Home Alone

1. KHM 9:20 AM

   Let us know how the single thing goes. In my experience its very cool to be in your house alone for precisely one day longer than it takes you to get it clean and stocked. Then it blows.
   
   fourth of July: picnic with the neighborhood, fireworks, intoxicants. Yay USA!

    
2. Don 9:45 AM

   While I would not describe myself as excited, I was relieved to see what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the Constitution. Either way I prefer to think of myself as a Constitution and individual freedom lover rather than as a gun lover.
   
   In 1982, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." In, I believe June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that we have no Constitutional right to police protection. In light of those decisions, if there ever was a doubt, it becomes clear that our personal protection is just that, personal. Not only is it our right, it is our obligation.
   
   Hopefully none of us ever encounter an unwelcome stranger in our home, but should you find yourself in that position, I don’t believe that I have the right to decide that you acted improperly if you decide to defend yourself, even if you choose to use lethal force. I was not there. I don’t know the threat you felt to yourself or to your family, particularly with small children. Unless you shoot the guy in the back as he is climbing out a window, I have to assume you took what you felt was the appropriate action for the threat you perceived. By the way, according to recent news stories, apparently in Texas, even if the person is in your neighbors empty house stealing their property, you have the right to shoot them.
   
   I am not sure I could ever shoot another person, especially if I had another option, but if I find it necessary to do so, I hope I am not prosecuted for doing what I believe necessary to protect me and my family.
   
   Please don’t take this as confrontational, it is simply a question, but would there be any circumstances where you would use deadly force, or find it acceptable for me to do so.
   
   
   Have a great holiday.

    
3. Drew 9:54 AM

   Fourth of July with the family and thankful for the rain today that will help protect my house/yard from my neighbor’s fireworks.
   
   I'm sure it will come as no surprise to anyone that I was happy about the Supreme Court ruling, which I believe upheld the proper interpretation of the Constitution. I also wouldn’t be surprised if my pops is writing something too as I write this.
   
   Why do you agree with the use of less-lethal weapons like Tasers? As you have stated in the past, a gun was designed with the intent of "putting a hole through someone", which I can't argue. A Taser wasn't exactly designed as a faster way to cook your July 4th hotdogs. It was designed to stop a person, occasionally with deadly results. It was designed to put 50,000 volts into, presumably, an adult. What would happen if that accidentally went through my 25 lb daughter? How is that any different than if she is accidentally shot with a gun? In both cases, she shouldn’t have access to them, but either could provide deadly results. Why is one better than the other? Is it purely the mass killing factor?
   
   If I find someone in my house that I don’t know and haven’t invited them in, that, to me, is a case for “immediately necessary” to use whatever available; i.e. a gun if I owned one. If they are there, they are up to no good. I don’t want to bring Jason into this, but he owns guns because he is a recreational shooter. If someone were in his house, I wonder which he would prefer to grab if he had to confront them, gun or Taser. Sorry J. Feel free to not answer that if you don’t want. It was kind of just a general question directed towards someone who I know has guns.

    
4. Drew 9:56 AM

   Yep. Back-to-back Thompson responses. You have to really hate the Thompson boys, don't you? :-)

    
5. Lyman 5:25 PM

   I would never shoot anyone. Guns are evil instruments that should only be in the hands of individuals who are responsible, mentally stable, and trained such as Jason. Too many people wielding guns do not meet any of those criteria.
   
   Don, you say your right to defend yourself is a personal one but that is not the case. If you kill somebody then you will be put on trial and have to prove that you did so within the confines of the law in most cases to a jury of your peers. I'm reading a book about homicide detectives right now and shootings/killings are everybody's business from politicians to taxpayers.
   
   Drew it sounds like you are asking me what is the difference between a Taser and a gun. According to Wiki Tasers have caused 180 deaths in the past 13 years. Compare that with gun deaths. Tase a kid in the chest the chances are very good he lives, shoot him and he is a goner. I don't really have to tell you the diff between the two. If a safer alternative to Tasers are made available, I'm all for it. But if you are paranoid enough to need a weapon in your home I'd much rather it be one that causes shock instead of the violent tearing of flesh.

    
6. Don 5:55 PM

   The courts have ruled that the police are not responsible for my safety, I cited those for you. Therefore IT IS my personal responsibility to protect myself, my family and my property. Now there are restrictions that the law can put on that responsibility such as when I can and cannot use deadly force, but again IT IS my responsibility. In most states, I am allowed without prosecution, to kill someone if it is for self defense. If I truly believed that me, and certainly my family, were in danger of being killed, I really hope that I could do whatever was necessary to save our lives, even if that meant killing another person.
   
   Guns are not evil instruments, guns are inanimate objects. People who use guns against others are evil, not guns. I have a gun or two (shotguns not handguns)and they have never caused any evil.

    
7. kbmulder 7:48 PM

   We miss you here in Indiana, but it's good to see your boy! We will be partying at Connie's:) Hope you find something fun to do too!

    
8. Lyman 8:05 PM

   If I am responsible for the safety of my family that means I will never have a gun in my home as the mere presence of the weapon endangers everyone.
   
   And what do you mean that 'in most states I am allowed to kill without prosecution if it is in self-defense'? Really? So you think if a cop shows up to your house after you killed an intruder you simply tell him "it was in self defense" and he says "okay, see you later." No way. You're going to have to appear in front of tax-funded officers of the law and justice in some capacity and at that point what you have done ceases to be a personal matter.

    
9. Don 2:15 AM

   There is a difference between investigation and prosecution.
   
   I didn't say I could just shoot the guy, clean the gun and put it away, and go back to watching TV. But after an investigation by the police and a determination of self-defense, in most states, I would not be prosecuted.
   
   What I am saying is that my protection is a personal responsibility, the courts have made that determination. I am not saying that gives me the right to be a vigilante, I just can't count on the police and government to do it for me.
   
   Are you telling me that if your family was in danger of being killed by an intruder in your home, that you could not/would not fight back even if it meant kiliing the intruder first?

    
10. KHM 9:25 AM

    Just for the sake of adding information, in many jurisdictions, police no longer carry conventional handguns, opting instead for weapons that shoot non-lethal projectiles, like rubber pellets. These disable, temporarily, would-be assailants.
    
    If police are making these changes, I wonder what the gun advocates think about using them for their own protection...
    
    My own opinion is that there are some things that cause such harm that their very presence should be regulated/restricted. If homeowners do not have handguns, accidental shootings in homes don't happen. I think the burden of unintentional/accidental shootings makes banning handguns an imperative.
    
    A handgun is made for nothing except killing people. Killing people is illegal. Bye-bye handguns.

     
11. Lyman 10:07 AM

    My entire point in bringing up investigation/prosecution is that your matter of self-defense at that point becomes a public one. So we do what we do in this country and re-interpret and re-vote on those laws and if the people of DC don't want handguns then they should have that right.
    
    Its too bad that the courts had to stick their nose in the matter. DC has the highest crime rate in the country if I'm not mistaken. Why not make law enforcement/gun control a little easier there? That's the last place you want the police's job to be harder.
    
    Would I kill an intruder if I absolutely had to? Of course. I don't have to have a gun to kill someone and it sounds like your are insinuating that I would put my family's safety in danger simply because I don't want a gun. Not the case.
    
    If I wanted to keep my family safe at all times I would never get in a car or plane, I would never go swimming, etc. The threat of an intruder who would endanger my life is a hypothetical one. Could it happen? Sure. Could a helicopter crash into my condo? Sure.
    
    Its not worth it. Its not worth putting another weapon in to the community on the slight chance that there will be an intruder in my home who threatens my life. (How the hell does that work anyway? Do you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow? Or do you expect criminals to announce their presence upon breaking into your home? Because a loaded gun in my house is a much bigger threat than a hypothetical intruder.)

     
12. Don 4:34 AM

    It is my right and my obligation, to protect my property, but more importantly mine and my families lives.
    
    Now that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed, that right includes using a weapon which means everything from my hands, to the BASEBALL BAT I keep under my bed, to a handgun, that is my choice. The weapon I might choose would depend on the circumstances at the time.
    
    Should you choice to climb out the window, call 911 on your Blackberry, then sit on the curb and wait 3-4 minutes (at best) for the police to arrive with their non-lethal weapons, that is your choice.
    
    Just don't try to limit mine.

     
13. Lyman 10:19 AM

    Don, we are talking about handguns here, that's all. I would use any weapon I needed to on the off-chance that the situation would occur. I don't think you truly understand my position on gun control so I'll kind of sum it up for you; I am for gun ownership but with mandatory waiting periods, background (both criminal and mental) checks, no buying guns online (ala Columbine) or at gun shows (unless you've already been through the aforementioned checks) and the question of handguns should be a state matter. Why bring up hands or a baseball bat? Why would you think I'd disagree with that.
    
    I don't appreciate the snarky, sarcastic comment about me jumping out a window and waiting for 911 though. But I have appreciated this civil discussion so far. It's been a good one.

     
14. Don 11:06 AM

    Maybe I was being snarky, I don't even know what snarky means. It was an attempt at humor.
    
    I wasn't being sarcastic. I am serious, if you, or anyone else doesn't feel comfortable with a gun in your house, don't have one. Just don't ask me to not have one if I am responsible with it and am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record of violent crime. Let me make that choice for myself.
    
    The the only difference in our handgun position then is that it is not a state issue, it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. You can't take it away as D.C. did.

     
15. Lyman 3:12 PM

    Well its too bad that people who actually live in violent communities can't decide for themselves what is best for crime in their area.

     
16. Drew 4:48 AM

    I took the holiday weekend off from the blogs, but I want to ask a couple more questions.
    
    The D.C. gun ban has been on the books since we were born (1976). Doesn't it seem like the ban hasn't been that effective since during that timeframe, at times, D.C. has been one of the most violent cities in the country? It would seem like the ban was only effective to the already law-abiding citizens anyway. Those who weren't, and wanted guns, found guns anyway. Before the recent decision, it was often considered to be un-Constitutional and apparently not really that effective. Why defend the law?
    
    Second, I do need you to clarify the Taser/gun thing further. Previously, you have stated that "any deaths by guns are too many" (slight paraphrasing possible there). So 180 deaths in 13 years amounts to about 14 deaths a year on average. Is that your threshold for where a weapon is acceptable? If the deaths for guns were brought down to 14, would it be acceptable? I think that if you really feel that any death by gun is unacceptable, then you should be just as offended by deaths caused by another weapon. And a Taser is a weapon, and one that is marketed as non-lethal. So any death from it should bring about a similar outrage, shouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't designed to kill, and yet is has been doing so. Once a month. So why aren't there taser bans? Why the difference in the two opinions?

     

Post a Comment