At least 8 dead in Mass Shooting du Jour

[ZiprHead]

1. Actionable auditing of every single seller of firearms. Eliminate the ability of sellers to shrug and say hundreds of guns were “stolen” or be unable to produce buyer records. This audit information goes into a federal database. If you want to sell guns, you are required to make sure you are not the one handing them to criminals. Federal government should know exactly who is selling firearms, and that their inventory is audited.

And your evidence that such things are happening?

Unlicensed dealers and black market guns

68,000 illegally trafficked guns were sold in a five year period, said ATF

theweek.com

Foot, meet bullet. That's not talking about licensed dealers, you're looking under the streetlight again.

The "sellers" were not limited to licensed dealers only.

 

[southernhybrid]

I just want to correct the claim that the constitution allows gun ownership for self defense. Nope. That's not true. The constitution talks about a well regulated militia, which according to some evidence was meant as a way to allow slave owners to own guns so they could be used when necessary against their slaves. Regardless, if the militia pertained to slavery or not, the 2nd certainly mentions a well regulated militia. It was SCOTUS that decided to misinterpret the constitution and make the 2nd amendment about allowing gun ownership to be owned by anyone for self defense. Now we have an insane level of guns and murders. Thanks SCOTUS for keeping us safe! /s

It's best to just get a dog that barks a lot. Dogs have often prevented burglars from getting into your house because people who try to break into homes, don't want to draw attention. One of my former neighbor's little dog scared off a burglar, who was about to enter her home, when she wasn't there. He probably knew that she played Bridge every Thursday and she didn't usually lock her doors, as many from her generation didn't. The 15 lb. dog scared the asshole off. Get a dog or 2 or 3 for that matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deter as in make him depart if there is an actual encounter.

I would think that “repel” would be better choice of word than “deter” as the latter implies, to me at least, of preventing the invasion in the first place.

I know words have more than one meaning and may mean different things to different people so I won’t belabor the point.

Yeah, I could see "repel" rather than "deter". I was thinking of deterring an actual physical encounter.

And I was assuming that not everyone who would happily invade a home would also happily murder the inhabitants. They might well be repelled by a baseball bat rather than risk an encounter and up the level of criminality.

True, but not relevant. Consider this house. The only defense position for the master bedroom that can't be flanked is the top of the stairs. (This also defends three other rooms but they're irrelevant.) An attacker would know I'm there and would be approaching through a space that would only permit a swing via bringing it down. Not very good. Same position, gun, now I'm laying down so they don't know I'm there, they are forced to approach straight on and I will see them before they see me.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1. Actionable auditing of every single seller of firearms. Eliminate the ability of sellers to shrug and say hundreds of guns were “stolen” or be unable to produce buyer records. This audit information goes into a federal database. If you want to sell guns, you are required to make sure you are not the one handing them to criminals. Federal government should know exactly who is selling firearms, and that their inventory is audited.

And your evidence that such things are happening?

Unlicensed dealers and black market guns

68,000 illegally trafficked guns were sold in a five year period, said ATF

theweek.com

Foot, meet bullet. That's not talking about licensed dealers, you're looking under the streetlight again.

The "sellers" were not limited to licensed dealers only.

Well, duh! That's the point--auditing the licensed dealers will not reveal those sales by unlicensed "dealers".

 

[Tigers!]

I just want to correct the claim that the constitution allows gun ownership for self defense. Nope. That's not true. The constitution talks about a well regulated militia, which according to some evidence was meant as a way to allow slave owners to own guns so they could be used when necessary against their slaves. Regardless, if the militia pertained to slavery or not, the 2nd certainly mentions a well regulated militia. It was SCOTUS that decided to misinterpret the constitution and make the 2nd amendment about allowing gun ownership to be owned by anyone for self defense. Now we have an insane level of guns and murders. Thanks SCOTUS for keeping us safe! /s

It's best to just get a dog that barks a lot. Dogs have often prevented burglars from getting into your house because people who try to break into homes, don't want to draw attention. One of my former neighbor's little dog scared off a burglar, who was about to enter her home, when she wasn't there. He probably knew that she played Bridge every Thursday and she didn't usually lock her doors, as many from her generation didn't. The 15 lb. dog scared the asshole off. Get a dog or 2 or 3 for that matter.

Our dog will either
1. Lick the trespasser to death
2. Sleep through the whole thing

I'd be better off barking myself.

 

[bilby]

Deter as in make him depart if there is an actual encounter.

I would think that “repel” would be better choice of word than “deter” as the latter implies, to me at least, of preventing the invasion in the first place.

I know words have more than one meaning and may mean different things to different people so I won’t belabor the point.

Yeah, I could see "repel" rather than "deter". I was thinking of deterring an actual physical encounter.

And I was assuming that not everyone who would happily invade a home would also happily murder the inhabitants. They might well be repelled by a baseball bat rather than risk an encounter and up the level of criminality.

True, but not relevant. Consider this house. The only defense position for the master bedroom that can't be flanked is the top of the stairs. (This also defends three other rooms but they're irrelevant.) An attacker would know I'm there and would be approaching through a space that would only permit a swing via bringing it down. Not very good. Same position, gun, now I'm laying down so they don't know I'm there, they are forced to approach straight on and I will see them before they see me.)

So, now we have gone from defense, to a premeditated ambush with lethal force, and yet you still think you are a "good guy" in this scenario.

That's the problem, right there.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

True, but not relevant. Consider this house. The only defense position for the master bedroom that can't be flanked is the top of the stairs. (This also defends three other rooms but they're irrelevant.) An attacker would know I'm there and would be approaching through a space that would only permit a swing via bringing it down. Not very good. Same position, gun, now I'm laying down so they don't know I'm there, they are forced to approach straight on and I will see them before they see me.)

So, now we have gone from defense, to a premeditated ambush with lethal force, and yet you still think you are a "good guy" in this scenario.

That's the problem, right there.

Someone who isn't intending harm won't be coming up in the first place.

 

[bilby]

True, but not relevant. Consider this house. The only defense position for the master bedroom that can't be flanked is the top of the stairs. (This also defends three other rooms but they're irrelevant.) An attacker would know I'm there and would be approaching through a space that would only permit a swing via bringing it down. Not very good. Same position, gun, now I'm laying down so they don't know I'm there, they are forced to approach straight on and I will see them before they see me.)

So, now we have gone from defense, to a premeditated ambush with lethal force, and yet you still think you are a "good guy" in this scenario.

That's the problem, right there.

Someone who isn't intending harm won't be coming up in the first place.

WTF is "harm", here, though? Does the intended harm justify your decision to murder them in cold blood? Do they plan to kill you, or just to take your stuff, or just to see if you have any stuff they might want to take, or just to see if this really is their mates house or he gave them the wrong address, or are they cops planning to "harm" you by arresting you because someone SWATed you?

All you KNOW is that someone is coming up your stairs uninvited, for reasons unknown. This is not sufficient excuse to murder them. Not even if you are really scared.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

True, but not relevant. Consider this house. The only defense position for the master bedroom that can't be flanked is the top of the stairs. (This also defends three other rooms but they're irrelevant.) An attacker would know I'm there and would be approaching through a space that would only permit a swing via bringing it down. Not very good. Same position, gun, now I'm laying down so they don't know I'm there, they are forced to approach straight on and I will see them before they see me.)

So, now we have gone from defense, to a premeditated ambush with lethal force, and yet you still think you are a "good guy" in this scenario.

That's the problem, right there.

Someone who isn't intending harm won't be coming up in the first place.

WTF is "harm", here, though? Does the intended harm justify your decision to murder them in cold blood? Do they plan to kill you, or just to take your stuff, or just to see if you have any stuff they might want to take, or just to see if this really is their mates house or he gave them the wrong address, or are they cops planning to "harm" you by arresting you because someone SWATed you?

All you KNOW is that someone is coming up your stairs uninvited, for reasons unknown. This is not sufficient excuse to murder them. Not even if you are really scared.

If they didn't intend harm they wouldn't be coming up knowing there was someone up there who didn't want them there. The law considers the fact that they broke into your place as a presumption of ill intent. You are not required to risk yourself to establish more evidence of harmful intent.

 

[bilby]

True, but not relevant. Consider this house. The only defense position for the master bedroom that can't be flanked is the top of the stairs. (This also defends three other rooms but they're irrelevant.) An attacker would know I'm there and would be approaching through a space that would only permit a swing via bringing it down. Not very good. Same position, gun, now I'm laying down so they don't know I'm there, they are forced to approach straight on and I will see them before they see me.)

So, now we have gone from defense, to a premeditated ambush with lethal force, and yet you still think you are a "good guy" in this scenario.

That's the problem, right there.

Someone who isn't intending harm won't be coming up in the first place.

WTF is "harm", here, though? Does the intended harm justify your decision to murder them in cold blood? Do they plan to kill you, or just to take your stuff, or just to see if you have any stuff they might want to take, or just to see if this really is their mates house or he gave them the wrong address, or are they cops planning to "harm" you by arresting you because someone SWATed you?

All you KNOW is that someone is coming up your stairs uninvited, for reasons unknown. This is not sufficient excuse to murder them. Not even if you are really scared.

If they didn't intend harm they wouldn't be coming up knowing there was someone up there who didn't want them there. The law considers the fact that they broke into your place as a presumption of ill intent. You are not required to risk yourself to establish more evidence of harmful intent.

The law is an ass.

And is irrelevant to the fact that you are planning a murder, and if you go through with it, will have to live with the fact that you murdered someone.

You seem to think that you could do so; I suspect it would be different if you actually killed somebody though.

Particularly if it turned out not to be a criminal at all.

You have failed to establish that "If they didn't intend harm they wouldn't be coming up there", and handwaving it isn't convincing at all.

You are also engaging in mind-reading (of a hypothetical person, no less) when you say "...knowing there was someone up there who didn't want them there".

How do they know? How do you know that they know?

It's all more than a bit tenuous as a motive for premeditated murder.

 

[EricH]

True, but not relevant. Consider this house. The only defense position for the master bedroom that can't be flanked is the top of the stairs. (This also defends three other rooms but they're irrelevant.) An attacker would know I'm there and would be approaching through a space that would only permit a swing via bringing it down. Not very good. Same position, gun, now I'm laying down so they don't know I'm there, they are forced to approach straight on and I will see them before they see me.)

So, now we have gone from defense, to a premeditated ambush with lethal force, and yet you still think you are a "good guy" in this scenario.

That's the problem, right there.

Someone who isn't intending harm won't be coming up in the first place.

WTF is "harm", here, though? Does the intended harm justify your decision to murder them in cold blood? Do they plan to kill you, or just to take your stuff, or just to see if you have any stuff they might want to take, or just to see if this really is their mates house or he gave them the wrong address, or are they cops planning to "harm" you by arresting you because someone SWATed you?

All you KNOW is that someone is coming up your stairs uninvited, for reasons unknown. This is not sufficient excuse to murder them. Not even if you are really scared.

You don't understand what Loren Pechtel is telling you, probably because his worldview is so different from yours that your mind cannot make that jump. Loren, and millions of people like him in the US, worship authority in all its forms, from an orange faced criminal imbecile who can barely string together complete sentences, to the lowliest clerk at the DMV. They require this authority to anchor the bedrock of their existence, simply to function in their day to day lives. This is the same blind obedience that led millions of German civilians to worshipping a tyrant like Hitler, and empowered him to embark on a crusade of mass slaughter and destruction that brought Europe to its knees. Loren, and people like him, appear to believe that it is better to sacrifice a thousand innocent civilian lives than to have a single hair harmed on the head of an authority figure, in this case a not especially bright Sherriff's Deputy, simply because he carries a badge, and therefore represents an authority figure tasked with maintaining law and order. These people are big on law and order, unless it is the authority figures who are breaking the laws, and that is completely okay. As was the case here.

Any reasonable person reading this news and watching the bodycamera footage from the event would instantly recognize the behavior of said deputy to be cowardly, craven and illegal. But not these lovers of authority. The deputy gets a pass simply because he carries a badge. He can literally do nothing wrong.

It is ironic that the United States sacrificed so many of its sons, whose bones remain scattered across four continents, all to fight fascism and authority worship in its most evil form. While 75 million people voted for a fascist imbecile criminal who has neither charm nor charisma, people who habitually defend even the worst atrocities committed by rogue government agents as acceptable. Our country is doomed. Thankfully, I will not live long enough to see it happen.

 

[Derec]

You don't understand what Loren Pechtel is telling you, probably because his worldview is so different from yours that your mind cannot make that jump. Loren, and millions of people like him in the US, worship authority in all its forms,

No, he simply believes that people minding their own business inside their homes have more rights than criminals invading those homes. Specifically, the right to defend themselves with lethal force.

from an orange faced criminal imbecile who can barely string together complete sentences,

Have you even read any of Loren's posts? He is anti-Trump to a fault.

Loren, and people like him, appear to believe that it is better to sacrifice a thousand innocent civilian lives than to have a single hair harmed on the head of an authority figure, in this case a not especially bright Sherriff's Deputy, simply because he carries a badge, and therefore represents an authority figure tasked with maintaining law and order.

I think you are responding to the wrong conversation. You are responding to the one where bilby does not think victims of home invasions should be allowed to use firearms to defend themselves, because the intruder might not want to physically harm the inhabitants, but only to steal their stuff. He even thinks the very term "home invasion" is propaganda.

 

[Derec]

The law is an ass.

It can be. Like laws prosecuting people for self defense.

And is irrelevant to the fact that you are planning a murder, and if you go through with it, will have to live with the fact that you murdered someone.

Killing a home invader in self defense is not "murder". It's not even manslaughter.

 

[EricH]

You don't understand what Loren Pechtel is telling you, probably because his worldview is so different from yours that your mind cannot make that jump. Loren, and millions of people like him in the US, worship authority in all its forms,

No, he simply believes that people minding their own business inside their homes have more rights than criminals invading those homes. Specifically, the right to defend themselves with lethal force.

from an orange faced criminal imbecile who can barely string together complete sentences,

Have you even read any of Loren's posts? He is anti-Trump to a fault.

Loren, and people like him, appear to believe that it is better to sacrifice a thousand innocent civilian lives than to have a single hair harmed on the head of an authority figure, in this case a not especially bright Sherriff's Deputy, simply because he carries a badge, and therefore represents an authority figure tasked with maintaining law and order.

I think you are responding to the wrong conversation. You are responding to the one where bilby does not think victims of home invasions should be allowed to use firearms to defend themselves, because the intruder might not want to physically harm the inhabitants, but only to steal their stuff. He even thinks the very term "home invasion" is propaganda.

Thank you for pointing that out. I think I am responding to the wrong post or thread. My post was with reference to the thread where a police officer had shot a serviceman to death simply because he answered the door with a gun in his hand. And Loren Pechtel was defending the actions of the officer as justified. I will find that thread and repost. Apologies for my mistake.

 

[Derec]

Thank you for pointing that out. I think I am responding to the wrong post or thread. My post was with reference to the thread where a police officer had shot a serviceman to death simply because he answered the door with a gun in his hand. And Loren Pechtel was defending the actions of the officer as justified. I will find that thread and repost. Apologies for my mistake.

We have discussed it in this thread also (for some reason) but also in the "Police misconduct" thread.
And Loren's position was (I think) the same as mine: the deputy acted too hastily to shoot, but at the same time Fortson acted stupidly to answer the door for police with an unholstered gun.
More than one person can make a mistake in a situation. In fact, tragic cases like this often involve fuckups by more than one person. It was three in this case actually, since the apartment manager have the deputy the wrong apartment number to begin with.

 

[ZiprHead]

More than one person can make a mistake in a situation. In fact, tragic cases like this often involve fuckups by more than one person. It was three in this case actually, since the apartment manager have the deputy the wrong apartment number to begin with.

There was only one fuckup that caused a death. If the professional had followed his training instead of freaking out the victim would still be alive and none of us would know anything about this incident.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have failed to establish that "If they didn't intend harm they wouldn't be coming up there", and handwaving it isn't convincing at all.

You are also engaging in mind-reading (of a hypothetical person, no less) when you say "...knowing there was someone up there who didn't want them there".

How do they know? How do you know that they know?

It's all more than a bit tenuous as a motive for premeditated murder.

How they know? Ignoring a warning!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thank you for pointing that out. I think I am responding to the wrong post or thread. My post was with reference to the thread where a police officer had shot a serviceman to death simply because he answered the door with a gun in his hand. And Loren Pechtel was defending the actions of the officer as justified. I will find that thread and repost. Apologies for my mistake.

We have discussed it in this thread also (for some reason) but also in the "Police misconduct" thread.
And Loren's position was (I think) the same as mine: the deputy acted too hastily to shoot, but at the same time Fortson acted stupidly to answer the door for police with an unholstered gun.
More than one person can make a mistake in a situation. In fact, tragic cases like this often involve fuckups by more than one person. It was three in this case actually, since the apartment manager have the deputy the wrong apartment number to begin with.

Exactly. Both fucked up.

It's just I feel the police mistake is mostly a system problem rather than an individual problem. I won't fault him for doing what his department said, but I will severely fault that department for setting up a situation where such mistakes are likely.

 

[TomC]

I try to avoid learning too much about such tragedies, so I will just ask.
Wasn't the cop sent on a potentially dangerous assignment, and someone gave him the wrong address?

If so, both the cop and the victim had very good reasons to mistrust whoever was on the other side of the door.

I don't know what happened or why for certain, but if that's true it all becomes more understandable.
Tom

 

[bilby]

You have failed to establish that "If they didn't intend harm they wouldn't be coming up there", and handwaving it isn't convincing at all.

You are also engaging in mind-reading (of a hypothetical person, no less) when you say "...knowing there was someone up there who didn't want them there".

How do they know? How do you know that they know?

It's all more than a bit tenuous as a motive for premeditated murder.

How they know? Ignoring a warning!

How do you know they even heard your "warning"?

Have you never misheard or missed entirely something shouted at you from a different room or floor of the house?

Bear in mind, your plan is to deploy lethal force here. The standard required of you is rather higher than when you are just wanting your wife to bring you something from downstairs on her way up. The consequence of being unheard or misunderstood is pretty severe; You become a murderer, and someone else dies.

Being most probably right, isn't adequate, when the consequences of being wrong include death.