Mateo_1387 Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Pure idiocy. Why would you shoot someone through your front door? This is piss poor target identification. You don't shoot someone you can't see. Shooting at someone only* knocking on the door is stupid. Someone trying to beat your door down, turning the knob viciously, and making an effort to gain entry into your home would be ample reason to shoot through the door. Identifying that you have a gun and you are going to shoot it is also key before they enter. Just opening fire would not be acceptable, especially for someone knocking on the door saying "trick-or-treat" on Halloween, while you porch light is on ! Some state laws (according to someone I know who had to take gun classes) allow one to shoot through the door if they feel threatened. As explained to me: (Scenario) You are at home *alone* when a would be rapist/robber/murderer is at your door trying to gain entry. They are beating the door down. You verbalize that you have a gun and are willing to shoot. The person keeps on beating down the door until they gain entry. You decide to wait until you see* the person to shoot so you can make sure to hit them, instead of taking blind aim. When the person enters you immediately shoot the person three times killing them on the spot. You call the police and they arrive at your home. The police find a man dead at your doorway. Dressed in regular clothes *without a gun*. In this scenario, you decided to wait until the person gained entry at you shot them right on the spot. You did not have time to assess if the person was armed and shot anyway. Once you shot and killed an unarmed visible person, you can have a good chance of being pinned as a murderer instead of acting in self defense. In the laws eyes, they will see that you shot and killed an unarmed person. Now, the scenario changes, you shot them through the door, after saying that you gave ample warning. Your actions would have a better chance to be seen as self defense. You shot not knowing if you were about to be killed by the person entering your house. They key in the scenario is that after they entered, the law views the shooting totally different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 Uh oh, dont tell Obama about this.... Yes you are right. High powered assault weapons are needed in every home; I mean who is going to protect us from the 12 year olds if we do not do it ourself?? FYI, I am not against gun ownership as I was raised around guns my entire life and have a healthy respect for them. Unfortunately, not everyone received the foundation of gun ownership that I did. Therefore, some weapons, such as these need to be banned (yes I said it) or very, heavily regulated. Had this ex-con only had a handgun, do you think this scenario would have varied any? Do you think he would have been able to get off 29 shots through a closed door with much accuracy? Do you think if he had to pull the trigger each time, he would have had time to think, possibly pause or even stop instead of spewing multiple rounds in a matter of seconds without much thought needed? Just asking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Now, the scenario changes, you shot them through the door, after saying that you gave ample warning. Your actions would have a better chance to be seen as self defense. Unless, of course... A lot of innocent people are already being hurt and killed in errant police raids, according to a report Balko will release for the Cato Institute early next month. The report, "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America," contains an appendix containing at least 220 cases of botched, wrong-address raids in recent years, Balko said. The report will document about 40 cases where completely innocent people were killed, 15 to 20 cases where police officers were killed, and another 30 cases where small-time violators -- like Diotaiuto -- were killed. More, unfortunately, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Therefore, some weapons, such as these need to be banned (yes I said it) or very, heavily regulated. Possession of ANY firearm by a felon is "heavily regulated". It's beyond heavily regulated. It's flat out prohibited. See how well that worked? So now what? Pass a regulation against violating regulations? That ought to solve the problem. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 Not talking just about felons only mate.... I believe you and several others have always said, if what we have been doing for years is not working then it is time to up the game, so to speak. No need to continue "as is" simply because it is what we always have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustdevil Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Not talking just about felons only mate.... I believe you and several others have always said, if what we have been doing for years is not working then it is time to up the game, so to speak. My point exactly. And what we have been doing for years is just putting more laws in the books, yet seeing no results. Therefore, by your own logic, it is time to give up on the silly notion that writing new laws solves every problem and look for real solutions, like maybe ENFORCING the laws already on the books. If laws made a damn bit of difference, this guy would still be in prison from his first three convictions, wouldn't he? Laws are meaningless if judges keep putting convicts back on the streets. How is outlawing my personal collection of assault rifles going to solve that? And wouldn't a shotgun have killed him just as dead? Should we ban those too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 Do not know about the shotgun, maybe yes, maybe no. The pellets may have been dispersed depending on how close he was to the door, type of door, etc. Might not have inflicted fatal wounds either. I just have personal issues with high powered assault weapons, my views will not change and had this weapon not been readily legal in some places and available for this guy to purchase, we would possibly not be reading an obituary about this boy on what is supposed to be a fun, safe night of enjoyment in the greatest country in the world (according to some). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBEMT Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 So in other words your desired ban has no basis in constitutional law, just your emotional response to the appearance of the weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted November 2, 2008 Author Share Posted November 2, 2008 Yes, I am willing to admit that and I am ok with that. When the right to arm yourself was created, high powered assault weapons were not part of the equation, nor could they ever have imagined the type of weaponary we posess nowadays. No matter what studies are quoted, laws explained, positions defended, I will NOT change my views on high powered assault weapons. I am NOT against gun ownership, only certain types. As illogical as it may seem, it is my right to think so vastly different from the majority. Lucky for you supporters, the NRA has lots of money and lots of friends in high places, so people like me are just pissing in the wind for the most part, but alas...I will continue to piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doczilla Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Yes, I am willing to admit that and I am ok with that. When the right to arm yourself was created, high powered assault weapons were not part of the equation, nor could they ever have imagined the type of weaponary we posess nowadays. No matter what studies are quoted, laws explained, positions defended, I will NOT change my views on high powered assault weapons. I am NOT against gun ownership, only certain types. As illogical as it may seem, it is my right to think so vastly different from the majority. Lucky for you supporters, the NRA has lots of money and lots of friends in high places, so people like me are just pissing in the wind for the most part, but alas...I will continue to piss. I don't think it is illogical. You have cogently stated your belief based on many factual incidents and drawn an educated conclusion. I don't happen to agree with you on the finer points, but I respect your opinion and how you came to it. 'zilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts