/gal invades my petty property, then I guess that sucks for me.

If I am home, if there are cars parked in the driveway and if my family is home, and someone invades our property, I am not going to make an assumption that all the burglars want is money/valuables/jewelry/a stereo. Im going to assume that they are there to harm me and mine, and therefore I am going to do my bestest to inhibit that sort of behavior, generally with 000 buckshot. The minute a person invades another person's home, they invalidate their own right to live by the attempted taking of another's personal property or sometimes (as we've seen) the victims' lives.

I have no problem engaging someone over the invasion of my home. None. I will issue a verbal warning, then a warning shot, and then I will shoot to stop the threat. I do not know whether or not the person invading my home is there for valuables, or to harm myself and my family. Quite frankly, Im not willing to take that chance. Are you?

I pray to God that I never ever have to do such a thing, but I will do so nonetheless. And sleep soundly afterwards.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. 'wailing on each other until one tires' often results in someone going to Harborview or the morgue

Fists and feet can be used to kill, just as well as a firearm.

[mike_c]

10. sure they can-- so can rocks, sticks, and dirt....

Simple gravity can be used to kill. All that is utterly beside the point. The vast majority of violent confrontations are not deadly confrontations by their very nature. Most do NOT result in "someone going to Harborview or the morgue." They just don't. I know I won't convince many in this forum-- frankly, I think anyone who needs to kill to protect themselves from run-of-the-mill human crime, including violent assault, is either a coward or needs to learn better anger management. Or both.

Here's a comment I just found on another forum (link: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091120/NEWS01/711209901&news01ad=1 ). I presume this commenter is a gun owner-- the context from the original story makes that a reasonable assumption.

The constitution gives us the right to defend life & property. Jury's back that up!

I'm sorry, but ANYONE who commits a violent act deserves to be shot, stabbed, tasered, whatever, in order to stop that act.

Police do it all the time. Why can't we?

That is the sound of raw cowardice. That person is using the notion of justice to cover his or her sheer terror of "violent acts." Most violence is simple confrontation that escalates beyond simple argument. Adults learn how to avoid it, or how to deal with it if they must. Only the fearful need to "protect" themselves from the negative consequences of life in human society.

on edit-- BTW, the context for the excerpt above is pretty instructive-- the story is about a homeowner and CCW permit holder who stalked and killed a man who had previously burglarized his house. Since the burglary was over and the gun owner was not threatened in the least, he killed the alleged burglar to punish him, i.e. to restore his own sense of dignity. To avoid embarrassment. To assuage his ego, exactly as I referenced in my original response to this thread's OP.

[PavePusher]

17. "The vast majority of violent confrontations are not deadly confrontations by their very nature."

I'm so glad you're going to be around to let us know when we'll be in danger of dying, and tell us when we may defend ourselves.


What's that...? You're not going to be there? And you don't have the powers of clairvoyance or precognition?

So I'll just have to take my chances with the good will of a criminal? Sort of like a very bloody lottery?



I don't think so, pilgrim.

Most of the times I tell someone to go self-fornicate, my post gets deleted, so I won't do that.


Can you read my mind, idjit?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. You're trusting that an attacker at a bar, who is already violating social norms

and the law, will stop at simple assault. I carry. I assure you, I will not wait until I am broken and bleeding on the ground before I respond to a physical attack (not just a shove, an ATTACK) before I respond with adequate force to make the threat go away. You can't know before hand, when an attack will stop, or how far the attacker is willing to go.

Some people fail to properly gauge their response. Some people drink around firearms, and other things they have no business drinking around.

None of that is any reflection upon me, or my ability to control both my emotions (which could otherwise lead to hasty and improper use of force in self-defense) and my state of mind (I do not drink in public).


I'll be the first to agree, drinking and guns do not mix. That's not all that goes on in bars though, so I expect people with CPL's and a firearm to behave responsibly in bars. (the person in the OP quite possibly did not)

[PavePusher]

11. So, I should have to endure a beating, even if I am an innocent victim...

just to possibly save a criminals life?

I don't think so, pilgrim.

You are FAIL.

[mike_c]

12. you're consumed with fear, aren't you...?

What are you afraid of? Pain? Embarrassment? Loss of respect? Losing property?

What are you so afraid of that you would kill to avoid it in civil life?

I suspect that you'll answer by saying that any violent confrontation or petty crime holds the potential to take your life, but damn, just breathing is more hazardous than the threat of violence is. Death is guaranteed-- why spend your life in fear of it?

Your comments sound EXACTLY like the excerpt I cited in reply #10. I call that cowardice.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. Why are you afraid of me carrying a gun?

You seem to be consumed by that fear. The FBI has investigated my backgound and given me their approval. I am a certified good guy. It is extremely rare for a CCW holder to commit evil.

In my real life world, violent crime exists. I do not intend to be a victim. If someone attacks me, then it will be unprovoked and I will defend my life. I don't go around getting into arguments with people. I avoid trouble, but I realize that trouble may come to me.

If you want to sacrifice your life so that a violent felon may live, that's your business. I choose otherwise.

[PavePusher]

16. Again, why must I risk temporary or permenent injury, or death...

to empower a criminal?


Please answer the question.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. The record does not support your argument.

The fact is that CCW holders have a record that is many times better than the general populace. We have had classes in conflict resolution and conflict deescalation. We have records of staying out of trouble that are far better than the general population.

You are confusing LEGAL concealed carry with ILLEGAL concealed carry. They are two different sets of people.

Simply because one is a gun owner (AL & VT excepted) one is not able to carry the gun around. That is a violation of the law, and if caught the person can be punished.

Self-defense does give me the right to use deadly force to avoid assault. I don't know that the other guy is going to stop with a single punch. I do know that I have not started the fight, and that I have tried to avoid it. Are you aware that people are murdered by being beaten by fists, and kicked? I happen to have a nylon patch sewn into my intestinal wall. A punch in that spot will put me in the hospital in serious condition. You expect me to just absorb punches. Real life isn't like an action movie where the hero is OK after a beating. I am a senior citizen, and a beating could kill me. No thanks. If some guy starts attacking me, I will defend myself by shooting him.

And you completely ignore the possibility of attack by a violent felon, commonly called a mugger. Do you really think that a mugger can be negotiated with?

[katandmoon]

7. Congrats, NRA, you've wracked up another murder.

[rd_kent]

8. The NRA committed this crime? I didn't see that in the story.....

[JonQ]

19. The NRA causes gun crimes

in the same way the ACLU causes hate speech.

[Callisto32]

25. Like your avatar?

[virginia mountainman]

27. WOW, Katandmoon ...

Absolutely no sexual reference?!?!

I am proud of you!

[rrneck]

15. Not this shit again...

This has been kicked around enough: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=277780&mesg_id=277780

Maybe we can merge this thread with the other two that got thrown together.

Try actually reading in the forum where you post.

[Tim01]

18. Wow. An actual case. These are unbelievably rare.

This is the first case I have seen where somebody legally carrying a gun has hurt somebody in a bad shoot.
Tons and tons of self defense uses all the time.
We already know this is less likely than cops getting busted for crimes. Way way less likely than an average citizen hurting somebody. And a lot less likely than being struck by lightning.
I was starting to think it was a myth.


I've carried my gun about 5,000 days with no trouble.That's about 40,000 hours. And I know about 30 people in the same situation, 150,000 days with no problem. 1,200,000 hours. And I also know about 6 unarmed victims of robbery or attempted rape. Some did ok, some didn't. And maybe 6 people who used a gun to stop a crime.

First time I've even heard of a bad shoot.

[MichaelHarris]

21. I think

if you look through the first Gungion page alone you should see around 95 incidents of CWP shooters with "bad shoots". Hope that helps.

"First time I've even heard of a bad shoot." Tim01

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Still very rare.

Remember that there are about 5 million of us. And the VPC statistics are compiled from almost three years, May 2007 to present. So that is an extremely low rate of abuse. Far lower than the general population.

[Tim01]

24. You said 95, I count 6.

I think you were just exaggerating and didn't really mean anything by it.

But I do see what you mean. It seems as though a person is now finding the bad ccw shoots from the hundreds of thousands of ccw holders across the country and posting them. 6
That lines up very well with the the suggestion that LESS than 1% of ccw holders ever use their gun in a bad shoot. Better numbers than cops, better than average non-ccw holders.

And since the number of ccw permits is going up fast all across the country, I would expect the number of bad shoots,still less than 1%, to increase proportionally. Along with the number of self defense uses where badguys are shot or run away instead of brutalizing innocent people.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. He is adding the 85 from my post to the ones the RIS posted.

I got my numbers from VPC and used VPC's on data to show that CCW holders are much safer than the general population. The VPC has been counting bad shoot fatalities since May 2007. Good shoot fatalities vanish from their totals, so we have no numbers to compare good/bad shoots.

VPC has started an attempt that has been coordinated with the rest of the anti-gun movement to demonize CCW holders.

[proteus_lives]

23. And I could find a dozen links with drunk drivers mowing people down.

Does DU's newest authoritarian have a point?