Wife's Car Stolen Last Night! Stop the SOB with a Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for the enlightenment Dennis. Now I know that your county has juries that will treat BGs like BGs. Still doesn't answer the question though.

I believe that punishment for a crime should fit that crime. I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty, but I doubt if anyone is on death row for swiping a pink flamingo out of someones front yard. Maybe in your county? I have not put an exceptable dollar figure on which I think YOU should kill a thief. That's your business, whatever you feel is justifiable. I have just stated that I don't think that I would care to kill someone for personal property. Like I said before, it doesn't matter if it's a $5 baseball or a $25,000 car. If you're willing to kill someone over one, you should be willing to kill over the other. Dennis, are you saying that I should sell my guns because I'm not willing to kill someone over a lawn sprinkler? Isn't that just another form of gun control? Are you saying I'm a coward for not wanting to kill someone over that same lawn sprinkler? If so, then have the courage yourself to just say it.

I thank God that I have never been faced with the situation of having to use deadly force, but I do feel that I would be willing and able to do so if me or my family was at risk.

------------------
bullet placement is gun control
 
We've been made to think that it's wrong to stand up for ourselves for any reason. Even if it's to tell a loudmouth to shut up at a movie or restaurant. I don't remember seeing many fellow veterans in the Marines crying and shaking in the fetal position because we pulled a trigger or two in Somalia or The Gulf. So, please don't spout any more of the "emotional trauma" crap! Not everyone falls to pieces after action needs to be taken.

Also - You call it "chest pounding" to speak your honest mind about what you would do in an incident - I find it even more annoying and offensive when people try to take the - all life is sacred, I am at peace with my fellow man road - and then look down at everyone as less evolved beings than they are.

I will leave with one of my favorite quotes:

"Tolerance is the vice of those who have no convictions of their own"

Chris Canis
 
Dennis - if you listen and understand what I say and even if it makes you hate it - thanks!

Philosophically, I feel human life is sacred. I regret the forces that get anyone into a position that deadly force must be used against him or her. As far as psychobabble,
people grow up in unspeakable horror and then some become monsters. Should you hate them?

One case I know was of a vicious rapist. I have no problem with the use of deadly force to stop him in prevention of his crimes. I think that he should be imprisioned without chance of parole given our current level of behaviorial technology.

I also know that when he was a child and he was bad, he was severely beaten and sexually abused. When he was bad, his mother gave him enemas with Tabasco sauce.


I understand the emotional processes that make me feel anger, hurt and want the need for revenge.

But, we try to rise above that. I have decided that I will use deadly force to prevent grievous bodily harm. Faced with a property crime in progress, I will do what seems best on a rational basis.

If I can drive the person away, fine.

Like I said, you are at work, you are a supervisor, you an employee walking out with a company pen. You challenge him and ask him to return the pen. He laughs at continues to walk away.

Chestpounding means to me that you do not understand the need feel compassion and regret for the death of another person.

As far as those who say they won't break after such an incident, Grossman and others estimate 2% of the population don't. If you are in that 2%, good or bad for you.

I say that folks should be aware that strong, well integrated folks have had serious consequences after shootings both personally and from social interactions. You need to understand this as part of the total package before you shoot.

Last, I have met some very fierce individuals who could take me apart and throw me away.
They caution restraint as I have argued.


Please choose 9mm or 45 ACP, shotgun or AR-15, Glock or 1911 for your response.

You can fire him or fire at him.
 
I'm all for restraint. Heck, I even ignore the idiots that cut me off in traffic everyday. Even the ones that shoot me the bird!

There are different levels of restraint. I just choose a more aggressive one than you.

I still love you man! :)

Chris Canis
 
I think that a majority of the problem with crime in this country is that the criminal has very little to fear. If a private citizen tries to stop him, he can pull out a knife or gun to defend himself. Maybe if they had more too lose, some of them would think twice and we all would feel a little bit safer.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
people grow up in unspeakable horror and then some become monsters. Should you hate them?[/quote]

We should not hate these "monsters", because hate is an terrible, unproductive vice. But we definitely should see them for what they are, fear them, and be prepared to deal with them in an "appropriate" manner. And no, I don't agree that your average person will die from remorse if they do so deal with these "monsters" in a fitting manner.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>One case I know was of a vicious rapist...he was severely beaten and sexually abused. When he was bad, his mother gave him enemas with Tabasco sauce.[/quote]

So what's your point? Should we all feel bad for this guy, sympathize, empathize with him? Try to rehabilitate him? Then let him out again to do it to your wife/daughter/sister/girlfriend? Give me a break! All we hear from modern psychologists is psycho-babble about why the BG is not at fault, how tough his childhood was, how abused he was, ad naseum. What about his victims, why don't we hear about them? Where's your empathy for them? What unspeakable evil did he do to them? Do you even care that the victims, if they survived, with have to live through a private nightmare every day for the rest of their lives?? Getting rid of this kind of BG-- permanently-- is not motivated by a misplaced sense of revenge, but a desire to make the world a safer place for eveyone by ridding it of a clear and present danger. How hard is that to understand? Understand this, and you will understand why zero tolerance for any criminal act, however insignificant, is born of the desire to stop senseless criminal acts against law-abiding citizens, and it's not about money or property.

Someone on this thread mentioned a BG got shot in the back for $2. For the record, even if I did not live in the People's Republic of MA, I would not shoot unless forced to. However, it seems like some people missed the point. The BG pulled a knife-- which is a clear threat of death-- and demanded money. When he only got $2, he came back for more! What if it had gone the other way, and he killed his victim with the knife over $2? Who would cry for his rights? And don't forget, who initiated that transaction anyway?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As far as those who say they won't break after such an incident, Grossman and others estimate 2% of the population don't. If you are in that 2%, good or bad for you.
[/quote]
Look, I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but I do believe a lot of the problems of "moral decay", tolerance for criminal acts, etc., is due in part to psychologists promulgating the idea that no one is responsible for their actions... and by derivation, the rest of us should live in fear because these poor, downtrodden, abused, misunderstood, conflicted, innocent criminals had an unfair life!

Give us all a break. :mad:
 
Muleshoe,

(Aside: If I *had* a pink flamingo in my front yard, I just might *pay*
someone to steal it! :D)

Oy! The death penalty is a topic unto itself. Interestingly enough, you might
be a stronger advocate of the death penalty than I am. But let’s save that
for another day. ;)

What I was trying to say about selling your (our) guns probably was
off-thread. I was trying to get at the following:
*IF* the only appropriate uses of firearms are sport and personal defense,
and *IF* any other use (such as defense of property) is wrong, then the risk
of possessing a firearm (which can hurt people) probably is greater for most
people than the need for personal defense or the pleasure of sport. Therefore
private ownership of firearms should be abolished - the risk outweighs the
benefits. (No, you didn’t say that and I don’t think either of us believe it.)

Defense of property has a lot of variables. I have contributed directly to the
deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of people who never tried to hurt me
or steal from me. I was just “following orders”. Is the protection of personal
property less moral than killing (or being an accessory to killing) on
command?

I’m not about to shoot someone for stealing a minor item - but “minor” is a
variable which is dependent upon personal values *and* situations. I
disagree with the premise that if I would kill over a $25,000 car (or someone
torching my home) then I should be willing to kill over a baseball or a lawn
sprinkler (or a ballpoint pen). That excludes the variable of “situation”.

People have killed justifiably over a proverbial crust of bread or drink of water
(when supply was limited and necessary to sustain life).

If an apparent adult was stealing my lawn sprinkler (BTW, I don’t have one),
I would try to stop him verbally, then physically. If BG escalated to force or
deadly force, I would react to win.

When you say, “... I don't think that I would care to kill someone for personal
property” I have no argument with you. However, we both have the right to
disagree and I have reacted differently in the past and would again. Perhaps
it is harder for me to replace or do without my belongings than it is for you.
Perhaps we simply have different values and/or needs. To each his own.

BTW, I’ve known some pretty brave pacifists so I’m assuredly not implying
you’re a coward because we differ on the right to protect property. (Sigh)
No, I’m not accusing you of being a pacifist - it’s merely an example.
-----

Glenn,

I listen to you and I try to understand; but I surely don’t agree with your
philosophy as much as I (begrudgingly) understand the political wisdom
therein.

Human life may be sacred, but the lives and well-being of those I love take
precedence over the “rights” of those who would hurt us.

I understand that people are not dogs (or vice versa), but if I buy a dog who
turns out mean and hurts my family or me - he’s history. People have the
capacity to understand and change their values. If they remain predators,
they are to be controlled. That’s why I believe in prisons.

On the question of personal defense, I have no qualms, but the subject here
is defense of property.

I care not whether it is a man of the cloth, a Charles Manson, or a
representative of our government. He has no rights to my property -
regardless of his perceived duty or his horrid past. (That’s why I have such a
problem with our many punitive systems of taxation.)

Giving exceptional liberties to unrepentant monsters because of their tortured
past is unreasonable and I won’t do it. Permitting such social “victims”
extraordinary privileges merely endangers the safety and well-being of the
peaceful.

You mention rising above revenge; but revenge is an “after the fact” concept
implemented typically by our various levels of government in accordance with
rules they call “law” - institutionalized revenge.

As for defense of property, it *does* make a difference how valuable or
necessary the property is to our survival or well-being! That difference will
be a factor in my response to attempted theft or damage to that property.

Would I regret the death of another person? Assuredly so. But I would
rejoice in the safety and well-being of my loved ones if I prevented their
injury or death. Like you, I would hope to prevent such an incident from
happening and would try to resolve the problem with the least amount of
force. The ball would be in BG’s court. The more serious his actions, the
more serious my response - and that also goes for thieves.

Oh, and I don’t believe Grossman’s 2% figures. It is too politically correct to
express extreme regret to take such a 2% figure at face value.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Well, thanks to my long-winded response(s), this thread's over 126K. Start a part 2 for further comments.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited April 11, 2000).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top