Your typical Arizona gun owner shoots innocent teen in back.

[ileus]

well kinda sorta shoots teen in back...maybe.


http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/maricopa/pd:-maricopa-homeowner-shoots-at-teen-burglars

Police received a second call from a homeowner who said three juveniles had just thrown a brick through his bedroom window and were in the back yard.

Police said while officers were responding, the homeowner got a handgun and fired two shots at the three suspects.

During the investigation it was discovered the teen sustained a minor wound to his back, possibly related to the homeowner firing his handgun.


Isn't this your typical NRA gunner/toter/baser type shooting innocent kids in the back for stepping on his lawn? We know for a fact it's all because Americans won't behave more like Europeans and allow civilians to own mass killing machines with killer clips and special loads that this crime against humanity occurred. After all everyone knows there's 3 types (3 types right?) of gun owners.

1. Criminals
2. Soon to be Criminals
3. Criminals that haven't been caught


Discuss:

[Fumesucker]

1. They are doing wonders with decaf these days..

You can hardly tell it from the high test.

[panader0]

2. What's the typical Virginia gun owner like?

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. Put sheriff Joe Arpiao on the case.

He'll straighten it out right quick.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. No disrespect...

...to Sheriff Joe, but my favorite Sheriff is Grady Judd.

[geckosfeet]

4. Personally, I would not fire unless they were in the house and threatening me.

But that's just me.

Perceived disparity of force is in the eye of the beholder - 'kinda sorta...maybe'.

[jeepnstein]

5. Threaten a cop with a brick and see what happens.

Hint, we don't have to go find a brick of our own just to make it a fair fight.

[geckosfeet]

31. Why should I threaten a cop, or anyone for that matter, with a brick?

[PavePusher]

33. You are missing the point.

If you were to threaten a police officer with a brick, it would rightly be considered lethal force, and no-one (well, very few) would question the use of deadly force in response.

But when a Citizen/Resident is threatened with a brick, many people seem to beleive that is not sufficient provocation for any force, let alone lethal, even though the level of threat is demonstrateably the same as in the first example.

[geckosfeet]

37. Well. That's why I wouldn't do it. But - simply being threatened is not justification

for using lethal force. I would argue that even having a brick thrown through a window is not in itself justification for using lethal force. If it is combined with other factors such as attempted forced entry, verbal threats and provocations, brandishing of other weapons then perhaps lethal force would be justified. But again, the use of lethal force against someone waving a brick at you is probably not going to fly in court.

[PavePusher]

38. A brick can easily be lethal.

Even if not, I have no requirement, moral or legal, the wait to find out if it will be or not. Brandishing a brick as a weapon is a clear threat and one would not be wrong to respond accordingly.

[geckosfeet]

39. States have different thresholds for the use of lethal force.

Simply feeling/being threatened with a brick marginally meets that threshold where I live. Depending on circumstances, witnesses and different interpretations of events you could find yourself without your license and guns, a pile of legal expenses, various lawsuits among other things for years, for something you could have walked away from.

On the other hand, yes, a brick can be lethal.

[Texasborncowboy]

40. Oh I don't know.

If the shooter can articulate that they feared serious bodily injury, they are justified in the use of deadly force. At least in Texas.

[DWC]

6. Do I read sarcasm here concerning another thread? n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. maybe 'kinda sorta...'

could be a possiblity . . .

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[We_Have_A_Problem]

9. So this is your belief

That's fine. You're welcome to it.

There is no basis in actual fact for that belief though. You're simply projecting your own fears onto others.

[ileus]

10. Exactly! crazy ole baser gunners toters....I've been saying this all along.

[Hoyt]

12. I've experienced same thing. I think many gun owners here are not as creepy, but by coddling them

society has to accept the right wing bigots who tote to "protect" themselves from the objects of their hatred, the boogieman, liberals, Obama, and an occasional bear or drunk moose that might attack them.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[jmg257]

18. Don't be so condescending..occasional bears are scary enough, but those drunk moose ARE nasty!! nt

[spin]

13. And how many people do you actually know who legally carry ...

I know a good number and none of them strike me as having a mental disorder. Most are regular shooters and are quite proficient with their weapons. Some are retired or active duty police or ex military and many hold jobs that require a great deal of responsibility. Some are doctors. Some run their own businesses. All are gainfully employed and work as engineers, technicians, bankers, real estate agents, truck drivers and carpenters. One runs a pest control company, one's a locksmith and many are factory workers. Several of those I know who carry have government security clearances.

None have ever been in any serious trouble with the law and none have ever struck me as excessively worried about being attacked. Most carry compact weapons mainly because concealing a large firearm in the heat of Florida is challenging.

Your imagination is lively and over active. If anyone has lost touch with reality, I suggest that it is you. People and their motivations and interests vary. Just because someone is different from you, doesn't make him mentally unstable. It's only logical that a person who has a deep interest in shooting handguns and has spent years doing so is likely to get a concealed carry permit.

I should point out that if you were actually correct and people who legally carry concealed had a serous mental disorder, we would see far more problems with those who have the permits. Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry for 24 years. During that period of time Florida has issued 2,047,928 concealed weapons permits of which 853,272 are currently valid. In that 24 year period of time only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime committed that involved the use of a firearm. (source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

Perhaps this mental disorder that you feel people who legally carry concealed suffer from, makes them less likely to use a firearm in a criminal manner than citizens who do not have carry permits.

[jmg257]

14. Weird - it is after all just an opinion. But anyway...

Fear is a good thing...keeps people from doing all kinds of stupid & hazardous stuff. Fear does not have to be overwhelming or irrationally acted on...the cause of that fear just needs to be perceived and the decision to deal with it in some way made. People accomplish these types of rational decisions ALL the time. Of course laws are often passed specifically to ensure precautions are taken to help people avoid harm (and to lessen their fears).

Luckily it is usually up to the individual to decide if one believes the benefits of carrying a gun as a precaution outweigh any negatives. With crime rates in this nation, being a victim of violent assault is at the least worth considering as a realistic possibility.

If another individual fails to recognize that possibility, or doesn't see it as being worthy of taking a viable precaution against, that is his choice.

I may even think they are nuts for not doing so when they easily can (but I don't).

[gravity556]

15. How do you know you don't associate with a concealed carrier?

Particularly considering that the operative word is "concealed". You probably deal with 10 or 15 people a day who are carrying firearms somewhere on their person. Even a tucked in shirt is no evidence that someone is *not* carrying-there are quite a few holsters designed to be worn with a tucked in shirt.

You're welcome to your fear and paranoia, but I (and every other gun owner who values his rights) would like to remind you that we would like the same respect. You think we're afraid and suffering from some kind of mental disorder. While spectacularly ignorant and apallingly offensive, it's your skewed view, not one of us will begrudge you of it. All we ask is the same respect. Because I think that people who walk around afraid of law abiding gun owners, certain that they are just looking for any little excuse to start shooting, are paranoid fools with projection issues.

Just because "if you had a gun, you'd probably end up shooting someone who cut you off in traffic" (not quoting you or anyone else, simply using the statement as an example, so put away your indignity) and other statments of projection get bandied about doesn't mean that any CCW holder actually thinks like that. In fact, they tend to be pretty conflict averse-particularly when they are carrying a firearm. Having a gun doesn't mean you don't have to take anyone's shit-it means you have to take EVERYONE'S shit. Because there are folks out there who will become violent over any percieved disrespect or slight, and the last thing a CCW holder WANTS to do is to get into a fight of any kind.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. You CAN'T walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for fights, because a fistfight where your gun gets grabbed is suddenly a life and death struggle. Most SYG laws also prohibit antagonizing behavior-picking a fight and then shooting the other party will get you a murder charge, just like if you punched the other guy and he died when he smashed his head into the ground while he fell.

I know, you anti-rights/pro-criminal safety folks believe the Brady idiots when they say that SYG is a license to kill anyone who offends you, but if you actually formed your own opinions via careful first person research instead of what the Bradys and VPC spin, you'd realize that SYG laws really only make it so that if you are assaulted and respond with force, say, if you were minding your own business on your patio having a smoke late at night and 3 turds demand your money. SYG doesn't allow you to immediately open fire just because some fuckhead with an overblown sense of "gimme". Now if that shithead thief pulls a weapon, SYG kicks in and you can now respond in kind, even firing first, because the aggressor has introduced a gun. Basically SYG makes it so that if you are somewhere you are legally permitted to be, engaged in a lawful activity, you have no duty to retreat. No idiot prosecutor can say "You should have handed over your money or run away! You *murdered* that poor defenseless street urchin! All he had to his name were these heavy gold chains, 3 cell phones (none of which belong to him) and a gun" because you defended yourself against a violent criminal.

Castle doctrine generically means that if you force entry into an occupied home and the occupants feel threatened (imagine that-someone feeling threatened just because their front door or bedroom window got kicked open or smashed to pieces so that a shitbag can let himself in), they can use deadly force. The presumption is that the uncivilized shitbag who kicks in doors of occupied houses is likely to be dangerous and violent. Meaning that the homeowner doesn't have to wait until Crooky McFuckstick brandishes a weapon or actually assaults someone. Which is good, because assaulting people who are sitting in what should be a safe place for no reason other than because you want their stuff is abhorrent.

Some states (AZ is among them, hooray for my home state!) even have a law preventing someone who is unlawfully on someone else's property or in someone else's house from suing the homeowner for injuries incurred while engaging in criminal acts. Meaning that if Crooky McFuckstick loses a testicle and his penis to the homeowner's pet doberman/pit bull/garbage disposal mix, he can't sue. Nor can his family sue if poor gentle Crooky picks a house wherein the residents are all armed and nonplussed about dear Crooky's plan to relieve them of whatever items they've worked for. As opposed to Crooky's place, where someone else worked for his possessions and Crooky just took them by force.

Now if they'd just pass a law allowing victims of violent crime, wherein the assailant is a minor, to sue the little turd's purported guardian. Maybe if the parents of some of these violent little assholes faced a bit of punitive monetary compensation paid to the victim, they'd be a bit more motivated to keep their kids from wandering around in the middle of the night, robbing people or throwing fucking bricks through windows. They're lucky those bricks didn't hit anyone inside the house, or cut someone with the broken glass. And they're super lucky the homeowner didn't have a light on his gun-otherwise I doubt a bandaid would have fixed the one shithead criminal's "injury".

[Hoyt]

19. Doesn't it make you feel safe knowing someone is walking around with one of these & tucked in shirt?

[ileus]

21. It would be safer if they OC with a paddle holster.

IWB may be cool but if you need your firearm it's harder to get to. At least carry OWB concealed or Openly for best access in the event of an emergency.

[PavePusher]

23. Not really, since they are clearly marked as training guns....

and almost certainly non-operable, and very certainly unloaded.

[gravity556]

26. Hoyt, while you may think that holster is the coolest thing since quilted toilet paper,

*I'm* intelligent enough to remember NEVER POINT A FIREARM AT SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY. My wedding tackle definitely falls into that category. So keep pointing that pistol at your genitals, Uncle Chuck implores you.

[Hoyt]

27. This holster is marketed to members of the gun toting culture. I don't tote, so don't have one.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

28. Doesn't bother me either way

Besides, they're very obviously training guns.

Why would it bother you if someone was legally carrying a concealed firearm? What are you concerned about? Not like you even see it.

[Speck Tater]

22. "You probably deal with 10 or 15 people a day who are carrying firearms"

I live out in the country. I doubt if I see 15 people in a month, let alone in a day. My nearest neighbor is a gun owner, and more than a little creepy. He's been in trouble before for shooting neighborhood cats. As for concealed, I hang out with the T-shirt and shorts crowd. There's no way anybody is going to hide a weapon under a tight T.

[gravity556]

25. Again-t-shirt and shorts are plenty of cover for a small gun.

Or even a full sized gun with the right holster. And maybe you should call the cops on the neighborhood asshole who kills pets.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. If you think someone in a t-shirt and shorts...

...cant conceal a firearm, then you obviously haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I suspect most of your neighbors are gun owners by the way. That's usually how it is out in the country. You are very likely the oddball exception.

[ileus]

30. I can pocket carry, and paddle holster carry a pistol with a T and shorts.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Some facts for you.

In 2010, according to the FBI there were 1,246,248 reported violent crimes in the U.S. There were also an unknown number of unreported violent crimes. This does not include mere property crimes such as burglary. In 2010 there were 9,082,887 property crimes. That is over 10 million crimes per year. Criminals tend to target senior citizens because they know that we can't fight back and are easy victims. Therefore my wife and I carry a gun for our own protection. We are no danger to the honest people around us.

My wife has twice used her gun to defend herself. She was about to be mugged, and being a frail senior woman she would likely not have survived the attack. But each time when the thug discovered that she was armed he turned and fled. The crime was prevented.

[PavePusher]

24. Well, at least you carry your bigotry openly. n/t

[gravity556]

11. According to the article,

the turd who caught the lucky bullet recieved a minor wound-the fire department looked him over and slapped a bandaid on it and off to jail he went-not even a stop at the ER-and they stop at the ER even for just a taser.

The important thing to take from this is simple-don't hurl bricks through someone's windows at night in AZ. The homeowner will shoot your stupid ass, the public will support the homeowner, as will law enforcement, and the brick throwing idiots will end up in jail. Just like it should be.

:)

Also, Maricopa is not the big city. LE may be 20 or 30 minutes away out there, so, not surprisingly, quite a few folks are capable and willing to defend themselves. It would probably be safer for the crooks to go somewhere that's a bit more criminal friendly. Like a state with no castle doctrine, draconian gun laws and a more criminal friendly legal system. Maybe Canada.

[azureblue]

32. The NRA at its finest...

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-to-ban-guns/

Wayne LaPierre, says President Barack Obama’s decision not to pursue gun control legislation is a “massive conspiracy,”

[gejohnston]

34. finest since when?

Since LaPierre showed up? I don't know about conspiracy, but it is certainly a shrewd political move. When you have momentum on bread and butter issues you don't blow it on cultural issues that has little to no grassroots support.

I will give Rawstory credit for the video. At least they don't wreck their credibility with disinformation like Media Matters does on this subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x463400#463564

[azureblue]

35. IOW

It's OK for Wayne to get up before a camera and act like he's lost his marbles. Wayne is nuts. This is not the person gun owners want representing their concerns. Shrewd move my ass, unless you count shooting your self in the foot a shrewd move.

Here wayne is making a compete idiot of himself:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-ban-

[gejohnston]

36. you missed the point

Wayne is a grown boy, he can act like he is off his rocker all he wants. Yeah he is nuts, but sometimes he is right.
the shrewd move reference was about Obama leaving the gun issue alone because it would wreck grassroots support on economics.