posted
(That's a quote from the "Liberal Democratic Test" thread)
Shooting someone in your home is a scenario that I've run through my head many times. What happens after you pull the trigger? Here’s what goes through my mind (please correct me if I’m wrong):
If you live in the country, hopefully you know how to work a shovel.
If you live in the city, the cops are going to want to talk to you.
The cops will want to take possession of the weapon in question. They'll want to know where you normally keep it, and they'll want to know if you keep it loaded. You will be in trouble if you haven't been keeping the weapon in question locked in a safe, or if you don't have a trigger lock for it.
The cops will want to see the rest of your weapons and ammunition. It is very likely that they will take possession of those weapons as well.
You will go to court where you will have a chance to prove that the intruder was posing an immediate threat to your life or the life of others in your home. At the same time you must also prove that the intruder wasn’t in your home by invitation and that he wasn’t lured there by the presence of illegal drugs in your home or by illegal activities taking place within your home.
You will also have to prove that the body of the deceased was entirely inside your home at the moment you pulled the trigger.
You will hope that the deceased had no friends or relatives because your name will be in the papers and on television. The police will not offer you around-the-clock protection.
You will have the opportunity of reclaiming your confiscated weapons a few days prior to the next police auction. The police will not be responsible for notifying you of the auction date.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
As I have yet to shoot anyone in Atlanta, I couldn't tell you how the process works.
-Trevor
Edit: Although this may be influenced by the findings at the scene and the decision of police and the district attorney's office whether or not to prosecute, based on the evidence recovered.
posted
In Kennesaw, you have to have a gun. They actually gave homeowners tickets for not having a gun. Weird.
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wish I had a gun, but I'm glad I don't live in Kennesaw. *shudder* Neighbors with guns...yikes.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this sounds good and simple. I defended my home so why am I in trouble. Yet there are reasons for it. The taking of a life, any life, is a serious thing. It can not be returned if you are mistaken.
quote: What happens after you pull the trigger? Here’s what goes through my mind (please correct me if I’m wrong):
If you live in the country, hopefully you know how to work a shovel.
Now this has to be pretty far out in the country for no one to hear the shot. You also have to hope that the person in question has no family or friends that know who's house he went to burglarize. If he is reported missing and you've burried him in the back yard, that is a crime. You are not a licsened undertaker, you do not know what health issues may be involved with dealing with a dead body, you did not report a crime, and it looks very suspicious.
See, we folks out in the country have police too.
quote:If you live in the city, the cops are going to want to talk to you.
As I just stated, we have cops in the country too, and they will want to talk to you about a death. The alternate answer, if some one is shot the police should just ignore it?
quote:The cops will want to take possession of the weapon in question.
You just killed a person. Should they let you keep the gun or should they check to see if its been used in any other deaths?
quote: They'll want to know where you normally keep it, and they'll want to know if you keep it loaded. You will be in trouble if you haven't been keeping the weapon in question locked in a safe, or if you don't have a trigger lock for it.
The only trouble that they can give you is if you are keeping the gun in a way that is illegal. Here is a fact, more children are accidently shot with guns than crimminals breaking into a house.
quote:The cops will want to see the rest of your weapons and ammunition. It is very likely that they will take possession of those weapons as well.
You just ended somebodies life. They need to make sure you don't do this out of habit.
quote:You will go to court where you will have a chance to prove that the intruder was posing an immediate threat to your life or the life of others in your home. At the same time you must also prove that the intruder wasn’t in your home by invitation and that he wasn’t lured there by the presence of illegal drugs in your home or by illegal activities taking place within your home.
What would it be like if this didn't happen. You don't like George. You invite him to your house and shoot him as he comes in the door. Then you claim self defense. Sounds like murder to me. Or how is this, you run a crack house. You have a disagreement with a client. You shoot him and claim he was trying to rob you. Killing someone is something you should not do easilly.
quote:You will also have to prove that the body of the deceased was entirely inside your home at the moment you pulled the trigger.
This depends on local laws, but is mostly Urban Myth. If some one is threatening you on your porch, and moves to your house, you can defend yourself. Shooting at people walking down the street because they looked at you kinda funny is murder.
quote:You will hope that the deceased had no friends or relatives because your name will be in the papers and on television. The police will not offer you around-the-clock protection.
The cost of Around-the-clock protection is high. To do so permanately would cause an alarming increase in your taxes.
Besides, you just showed the world that you will defend your house with fire power. Isn't that why you got the gun in the first place, to deter crime. Are you saying using the gun will cause more crime?
quote:You will have the opportunity of reclaiming your confiscated weapons a few days prior to the next police auction. The police will not be responsible for notifying you of the auction date.
This I do not know about. It would, however, be a crime for them to sell it without returning it to you. It is a piece of evidence so it should be returned, unless you don't have a permit for it or it was used in other crimes.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes I think stabbing someone would be any worse. With a firearm, you're still physically separated from the person. With a bladed weapon, you're CONNECTED to them, with your handle on the grip and the blade embedded in their flesh.
*shudder*
And I don't OWN a firearm because I'd be stupid for me. I mean, with my illness, quick access to a firearm could mean death for me.
So...firing ranges and rented weapons it is.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to subscribe to Guns and Ammo, and in the back of each issue is a supposedly real-life story about: “how my gun saved my life.”
It’s usually a story about being accosted by some marijuana-smoking hippies, and the teller usually defuses the situation by casually displaying a loaded weapon.
I noticed after reading about twenty such stories that nobody ever pulls the trigger. I’m sure that there are many stories in which the trigger actually is pulled, but I realized that such a story wouldn’t be fit to print in a pro-guns magazine. There are too many gory details after the trigger is pulled, better stick to romanticizing those shiny, blued metal toys.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the weapon is confiscated and not returned for legal reasons, then yes - they are within rights to auction or destroy it. Not that I'm interested in buying a "used" weapon.
You're jumping to the court phase pretty quickly - usually an investigation will take place to determine if pursing charges is warranted.
A good note, however: You can only shoot if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. You cannot use deadly force in defense of property.
posted
A knife also takes more skill and you have a higher probability of being exposed to your target's biological fluids.
However, even displaying a handgun can be construed as brandishing or "intent to intimidate" and so on. So yes, the Guns & Ammo people do tend to have a disturbing trend of glorifying "I used my gun to save my life" but the reality is, you can get in so much more trouble if the dice fall badly.
I will note, however, every once in a while you can find an article providing a reasonable look at the consequences of improper or reckless firearm ownership.
Usually with a conservative slant, but it's still there.
posted
I don't know if they changed it, but at the time of the Goetz case in NY, a person could use deadly force to stop a robbery, even if there was no threat of death. Now robbery includes an element of violence or threat of violence, but at heart this allowed defense of property.
posted
We don't own a handgun. However, if we did and someone broke into my home, I would not hesitate for a second to shoot them. Perhaps I'm just violent. As bad as I would feel about causing someone's death, that person broke into my home and put my precious children at risk. No one puts my babies at risk. I'd probably shoot them more than once, actually. I suppose it's just that animal instinct coming out.
space opera
edit: That said, I think I could stab a person too. With an ink pen, in the eye, if they came within 10 feet of the kiddos.
[ July 19, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sure. First put yourself between the perpetrator and the property, and if he keeps coming, then your life is in danger, and you know what to do.
What about pulling the trigger of a hunting rifle from the comfort of your LaZBoy as the perp exits the QuickieMart across the street?
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shoot them repeatedly. There is a reason why officers are trained and in some instances required to empty the magazine.
Dag - Defense of property without threat of imminent harm. A number of small store owners have been prosecuted because they chased the robber out of the store and shot him.
As opposed to a similar store owner who shoots and kills a robber while still inside the store.
If a robber breaks into my house, he can reasonably poses some threat to me. If I watch him break into my car and shoot him from my window - that's another story.
quote:You will go to court where you will have a chance to prove that the intruder was posing an immediate threat to your life or the life of others in your home. At the same time you must also prove that the intruder wasn’t in your home by invitation and that he wasn’t lured there by the presence of illegal drugs in your home or by illegal activities taking place within your home.
Is this really how the self-defence defence (heh) works in the US? I would have thought that if you claimed self-defence it was up to the prosecution to show that the events were not as you described.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone breaks into your house...you are generally safe shooting them if
1)They have a weapon 2)You don't shoot them more than once or twice 3)The person does not have family with money (ie: who can afford a lawyer to cause problems)
You will be investigated anyway...and your stuff temporarily seized...but that is not really surprising. The government loves seizing private property. It lets the police remind you that the constitution is 'flexible.' If you have a decent lawyer you should come out of it ok.
Amusingly enough you are treated far worse if you are suspected of any computer related crime. In regards to computers the suspect is generally thought to be guilty until proven innocent, and even if you are proved to be innocent you are likely to still not get all of your stuff back.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
The DA decides whether or not to bring an indictment before a grand jury.
If the grand jury agrees to indict, then formal charges are pressed and the ball starts rolling.
Dag would have better insight to this process than I do, but you can tell the police your side of the story and they take that into account. If they feel the facts support your story of the event, they pass that along to the DA. If the cops smell something fishy, they have the discretion to pursue an investigation.
But yes, the gun will be confiscated as part of the investigation and if you are cleared of wrong-doing or the DA decides not to press charges, the weapon will be returned to you.
-Trevor
Edit: The "you must prove" thing falls under the police investigation. The detectives assigned will ask questions regarding the situation and if you run a crack house or have similar reasons for inviting someone over to kill them, it behooves you to clarify the situation to the best of your ability.
Unless you did lure the victim for purposes of murder, at which point you should shut up and retain an attorney. Make sure you keep the lies straight.
Well, you can find out when the weapon will be available for pickup and where, but I doubt they'll bring it to you.
A stolen article of mine was held as evidence and stored with all the other confiscated junk that the cops hold onto. It took so long for them to release the item that I almost forgot about it. I just happened to remember the item about a week before the auction. They did not make it easy for me to track it down. It was scratched and dented when I finally got it back.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, my comment was regarding the burden of proof. As skillery worded his example it sounded as if, in order to successfully invoke self-defence, he needed to prove several things such as e.g. the absence of an invitation. It seems to me that the proper placement here is for the prosecutor to have the burden to show that there exists factors which negate any element of his defence.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the earliest topics a new law student will come across, in both torts and criminal law classes, is the concept of "spring-guns." In the classic case, a property owner gets fed up with people breaking into his property and stealing or vandalizing his stuff. He sets up a booby-trap which consists of a shotgun with a tripwire. When someone trespasses, either innocently or not, and gets shot, the property owner is in deep, deep trouble.
Usually, this elicits a shocked reaction from at least some students. "What?" they say. "Aren't you allowed to protect your property from intruders? Are you saying that if somebody breaks into my house I can't shoot them?"
The trick is that, in the spring-gun cases, the owners don't live on the property. They live someplace else. (Even if they did live there, there are complications that would probably make spring-guns a big no-no). The fact is that you can't use deadly force in defense of property. You can only use deadly force in defense of people.
However, if someone breaks into your home when you are there, even if they don't have intention of hurting you, don't threaten you, don't try to break down the door to your bedroom, you are still justified in assuming that you are personally in danger. The fact that there are people present makes it OK to use deadly force, whereas leaving a booby-trap to protect mere knick-knacks would be wrong.
I always loved the spring-gun cases. Especially the one where the impetuous young intruder claimed he was just trying to fetch a pea-hen (or was it a guinea-hen?) that had flown over the wall to the chagrin of its fair young owner.
posted
In nearly all domestic shootings, the victim was there by invitation. I'm sure that's the default assumption even when the shooter claims otherwise.
So to my list add:
The cops will want to talk to your neighbors, friends and members of your family.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband has stated on more than one occasion that if anybody ever breaks into our house, they can expect to die and swiftly. There would be no waiting to see what they're going to do. That would give the intruder an advantage. Doesn't matter who it is.
And we don't have a gun. He sleeps with a katana-like sword next to his side of the bed. I don't know how to use it. He tells me to swing it like a baseball bat. He would take off an arm or a head. He's trained.
I guess he takes protecting his wife seriously.
He also makes the point that people are freaked out way more by getting something cut off by a sword than a bullet hole... What do you think? Which would bother YOU more?
quote:In nearly all domestic shootings, the victim was there by invitation. I'm sure that's the default assumption even when the shooter claims otherwise.
It may be the default assumption among the cops investigating the shooting, but it can't be the legal assumption once the situation is being assessed in court. If the self-defense hinges solely on the fact of whether the victim entered with an invitation and the defendant claims he didn't, the prosecutor has the burden of proof in accordance with the principle that everyone is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
A friend of mine has a double-headed axe I bought for him as a gag gift. He keeps it in the trunk of his car - mostly because he was too lazy to bring it inside.
On no less than two occasions has he had to pull it out and defend himself with it. One, the trucker drove away quickly - the other, he detained a suspect until the police arrived. I'm still trying to find an incident report for that.
As a note, the officer showed up, took the report and arrested the second driver without confiscating the axe or detaining my friend.
As for waving a katana - or a baseball bat or a double-headed axe, you have the advantage of size and intimidation. A knife, depending on size and shape, may or may not deter a robber on it's own merits - at which point you have to rely on skill.
A .38 revolver also lacks the scariness of a Sig 220 handgun in .45 caliber. Also makes a louder "bang", which - even if I miss, may very well make an intruder think twice about sticking around. The unmistakeable sound of a pump action shotgun chambering a shell has often inspired the "pucker factor."
So in answer to your question - maybe.
-Trevor
Edit: As to which would bother me more - I dunno. As a rule, I don't spend time thinking about it. Neither do most criminals, I would imagine.
quote: Although I'm curious - why do you wish you had a gun PSI?
Similar to mack, I grew up with guns. No one locked them up, either. You just KNEW, you don't touch the gun.
When I was about eight I got to shoot for the first time. I come from a law enforcement family (that means almost everyone) and shooting was just something you did when you were bored.
When I went walking through the alley alone one evening, I ran across a suspicious-looking guy. He was sitting behind our house smoking weed.
I told my uncle Blue (who was working for the federal government after a long stint as border patrol), and he non-chalantly put on his holster and walked outside. There was some "pleasant" chatter between them in Mexican, and the dude bolted.
Not to say I want a gun so that I can be scary, I'm just trying to show you how guns were used when I was growing up. They were all over the place. They were important to our family. Every week I ate meat that had been killed with one of our guns. My dad slept with one under his pillow (between the mattress and the bed). The only exception to the gun rule was my mom, who was gun-shy. She had been shot at point-blank when she was a cop and never got over it.
Now, my husband doesn't want me to have one. We're still working on that. He wasn't raised with guns, and doesn't understand what it's like to grow up with one, and have respect for it. To him, they're just scary things that kill people.
But at the moment, it's not a big deal. Our kids are still too young to be properly scared of the things. I'll wait until they're older to talk to Jes about it again.
So, in a nutshell, I'd like to have a concealed weapons license so that I can own a gun for hobby and protection.
posted
PSI- I've found it's difficult to explain to someone who doesn't know or is familiar with firearms the difference between fact and fiction, never mind the general misconceptions acquired from various places.
Good luck with that - although you might have to take him to the range once or twice and just rent a gun until he's more comfortable with the idea of a handgun.
Mac - I am sorry to hear about the particulars. But at least you know yourself well enough to make such a decision - I can't say the same, unfortunately.
Unrelated note: My pop got into an argument with a guy in a parking lot and thought if he (pop) had a gun, it would have defused the entire argument and made the offending driver a tad more respectful. I couldn't even begin to articulate just how stupid that was, but he didn't seem to understand.
posted
I've never held a gun. I've seen them in real life, on police officers, but I've never held one. I can't imagine holding one, especially one that isn't a hunting rifle. I can't consider using one.
Guns are not part of my world. Like PSI's husband, guns to me are just scary things that kill people. In my opinion that's the way guns (especially those that aren't designed for hunting) should be. Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to think that way Tesh and when all is said and done, there isn't anything wrong with that.
But I also find that people who don't understand what a firearm is and the realities of using one are also some of the most vocal when complaining about those same firearms.
quote: Like PSI's husband, guns to me are just scary things that kill people.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Lets get that strait.
At the Summer camp I used to work at, the rifle instructor had a demonstration that he did. He'd take a riffle, loaded it and asked the campers if the gun was dangerous. They always answered yes. He would set the gun on the ground and dance around the weapon while telling the campers that "a gun is a tool, like any other tool, it takes a person to operate it, I can dance around this gun for hours, and it won't go off. The gun won't fire unless a human being touches it, there fore the fire arm is a perfectly safe thing, I'm the dangerous part of the equation." Martin is a WWII veteran with 2 purple hearts, he knows very well what guns can do.
The problem with guns in the US is the lack of education. Many people in the suburbs who own guns don't even know how to properly disassemble their weapons for a full cleaning. In my home there are no less than 13 fire arms ranging in power from a 22 to my Russian made M44, from a 9mm to a 38 special, but all of these guns have a purpose. I live on 142 acres of land, we have livestock, and the neighbors have dogs that they don't lock up, If a dog is bothering one of the livestock, it is shot on the spot. Some people say that this is cruel, however, once an animal gets a taste for blood, there is nothing you can do to stop the animal. This is an example of why guns are useful. Self defense is another thing, we live far enough out that if we had an emergency, the average response time from a 911 call is over 30 minutes. if some one has intent to do harm, 30 minutes is a long time. All of the guns in my house are always loaded, and always out of reach of children. All but one is kept locked up, and that one is right above the backdoor. Everyone who spends any amount of time around my house, has small children with them, or asks about it is told up front about the only gun that is easily accessible, and told that it and all others are loaded.
To end this rant I'd like to say something that was said at a bad political time, but is as true this day as it was when it was said, "From my cold dead hands." *points to shotgun in case*
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Self defense is another thing, we live far enough out that if we had an emergency, the average response time from a 911 call is over 30 minutes. if some one has intent to do harm, 30 minutes is a long time.
That's the exact point my husband makes when debating that issue. It's irresponsible to leave the protection of your family to someone else, even the police, when the police are far away.
"Um yeah... Mr. Intruder with the big axe, would you mind waiting to attack us until I can call 911 and the police get here? We've got some iced tea in the fridge if you get thirsty. Thanks..."
posted
I would also like to own a gun. I have shot skeet alot but I have always used a friends gun. Once I get out of college I am going to buy one. I would really like to hunt.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now this has to be pretty far out in the country for no one to hear the shot.
People shoot guns out here all the time. I hear them. Nothing happens. *shrug*
quote: The problem with guns in the US is the lack of education.
Kind of along the same lines of your story, and in response to this, I humbly submit that the problems with the guns in the US are jackasses who acquire them. I am pretty pro-gun, to the point that I think some felons should be able to have them after a couple years. However, there are real assholes out there on the streets. Many people out in the country, the salt of the earth around here, have no respect for other people. Shooting stuff. Burning stuff. Speeding through the streets at about three times the speed limit shouting drunken obscenities at Mr. Saxon's mother. Letting their dogs wander around to attack other people (or get shot, as you noted). Yes, many jackasses abound. I shudder to think what these jerks would be like with weapons. All the firearm education in the world won't turn your average jackass into a thinking, considerate human being.
"Oh, but Mr. Saxon, if everyone was armed, they would be realy polite."
No, they wouldn't. These people are stupid jackasses. They don't back down from fights. They don't gotta do what no one wants them to do but them.
posted
The only people who should fear honest people with guns are criminals and politicians.
The joke there is distinguising between the two. I keep a loaded rifle LOCKED in a gun cabinet of which I have the key for several reasons. The main reason is pest control. I have a nest of skunks that like to spray my dog, and I have shot a few this summer alone. My fear is that my dog will tangle with a rabid raccoon or try to scare off something larger than herself like a bear or a mountain lion (yes, I have seen both). A few shots fired in the air would HOPEFULLY be enough to scare off the intruding animal.
I DO NOT keep a loaded gun in my house to shoot someone, however, the sound of a pump-action shotgun slide being worked is usually enough to get a robber's attention. I live in a small town in which one of my classmates actually STRANGLED an intruder with his bare hands, killing him. This man that did the strangling was also handicapped and pleaded self-defense, and was not convicted of any crimes.
As far as any katanas, I have 5 swords (from LOTR) in my armory with the rifles, and I keep a survival knife in my nitestand, for close encounters. But in all seriousness, a house alarm guards my house from intruders, and THAT is what I depend on for home security. Knowing me, I would mess up.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm... as for the question of whether I'd rather be stabbed with a knife or shot with a handgun I think I'd rather be shot. You're less likely to die from a bullet hole than a stab/slash.
Guns scare the bajeebas out of me becuase, push come to shove, their main purpose is to kill. To be fair I'm also not fond of other weapons that people like to collect. They make me uneasy. I have, on one occasion, had a gun drawn on me which is a story I tell with much laughter and relish to try and cover how completely freaked out about it I was/am.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That IS freaky. My general rule is "don't draw your gun unless you're about to pull the trigger." If someone draws on me, they'd better be prepared to have it used on them. (If they're close enough, anyway. I can't disarm someone that I can't reach, but it's amazing how many people pull guns within arm's reach of the target.)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an example of what I see as the biggest flaw in the "Only Bad-guys need to fear honest citizens with guns" argument.
The story tells of Police Officers who is chasing a crimminal. The race down an alley chasing his car. The bad guys turn the car around and drive at the police with the apparent intent of running them down.
The police officer does the expected thing. He pulls out his gun and fires at the bad guy.
And hits several individuals at the other end of the alley who were outside celebrating July 4th.
I have had people tell me that if the bad guys have automatic weapons, they want an automatic weapon.
Why?
So they too can shoot innocent bystanders?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have myself only shot a gun once, with a session with my uncle who went over gun safety thoroughly. I am a horrible shot because I don't have steady hands.
I have admired the beauty and craftmanship of many guns. My friend has this beautiful tiger striped wood inlaid rifle that is as beautiful as a fine violin. It was his college graduation present.
I'm not anti-gun, though when Steve asks if he can have one, I tell him he has to prioritize between that, his new stereo system, putting a spoiler on his car or upgrading his computer. (the computer has always won so far.)
Anyway, thread reminded me of two sisters I knew, 4 years old and 7 years old at the time, who were far safer with guns than I and very good shots. Why were they taught to handle guns at such a young age? A couple of reasons. The main one was because they were living in an outer cabin on an extremely isolated cattle ranch in Nevada and they needed to be able to shoot in case of threatening rattlesnakes or other dangerous wildlife. They were also proficient horsewomen and were allowed to ride mostly on their own, as long as they weren't gone for too long and their mother knew where they were.
The parents felt it was better to give their children the survival skills to live in their unique environment, rather than keep them penned up in the house day after day after day, because it was "dangerous" out there.
The family was an interesting family. The reason why they were on the ranch to begin with was because the father had become a saddlemaker, after having to be medically retired from a Souther California SWAT team. His knees weren't damaged by bullets. Oh no, they were damaged when his team went to make an arrest and the suspect's girlfriend nailed him across the knees with a baseball bat. He had a concealed weapons permit and carried a concealed weapon even to church, in order to protect his family. They had had death threats made against them as the result of his arresting some pretty bad people. This is the other reason why both his wife and daughters were trained in firearms. There were bad guys out there that wanted to specifically hurt Them!
posted
I know how to fire a gun. My dad had a few - I think. *thinks* I don't know if he still does. I think they are all in storage.
But when I was ten, my dad took me to the firing range and we shot a rifle, a shotgun, and Colt 47 (I think - the heavy, black pistol). From what I remember, the handguns about knocked me backward, and I was a simply terrible shot.
At Girls' Camp, I learned how to load and shoot a black powder rifle. I gained new respect for the Revolutionary War soldiers - those guns are a pain the neck.
I know how to shoot one, how to hold it, and how to make sure the safety is on. It can be relaxing to go to a firing range - there's a tangible feel to the experience, and it's hard. It's fun to get good at it. If people want to do that, that's fine.
Added: How could I forget!
And my freshman and sophomore years of college, my best friend was Eric, who was never without a gun. He taught me how to shoot a Russian SKS with hollow tip bullets. He always packed a pistol of some sort, and he had done odd things to the shotgun that I'm fairly certain were illegal. He was also one of the sweetest, gentlest, most honest man I've ever been around. In eight years of friendship, I never even saw him angry except at some cops that were perpetuating a severe injustice. The stereotype of a gun user do not fit him. Those stereotypes are not true enough to be useful.
posted
I have to wonder, how many people own a gun just because they like shooting at targets? That's the only reason, not because it makes them feel safe, or tough, or whatever. I mean, let's say it was possible to get a really nice gun, comparable weight, accurate shot, decent range, not cumbersome, only it shot paintballs. Would it sell? Would it be at all popular? Somehow, I don't think it would.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you asking for the annual sale rate of paintball guns? Considering the number of guys I've known that loved that (including my friend and my baby brother), I'd say it's pretty brisk.
Why do you not think that it would? Because it doesn't fit in with the stereotype in your mind?
posted
I'm just talking about the people at the range, Kat. And you're right, I'm just working from the stereotype in my mind. That's brisk, baby. But, if you can get everything a handgun offers in paintball form, why don't more people at the range use paintballs?
Not questioning the sales of paintballs. I know tons of people who use them too. I'm more interested in why more people don't. It doesn't have the same weight? There isn't the same kick? They aren't as accurate?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
