Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ exactly - still can never say never as if it is there it is available
Originally Posted By retlawfan <<We don't know what the circumstances are around the incident. We don't now if his daughter was sneaking into the home.>> <<Stratford police say the teen had apparently sneaked out to visit a friend late Monday night and came back into the home through the basement. Her father, 41-year-old Eric Scott, was awakened by motion sensor lights in his backyard and when he went to investigate found the basement door unlocked. He then saw someone in a basement bathroom and fired his service pistol, hitting his daughter in the knee>> It does come down to personal responsibility. He made an error in judgement, but I would consider it partially justified. If someone was breaking into my home, I would take actions to stop the intruder, especially if my family were all asleep in their beds. What should he have done, knowing everyone was home? Call the police? Oh wait, don't call them, THEY have guns! Oh wait, HE WAS the police. (Ducking from more of those tomatoes)
Originally Posted By barboy "What should he have done, knowing everyone was home" Are you really excusing firing on someone without knowing or seeing what is going down? What if that was a drunken neighbor who was coming "home". Or what if that was a person who is a bit older and suffers from dimentia and happened to wander onto his property. Or what if that was a teen sneeking in to visit his daughter whom he thought was already in her room. There are one million and one "if's" so why not find out what is going down before acting like a trigger happy coward just because someone is in the basement. This is not about the prevalence of guns in the home but about cowardice and laziness. Knowing the weapon is deadly one better make damn sure of what is going down before discharging. This cop should be fired immediately since he lacks credibility for using sound judgment.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You can use that annology for just about anything. Gosh, someone was drinking and got behind the wheel of a car, so lets ban ALL alcohol. Gosh, someone got lung cancer from smoking, lets ban all forms of tobaco.>> Gee KT... you are fighting a straw man. I said nowhere in my post that guns should be banned. I said people with children should think twice before having a gun in their home. Now I DO THINK handguns should be regulated, as are alcohol and tobacco which you used as examples in your post.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom << I said people with children should think twice before having a gun in their home.>> How about a situation when the government tells you that YOU ARE LEGALLY MANDATED TO HAVE A GUN IN YOUR HOME. In my sitution the people in my community don't have a choice. The law tells us we have to have a gun in our home. But please keep telling us how wonderful government is. In the Democratic world we all exist for government, and not the other way around. So I'm sure you must have no problems with guns in the home if government does not give us a choice. Afterall that law passed when the majority of voters put it in.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Guns don't kill people, people do." Actually, I think it's the bullets. Look, if you want to keep a gun in your house, fine. You're far more likely to kill a family member by accident than you are in killing a burglar. I've also heard a statistic (but I don't know if it is true) that you are more likely to have your house burglarized if you own a gun. I don't know how that one is supposed to work.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I'm curious to know how the local government enforces such a law.>> More than likely the same way our Federal Government enforces our current Immigration Laws.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger >>I've also heard a statistic (but I don't know if it is true) that you are more likely to have your house burglarized if you own a gun. I don't know how that one is supposed to work. << I happens because some idiots actually put little NRA stickers or posters on their front windows. The bad guys see them and break in to get the guns. One of my teachers, way back when, told us about friends of hers that it had happened to.
Originally Posted By jonvn So great. There is really very little reason to have a gun, and a lot to not. Even highly trained people end up shooting their own family members.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder You can still get out of owning a gun in Kennesaw, Georgia. All youhave to do is object. Here's the city ordinance: Sec. 34-1. Heads of households to maintain firearms. (a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefor. (b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
Originally Posted By DlandJB While I am glad she didn't die, I thought police officers were trained to shoot to kill. So this fellow didn't identify first and then shot poorly. I think there is more to this story on both the father and the daughter's sides. And, while it may work in Kennesaw, I can't imagine that arming everyone in Los Angeles would end well...
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Heh. I like how you are grouped in with the physically disabled, insane, paupers or felons if you object to having a gun. Is this one of the laws that has been on the books forever, or something recently passed?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And, while it may work in Kennesaw, I can't imagine that arming everyone in Los Angeles would end well...> That reminds me of when I was at Oxford. There were six people in my small group tutorial, 3 of us Americans. The tutor was British, of course. Before class started we were talking about the race riots they had had in London, Manchester, and other large cities that seemed to hit all at once the summer before, and were quite a shock to Britain. One of the Americans asked, "How many people died overall last summer in the riots?" The tutor gave a most quizzical look at us and said "Died???" as though it was absolutely an impossible concept. Then the light bulb went on and she said, "Oh, I'd forgotten. In America you're all armed, aren't you?"
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Is this one of the laws that has been on the books forever, or something recently passed?" It was passed in 1982. Morton Grove, Illinois passed a law banning handguns, and in a knee jerk reaction, as if a ban in Illinois would somehow affect Kennesaw, Georgia citizens, Kennesaw passed this little gem. Only after the ACLU sued them did they amend it to include the exemptions. And yes, you'd have to think the C.O.'s were lumped in with the others on purpose, as if not wanting to own a gun makes someone less macho and somehow incomplete.
Originally Posted By jonvn In some parts of the LA area, there are lots of guns. It doesn't seem to stop violence there. In fact, it seems to increase it.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I've also heard a statistic (but I don't know if it is true) that you are more likely to have your house burglarized if you own a gun. I don't know how that one is supposed to work.< another outcome from a stats geek likely -- my guess is people in less safe areas may have a higher % of gun ownership for safety - hence the results
Originally Posted By x Pirate_Princess x So Georgia has a revolutionary-era militia? LOL I didn't want to get in on the gun umm..."debate" but I just wanted to mention that. But I also wanted to say that Police are trained to shoot to kill, but they're also trained to shoot to injure, so as to get convictions and what-not. I'm sure that since he DIDN'T identify the "intruder" first, the shot was more a "warning" type shot, and he had no intention of killing said intruder. If the intruder is unarmed, and the intruder is killed, in this day and age, there is the possibility of being sued by the intruders family for wrongful death, etc. Better to injure than to kill. Of course, saying all that, he should have said something along the lines of "who's there? I'm armed!"
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Police are trained to shoot to kill, but they're also trained to shoot to injure>> I'm fairly sure that is incorrect. There is no such thing as shooting to injure. Shooting at someone is much more difficult than you might imagine. He was merely lucky that he only hit his daughter in the leg, and not where he intended.
