Idiot pulls knife on liquor store clerk..

imported post

Umm, I bet that the number would... umm... go down? :lol:

HankT wrote:

Count wrote:

All burglars and robbers should be shot!.... State laws should provide financial awards to citizens thinning the criminal herd.

Click to expand...

You're suggesting that we should start shooting "all burglars?" That's an interesting idea. Kind a of general solution of some kind, eh?

How would this be done? Why?

And what would happen if we did shoot "all burglars?"


Note: There are about2.1 million burglaries annually in the U.S.

Click to expand...

imported post

Honestly, I think it's a mistake to encourage anybody to "kill" anybody else. Wouldn't it be sufficient to encourage people to defend themselves whenever their lives are threatened?

FWIW, I would never support such a bounty system. That's not my idea of a civil society.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Honestly, I think it's a mistake to encourage anybody to "kill" anybody else. Wouldn't it be sufficient to encourage people to defend themselves whenever their lives are threatened?

FWIW, I would never support such a bounty system. That's not my idea of a civil society.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. It's a proposed system based on bloodlust more than reason or facts.

But, techically , Count didn't suggest killing the burglars. He suggested shooting them:

Count wrote:

All burglars and robbers should be shot!.... State laws should provide financial awards to citizens thinning the criminal herd.

Click to expand...

I asked him how many times they should be shot and whether they should be killed. But he's like a government official with a new policy--he wants the details to be secret.

Honestly, I don't think he's thought his idea through. I think he may have just blurted out a simplistic idea and now just wants to back off from it. I mean, who could reasonably support changing the laws of the land to pay "financial awards" for shooting all burglars?

Nobody, really...

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

HankT wrote:

Count wrote:

Current law provides civil immunity. How about go one step further: financial reward by state. Victim's assistance already provides huge amount to victims of different crimes. If you are the victim of a burglar or robber you should get increased financial assistance if you eliminated the problem.
How much should the "financial awards" be? What would the payment schedule look like?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Half of whatever it would cost to incarcerate the now dead perp on a monthy schedule for the duration of the maximum sentance that would have been imposed for the crime. Death and Life being the same amount. Howzat? Vigilante Incentive Reward Program

Click to expand...

Numbers, Son. Numbers.... How much?

Make your case.

Here's a burglary case example.

How much for shooting this burglar?



Man thwarts 2nd-time burglar
Ripon homeowner takes down burglar with gun
June 1, 2009

(RIPON, Wis.) -- This Town of Ripon homeowner was craftier than the armed burglar trying to rob his house.

Fond du Lac County Sheriff's Department officials say the homeowner held a 23-year-old man attempting to steal cash, firearms and other items by gunpoint until police arrived around 1:20 a.m. Friday.

Lt. Bill Flood says the homeowner saw lights on in his house, crept into his driveway, retrieved a handgun and waited for the burglar to come out.

Ripon police and sheriff's deputies arrested the victim's 24-year-old girlfriend in a nearby vehicle. Officials say she dropped him off.
Story continues belowAdvertisement

About a week ago, Flood says the same burglar allegedly robbed the house a first time, taking cash and small engines.

http://webapp.abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/state&id=6841862

imported post

I wonder if you gave the homeowner say $1,000.00 for capture of, or shooting of bad guy on your property, how many bad guys would be willing to assault your property? What if bad guy had stolen/robbed/raped others...maybe the reward should be the result...i.e. Bad guy robbed three houses - reward for you would be 1K X 3= 3K? Interesting thought.

Marshaul - are you saying there is a difference of self defense shooting of bad guyon your property vs. encouraging people to shoot to kill abad guy assaultingyour property? When you shoot, do you not shoot to kill? When you pull your gun, do you not pull to use?

imported post

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

Marshaul - are you saying there is a difference of self defense shooting of bad guy on your property vs. encouraging people to shoot to kill a bad guy assaulting your property?  When you shoot, do you not shoot to kill?  When you pull your gun, do you not pull to use?

Click to expand...

We just had the "shoot to kill/shoot to stop" debate so I'd like to avoid rehashing it. In my own mind, "shoot to stop" implies center of mass (or Mozambique drill) shots until the threat has stopped, whereas "shoot to kill" implies (once again, to me) that the shooter will continue to fire until the perp is dead, regardless of threat status.

Now, after debating this thoroughly, I have come to the conclusion that the difference is largely words as opposed to tactics. I have been accused of wanting to take "wing shots"; when of course the reality is that, if my life is in danger, I'm not going to play any such games.

The conclusion I have come to is that people who say "shoot to kill" view the meaning behind the statement very simply: since guns kill (are in fact designed to), any use of them is intent to kill.

Those of us who say "shoot to stop" are responding to common-law precedent for self-defense older than any of us, which recognized the reality that some self-defense situations will be less than cut-and-dry, and sought to outline specific circumstances under which "self-defense" would apply to clearly separate it from any intentional act of murder. The result is that, in most cases, the law generally prohibits intentionally killing anybody, but provides an affirmative defense in the event that killing happened inadvertently during an act of self-defense utilizing potentially deadly force (the most effective kind to defend oneself with).

The underlying motive was the "civilness" of society. It was believed that maximum civility would be obtained by allowing a person to use whatever mean necessary or preserve his life, but otherwise discouraging him from enacting any sort of intentional "justice" or retribution on his aggressor, in the form of further meditated violence once the attack has ceased.

Hence, the carrot and the stick. Know the law, and a citizen is free to enjoy the benefits of self-defense. Go too far, and your self-defense will be considered an act of intentional violence.

I believe in justice. I believe in the possibility of reform for some criminals, and I certainly believe that circumstance may be a mitigating factor. The short of this is that I don't believe justice corresponds with intentionally killing all criminals. If they die threatening another's life: so be it. On the other hand, I believe it is preferable to allow them another chance (Isn't that the Christian thing to do?) if circumstance permits, and to deliver criminal justice properly.

I think that bounties would encourage people to intentionally kill those who could be merely stopped, and I think they could potentially encourage some folks to shoot where it wasn't necessary, hoping for a bounty. Like I said, that's not my idea of a civil society.

I advise all hyper-authoritarian "criminals exist because we don't punish them enough!" types to read Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, where he describes the purpose and origin of a rehabilitative prison system (which is NOT what we have today. Of course criminals "cannot" be rehabilitated, when you don't rehabilitate them!)

Granted, either way things need lots of reform.

imported post

I understand your viewpoint.

In my conceal weapons class, the instructor made it very clear that just because someone is down, doesn't mean they are out. He stated that the shock from being shot is typically what drops people to the ground, and they still have the ability to get up and cause injury, and if they have a gun possibly death...this can all happen in a matter of seconds. I believe this and other reasons is why people shoot to kill.

imported post

I am studying up for my Technician's license now and one of the points it makes is to always use minimal power to complete a transmission.

My conscience would only ever permit me to use force in this way as well. Whatever the law says, my own conscience is not going to forgive me for taking a life when "stopping an attack" would do. This means shooting at center mass and hoping fate intervenes so my assailant does not die. If he dies, though, he dies. God forbid, because I will not bear the weight of this act, however justified, well, and I know that now.

Now of course, this is complicated by the stress of the situation and the question is whether you can stand there and reason how many shots are enough to stop an attack vs. kill. I can only hope when the time comes that I will be able to function on that guideline. I meditate on this/think about it all the time when I am carrying my gun as a kind of "mental preparation." It is not a casual assumption. I run the scenario through my head repeatedly (there's not much else you can do).

One thing they cover in the CCW class is, "Don't carry a gun unless you're sure you can take a life." And I've taken that blasted class twice now, in full. In every circumstance I look around and assume there might be military or law enforcement vets who know precisely whether that is true for them or not, but I have to question how many people can ever be sure of such a thing. We *are* law abiding citizens - by definition of getting a permit, we are peacable people, or any criminal record would cause the permit to be denied. So I have to assume that the vast majority of people getting that permit have never taken a life and really have no idea how they would react in that abnormal circumstance.

Could I shoot and kill someone? For myself I have reframed the question as an affirmation: In the event my life is in danger, I will shoot at center mass. I will do all of my soul-searching and philosophizing now, not when my life or someone else's life is threatened: I believe to not act and be a victim, or even worse, to let someone else be a victim, is the worse moral crime, and will be even harder to live with (If *I* live at all.)

So it's not a question. It is an intention: to use my firearm to stop an attack on an innocent person. I meditate upon this daily. Every day. Because I have chosen to carry a gun. Because in so doing, I have no choice but to take responsibility and use it if the occasion (god forbid) arose. To not meditate on this would be irresponsible. At minimum, every time I pick that gun up with the intent of toting it somewhere concealed or open, I make this affirmation.

This is important for a guy like me because I grew up in a safe suburban environment. I live in a safe suburban environment now. I have never been a victim of a violent crime. I have never been in the military, nor law enforcement. As a civilian, there are a lot of question marks. Taking a life would be the single most unnatural thing I can think of doing, in self-defense or otherwise. I am a non-violent person. I like having friends rather than enemies. I like a quiet evening at home with a book.

But I have chosen to carry a gun for a variety of philosophical reasons. It is a grave responsibility. Shooting at the range is just fun. Carrying a gun in a holster, around town, is a far more sobering proposition. My entire mindset is different. I can't even enjoy my day in the same way.

I can see myself, having shot an assailant, shaking, standing 5 or so feet away from him, gun still trained on him, until the police show up. I'm not sure I'd lower my gun once he was down. That's my plan, anyway. I am trying to make that automatic; my affirmation or mental training is this:

* Shoot until assailant drops, aiming at center mass. Do not consider life/death issues re: where I shoot.

* When assailant drops, stop shooting. Put finger up against slide ("finger off trigger unless ready to shoot")

* Keep gun pointed at assailant and watch every move.

* Ask for bystander, if one exists, to secure/kick away any weapon the assailant might have had and dial 911.

Until that guy is in cuffs or on a stretcher, I think I'd have a problem lowering my pistol.

Could I freeze up if it came time to shoot? Possibly. Ever gone off a high diving board? You say, "Oh sure, I'll dive off that thing." And then you climb it and you look down and every molecule in your body says, "You idiot, do you know how high you are? Don't jump."

At some point something within you pushes you off that board. The problem with this analogy is that you can practice until you are desensitized. You cannot do this with shooting at a human being.

The only thing I can do is imagine it (it generally takes place in a Circle K in my mind, for some reason), follow the mental image through, and make those affirmations. And do it regularly.

I am curious how most people come to the conclusion that they could take a life, for certain. I can't answer that. I can simply say, "My full intention is to take a life, if necessary, but at minimum to squeeze the trigger repeatedly until the attack ends, and no more."

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

Click to expand...

Old saying but not very true. Typical distance an attack starts at is 10 feet or less most within 6feet. Get a partner and one of you holster an airsoft the other have a knife in his hand like at attacker would See what percent of the time you could shoot him before he knifed you

imported post

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

I wonder if you gave the homeowner say $1,000.00 for capture of, or shooting of bad guy on your property, how many bad guys would be willing to assault your property? What if bad guy had stolen/robbed/raped others...maybe the reward should be the result...i.e. Bad guy robbed three houses - reward for you would be 1K X 3= 3K? Interesting thought.

Marshaul - are you saying there is a difference of self defense shooting of bad guyon your property vs. encouraging people to shoot to kill abad guy assaultingyour property? When you shoot, do you not shoot to kill? When you pull your gun, do you not pull to use?

Click to expand...

Now now their you go using common sense.