My wife used a gun this weekend...

[Cthulu_2004]

I was out of town, and the neighbors across the street got into a fight in the middle of the street. My wife saw/heard this, called the cops, and went out onto the porch with a loaded shotgun. The neighbors heard her chamber a round, stopped fighting, and waited for the cops to show up after my wife told them not to leave. She says she didn't even have to point it at anybody.

I think she did the right thing. She called the cops, and then broke up the fight just by standing there on the porch with the gun. The cops eventually showed up and arrested a bunch of people, but not my wife.

What do y'all think? Was she right or wrong?

[bluestateguy]

1. I was not there

Hence, it's not my decision, nor is it the government's decision, especially if the gun was not fired.

Guns can protect women from domestic violence, which is why I oppose the efforts of politicians with sticky fingers to take away guns.

[twilight]

2. idiotic

She should have called the police and minded her own damn business. People like this are the last ones that should have guns!

:kick:

[Cthulu_2004]

5. So...

before she went outside, she called the police, who took around 15 minutes to get there. What if somebody had been injured in the meantime?

Her actions STOPPED the violence, before somebody got seriously hurt.

I bet if you were there when Kitty Genovese got killed, you'd have turned your back and "minded your own damned business".

[Uroboros]

10. Agreed...Stupid!

All she had to do was call the cops. She wasn't threatened and it didn't even involve her and/or your house. Sorry, I think she jumped the gun, so to speak.

I don't know where you live (maybe this is a normal course of action where you are); but what prompted her to take on this cowboy attitude. People this impulsive shouldn't have guns. The whole thing could have gotten VERY messy and lives could have been lost.

Just my 2 cents

[Cthulu_2004]

15. Sure it involved us and our house.

Our house sits 10 feet from the street where this was happening. If it had been allowed to escalate in the 15 minutes it took for the cops to get here, one of them might have been seriously injured, the house could have been damaged, one of them might have gotten a gun, leading to our house being shot (with her in it), all kinds of bad things could have happened.

It wasn't a "cowboy attitude"....it was a "take charge" attitude. She didn't allow them to escalate or injure anybody. She stopped the fight, nobody got hurt, and the guilty were arrested after the police sorted it out, rather than having time to run away when the police started to show up or when their victim was stomped to death.

Violence in our neighborhood isn't that unusual. If we're here, we try to put a stop to it, especially when it's so close to us. In the past, we've been threatened by some of the people we've had run-ins with. We put a quick stop to that, by making it clear that they threatened us at their own peril, and that they'd LOSE.

[Uroboros]

18. How about

All the bad things that could have happened with her pulling out the shotgun and getting involved. Doesn't that count? That is just adding another volatile ingredient into the mix IMHO

But hey I live in NYC; my first thought when I see a fight outside is to call the cops if I deem it necessary. NOT to get out a shotgun and play sheriff. So I can't relate,

I'd just warn the neighborhood kids not to play out in front of your house when your wife is in a bad mood. :)

[Cthulu_2004]

21. Like what?

She had a gun. If they had a gun and drew on her, what makes you think they wouldn't have pulled the gun during the course of the fight anyway?

My wife wasn't a participant in the fight. She wasn't angry at them, and wouldn't have used the gun unless there was a legally justifiable reason (to save a life).

Regarding the kids: Well, she sees the kids in school...where she teaches. We don't mind the kids playing in the street or our yard, provided that they don't litter or damage anything. They know this.

[Warpy]

32. You never know what a couple

..of street brawlers is going to do, or what drugs they're on, and what kind of false bravery they have. The combination of drugs, alcohol and raging male hormones is a very unpredictable one.

Your wife was damned lucky. People should never pull guns they are not prepared to use. She was lucky those two morons were sober enough to stop the fight and wait for the cops, instead of pulling out their own guns or simply charging her, forcing her to shoot.

How would she have felt had she had to shoot?

The cops are not going to praise her for being a heroine. Too much could have gone very, very wrong.

[Cthulu_2004]

36. It wasn't two...

six were arrested, and there were more that were involved so little that they weren't arrested.

She didn't pull a gun she was unprepared to use. Had anybody tried to threaten or disarm her, I'm POSITIVE that she would have shot them dead.

I doubt she would feel that bad if she had to shoot one or five of them. She's not the kind of person who believes in allowing herself or innocents to be injured rather than to take necessary action to ensure that only people doing bad things got hurt.

[iverglas]

95. like I was saying

"Had anybody tried to threaten or disarm her,
I'm POSITIVE that she would have shot them dead."

Your wife would have been ENTIRELY to blame for that happening, and I'm really very damned glad I am unlikely ever to visit your street.

.

[Cthulu_2004]

96. why?

Under what theory of legal culpability recognized in the United States of America would she be at fault?

If she wanted to mow the lawn dressed only in a Bikini while carrying a submachinegun, she'd be within her legal rights.

Or are you just trying to start a flamefest?

[iverglas]

99. what do I care?

"Under what theory of legal culpability recognized in the
United States of America would she be at fault?"

Gosh, I must have missed the call to order in the courtroom here. I thought I was on an internet discussion board.

Why would I care what your bizarre laws might say?

What I said was that she would be ENTIRELY TO BLAME.

You'd be entirely to blame if you ran down the stairs backwards and broke your arm. Do you imagine that I am saying that the law prohibits you from doing that?

If you choose to have laws that allow people who are to blame for harm done to other people not to face criminal liability for what they did, what do I care?

By the way, you might read posts in order. When I say "like I was saying", you might imagine that I've already said something else. Perhaps this tip will be useful in future.

Of course, you might just consider explaining what this:

"If she wanted to mow the lawn dressed only in a Bikini while
carrying a submachinegun, she'd be within her legal rights."

... could conceivably have to do with a situation in which someone fetched a loaded firearm, insinuated it into a volatile and violent situation which presented no threat to her safety and in which no one else's life appeared to be in danger, aimed it and fired it ...

Maybe you were just enjoying the image.

.

[Cthulu_2004]

106. OK, now you're just making me chuckle...

"By the way, you might read posts in order. When I say "like I was saying", you might imagine that I've already said something else. Perhaps this tip will be useful in future.
snip
... could conceivably have to do with a situation in which someone fetched a loaded firearm, insinuated it into a volatile and violent situation which presented no threat to her safety and in which no one else's life appeared to be in danger, aimed it and fired it ..."

A few points: you might read the entire thread before you spout off. Several people were taken to the ER, one of whom required 31 stitches. At least 4 weapons were found. My wife didn't fire a gun. Being bludgeoned normally counts as a threat to a person's life. If the situation was "volatile and violent", how can you say in the same sentence that "no one else's life appeared to be in danger"? Isn't there danger inherent in a "volatile and violent" situation?

Have you been drinking? You normally show a much higher level of literacy and reading comprehension. Are you OK? I'm genuinely concerned for your health and mental welfare.

On edit: Typo

[iverglas]

94. well duh

"Like what?"

Like what might have happened as a result of your wife engaging in this little bit of musical theatre, that wouldn't have happened if she'd refrained?

(I don't say "minded her own business"; I do think that when someone is being or might be hurt by someone else, it is one's business.)

Well ... how about if one of them had taken unkindly to her interference and advanced on her, perhaps with the intention of disarming her and getting back to what he was doing? She might have had a choice: shoot him, or lose the firearm she was holding and risk that someone, including herself, would get shot.

Just for one rather bloody obvious "what".

Me, I find that videocameras are useful for such situations. Someone might take equally unkindly to my using it (but hey, I guess just waving it around without aiming it might be kinda like waving a shotgun around, eh?), and might even try to take it from me, but I'm not likely going to end up killing or being killed by it.

I know, it's just me -- but not killing or injuring someone, or being killed or injured myself, even if I lost the use of my videocamera, just seems like a so much better outcome ... if what I was really trying to do was stop a death or injury from occurring.

And creating a risk of any death or injury happening, if there was apparently no risk of it happening before me & my firearm entered the picture, just seems damned stupid ... and wrong.

"She wasn't angry at them, and wouldn't have used the gun
unless there was a legally justifiable reason (to save a life)."

And if the life (hers?) only needed "saving" because she did what she did in the first place ... well, where I'm at, that would not necessarily fall under the "self-defence" rubric, precisely because the person who starts it just doesn't get to finish it too, barring certain specific circumstances. But I know, that's just the strange centuries-old law I live under. No good at all for a civilized place like where you live.

All I can say is that I'm just damned glad that, although there have certainly been unpleasantnesses on my block, your wife doesn't live here.

.

[Cthulu_2004]

98. If we're playing "what ifs"...

wouldn't you be risking being bludgeoned with your videocamera if they took it away? Or how about just plain old being stomped to death?

"Well ... how about if one of them had taken unkindly to her interference and advanced on her, perhaps with the intention of disarming her and getting back to what he was doing? She might have had a choice: shoot him, or lose the firearm she was holding and risk that someone, including herself, would get shot."

That's the same situation that every police officer goes through every time the officer intervenes. BTW, advancing on an armed person with evil intent is generally seen as being an act of suicidal stupidity. The Judicial system here recognizes that, and tends to consider that as a justifying circumstance, moving the incident from the general category of "homicide" to "justifiable homicide". Sometimes, there IS such a thing as Justice here.


"All I can say is that I'm just damned glad that, although there have certainly been unpleasantnesses on my block, your wife doesn't live here."

You're in good company. We're very glad that you don't live near us, too.

[iverglas]

100. perhaps you failed to notice

Perhaps I just wasn't being clear.

"wouldn't you be risking being bludgeoned with your videocamera
if they took it away? Or how about just plain old being stomped to death?"

If someone had got your wife's firearm away from her and used it against her, that would fall into the "stupid" category. Sad, but hey; her own fault. She'd be entirely to blame, but I can't see myself particularly caring.

If someone had *attempted* to get your wife's firearm away from her and she had shot him dead (as you said she would have done), THAT would have fallen into quite a different category, and it would indeed have been something I'd have cared about.

And y'know, if someone came out of a house and pointed a loaded firearm at ME after firing it somewhere at random, when I was doing something that had nothing to do with him/her and presented no threat to him/her and was very unlikely to endanger anyone else's life (you really haven't told us that anyone's life was in danger; your wife was just miffed, as far as I can see) ... well, I very possibly *would* make an effort to take it away from her. I tend to feel responsible for protecting other people, not to mention myself, from the life-threatening actions of such obviously egomaniacal and dumb people.

And if in the course of my trying to disarm her, after she'd been aiming and firing her firearm wildly around the neighbourhood, she had shot me, I can tell you with great certainty that she would be the one hearing the call for order in the court right now. Because SHE would have been the one using a firearm for an unlawful purpose if the damned first place.

But yes, we know, you live in a much more civilized place than I, and you're damned glad of it. And in case you really haven't gathered: welcome to it. Not that I imagine that if your wife had killed someone in the course of whatever events ensued from her little fit of self-importance she might not have been facing some charges. But who am I to say? And what do I care?

"BTW, advancing on an armed person with evil intent is generally
seen as being an act of suicidal stupidity."

Ah, you're switching back and forth from reality to your legal system so fast and so oft that I'm having a hard time keeping track. Is "committing an act of suicidal stupidity" an offence under your code? Does it entitle someone who witnesses it to shoot the perpetrator -- "justifiable homicide"?

The thing here is that you see advancing on a person aiming and shooting a firearm for no other reason than to get her own way as "evil intent". I'm quite sure that if I surveyed my friends, they wouldn't agree.

"You're in good company. We're very glad that you don't
live near us, too."

You know, "so's your momma" really doesn't pass for intelligent comment in many quarters.

.

[iverglas]

101. oops

Apparently "chamber a round" means something that I missed. (What do I know? What the hell do I care?) Apparently your wife didn't actually fire the firearm. I gather from others' comments that "chambering a round" isn't necessarily a clever or appropriate thing to do anyhow.

I imagine that if I had been there when she did it, and had "got" this, I might have been a little less outraged and threatened than by someone actually firing one of those warning shot thingies from the firearm ... but not enough to make me think she was acting wisely or decently or safely.

Hey, here's another one. She teaches school? Well I'm damned glad she isn't doing that here, too. But I'd 'a thought she might have learned some skills in her training that would have come in handy in situations like that.

Oh, I forgot. You trained her, I see from a post header. If schoolteachers actually are taught skills for dealing with conflict, I wonder what kind of training it would take to train that out of them and substitute "run for the gun". Carrot, or stick?

.

[Cthulu_2004]

105. Heh...that just shows your ignorance on this issue...

" I gather from others' comments that "chambering a round" isn't necessarily a clever or appropriate thing to do anyhow."

It's a VERY clever thing to do if you might have to shoot somebody. Without chambering a round, a gun is a club, and a pretty inefficient one at that.

I'll keep this simple, just for you. A gun operates like a car. Cars run on gas. Guns run on ammunition. If you have a car and gas, but the gas isn't in the fuel tank, the car doesn't run. If you have a gun with ammo, but the ammo isn't in the chamber, the gun doesn't fire. Hence, if you want the gun to do what guns do (shoot) you need to chamber a round of ammunition, just as if you want a car to run, you need to put the gas in the fuel tank. Pretty simple, eh?

[iverglas]

109. problem is, it wasn't the issue

"It's a VERY clever thing to do if you might have to shoot somebody."

And if you could perhaps demonstrate the relevance of this wise and learnèd assertion BY ESTABLISHING THAT YOUR WIFE MIGHT HAVE HAD TO SHOOT SOMEBODY, there would have been a point to your post. And YOU would have been addressing THE ISSUE.

As for the rest of it, my oversight really was a result of reading your initial post and then reading a bunch of others before posting anything (I'm like that; I like to know what a discussion is about before joining it), and losing sight of what you had said, I suppose, I guess since the in-crowd lingo just hadn't registered. You can now take your minor skills at patronizing and try putting them to use someplace where they might help you.

I very much doubt that you would even have noticed a problem if I hadn't brought it to your attention. Next time I can be of assistance in that or any other way, do let me know. You can always try addressing some actual "issue", of course. How a firearm is loaded or operated just wasn't one here; sorry.

.

[Cthulu_2004]

110. Given the other inaccuracies you've stated in this thread...

"As for the rest of it, my oversight really was a result of reading your initial post and then reading a bunch of others before posting anything (I'm like that; I like to know what a discussion is about before joining it),"

this statement is OUTRAGEOUSLY funny. :)

Apparently, you missed a bunch. My wife didn't fire a single shot. There were weapons involved before my wife went outside. Several people were injured, none of whom were hurt by my wife. And "volatile and violent" situations apparently (according to you) don't pose a risk to people involved in them.

If you have this much trouble reading threads, maybe you should start diagramming them (or whatever works for you) before responding.

[Cthulu_2004]

104. Reality check...

"And y'know, if someone came out of a house and pointed a loaded firearm at ME after firing it somewhere at random, when I was doing something that had nothing to do with him/her and presented no threat to him/her and was very unlikely to endanger anyone else's life (you really haven't told us that anyone's life was in danger; your wife was just miffed, as far as I can see) ... well, I very possibly *would* make an effort to take it away from her. I tend to feel responsible for protecting other people, not to mention myself, from the life-threatening actions of such obviously egomaniacal and dumb people."

Where do you get that she fired a randomm shot anywhere? What about the threat the fight posed to others? Ever hear of "defense of others" as a legal doctrine? What about the people that required medical care, and the guy who got 31 stitches after being bludgeoned by one of the participants?

Why are you making facts up? Is it because you can't argue with the actual acts that happened, so you're just inventing shit? Typical...and if you came onto our property in an attempt to disarm my wife, I have no doubt that she'd take the appropriate action, and would be COMPLETELY within her legal rights to do so.

"You know, "so's your momma" really doesn't pass for intelligent comment in many quarters."

Neither is complete fabrication of facts like you did above, sweetheart... ;-)

[iverglas]

111. don't you get it yet?

I'm a grade eight student, who has never gone to university, never got a law degree, can't read and speak several languages, has never practised law, doesn't work for a senior branch of government, hasn't spent three decades researching law and public policy, isn't twice as old as you, and is, in general, just absolutely clueless about anything that happens outside my living room.

Why don't you, next time, try putting the facts that YOU THINK ARE RELEVANT in the post in which you invite comment and discussion? YOU go back and read that first post of yours, and point out exactly where YOU said ANYTHING about ANYONE being injured, just for starters. If YOU think that the facts you are now citing are relevant, then why the fuck didn't YOU state them in the first place?

I believe it has been wondered, by some here, whether what you were up to was looking for some flaming opportunity. Heavens to betsy, why would anyone wonder that, when all you did was not present all of the relevant facts about which you were seeking opinions?

I very much do REFRAIN from having opinions about things that I do NOT have sufficient relevant facts about.

When someone voluntarily, entirely of his own accord, presents a set of facts and SOLICITS OPINIONS about them, I think that any court of opinion in the land would consider it JUSTIFIABLE for me to have offered an opinion in response to that invitation.

.

[Cthulu_2004]

112. Ever hear of an "update"?

I posted the new information as soon as I had it. It's not MY fault that you didn't read it, ESPECIALLY since it was posted LONG before you started posting today.

"I'm a grade eight student, who has never gone to university, never got a law degree, can't read and speak several languages, has never practised law, doesn't work for a senior branch of government, hasn't spent three decades researching law and public policy, isn't twice as old as you, and is, in general, just absolutely clueless about anything that happens outside my living room."

Ah. Now your posts make much more sense. Hey, YOU said it, not me!!! ;-)

"I very much do REFRAIN from having opinions about things that I do NOT have sufficient relevant facts about."

I find that very hard to believe, given that all of the pertinent facts were contained in one little thread, and the fact that you've stated in this thread that you read the thread through before responding. You accused my wife of firing a random shot. You said nobody was injured. YOu apparently thought "chambering a round" was discharging a firearm. You were wrong, and that shows that you DO NOT refrain from having opinions (or posting them) without sufficient relevant facts, much less all the facts contained in the thread itself.

[liberalhistorian]

23. Exactly!

I would say that I cannot believe so many people are against what your wife did and are calling her stupid and reckless, except that just a couple of weeks ago I would have been one of them! I don't have to tell you what changed my perspective because you've participated in my threads about my mugging and my considering firearms training and purchasing a gun.

I really see things differently now since I've been a victim, and I probably would have done the same thing your wife did (after I'd had the proper training, of course!). I think she handled it just right, especially since the police can't always be there right away, you just can't depend on that.

[iverglas]

97. gosh

"I really see things differently now since I've been a victim"

Isn't it that "RKBA" crowd that is always pointing and shrieking about professional victims?

I'm sorry, but this is no more than playing the "I've been a victim card" for your own purposes, and absolutely no more meritorious than anyone who might play it for any other purposes (if anyone actually did that).

Anyone who sees the entire world differently after being a victim needs help.

The fact is that you are only seeing, in the situation described, what fits in with your new self-image as "victim". For instance, you say:

"I think she handled it just right"

when there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that what she did was NECESSARY, and there are obvious reasons to believe that what she did was DANGEROUS and UNJUSTIFIED. When force is used, and people's safety and lives are placed at risk, where it is not necessary to do that and not justified to do that, and where it is dangerous to do that, IT IS NOT "just right". It is WRONG.

And again -- I'm sorry, but YOU are the one playing the "I've been a victim card", so you must be prepared to face the fact that your card really just does not automatically trump any other card in the deck, or always have the effect that you intend it to have -- and be prepared to have your card called what it is. Hey, imho. And in the less humble opinions of quite a large number of experts in the relevant fields.

.

[matt819]

29. If you're so convinced your wife did the right thing. . .

why even raise the question here. Your point is taken that she might have prevented something bad from happening, but just as easily she could have killed or been killed in the process. The fact that the police took as long as they did is wrong, and you should certainly take this up with the police. But I agree with those here who said she should have exercised more restraint, knowing she did the right thing by calling police in the first place.

And, back to my original point, why raise the question if you're not prepared for opposing viewpoints?

[twilight]

34. exactly.

Seems this person already had their mind made up. There is obviously in fact no question to be asked.

Just another flame :shrug:

In the meantime, another sorry person out there has been shot by a gun and killed for no reason.

[Cthulu_2004]

38. Who?

My wife didn't shoot anybody. What are you talking about?

[Cthulu_2004]

37. I am prepared for opposing veiwpoints...

I think she did the right thing, and I'm proud of her.

I just wanted to have a discussion as to what others thought.

[villageidiot]

73. Now where have I heard THIS before?

It wasn't a "cowboy attitude"....it was a "take charge" attitude.

It was used to describe someone. Who was it? It's on the tip of my tongue.

So, violence in your neighborhood isn't that unusual? No doubt. I especially like this part of your post; We put a quick stop to that, by making it clear that they threatened us at their own peril, and that they'd LOSE. Very telling.

This "don't fuck with us" attitude perpetuates violence. By drawing a line in the sand, as you've done, the only possible result of your actions IS violence. IMHO you and your wife are no better than some punk gangsta.

Fighting fear with fear is failed from the get go. Ahhh...I don't suppose you have much interest in your community as a whole? Do you interact with your neighbors, or do your neighbors point at your house and say "yea, that's where the crazy gun nut people live?"??

[twilight]

33. where I live ...

It is illegal to fire off a gun loaded or not loaded. I live in a very rural area and I've seen plenty of gun crap around here.

I've also seen people with their heads blown off for no reason at all and it was because of a gun. Sad. :(

and that is the law and no I did not make it.

:kick:

[Cthulu_2004]

39. Here, it's a class 1 misdemeanor to discharge a gun...

within city limits. However, a necessity defense, if valid, will mean that you are not convicted.

There's NO way the local prosecutors would charge her for her actions, or if she shot somebody justifiably.

[twilight]

42. they'd nail her butt here

and believe me the nail the butt nicely here too. Around here, now the sheriff has you on record and the incident follows you along w/your precious gun. See what a mess you are in already? And EVERYONE knows ALL about it too. :D

[Cthulu_2004]

49. When we moved into the area...

the cops were notified. The Head Cop came over for a talk. We served him tea and cookies. We told him all about the lethal force laws, and the laws relating to guns. We showed him guns he'd never seen before. He was impressed by our safe and other security arrangements. We knew stuff that he didn't about guns and the law. We're now on a first-name basis, and exchange Christmas cards. We even donate to some of his pet charities, and he helps us out if he can.

The local cops are our friends.

[ComplimentarySwine]

59. Because of a gun?

or because someone USED a gun to shoot someone/themselves?

[Spoonman]

67. Point of fact,

It is illegal to fire off a gun loaded or not loaded

It is very dificult for me to believe you can "fire off" a "not loaded" gun.

"Very rural area", there are almost no rural (outside of the city limits/unincorporated) areas that prohibit the discharge of firearms.

Do people hunt in your area?

[Champion Jack]

3. It worked didn't it?

[JitterbugPerfume]

6. under other circumstances

she could have gotten hurt

I think it ws a wreckless act

[twilight]

8. yep my thoughts exactly

When things like this are going on you don't know what the reality is. That is why we have cops.

She could have ended up with a bullet through her head just the same.

[Cthulu_2004]

12. Yup....if they'd started shooting...

she could have ended up with a bullet in her head....since our house is wood, and wouldn't have stopped a random shot.

Hiding in the house when there's random gunfire outside is an invitation to catch a stray round. Much better to prevent the gunfire in the first place.

[Cthulu_2004]

25. If it had turned into uncontrolled gunplay in the street...

she could have been killed while still in the house by a random bullet.

Because she stopped the fight, nobody got hurt.

[Spoonman]

69. Would it have been

a wreckless act had she done it to prevent someone from raping you?

Or, would you prefer she just mind her own business and let the person have their way with you?

[patdem]

4. Your wife was a fool...she called the cops...why ALSO chamber

a round in a shotgun? She was lucky somebody did not have a 9mm pointed at her head and fired. Some people think having a gun is the perfect protection when 1/2 of the time it is their demise????

Sorry...your wife was stupid beyond belief! Lucky for her the neighbors were not hard core gangstas!

[Cthulu_2004]

9. Because that's how I trained her.

Chambering a round is a non-subtle way of saying "stop what you're doing" in a practically universal language.

If somebody tried to pull a 9mm, she'd have put a 12 ga. slug through his chest in no time flat. The fact that they may have been a "gangsta" wouldn't have mattered AT ALL. Gangstas die like anybody else.

And yes, she'd have shot somebody pulling a gun without hesitation.

[retread]

17. "trained her" ?????

*

[Cthulu_2004]

19. Yup...trained her.

I trained her how to handle guns, criminal altercations, et cetera. She trained me how to cook, take out the trash, and scoop the kitty litter.

If I know how to do something that she doesn't, and she wants to learn, I train her. If she knows how to do something that I want to do, she trains me.

Is there a problem with that?

[liberalhistorian]

24. Do you happen to have a single brother

between the ages of 25-50, lol!

[Cthulu_2004]

26. LOL!!!!

Sorry, no, I don't. If I find a male suitable for dating, my sister has got first dibs. :)

[Spoonman]

70. And where pray tell

when 1/2 of the time it is their demise

Did you gather this statistic?

[CO Liberal]

7. Your Wife Was Damn Lucky

Someone in the bushes could have heard her chamber that round and decide to take her out. The you'd be posting something like "My wife used a gun this weekend, and it killed her".

[Cthulu_2004]

11. People hiding in bushes with guns...

who is being paranoid now?

[Topper_Halo]

13. She was also damn lucky....

that she didn't decide to mind her own damn business and then someone in bushes who is armed takes her out anyway.

If someone is in armed and in the bushes near your home, you're in danger regardless of whether you have a loaded gun or not.

[ComplimentarySwine]

60. *IT* killed her?

Or someone hiding in the bushed killed her?

I'm sorry, are Democrats NOT supposed to believe in personal responsability? (Honest question, not a flame)

[Piperay]

14. Your wife is darned lucky

that she wasn't shot, here in Los Angeles the cops shot people (innocent or not) who are holding guns and ask questions later. :scared:

[Cthulu_2004]

16. We live in a small town...

and she works for the county government. In other words, we're well known to the police. They knew who made the call, and wouldn't have dreamed of shooting her.

[DaleFM]

20. Glad everything worked out for her

Like others have said. I wasnt there and do not know all the facts.

But to wait for the police to show up sometimes is just asking for trouble to happen. I had a instance where some gang bangers were walking around the neighborjoods arguing and fighting. I just called the police and waited for them. Alas one kid ended up being shot by another and nobody was arrested. It will not be solved either. The police showed up a 1/2 hour after the call. Another reason for me to leave the city as soon as possible.


If she understands on how to chamber the shell into the shotgun then I would be led to thinking that she knows how to use it also. Good for her and good for you.

[Cthulu_2004]

22. Yup...

she's good enough to compete with a shotgun if she wanted to. We go shoot skeet/trap several times a month, weather permitting.

People mess with or threaten my wife at their own peril.

[Journeyman]

27. From reading the comments and your responses. . .

it seems you had your mind made up before you ever posted. Why ask questions the answers to which you've already determined?

[Cthulu_2004]

40. Please reread the original post.

I clearly stated my position, that I think she did the right thing. Then I asked what other people thought.

[glarius]

28. What if they had BOTH turned on her and rushed her?...

You might be telling a different story tonight....With domestic problems you never know what will happen....They might have both felt threatened and rushed at her and someone might have got shot!...Calling the police was the right thing to do...but I DON'T agree with the gun!

[liberalhistorian]

30. If you weren't there and didn't experience

what she did, I don't think you have the right to judge or to say with certainty that she was wrong.

[glarius]

52. He asked for our opinions...I'm merely expressing mine!!

I certainly think I have the right to say I think she was wrong if that's my opinion....He DID ask us, so he must have expected that everyone wouldn't agree with what happened.

[Cthulu_2004]

53. You certainly do....

and as long as you do so respectfully, I value your input. Those people who post opinions referring to me or my wife as "stupid" or "idiots", on the other hand, I value less.

I have to wonder, though, what would have happened if she hadn't gone out. If she just called the police, and hid inside until they arrived, and somebody had been injured or killed, wouldn't she bear at least some moral responsibility for failing to stop it when she could?

[glarius]

55. I believe that as long as she called the police she should not feel

responsible for anything that might have happened...She fulfilled her moral responsibility....Perhaps I have it all wrong...I've got no experience with guns...In Canada having a gun in your home for protection is an alien idea for most people....I've never even seen a gun...So maybe now you'll just want to disregard my advice altogether...Anyway...I'm glad NOBODY got hurt! :)

[Cthulu_2004]

71. We live in an area with a long tradition...

of looking out for each other. It's one of the bedrock principles of our area's survival. The area we're in has a long history of severe economic pressures being at work, making "help thy neighbor in time of crisis" an unwritten law.

If we don't look out for each other, who will?

[glarius]

72. I believe in looking out for each other too and we DO THAT here also

It's the whole gun concept that's foreign to our way of thinking...I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing you or anything like that...We just went through our power blackout problem here in Ontario and it was wonderful the way everyone looked out for the seniors and helped neighbours etc...just as they did in New York, I understand....If you have ever heard Michael Moore talk about the difference in the attitude towards guns in our two countries, you might understand what I'm trying to convey...Not only have I never ever seen a real gun, I don't know anyone who has a gun or wants a gun...Again I say, thank God your wife or no one else was hurt....:)

[RoeBear]

79. WOW!

"Not only have I never ever seen a real gun, I don't know anyone who has a gun or wants a gun..."

Canada has pretty widespread gun ownership and you can say that with a straight face?

[glarius]

81. Sure there are many hunters with guns and some have gotten

hand guns illegally, but in general we are not a gun toting country...And I can say "Not only have I never ever seen a real gun, I don't know anyone who has a gun or wants a gun..." with a straight face because it's true....Gun owners in this country are way in the minority.....:)

[iverglas]

107. did you want to make your insinuation clear?

"Not only have I never ever seen a real gun, I don't
know anyone who has a gun or wants a gun..."

Canada has pretty widespread gun ownership and you can
say that with a straight face?"

I can't quite tell. Were you ... suggesting ... that the person you spoke to was lying? I'm having a dreadfully hard time finding any other possible interpretation of what you have said. Keeping a straight face generally is not a problem, or issue, for someone telling the truth, is it?

I have known people who owned guns. One was the man I was involved with when I was doing my articles in a small town; he and most of male members of the local bar loved to drink and shoot off firearms in the woods, of a weekend; they called it "hunting". His depressed, disabled 13-year-old son had apparently mistaken himself for a deer two years earlier, and shot himself in the head. I never actually saw any of those firearms during my sojourn in small-town land.

I live in the downtown of a large urban area. No one I know or have ever known has ever owned a firearm, or wanted to own a firearm -- except for hunting weapons, and I don't know any of those people now.

Well, almost no one (and I'm older than glarius, and have had probably a couple more decades in which to accumulate experiences at knowing people who have or want guns). A few years ago, my contractor, who became my friend and then tenant/neighbour, owned a firearm. I believe it was a handgun. He had a permit for it; I never saw it, and I don't know why he had it or why he had a permit for it (and he quite likely lost that permit when the law was tightened a while later, after he moved to another province). But I did put a clause in his apartment lease prohibiting him from having it on the premises. He did not object at all, and I assume he complied and left it at his other residence in the countryside.

I didn't fear him or his gun; I feared the theft of the gun in a break-in and what it might be used for if that happened. That is, exactly what just such a firearm was used for around that time, by the teenagers who had broken into a home where it was improperly (illegally) stored -- to murder a man walking down a street, in a drive-by shooting.

I once held a firearm. I've mentioned it before. I won't explain the exact circumstances, as doing that would make me identifiable to the curious and clever. I held a handgun for a nanosecond after being handed it by someone else, and before the cops unhanded me of it. I didn't even have time to turn around and hand it to them as I was about to do, and they were of course quite clever not to wait, since I'd been chosen by the parties in control of the firearm, and not by the cops, to perform this function.

Of course, I've also seen guns on cops. I'm sure glarius has too. I don't think that this is what any of us are talking about.

So ...

"Canada has pretty widespread gun ownership and you can
say that with a straight face?"

You betcha. A person who lives in a city in Canada, and does not associate with criminals or engage in hunting or spend time in rural areas, has absolutely no reason ever to see a firearm other than on a cop, and absolutely no reason to want one of his/her own.

Did you want to have anything else to say about this assertion?

Maybe you could just say that you believe it and are not suggesting that anyone is telling falsehoods on this board.

.

[RoeBear]

115. Canadian gun ownership rates

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Research/Observations/

"The Justice Department estimated from this limited sample size that there are 6,000,000 firearms in Canada with an average of 2.67 firearms in one of every four Canadian households. Estimates of firearms in Canada based on historical import/export records puts the humber closer to 21,000,000"

One of every four households owns guns in Canada. You couldn't make the claim that they are all owned by people in the rural areas because that couldn't possible account for all the guns.

So yes, I have a hard time believing someone when they say they don't know a single person who owns a gun.

[iverglas]

103. what do you care???

"I have to wonder, though, what would have happened if she
hadn't gone out. If she just called the police, and hid inside
until they arrived, and somebody had been injured or killed,
wouldn't she bear at least some moral responsibility for failing
to stop it when she could?"

When I suggested that your wife would have been entirely to blame for any deaths involving her firearm that occurred after she pulled her stunt, you came back with a glob of criminal liability or absence thereof. As if it only mattered that she would/could not have been charged with a crime, and mattered not a whit that she might have unreasonably, unnecessarily and unjustifiably initiated the sequence of events that led to a death or injury?

So what has this "moral responsibility" of yours got to do with your question?

Or, conversely-like -- how come "moral responsibility" only comes into stuff when YOU drag it in?

And where was it that you told us that there was some actual foreseeable death or injury involved that she needed to try to prevent? A lot of people do seem to have got the impression from what you wrote that your wife was simply annoyed, and on a power trip. Odd.

.

[Cthulu_2004]

108. Please see post #65...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=4742&mesg_id=4832&page=

The reason she decided to go outside was that she saw people beating on each other with tools, and the guy bleeding profusely from the head. Prior to that, she was content to let the cops handle it. Once it looked like somebody was being actually killed in front of the house, she decided to act.

"As if it only mattered that she would/could not have been charged with a crime, and mattered not a whit that she might have unreasonably, unnecessarily and unjustifiably initiated the sequence of events that led to a death or injury?"

You sound like one of Kitty Genovese's neighbors....

[iverglas]

113. ah, POST # 65

Well, how 'bout you see post # 111, in which I have just asked why you did not see fit to present these RELEVANT FACTS in your opening post, in which you SOLICITED OPINIONS about the facts that YOU PRESENTED?

Post # 65. Gosh, forgive me if I've been busy conserving electricity so that my community doesn't experience another blackout. (Thanks for that one, neighbours.) Hadn't quite read every single post on the board before I posted.

And maybe you could re-read post # 94. I believe that was my first post in this thread, and I believe you have responded to it. You are therefore already familiar with what I said in it (emphasis added):

Like what might have happened as a result of your wife engaging in this little bit of musical theatre, that wouldn't have happened if she'd refrained?

(I don't say "minded her own business"; I do think that when someone is being or might be hurt by someone else, it is one's business.)

Not just that -- the fact that you already knew that I believe intervention to be appropriate and correct. But you now take what I said in the post you have responded to, about what YOU said when you focused solely on your wife's potential criminal liability in response to something I had said that had to do with MORAL responsibility:

As if it only mattered that she would/could not have been charged with a crime, and mattered not a whit that she might have unreasonably, unnecessarily and unjustifiably initiated the sequence of events that led to a death or injury?

And MISREPRESENT it as saying the exact opposite of what it meant:

"You sound like one of Kitty Genovese's neighbors...."

Hey, time for me to go have dinner. It's degenerated into another of those ___fests -- you know, that 3-letter word that I'll get chided for using when someone lies about me. Who? where? I dunno. I'm not saying anybody did, right?

.

[Cthulu_2004]

114. well, that's an abrupt about face...

"(I don't say "minded her own business"; I do think that when someone is being or might be hurt by someone else, it is one's business.)"

So, are you saying she did the right thing?

[iverglas]

102. funny

"If you weren't there and didn't experience
what she did, I don't think you have the right to judge
or to say with certainty that she was wrong."

You don't seem to have had any difficulty at all in saying with certainty that what she did was "just right".

Some pigs 's got more rights than other pigs, I guess.

.

[Cthulu_2004]

43. If fewer than 8 people rushed her...

she would have shot them down in turn. There's a choke point (stone staircase) where only two at a time could pass in order to get to her (unless they could vault the rather high fence)

My wife is not a novice with a gun. If there were more than 8, she probably would have emptied the shotgun and then run inside and gotten a handgun to kill anybody who entered the house. We keep loaded guns around the house, so it would have only taken her a second. (we have no children)

People who are willing to rush onto our property looking to do my wife harm are in for an extremely nasty surprise.

[glarius]

56. I just now saw this posting of yours in answer to mine

Are you SURE your wife is capable of all that killing you are talking about? Even if she was successful in killing them, would she not be traumatized and perhaps tormented for a long time by the knowledge that she had killed?....There is a lot to consider in this....I still think the best thing is to let the police handle it.

[Cthulu_2004]

64. The risk...

of everybody in the brawl dropping what they were doing and attacking the one person who wasn't involved in the fracas but who obviously had a big gun are tiny. If somebody attacked her, and she shot them, what makes you think the rest would suddenly follow the path of the dead attacker like lemmings? If any group conduct was to be expected, I'd expect the crowd to immediately scatter at the sound of the first shot. It's simply human nature. The situation was one where there obviously was no group cohesion, ot they wouldn't have been fighting each other.

If she had actually shot somebody, I'd expect it to cause much less mental trauma for her than if she was in a fatal car wreck where an innocent was killed. Why? Because she wouldn't pull the trigger unless there was a real threat to her.

[Ilsa]

31. Was she willing to shoot to kill?

If they had rushed her and she felt like she had to fire at them in defense, would she be able to live with that? That there was a fight, but someone got killed because she showed up with a gun?

I don't know if what she did was right or wrong; I wasn't there. I think only she can answer that question about whether it was right, especially if she felt she needed to use the gun. But i think these are valid questions, and she needs to ask herself if she's willing to shoot someone the next time she considers picking up a gun.

BTW, now your neighbors know you have a gun in the house.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[Cthulu_2004]

47. We've lived here for over a year.

The neighbors watched us move in. They saw the gun safe, and us carrying in our guns when we moved in. We don't hide who we are, and the local cops coming over socially are pretty obvious.

They know it's worth their life to break into our house. Consequently, they don't try.

BTW, what union are you in? My wife is in several...

[Cthulu_2004]

45. Yes...

she would. She was victimized long ago, and was severely injured (almost killed) when she was attacked. She operates on the "Never again" principle, even if it means killing an attacker or five.

My neighbors have known we have guns in the house, and that we're both "serious" shooters. That's why they leave us alone.

[jody]

41. Regardless of what anyone else says, your wife did the right thing.

It's quite possible she prevented one or more people from being seriously injured or worst.

I haven't read the other comments but I'm sure that a number of chihuahuas will shiver and shake and cry that your family now has to worry because she made the bad guys mad. I say :puke: to them.

Society exists only as long as we are all willing to take a little risk to help our brothers and sisters. Unfortunately a lot of people will not help anyone in need, preferring to believe the police or other group will provide assistance. They shouldn't be upset if no one comes to their assistance if they ever need help.

Please tell your wife I think she did the right thing. :thumbsup:

[twilight]

44. I'll tell that to the dead guy I know

He was blown away with by some nutt case that got ahold of a damn gun leaving behind a 18 month old daughter and a welfare mother. Sweet stuff these guns are. I think they should only be carried by law enforcement officials myself and believe me, I've lived in some hairy situations in my life and I've seen far too many cases like this.

Good luck ... you will need it NOW THAT EVERYONE KNOWS!

:nuke:

[jody]

46. Someday you might need help. I hope an armed citizen assists you. eom

:shrug:

[Cthulu_2004]

48. Funny you should mention that....

Back in the 90's, I lived someplace where there was a major social upheval (riots). My anti-gun neighbors found themelves in an unenviable position...being unarmed and pinned in one location while in the middle of a riot. They asked to borrow guns to protect themselves, and I refused, not because they were anti-gun, but because they didn't have the knowledge or experience necessary to handle them properly.

I DID keep an eye out for them and their property, because it was the "neighborly" thing to do. Lots of other places got looted and burned, but nobody got hurt on my block. After the crisis was over, we talked. I explained in detail why I wouldn't give them a gun, and got several of them enrolled in firearms courses. They didn't buy guns (to the best of my knowledge) but did learn how to use them safely. It was a "learning" experience for them.

[solinvictus]

80. Guns

When I lived in Birmingham, AL, I had to carry one outside my apartment to stop a potential domestic "incident". There was a young woman next door who apparently had some problems with a boyfriend. One night, he came with two friends at about 2AM banging on her door. I heard him shouting at her and making threats. My own experience with the Birmingham PD is an average response time of between twenty and thirty minutes. I picked up a carbine (Ruger Mini 14), chambered a round, and walked out the back door. I asked the group of young men if there was a problem while carrying the carbine in my right hand holding the grip. They promptly turned around and clamored to get into their car.

[Upfront]

50. Thought was good

but it was a bad thing to do. What if they had turned on her and she shot one or both. You better be able to afford lots of legal help. Her intention was great but the law would not be on her side. She was lucky, and so were you.

[Cthulu_2004]

51. Laws vary...

But here, if they had tried to attack her and she shot them while they were on our (posted) property, I SERIOUSLY doubt that she'd be charged, either by the police or a grand jury.

If she was charged, there's NO way in hell a jury would convict her, given the facts.

[op6203]

76. Your property is posted....

and your house is only 10 feet off the street?
OP

[Cthulu_2004]

77. Yup...

Our house sits on the lot rather strangely. Originally, the house had a large tract of land with it. Over time, most of the land was sold off, leaving around 3 acres of land. The original driveway came directly past the back door to the carriage house (of which only the foundation remains) since that was one of the few truly flat areas on the property. The driveway ended up being city property at some point (I suspect so that the city would pave it) up to the point that it dead-ends a few yards past the house itself. The property on the other side was sold. Consequently, our house sits within 3 steps of the property line/road. There's still a large wooded area on three sides of the house that belongs to the property, which is why the area is posted, as kids use the path on one side that runs down the hill to the creek. The path the kids used is quite steep and unsafe, and in places has better than a 1:1 slope. Parts of it are actually vertical, with a 40 foot plus drop. Rather than make improvements to the path to make it safe (which would be cost-prohibitive, and pretty dangerous) previous owners posted the entire property. To discourage the use of the path, they planted various types of sticker bushes like blackberries and the like. We left the signs up when we bought the property.

[op6203]

82. Sounds like a good reason to me....

About your original question:
I don't think that's how I would have handled it - but nobody here knows your wife, the people she was dealing with, or your local LEO's better than you do.
Personally, I think calling the police is enough to have done "the right thing" (morally). When you put yourself in a situation that didn't involve you in the first place, you create the risk that something can happen to YOU (whether it's a physical injury or a lawsuit). Yeah, it could be argued (and has been) that if the fight escalated any further it might have involved her anyway (shots fired toward the house). I don't doubt your wife could have protected herself with the shotgun - but WHAT IF all 6 guys had handguns and redirected their anger at your wife (for interrupting their fight)? I know there's not much chance of that, but it's a "what if". Like I said, you know your neighborhood better than us - but I'm pretty sure that if I had a dead body on my front lawn and a shotgun in my hand when the police arrived, I'd have a lot of explaining to do (if they were in the house, no problem). Everybody's so sue-happy these days, you never know....
Basically, I'm not saying what your wife did was wrong - just different from what I would have done.
OP

[Cthulu_2004]

83. If all 6 pulled guns and come after her....

she'd have probably fired at one, taken a step back inside the house, gone into another room, taken cover, fired on anybody coming in, and then gotten "more gun" (probably the AR-15 "sporter" with a Beta-C) if it looked like they were going to try again. At least that's what I think she'd do. Once inside the house, an intruder would have little chance to fight effectively, since she obviously knows the layout, and they don't. Poking your head around a corner with my alerted and armed wife in the room is a really good way to end up dead. A full blown SWAT team armed with flash-bangs, grenade launchers, and machineguns could do it, but 6 punks with handguns? Not gonna happen without a whole lotta dead punks. Please note: When I use the term "punks", I'm not referring to Dead Kennedys and PIL fans. I'm using the pre-1970's definition.

[op6203]

85. Actually,

I meant more like - they all pull handguns and open fire on your wife (punching lots of holes in your house). I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to try to come through the front door knowing someone inside is armed with a shotgun (or any gun for that matter).

Yeah, I know - it's just a "what if" (so sorry, BullDozer) and a low probability "what if" - but when someone asks "did I do the right thing?", you pretty much have to "what if" it. And I mean somewhat realistic senarios as opposed to a sniper or a meteorite.
OP

[BullDozer]

84. All of these what ifs?!

Geez what if a meteorite had at that very instant come crashing to Earth and vaporized everything with 100 yards of the scene?

Sniper in the bush? That's even further fetched than my example.

I have made the 911 call to report a "gang" fight in the parking lot of an apartment building I used to live in. I got a 30 minute response time from the Sheriff (their substation is less than two miles away from that location), well after the fight was done and over with and everyone had dispersed, and as a reward we got to have the front of our building (where some fight participants evidently lived) firebombed that night.

So what if she had called 911, not gone outside, and then the house had been firebombed later? That's right you all wouldn't be able to go on and on with your opinions about how she did the wrong thing. :eyes:

[op6203]

86. Look, dude

My "what if" was somewhat realistic (ticking off a group of already fighting punks and making them direct their attention toward her). That's a lot more realistic than a sniper in the bush. Maybe you should have posted your reply to that post (whoever mentioned a sniper) - but since you posted it as a reply to mine, I'm assuming you're putting me in that category.

She doesn't live in an apartment building with some of the punks, like you did. But your "what if" is still MORE probable than mine? I won't argue with it - that's not why I replied. I'm replying because it looks like you just skimmed through what I typed before - or just hit reply on mine to vent about other posts.

You said: "That's right you all wouldn't be able to go on and on with your opinions about how she did the wrong thing"

Directly above that (in the post you hit reply on), I said: "I'm not saying what your wife did was wrong"

My point was exactly this: Cthulu_2004 and his wife know best whether it was right or wrong based on where they live, who they were dealing with, and the attitude of their local LEOs. With that in mind and the reported outcome, I'd say it sounds like she did the right thing. Where I live, a dead (or injured) body on the front lawn (as opposed to in my living room) would most likely put me in a lot of trouble. Plus, my local LEOs have about a 5 minute response time. So, I wouldn't have taken the chance myself (as long as they kept it in the street).

Speaking of firebombing - I would think that now they know who called the police and would be more likely to do something to his house after they got out of jail (when he and the mrs are both gone). Again, I'm basing this on the type of punk we have in this town - but these were his neighbors and he knows them better than me.
OP

[Cthulu_2004]

91. Two points:

First, if they did firebomb my house, we'd have a pretty good idea who did it, wouldn't we? The local cops would take VERY dimly to that. I recall a situation a while back. After a hearing, this guy was being taken to jail. He was arguing with the cop about how he wanted to swear out a warrant against a guy he claimed was going to kill him. The cop looked at him, and said, totally deadpan, "If he breaks into jail and wastes you, we'll have a pretty good idea who did it and where to find him." Unfortunately, I had to keep a straight face, but after he left, I burst into laughter.

Secondly, to quote the Bard: "Fuck it, it's insured." Everything of value to me would survive a fire, and the rest can be rebuilt. BTW, arson around here carries major penalties...especially if it involves an attempt to intimidate a witness. A 20 year old would be LUCKY to get out of jail by the time he's 60 for pulling that kind of shit around here.

[Township75]

54. Some people on DU can't stand to hear about guns NOT used in crime.

Tell your wife good job! The reason shit like what your neighbors do goes on is because people don't get involved.

The more time I spend on DU, the more I am convinced there are several posters who can not stand to hear about guns that aren't used in crime. They will fucking masturbate themselves into a frenzy when they find a story in which someone bypassed all of their precious ineffective gun control laws to use a gun against a civilian...but a civilian using a firearm just pisses them off.

The DA and the cops will let you know if your wife did something wrong. Around here it looks more like some posters just don't like guns, and don't care about the way in which they were used.

[AZTOY]

58. GOOD JOB

Tell your wife good job and be proud of her.

[papau]

57. a fight in the middle of the street - no deadly weapon except your wifes

I doubt she was in danger, and I doubt there was deadly violence at hand in the street. So she added deadly result to the mix of possible outcomes.

In my world as a kid knowing someone has tried to "show off how powerful they were" - that they were "in charge" - would have made one of the kids, at least, think of targeting the "know it alls" that pulled the gun. Pulling a gun never led to more safety.

But I am glad that all turned out well for you and your wife.

The way to move from "next door know it all" to "the guy that keeps the peace" would be, in my opinion, getting a volunteer deputy badge. I had one in Illinois - road with but stayed in car on many runs. The rules were not to pull gun unless threaten. And as kids knew about the badge, albeit "voluntary", one moved from know it all that deserves to be taken down to just another pig living in the area (a much safer category).

[ComplimentarySwine]

61. If "Pulling a gun never led to more safety."

Then, why do cops carry guns?

[Spentastic]

62. Well thats interesting

Who said cops carrying guns make things "safer" than those who do not?

How many people did U.S cops shoot last year. Were any mistaken?

How many people did the largely unarmed British police shoot?

[Cthulu_2004]

68. Different cultures...

If US police officers went around unarmed, the result would be mayhem.

Generally, the criminal element doesn't respect the uniform or authority, they respect the threat of force behind it. Unarmed police in the US would be suicidal in large parts of the country.

[Cthulu_2004]

65. The fight hadn't turned deadly yet....

but there were weapons (not guns) being used when she went out there. This morning, I talked to the Chief of Police, requesing more information on what happened. The police found a hatchet, a hammer, a knife, and a pipe that had all been used. Several of those not arrested were taken to the hospital, one bleeding from multiple cuts to his head. The person who was hurt the worst required 31 stitches. All of the people who were taken to the hospital were later released. While the wounds weren't that serious, given another 15 minutes of bashing people in the heads with hammers, they could have been. The Chief said he was glad that she intervened when she did.

The more I find out about this, the happier I am that she stopped it.

[Spentastic]

63. What do I think?

So it's opinions you're after?

I think your wife was grossly irresponsible. Despite all the protestations to the contrary, pulling out a shotgun to break up a fight seems pretty wild west to me. Introducing a gun may have increased the possibility of lethal action being taken by either side. Was your wife willing to kill people after escalating athe situation? Could she live with having shot your neighbours? As a risk avoidance tactic it kind of sucks.

What would have happened if she'd just gone outside and said "I've called the police"? What would have happened if she'd just called the police? Was anyone in danger of losing their lives UNTIL your wife brought the gun out? Those 6 arrested people also may decide to have a pop.

[Cthulu_2004]

66. Those 6 arrested people also may decide to have a pop.

By this, I assume you mean a "comeback" or some kind of revenge trip?

I doubt that they'd be that stupid. My wife is the "cuddly" one in the family, and she isn't an easy target, and is very rarely unarmed. If I'm here, there's no way they'd be stupid enough to mess with us. I'm pretty high on most people's "do not fuck with" list due to the newspaper article that was published about us in the town paper when we moved into the area. (We bought an abandoned local landmark and are renovating it using 100% local labor, a pretty big deal around here. The article also had a biography of us, including some of the more "colorful" things we've done professionally. My background, the local landmark and NRHP issue, the results of the testing for environmental toxins we did, and a large infusion of capital into the area rated a blurb on the front page.)

CCW permit applications are a matter of public record here, and are published in the local paper. If they check, they'll find that we both have them.

"What would have happened if she'd just gone outside and said "I've called the police"?"

Around here? They'd have carried on for another 10 minutes, and then MIGHT have left. We don't have a very big police force, and it's a geographically HUGE area that they have to cover. Or, if she had been unarmed, she might have been drawn into it. I don't know.

[papau]

74. Your Profile doesn't give State - I really recommend Volunteer Deputy

status - given your rural area I am sure the fellows with the Badge would welcome a unpaid helper.

And the attitude toward the fellow on the block with a gun really does change if it is known you have a Badge - albeit as a "Volunteer".

My only experience is in Illinois - but I expect most rural areas have similiar programs.

We can not afford to lose a DU'er who can shoot straight!

good luck.

:-)

[Cthulu_2004]

78. Can't do it....

my employment is of such a type that I can't be an auxilliary deputy, and neither can my wife. I work for a different branch of the G. In order to be an auxilliary, I'd have to quit my "day job" by statute.

[jody]

75. Cthulu_2004, the sad thing about this thread is that many who replied

want to paint your wife and you as criminals and wring their hands and cry for the true villains.

I am always amazed at how so many intelligent people can be so naive about the threat of crime in different areas. Their suggestions "call the police" makes me laugh at their ignorance and sad for their own endangerment and their loved ones.

If the gun-haters meet people who respect RKBA and are properly armed-trained, I hope they have enough sense to make them very close friends. :shrug:

[op6203]

87. Hey, Jody

Just so you know, not everyone that said "call the police" is anti-gun. In my case, I said that was a good idea for a street fight - definitely not if someone is breaking into your house. Plus, like I said in another post, my local LEOs have an outstanding response time - especially if it's to a fight, 911 call, etc. With that in mind, calling the cops isn't a horrible idea.
And yes, I'm well armed - my Canon safe has just enough room for another AR (as soon as the wife and baby let me spend the money)!

Also - the longer the thugs fight, the longer (or better chance) they'd be in the hospital - and away from my house!
OP

[jody]

88. Mea culpa, I didn't mean to include you and others. I've lived long

enough to understand that the term "civilized society" means if necessary, going out of one's way to help another and taking risk if that is necessary, whether it's a crime or an accident.

Those who would hide and cower while they know a serious crime is being committed or would not help a victim IMO are not members of a "civilized society". :shrug:

[op6203]

89. Okay, so you made me look at my last stmt closer....

I would take this attitude toward a gang fight - no real victim. If my neighbor drags his wife/kid out of the house and is beating her, that's a lot different IMO.
OP

[jody]

90. No sweat GI, I'll share a bunker with you. eom

[solinvictus]

92. Kitty Genovese

comes to mind...

[jody]

93. Thanks! Best example but I couldn't remember the name. I found

a link for those who might wish to read about the incident. The Killing of Kitty Genovese