quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Where did that come from... We just do not know what went down... I said she shot through the door carelessly... But she could have called and the husband wanted to scare her... It would make a difference don't you think?

How do you know she shot through the door carelessly, if you don't know what went down? Are you saying that shooting through a closed door is always careless? Or, was her shooting through the door careless because he's okay even though she shot him?
Post#38

quote:

I seems to me that right is also a regulation...and no reason we the people can't decide what regulations we want. And of course we do have that right but it seems the majority of elected officials, and their electorate, do not want more and safer regulations. So it is up to folks like Muse and me to keep pointing out the outrageous and deadly results of the regulations that exist today and hope we can change minds.

You analyzed the situation, yet, others can't?

One of the first things ANY responsible gun owner or user learns is to IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET. She obviously did not do this. She knew approximately where the "target" was located. But she did not identify the target. Hunters are shot every year because someone sees brush move, and so fire blindly into the brush thinking they are shooting a deer, or elk, or...? Here she shot blindly through the door, not knowing who she was shooting at.

Do you know what happened? Neither do I. Nowhere did I say she did or didn't act responsibly.
The article points out that there is no indication that he announced himself or shut off the alarm. If he was trying to scare her by not responding to her requests to identify himself, and he was making a lot of noise (to instill more fear) while not attempting to shut off the alarm, that may have more to do with this than anything else (note the "If" at the start of this sentence, showing that this is hypothetical and might not have any accuracy involved).

No one has mentioned that there had been a number of burglaries in the neighborhood recently.
He has already been released from the hospital so maybe he will shed some light on what happened.
Could be he was the one being really stupid.

In the article, it was mentioned that she may have already been on edge because of 4 home burglaries, and 4 car break-ins in the neighborhood since January 2014.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Firearms are the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.
(both of which are regulated...)

Gun ownership is regulated.

Not effectively nor as aggressively as the situation warrants

Really? Where did you get all the details of this situation? I'd love to read the article.

Why would I need all the facts of THIS situation to have formed an opinion on the LARGER situation ie:guns ?

I thought this thread was about this situation? How can you use a situation (this one) to support your assertion if you don't know if it supports your assertion?

Because my assertion is that there are too many guns.....knowing that she shot her husband through a CLOSED door seems to butress that opinion.
is that clear enough ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Where did that come from... We just do not know what went down... I said she shot through the door carelessly... But she could have called and the husband wanted to scare her... It would make a difference don't you think?

How do you know she shot through the door carelessly, if you don't know what went down? Are you saying that shooting through a closed door is always careless? Or, was her shooting through the door careless because he's okay even though she shot him?
Post#38

quote:

I seems to me that right is also a regulation...and no reason we the people can't decide what regulations we want. And of course we do have that right but it seems the majority of elected officials, and their electorate, do not want more and safer regulations. So it is up to folks like Muse and me to keep pointing out the outrageous and deadly results of the regulations that exist today and hope we can change minds.

You analyzed the situation, yet, others can't?

One of the first things ANY responsible gun owner or user learns is to IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET. She obviously did not do this. She knew approximately where the "target" was located. But she did not identify the target. Hunters are shot every year because someone sees brush move, and so fire blindly into the brush thinking they are shooting a deer, or elk, or...? Here she shot blindly through the door, not knowing who she was shooting at.

Do you know what happened? Neither do I. Nowhere did I say she did or didn't act responsibly.

The article points out that there is no indication that he announced himself or shut off the alarm. If he was trying to scare her by not responding to her requests to identify himself, and he was making a lot of noise (to instill more fear) while not attempting to shut off the alarm, that may have more to do with this than anything else (note the "If" at the start of this sentence, showing that this is hypothetical and might not have any accuracy involved).

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The right to life trumps all other rights

Good grief. Wherever did you come up with that little bit of quasi-religious ideology? One's "right to life" is always and everywhere continent on circumstances, meaningless in most of them, capable of being forfeit in others, and in any case completely vacuous absent an effective means to defend it in the first place.
K.

I'm surprised that you claim that the right to life, which presumably includes your own right to life, is " contin[g]ent(sic) on circumstances, meaningless in most of them, .... and completely vacuous absent an effective means to defend it in the first place."
Not all of us regard our right to life as "meaningless". However I am happy to compromise in your case. Can we agree to respect my right to life and that your right to life is meaningless? I know it's not a particularly salubrious offer, but it seems the best available under the circumstances.
It is odd that people who are so loud and vocal in insisting on their unfettered right to defend their lives with firearms place this right on a higher level than the right to life itself. The right to defend one's life is utterly contingent on, and subordinate to the right to life itself and meaningless without it. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the donkey surely this is it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
You asked the question, "Are you saying that shooting through a closed door is always careless?" My response is that YES, shooting through a closed door when you haven't identified the target IS always careless and irresponsible. This is a perfect example...she shot her husband because she didn't know who was on the other side. I didn't have to be there to figure that out.

quote:

Now, if she had been chased through the house by a burglar or rapist, ran into the bedroom, slammed the door closed, THEN immediately shot through it, she would have then KNOWN who she was shooting at. Different story then. Her target would have been identified. Still not the smartest thing to do, but at least then it would be somewhat understandable and justified.

quote:

IF he was trying to scare her? STILL not an acceptable reason for shooting at an unknown target!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Yea, I read that also. And I understand why she thought it might have been a burglar. But I am going to have to agree with the others. She shouldn't have shot through a closed door. Now if she had been in a closet or the bathroom where who ever was out there would be able to hurt her before she got the shots off, then I might change my mind, but she was in the bedroom and would have had a clear shot after she was able to ascertain who she was shooting at. At this point she could be charged with unsafely discharging a weapon but from what I have seen we are great at making regulations and not so great at following through so I am not expecting much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
Yea, I read that also. And I understand why she thought it might have been a burglar. But I am going to have to agree with the others. She shouldn't have shot through a closed door. Now if she had been in a closet or the bathroom where who ever was out there would be able to hurt her before she got the shots off, then I might change my mind, but she was in the bedroom and would have had a clear shot after she was able to ascertain who she was shooting at. At this point she could be charged with unsafely discharging a weapon but from what I have seen we are great at making regulations and not so great at following through so I am not expecting much.

Ok she yells out "I have a gun" and the fictional bad guy shoots her through the bedroom door instead of running away like they do in loony liberal land... What then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Yea, I read that also. And I understand why she thought it might have been a burglar. But I am going to have to agree with the others. She shouldn't have shot through a closed door. Now if she had been in a closet or the bathroom where who ever was out there would be able to hurt her before she got the shots off, then I might change my mind, but she was in the bedroom and would have had a clear shot after she was able to ascertain who she was shooting at. At this point she could be charged with unsafely discharging a weapon but from what I have seen we are great at making regulations and not so great at following through so I am not expecting much.

Ok she yells out "I have a gun" and the fictional bad guy shoots her through the bedroom door instead of running away like they do in loony liberal land... What then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
You asked the question, "Are you saying that shooting through a closed door is always careless?" My response is that YES, shooting through a closed door when you haven't identified the target IS always careless and irresponsible. This is a perfect example...she shot her husband because she didn't know who was on the other side. I didn't have to be there to figure that out.

You changed the question, igor. The question was, if shooting through a closed door was always careless. Your response changed the "always" to "when you haven't identified the target."

quote:

Now, if she had been chased through the house by a burglar or rapist, ran into the bedroom, slammed the door closed, THEN immediately shot through it, she would have then KNOWN who she was shooting at. Different story then. Her target would have been identified. Still not the smartest thing to do, but at least then it would be somewhat understandable and justified.

So, it's not always careless. Thanks for rebutting yourself.

quote:

IF he was trying to scare her? STILL not an acceptable reason for shooting at an unknown target!

I'm still going to go with it could have been acceptable, depending on the circumstances (which we still don't know). Just to point out the other side, depending on the circumstances, it's entirely possible that it was careless and unacceptable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


It is odd that people who are so loud and vocal in insisting on their unfettered right to defend their lives with firearms place this right on a higher level than the right to life itself. The right to defend one's life is utterly contingent on, and subordinate to the right to life itself and meaningless without it. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the donkey surely this is it.

The right to life, theoretically, is prime. However, in the real world, it's unfortunately contingent on circumstances. Terrorists don't give a fuck about their target's right to life, do they? Without the ability to defend a right, you begin to degrade that right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

In the real world the chances of dying as part of a terrorist action are pretty minute ... you have a far greater chance of getting killed crossing the street. So it's not a useful or, IMHO valid basis on which to discuss the right to life is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

32 gun deaths a day in the US
and hes got the nerve to say that more guns would have made the french attacks unviable for terrorists.
fantasy world

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Yea, I read that also. And I understand why she thought it might have been a burglar. But I am going to have to agree with the others. She shouldn't have shot through a closed door. Now if she had been in a closet or the bathroom where who ever was out there would be able to hurt her before she got the shots off, then I might change my mind, but she was in the bedroom and would have had a clear shot after she was able to ascertain who she was shooting at. At this point she could be charged with unsafely discharging a weapon but from what I have seen we are great at making regulations and not so great at following through so I am not expecting much.

Ok she yells out "I have a gun" and the fictional bad guy shoots her through the bedroom door instead of running away like they do in loony liberal land... What then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

32 gun deaths a day in the US
and hes got the nerve to say that more guns would have made the french attacks unviable for terrorists.
fantasy world

Did you expect reason and validity ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
You asked the question, "Are you saying that shooting through a closed door is always careless?" My response is that YES, shooting through a closed door when you haven't identified the target IS always careless and irresponsible. This is a perfect example...she shot her husband because she didn't know who was on the other side. I didn't have to be there to figure that out.

You changed the question, igor. The question was, if shooting through a closed door was always careless. Your response changed the "always" to "when you haven't identified the target."

quote:

Now, if she had been chased through the house by a burglar or rapist, ran into the bedroom, slammed the door closed, THEN immediately shot through it, she would have then KNOWN who she was shooting at. Different story then. Her target would have been identified. Still not the smartest thing to do, but at least then it would be somewhat understandable and justified.

So, it's not always careless. Thanks for rebutting yourself.

quote:

IF he was trying to scare her? STILL not an acceptable reason for shooting at an unknown target!

I'm still going to go with it could have been acceptable, depending on the circumstances (which we still don't know). Just to point out the other side, depending on the circumstances, it's entirely possible that it was careless and unacceptable.

Actually Desi, as usual, it is you that have changed the question.
Igor backed up his answer with a supportive reason as to why it is always careless to shoot through a closed door. Not that the reasoning modified the overall premise.
Like that long trial with the athlete (Oscar Pretorius) that did the same thing - it was proved in court that doing such is both foolhardy and irresponsible (and that's how he got nailed, btw).
In my mind, it is always, without exception, sheer stupidity to shoot at an unknown/unidentified target.
Whether that is through a closed door, something hidden behind a bush, in the dark.... whatever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It is odd that people who are so loud and vocal in insisting on their unfettered right to defend their lives with firearms place this right on a higher level than the right to life itself. The right to defend one's life is utterly contingent on, and subordinate to the right to life itself and meaningless without it. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the donkey surely this is it.

The right to life, theoretically, is prime. However, in the real world, it's unfortunately contingent on circumstances. Terrorists don't give a fuck about their target's right to life, do they? Without the ability to defend a right, you begin to degrade that right.

In the real world the chances of dying as part of a terrorist action are pretty minute ... you have a far greater chance of getting killed crossing the street. So it's not a useful or, IMHO valid basis on which to discuss the right to life is it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
It is odd that people who are so loud and vocal in insisting on their unfettered right to defend their lives with firearms place this right on a higher level than the right to life itself. The right to defend one's life is utterly contingent on, and subordinate to the right to life itself and meaningless without it. If ever there was a case of putting the cart before the donkey surely this is it.

The right to life, theoretically, is prime. However, in the real world, it's unfortunately contingent on circumstances. Terrorists don't give a fuck about their target's right to life, do they? Without the ability to defend a right, you begin to degrade that right.

In the real world the chances of dying as part of a terrorist action are pretty minute ... you have a far greater chance of getting killed crossing the street. So it's not a useful or, IMHO valid basis on which to discuss the right to life is it?

Sure it is. In the circumstance where someone (in the example, a terrorist) is choosing to end your life, your right to life isn't prime. Thus, your right is contingent on the circumstance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
32 gun deaths a day in the US
and hes got the nerve to say that more guns would have made the french attacks unviable for terrorists.
fantasy world

Yet this isn't what I said entirely. And this goes to tweak also. What I'm saying is with all the gun control in your wildest fantasies like they have over there in France, none of it stopped the availability of those AK 47's.

Just because there were a couple of armed policemen doesn't guarantee the good guys will win. They certainly had a fighting chance. Did you ever consider what the outcome might have been if all 12 of those guys had been armed ?If I had been one of those cartoonists I would have wanted my own gun.

And tweak, incidents of hostage taking and mass slaughter over here seem to occur in areas where there is *not* widespread availability and access to firearms. They occur more often in gun free zones like schools where murdering idiots can kill without opposition. Killers generally seek easy prey as apposed to those who might be able to fight back.