Is this hypocrisy? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/26/2013 08:33:02 PM · #927

Here's what happens when you give a gun to a nut.

Assault rifle fired inside a house

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/26/2013 08:59:20 PM · #928

Originally posted by Spork99:

Then enlighten us Oh Great One. What is your plan for dealing with that kind of situation? You wake up and hear someone in your house...You call 911. You have 20-30 minutes before the cops arrive. You hear steps coming towards the bedroom

Like I have said, and Bear, and many others, it's been stated that most of us are quite unlikely to have to deal with such a situation. I don't spend a lot of time contemplating "what ifs".

I certainly know I wouldn't want to have to live with taking someone's life no matter what the circumstances, and your postulations don't worry me in the slightest. Home invasions where I live are virtually unheard of, and where I live, to my knowledge there haven't even been burglaries, though I don't spend much time perusing police reports. Since you truly have no way of knowing what the police response is likely to be here, I really don't care to bother with your scenario.

I'm willing to have faith in the hopes that it's so unlikely to happen that I won't worry about it.

Like I said previously, I chose an area to live where guns, drugs, crime, and violence are *not* part of my normal daily life. Why anyone would live in such an area is beyond me.

I guess I'd just have to say to you the same thing I say to the people that live along the river here when it overflows its banks by ten feet every decade or so. Why would you live there *knowing* that sooner or later it's going to happen to you?

Yes, I might be killed in a home invasion, but it's statistically highly improbable.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/26/2013 11:03:05 PM · #929

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spork99:
Then enlighten us Oh Great One. What is your plan for dealing with that kind of situation? You wake up and hear someone in your house...You call 911. You have 20-30 minutes before the cops arrive. You hear steps coming towards the bedroom

Like I have said, and Bear, and many others, it's been stated that most of us are quite unlikely to have to deal with such a situation. I don't spend a lot of time contemplating "what ifs".

I certainly know I wouldn't want to have to live with taking someone's life no matter what the circumstances, and your postulations don't worry me in the slightest. Home invasions where I live are virtually unheard of, and where I live, to my knowledge there haven't even been burglaries, though I don't spend much time perusing police reports. Since you truly have no way of knowing what the police response is likely to be here, I really don't care to bother with your scenario.

I'm willing to have faith in the hopes that it's so unlikely to happen that I won't worry about it.

Like I said previously, I chose an area to live where guns, drugs, crime, and violence are *not* part of my normal daily life. Why anyone would live in such an area is beyond me.

I guess I'd just have to say to you the same thing I say to the people that live along the river here when it overflows its banks by ten feet every decade or so. Why would you live there *knowing* that sooner or later it's going to happen to you?

Yes, I might be killed in a home invasion, but it's statistically highly improbable.

So basically, you just hope it won't happen to you.

Hope's not a strategy.

Message edited by author 2013-01-26 23:05:04.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/26/2013 11:15:27 PM · #930

Went to the gun show here....I got to meet people from 2 tv shows. I wish I had my camera with me. I met the mountain man from "the duck commanders" and a few people from the " sons of guns " show...I had a great time. I wasn't able to buy any ammo...That was a joke. (they were selling out as quickly as they put it on the table)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/26/2013 11:40:51 PM · #931

Originally posted by Spork99:

So basically, you just hope it won't happen to you.

Hope's not a strategy.

if you want to talk about hope, it is one thing. Then there is betting against the odds.
"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts." link

Of course by being smart and careful you can decrease your odds of having the gun in your house used on you or someone you love. We all know that criminals and crack heads are running around with guns, don't be them and you are half way there. Don't get depressed and blow your brains all over the backyard, that's another half. But The odds are still against you. I hope it works out for you.

Of course having a swimming pool at your house is about 100 times more dangerous to your children than keeping a gun in it, and driving them around town is more dangerous than having a pool.

The fact that driving your child around town is several hundred times more dangerous to you and yours, than intruders are likely to be makes me want to have a safer car more than a gun. It is the best way to beat the odds.

Message edited by author 2013-01-26 23:52:00.

kenskid

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/26/2013 11:47:46 PM · #932

What show? I went to one down here near New Orleans. I picked up a Ruger 10-22. Adjustable, folding, removable stock. Can be used like a freaky Uzi. I got a Red Dot for it. I can't find it anywhere online so I jumped on it. Going shoot it tomorrow.

See my link I posted a few posts prior to this one. I'm shooting it with Adobe. Ha!

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/27/2013 12:23:07 AM · #933

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

Absolutely no where in any of my many many hours (decades) of training or teaching have I ever heard, read, saw or taught anything other than "justified use of deadly force REQUIRES the imminent and immediate threat of death or grave (Crippling) injury.

I harbour no doubt whatsoever that indeed such is the case, but sadly the interpretation of what constitutes such justified use is left with the person who feels threatened.

Trust me when I say that I have been in some very stressful situations and can attest to the fact that we do not all react in the same manner, particularly in civilian life. The perception of some people to certain situational factors can have some very dire consequences. The end results may not be based on malicious intent, but the fact remains that there may be only one version of the account that will be heard.

Ray

"intrepretation" is done by the court and the judicial system - to me the process of investigating and prosecuting (or not) is dependent upon the law and the law is quite clear that the threat of death or grave injury be imediately present and imminent for the justified use of defensive deadly force. For anyone posting here to suggest or imply or state that gunowners have open season on anyone stealing from them (per the castle doctrine) is simply not true. The law says otherwise and if a gunowner violates the law - even in a percieved act of self defense - they must still answer to the law.

As an experienced LEO you certainly know that there is always evidence. That evidence will either support or refute the "version" of events being told. Intentionally lying to responding officers or investigators rarely ever turns out well. Due to cognitive dissonance, auditory exclusion, or other physio-psychological factors following a violent encounter, specifics may be (and often are) remembered or recalled out of sequence - but to intentionally lie about the event is nearly always detrimental.

It would seem that we are at loggerheads as to what constitutes "Interpretation"

I would argue that mine alludes to situational interpretation, where the victims render their interpretation of what is transpiring and reacts accordingly. What you are alluding to is more in line with judicial reasoning where factors such as "actus reus" and "mens rea" are reviewed, analysed and from which a decision is rendered... the two are not the same.

Once the victim has arrived at a conclusion and acts on it, there is no coming back, particularly in the case where someone is shot and killed.

The intents may not have been to kill the perpetrator, and the victim may have been mistaken, but someone is nonetheless dead and therein lies the problem I have with "Interpretation".

I have known grizzled policemen make the wrong decision when in a stressful situation and harbour no doubt whatsoever that the average citizen would fare no better and that their perception of reality could be severely impaired by fear.

In passing, I am most certainly not one of those who would imply that gunowners have open season on anyone stealing from them (per the castle doctrine), but do earnestly believe that the basic premise of the law is flawed since all individuals have differing mechanisms when dealing with fear.

Ray

This is just one example why I enjoy our discourse. Reasoned. Well defined. Pointed. Thanks for the reply.

You are totally correct in your bring up the "grizzled officer" example. Absolutely true. One reason I previously recommended Massad Ayoob's book In the Gravest Extreme on a couple different postings and one reason I personally paid the thousands of dollars to attend his training classes - when he was still teaching.

Understanding the Judicious use of force is to me - primary for anyone choosing to own firearms or preparing for the defensive use of force. It is covered in its basics in CCW classes but it truly should be understood more completely. The parameters to use deadly force (per the law) is extremely restrictive and the consequences for violating those narrow parameters are very serious. To read some of the comments like "shoot first ask questions later", or "rack a round to scare them", or "shooting someone for a property crime", or "dragging a shot intruder inside your home before the cops arrive", or "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", these are examples of ignorance.

To say that a "Policeman told me something" as if to imply that because he is an LEO that he actually knows the law is sadly ignorant as well. I have known many many officers who did not know the law reagrding the judicious use of force. Some of those officers are in prison today because they acted inappropriately. Same for civilians. What some have posted here is clearly in violation of the law - if they ever actually acted as they have posted they would.

Your point, I think is that the posted ignorance would have dire consequences - both in the potential loss of innocent life and the conviction of the person that survived. I think we are dicussing the same event and outcome, just you emphasised the before (or during the shooting) while my focus was on the aftermath (the responding officers, the investigation and the judicial process)as that is where my specific training and teaching is focused. Anyone (whether a grizzled LEO or a hyped adrenlin stoked civilian) can make a poor choice. Knowing the consequence of a poor choice in my view greatly tempers the chance of that. Realizing that even a "JUSTIFIED" shooting in self defense may easily cost you a quarter of a million dollars or more - kind of puts a damper on the "wild west" mindset often suggested and portrayed by those concerned about us gun owners. In every class I have taught, I strongly emphasize the force continuum and the escalation process. Deadly force is on the very last rung and reserved for ONLY the IMMINENT/immediate threat of DEATH or GRAVE/crippling injury to oneself or those under your immediate protection.

The color codes of awareness White, Yellow, Orange, Red, Black, Grey are one method to help taech force escalation. Avoidance is always preferred - whether it is making yourself/home/family a harder target by attitude, posture, alertness to surroundings, locks (deadbolts), alarms, dogs, etc. The best advice I can give over the internet for anyone who is considering a firearm for self defense or has one currently - is to read In the Gravest Extreme.

Message edited by author 2013-01-27 00:36:17.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/27/2013 12:24:42 AM · #934

Originally posted by kenskid:

What show? I went to one down here near New Orleans. I picked up a Ruger 10-22.

Learn from others, don't shoot it in your house. And if you do, don't post it to youtube and hope your wife won't find out ;)

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/27/2013 12:45:29 AM · #935

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Spork99:
So basically, you just hope it won't happen to you.

Hope's not a strategy.

if you want to talk about hope, it is one thing. Then there is betting against the odds.
"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts." link

Of course by being smart and careful you can decrease your odds of having the gun in your house used on you or someone you love. We all know that criminals and crack heads are running around with guns, don't be them and you are half way there. Don't get depressed and blow your brains all over the backyard, that's another half. But The odds are still against you. I hope it works out for you.

Of course having a swimming pool at your house is about 100 times more dangerous to your children than keeping a gun in it, and driving them around town is more dangerous than having a pool.

The fact that driving your child around town is several hundred times more dangerous to you and yours, than intruders are likely to be makes me want to have a safer car more than a gun. It is the best way to beat the odds.

The article said nothing about equating the danger in having a gun to the danger from intruders.

If anything, it says that everyday activities carry a far greater risk than owning a gun.

01/27/2013 12:49:34 AM · #936

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Flash:
Thank you for the link to the NRA safety rules. Had never seen them before and was totally unaware that one should keep their firearms unloaded.

Wow......just freakin' wow....

I'm quite certain Flash was being sarcastic...

Thanks Bear. As a Life/Endowmewnt/Benefactor member of the NRA, I am familiar with their teaching. As a past NRA certified firearms safety instructor I am aware of their teaching. Past students of mine could easily testify under oath my insistance on treating every firearm as if it were loaded and the requirement to have firearms unloaded when not actively engaging a target. However, when specifically addressing tactics and reaction to an assault/invasion, each can do what they wish - but I will not be "racking" a round trying to scare someone. If I did require inserting a round I would do so as quietly as possible. But we can discuss tactics and the reasons why some are favored over others - elsewhere.

01/27/2013 01:03:44 AM · #937

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Some say the tactical advantage of the delay is a bad thing, but since you must give verbal warning, ...

LEO's are required to give verbal warning "when the situation permits". Civilians have no such requirement. A civilian may choose to give a verbal warning and there are tactical situations where it would be wise to do so - but LEO's typically are required by department policy. The roles of an LEO is different than the role of the civilian. The LEO has arrest powers and typically has a duty to not retreat (except to cover). Civilians are typically better served by avoidance and if forcefully stating that you are armed and resolutely prepared to shoot, helps encourage the criminal to leave you alone, then it would be a good choice. However, in a multiple armed assailant scenario, it may be tactically better to not alert them to your presence and act once they become an immediate threat to you or those under your care.

Criminals actually know this. One reason they would fear a "resolutely armed civilian" over an LEO.

01/27/2013 01:14:04 AM · #938

Originally posted by Spork99:

...There were all manner of dire predictions of daily shootouts in the streets, people blowing each other away over cutting in line or fender benders. 300k carry permits later and even the staunchest opponents are forced to admit that it's a non-issue.

Spot on. Evidence, evidence , evidence. This same evidence in every state that adopted concealed carry. Same sky is falling dire prediction and the same fallacy proven again and again.

01/27/2013 01:24:22 AM · #939

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Spork99:
that I could make a magic unicorn wish and they'd be in your house instead, I would.

I certainly hope that everyone reads this......

You seem to be confident that you would be able to deal with armed intruders without a gun using some other means. I lack that ability.

You've already invested in an alarm system ... you could build yourself a panic room and keep everyone alive ...

Actually, part of a sound derfensive plan is to have some kind of a "safe room" where family members know to congregate and take a last stand if you will. Obviously it should have communications and any essential tools required to support your particular plan. Rarely is it a hardened bunker type room like in the movies - more typically it is simply the master bedroom. Deadbolt locks are good to have and masterlock makes a pole/rod that goes under the door handle and angles into the floor/carpet with a rubberized non-skid pad. The angle prevents the door from opening - unless extreme force is used - which basically establishes intent to harm if that happens.

01/27/2013 01:47:46 AM · #940

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I wonder if the folks who want guns for self-defense and protection in the home have sought advice from security experts about the many other things you can do to protect yourself in the home? My impression is that focusing on the gun can create a false sense of security such that you may overlook preventive steps that will discourage the bad guys from targeting you and/or your home in the first place.

1. You will never stop crime - you can only help encourage it to go somewhere else.
2. Unlocked doors and windows are the easiest way in. Lock you doors and windows.
3. Dogs over 50 pounds have a proven track record as both a deterrant and an alarm. Plus they give unconditionally and can be sacrificed to "go search" if there are "noises" in the night.
4. Place Alarm stickers on your windows near entry doors. Doesn't matter if you really have an alarm or not - just don't tell anyone if you don't. One neighbor will tell the whole neighborhood and soon the criminals will know through a friend of a friend of a friend.
5. Deadbolt locks on all exterior doors. Even the garage if it has a side/rear entry door.
6. Door restraints. Masterlock makes a rod/pole (about $20). [exterior doors and saferoom should have one]
7. Communication within arms reach at all times. Cell phone or land line.
8. If OC spray is part of your defense system - have it be a thumb activated style rather than a finger activated style. The thumb activated style positions the canister in your hand in a position of strength (fist) rather than one of weakness (like hairspray). State laws vary regarding the concentration amounts allowed for civilians to USE (not necessarily possession but USE). Just because a local store sells it does not mean it meets state law for use. Meaning you could be sued for excessive force and using an illegal substance if you used a concentration greater than that allowed by your state. Typically Police are allowed a higher concentration. Know the law for your state.
9. If firearms are a part of your plan, then get training in their use and safe storage. Document your training and keep a journal of your training as this may be evidence you need to support your actions.
10. Police do not know the law just because they are in law enforcement. They know what they do everyday. Judicious use of force requires training from those who specialize in that particular area. In the Gravest Extreme is a excellant primer for anyone deciding to include a firearm in their personal plan.

eta: understanding the force continuum goes a long way in preparing for lifes daily encounters and some of her not so daily confrontations.

Message edited by author 2013-01-27 02:28:31.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/27/2013 02:23:53 AM · #941

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Spork99:
You have 20-30 minutes before the cops arrive.

While your basic point is sound, in most metropolitain areas average 911 response time is around 10 minuets, it is closer to 5 minuets in my town. Granted that is a long time when your home is stormed by heavily armed psychotic killers bent on rape and murder. Luckily that is not a common occurrence in my neighborhood.

In stressed urban areas where police forces are being cut back in tight budgetary times, these response times will go up, and Flint seems to be the poster child on that one. Even in poverty ravaged, gun flooded, gang infested Oakland the average is 17 minuets. from what i read, Flint is much worse.

There are many items that should be part of a sound defensive strategy. I appreciate your acknowledgement of some peoples unfortunate circumstances and the very real response time in some areas. Like the gentleman who owned the boat, sometimes and in some places it is just you.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/27/2013 05:20:20 AM · #942

Originally posted by Flash:

5. Deadbolt locks on all exterior doors. Even the garage if it has a side/rear entry door.

One addition to your sound advice on this point. It amazes me how often I see a dead bolt with a thumb latch on the interior side, with a glass window in the door or with glass sidelights. If you can break the glass and turn the bolt, the bolt is useless. In those areas use a bolt that is keyed on both sides, and hang the key out of reach of the glass (so burglars can't use it) but on a cord secured to the wall (so you don't lose it) and long enough to reach the lock (if there is a fire or emergency you want that key fast).

Message edited by author 2013-01-27 05:22:02.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/27/2013 07:59:13 AM · #943

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Like I have said, and Bear, and many others, it's been stated that most of us are quite unlikely to have to deal with such a situation. I don't spend a lot of time contemplating "what ifs".

I certainly know I wouldn't want to have to live with taking someone's life no matter what the circumstances, and your postulations don't worry me in the slightest. Home invasions where I live are virtually unheard of, and where I live, to my knowledge there haven't even been burglaries, though I don't spend much time perusing police reports. Since you truly have no way of knowing what the police response is likely to be here, I really don't care to bother with your scenario.

I'm willing to have faith in the hopes that it's so unlikely to happen that I won't worry about it.

Like I said previously, I chose an area to live where guns, drugs, crime, and violence are *not* part of my normal daily life. Why anyone would live in such an area is beyond me.

I guess I'd just have to say to you the same thing I say to the people that live along the river here when it overflows its banks by ten feet every decade or so. Why would you live there *knowing* that sooner or later it's going to happen to you?

Yes, I might be killed in a home invasion, but it's statistically highly improbable.

Originally posted by Spork99:

So basically, you just hope it won't happen to you.

Hope's not a strategy.

Eureka! I do believe you've *finally* grasped it!

I've emboldened the part above........this would be the part that clued you in, right?

You got it! I don't have a *strategy*. I don't live somewhere that dictates that, just as I don't have a strategy for volcanoes, tornadoes, or asteroid damage.

Life is obviously much kinder and gentler where I live. I'm guessing that explains a lot about your generally miserable disposition.

Message edited by author 2013-01-27 08:24:19.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

01/27/2013 08:32:45 AM · #944

Originally posted by Flash:

Understanding the Judicious use of force is to me - primary for anyone choosing to own firearms or preparing for the defensive use of force. It is covered in its basics in CCW classes but it truly should be understood more completely. The parameters to use deadly force (per the law) is extremely restrictive and the consequences for violating those narrow parameters are very serious. To read some of the comments like "shoot first ask questions later", or "rack a round to scare them", or "shooting someone for a property crime", or "dragging a shot intruder inside your home before the cops arrive", or "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6", these are examples of ignorance.

To say that a "Policeman told me something" as if to imply that because he is an LEO that he actually knows the law is sadly ignorant as well. I have known many many officers who did not know the law reagrding the judicious use of force. Some of those officers are in prison today because they acted inappropriately. Same for civilians. What some have posted here is clearly in violation of the law - if they ever actually acted as they have posted they would.

Your point, I think is that the posted ignorance would have dire consequences - both in the potential loss of innocent life and the conviction of the person that survived. I think we are dicussing the same event and outcome, just you emphasised the before (or during the shooting) while my focus was on the aftermath (the responding officers, the investigation and the judicial process)as that is where my specific training and teaching is focused. Anyone (whether a grizzled LEO or a hyped adrenlin stoked civilian) can make a poor choice. Knowing the consequence of a poor choice in my view greatly tempers the chance of that. Realizing that even a "JUSTIFIED" shooting in self defense may easily cost you a quarter of a million dollars or more - kind of puts a damper on the "wild west" mindset often suggested and portrayed by those concerned about us gun owners. In every class I have taught, I strongly emphasize the force continuum and the escalation process. Deadly force is on the very last rung and reserved for ONLY the IMMINENT/immediate threat of DEATH or GRAVE/crippling injury to oneself or those under your immediate protection.

The color codes of awareness White, Yellow, Orange, Red, Black, Grey are one method to help taech force escalation. Avoidance is always preferred - whether it is making yourself/home/family a harder target by attitude, posture, alertness to surroundings, locks (deadbolts), alarms, dogs, etc. The best advice I can give over the internet for anyone who is considering a firearm for self defense or has one currently - is to read In the Gravest Extreme.

Okay......if I understand you correctly, and extrapolate some, there are quite a few gun owners out there who could be construed as dangerous simply because of this information above.

What would you suggest as a way to have all of this be common knowledge, and would you think it would be a good idea to try to factor it in, in some manner, to gun ownership?

It honestly sounds like with you having this type of knowledge, you should be more scared of some gun owners than I.

kenskid