Open carry of guns with no required safety training in TN

[Zoomer]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

I think views outside the US are also skewed by the fruit cakes who hit the headlines - like this murderer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27243115

Mr Kaarma, a 29-year-old firefighter, has told investigators his home had twice been hit by burglars, and he told a hair stylist he had waited up at night to shoot intruders, prosecutors said.

On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police.

They set up motion sensors and a video monitor, prosecutors said.

When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times.

May not need training, but perhaps a real clear lesson on what self defence would be could help avoid what news definitely shows as over eager use of firearms.

 

[Shaun__]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

This is a important video about gun safety, if they find it they will play with it. Funny, but true.

 

[eyeteach]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

* I have been the victim of aggravated burglary. This means they know you are in and violently try to enter. I ended up in hospital with a fractured thumb as I managed to keep the 3 out. However, had I had a gun - whilst I would have felt safer, I would also probably have been responsible for several deaths - which is a very disturbing thought.

No, you would not have been responsible for three deaths because those three chose to die the very second they decided to break into your home and possibly murder you.

 

[Jillybean]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

I'm pretty anti-gun and pro gun-restriction-laws but this article made me cringe. I prefer my news unbiased please.

I've seen people fined for having hunting firearms among their other hunting gear in their trucks before... Apparently for not having them properly stowed, although they weren't even loaded while driving. When things like that happen it pisses me off. It's not the intent of the law to stop people from hunting.

 

[Emmalie]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

Maybe my family just has bad luck or we just lived in a bad area, but I've been in my middle of a gang shooting, my mom has survived a mass shooting, and my dad was robbed in his home just for answering the door. Just because we own guns does not mean we have the right to go crazy and shoot people, but I do feel they are the ultimate equalizer.

I grew up in a military family, and always had access to guns. My dad taught me how to shoot as soon as I could hold a weapon. We knew that we were never to play with them and we took guns seriously. We even had a loaded firearm in the back room that my dad taught me to get if there were ever an intruder. We all made it through and have never had a gun related incident.

I've caught my anti-gun friends saying stuff like "I wish someone would shoot so and so" and that is something I would never say. Maybe they feel they can say it because it is not a reality in their world, but guns are very serious and most gun owners would never use that terminology so light heartedly.

Now I live in a state which open carry is quite normal. If you go t o get gas it is not unlikely to see guys loading up AR-15's in the back of a truck. This action actually doesn't bother me, but if I were in a crowded area I would be more afraid of getting run down by a scared mob then of the idiot who decided to open carry in a populated area. So I can see both sides.

 

[Zoomer]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

* I have been the victim of aggravated burglary. This means they know you are in and violently try to enter. I ended up in hospital with a fractured thumb as I managed to keep the 3 out. However, had I had a gun - whilst I would have felt safer, I would also probably have been responsible for several deaths - which is a very disturbing thought.

No, you would not have been responsible for three deaths because those three chose to die the very second they decided to break into your home and possibly murder you.

No.

The idea of killing someone, unless it is unavoidable, is abhorrent. So the idea of confronting them and shooting them is not appropriate; it is manslaughter. That'd be jail imo.

If I fled upstairs and they pursued me, then it'd be self defence and I'd support that.

The difference being that in the first, I created a scenario whereby I could kill (confrontation). In the second, they created a scenario where I had to (self defence after retreating).

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

* I have been the victim of aggravated burglary. This means they know you are in and violently try to enter. I ended up in hospital with a fractured thumb as I managed to keep the 3 out. However, had I had a gun - whilst I would have felt safer, I would also probably have been responsible for several deaths - which is a very disturbing thought.

No, you would not have been responsible for three deaths because those three chose to die the very second they decided to break into your home and possibly murder you.

No.

The idea of killing someone, unless it is unavoidable, is abhorrent. So the idea of confronting them and shooting them is not appropriate; it is manslaughter. That'd be jail imo.

If I fled upstairs and they pursued me, then it'd be self defence and I'd support that.

The difference being that in the first, I created a scenario whereby I could kill (confrontation). In the second, they created a scenario where I had to (self defence after retreating).

While I respect your belief on the matter that isn't the law, it's not manslaughter in the least. In that situation, where they have already broken into your home. In my mind, and in my state's laws (and most states for that matter) you are entirely justified in using whatever force is necessary to protect your life. And in the situation where they are in your home it is presumed they mean you harm. If you can resolve the situation with a broken thumb, like above, great. But if you feel the need to kill them, that too is justified and not manslaughter. If you are outside and can run or avoid shooting, then legally you should. But in your home you are legally presumed to have no place else to run, it is your last stand and while there you have the right to defend yourself by any means at your disposal.

You do not need to 'flee' upstairs. In my mind that would be stupid anyway. Turning your back on someone breaking in is just asking to be shot in the back. Never. What about the elderly that can't move fast? They don't have the right to shoot someone in their home because they couldn't run from someone already in their home with intent to do them harm? While you're fleeing up the stairs what about your wife and two small children in the living room? Should someone leave them to the criminals mercy because you have a need to set up further justification? Again, i respect your beliefs to do whatever you wish in your home, but at the same time I am VERY glad you don't make the laws. I'd shoot their asses dead as fast as I could so they don't have a shot at me.

In my state the police would come out, see the area they broke into, see their bullet riddled bodies inside the home and then congratulate you on living through them trying to kill you. They are the criminals who potentially signed their death warrant the moment they decided to break into someone's home. The homeowner protecting his life inside his home is NOT the criminal.

Edit - This is the current state of things in my state according to the law.

A so-called “castle doctrine” law approved in 2007 gives Missourians a right to defend themselves and their property. The law says that people can use deadly force to stop an intruder in a home or vehicle. There is no duty to retreat if someone enters illegally.
The measure passed by the House with a 110-39 vote on Thursday would extend that right to people on a property with the owner’s consent. Current law applies only to the owner or tenant of a location.

 

[eyeteach]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

Zoomer, I don't know where you live but I don't believe you understand what I'm saying. Let me put it to you like this: if you think so little of your life that you refuse to defend yourself with a gun if necessary then you deserve the harm that's coming to you. Three punks do NOT have any right whatsoever to break into your home and harm you or your loved one's, but you should have the right to use any force necessary to defend yourself. Again, if you think so little of your life that you're absolutely willing to allow three strangers to take it for no good reason then guess what? They'll take it.

 

[Zoomer]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

Can't "flee" - do you guys walk around with a gun strapped to your hip in your own home?
Or do you have one stashed behind a cushion, in a cupboard, or on a table in every single room of the house?

Unless the answer is yes to either of those questions, then by definition of retrieving your weapon you've "turned your back" on the intruder (in whatever state they're in - either inside the house, or currently smashing your window, or kicking down your door). Questions such as "are they armed" and "is their intent to kill?" seem irrelevant. If they're in your house they can only intend to kill you - right? Weird country.

I love South Park, and what I'm reading from you two is the exact parody they had on their of "HE'S COMING RIGHT AT US!" *BLAM*

you should have the right to use any force necessary to defend yourself

That is where our laws differ (UK). It's called proportional force in the UK.

You do not have the right (in the UK) to execute people in your own home on the pretence of "self defence". You do have the right to defend yourself using reasonable force which is proportional to the situation. If they pose a credible and real threat to your life then you can of course use lethal force to protect yourself; you're not expected to die by any stretch of the imagination. But just because you are "scared" doesn't mean you can kill.

As an example of reasonable force proportional to the circumstance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)#Burglary_and_shooting

The above case received huge media attention as the overall sense was that of sympathy for the farmer - he acted in self defence!
However, as the case unfolded, it diminished as he hadn't shot in self defence at all... indeed, he shot and killed one as they attempted to flee the property. That's neither reasonable or proportionate - and it cannot be argued that it is. Of course in US law (from what you say) this appears to be acceptable... and I honestly think US law is dodgy under that circumstance as a fleeing individual cannot be realistically considered a threat.

I guess the main differences are that the UK does not have a gun culture. We don't feel the need to walk around with them, or own them. Consequently, gun crime is minimal and shootings very rare indeed except within gangs. Even then, they prefer knives...

 

[Zoomer]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

if you think so little of your life that you refuse to defend yourself with a gun if necessary then you deserve the harm that's coming to you.

You contradict both what I, and yourself, say in one sentence. That's a rare talent. To then finish with the "you deserve it" type response... clearly there's zero point continuing any conversation when you come out with idiocy like that :roll:

@Jerry - I understand what the law is, I'm just (as always) surprised as to how it's interpreted.

In my state the police would come out, see the area they broke into, see their bullet riddled bodies inside the home and then congratulate you on living through them trying to kill you.

As I'd question it - trying to kill you? Evidence? I understand your law is "they're in your house so by definition must be trying to kill you - so feel free to kill them" - but if they weren't armed I think the "trying to kill you" is called into a serious, and reasonable, question.

Either way, views are polar opposites. I'm fine with killing in self defence if my life is in danger (contrary to what people appear to believe). Just definitions of danger differ. Evidently your criminals are all armed with guns. If ours were, maybe I'd be a "shoot first" person - but honestly I'd be more of a shout a warning person and only shoot if they continue.

 

[LadyLuna]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

Zoomer, what they were originally saying is key here. They were saying "do you harm". Or do you not agree that stealing from someone is harmful to the person you stole from?

If a person is breaking into your house, there's a few things they might be trying to do.

- They might simply be running from someone else. While the person who just broke in might not do you any harm, the people chasing him might if they realize where he went. Thus, his presence causes you harm.
- They might be there to steal from you. Anything they take means that you'll have to work that much harder, that much longer, in order to replace it. When they steal something you paid for, they're stealing your time. You can't get your time back.
-They might be there to hurt you or your family. The walls, doors, and windows of your house are your defenses. The person who intends to hurt you is already inside your defenses.
-They might be "on a lark", just causing mayhem for the fun of it. That usually involves destruction of property. Anything they destroy is something you'll have to either replace or fix, which means they've had the same effect as if they stole it. (in my eyes, destroying things for the fun of it is worse than stealing, because at least a stolen item could be recovered, and will be used by someone. Something that's destroyed can't be.)

So someone who is in your house without your permission is likely to either hurt you, steal your stuff, or destroy your stuff. The issue we have in the US, is that something like "reasonable force" is open to interpretation. Yes, there are times where it's clear that excessive force was used. But a lot of the time, it's debatable.

Example: Police tell a criminal to freeze. He has a nervous twitch, and reaches for something in his pocket. Police shoot him, thinking he's going for a gun (whether or not the criminal is killed doesn't matter to this point). Turns out, it was cigarettes. But as far as the police knew, it was a gun. If it had been a gun, and the policeman waited to see that it was in fact a gun, the policeman would likely be wounded or dead. Was the policeman justified in shooting him? Some will say yes, others will say no.

As a gas station attendant, I was taught that if a robber comes into the store, assume the robber is armed with intention to shoot, even if I can't see the gun. Why wouldn't the same logic apply if someone comes into my house without my invitation, after having either broken window/door/wall, or picked the lock, since I keep my place locked even when I'm home? It's clear that my doors were NOT open, it's clear that they forced their way into my house. Do I have the right to shoot to kill at that point, or not?

In the US, police response time varies, so a lot of people grow up learning that they can't rely on the cops to stop the crime. There's simply not enough of them to do so. Their main job is to clean up afterwards, and try to figure out who did what. And who knows if the police will ever catch the criminals? If we didn't have the right to use any and all force we ourselves deem necessary, we would be helpless. How much force is excessive? What's too little, what's too much? Wouldn't using any force cause the criminal to then escalate, until one or the other of us is dead? It could. And there's so little that can be done in real life to catch the person who did the crime. Especially if the crook watches those CSI shows, because he'll know not to leave evidence behind.

If everybody knows that breaking in to someone else's house could result in their own death, then anyone who does break into someone else's house is placing their life in the hands of the owner of that house, knowingly and willingly. I could understand being upset by the rule if it was a giant secret, but it's not.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

Zoomer, what they were originally saying is key here. They were saying "do you harm". Or do you not agree that stealing from someone is harmful to the person you stole from?

- They might be there to steal from you. Anything they take means that you'll have to work that much harder, that much longer, in order to replace it. When they steal something you paid for, they're stealing your time. You can't get your time back.

Just a point of clarification on this. There's differing laws about the right to shoot someone to protect your stuff from being stolen. Most areas it is not legal to do bodily harm in that instance, including my state. If they are outside your home and stealing stuff then I would just call the police and let them handle it. But if they were breaking into the home to steal that's a different matter. You don't know what their intentions are and it's presumed they mean you harm. Then I have no problem firing on them.

Basically if it's outside it's just stuff that can be replaced, and a stolen lawn mower just isn't worth the extra paperwork of a dead body. Inside the home...well, you can't do the paperwork anyway if you're dead, so shoot their asses.

1. Can't "flee" - do you guys walk around with a gun strapped to your hip in your own home?
2. Or do you have one stashed behind a cushion, in a cupboard, or on a table in every single room of the house?

1. - Sometimes, yes.
2. - Oh you betcha! Only you didn't come close to the number. Think ten foot radius.

 

[eyeteach]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

Zoomer it's on you, if you can sleep peacefully at night, broken thumb and all, then God bless you. As for me I too will sleep peacefully fully knowing that if anyone tries to invade my home then the three of us, Smith, Wesson and myself, will take care of business.

 

[Bocefish]

Re: Open carry of guns with no required safety training in T

@Jerry - I understand what the law is, I'm just (as always) surprised as to how it's interpreted.

In my state the police would come out, see the area they broke into, see their bullet riddled bodies inside the home and then congratulate you on living through them trying to kill you.

As I'd question it - trying to kill you? Evidence? I understand your law is "they're in your house so by definition must be trying to kill you - so feel free to kill them" - but if they weren't armed I think the "trying to kill you" is called into a serious, and reasonable, question.

Either way, views are polar opposites. I'm fine with killing in self defence if my life is in danger (contrary to what people appear to believe). Just definitions of danger differ. Evidently your criminals are all armed with guns. If ours were, maybe I'd be a "shoot first" person - but honestly I'd be more of a shout a warning person and only shoot if they continue.

The bold & underlined portion is the type of reasoning I cannot comprehend. It's been a long, tiring weekend so maybe I'm just not getting your point. Maybe people break into homes in your area to deliver flowers and friendly greetings. :dontknow:

If the bad guy is breaking into your home, knowing full well you're there... at what point do you decide to defend yourself with lethal force? Do you wait for them to physically try and kill you before you feel justified in using lethal force? Do you need the bad guy to actually verbalize his intentions specifically?? If he says he's there just to rob you, do you actually believe the criminal and not shoot his ass? Maybe it's just me, but a locked door should be considered enough of a warning not to enter without permission. If a bad guy chooses to ignore that polite warning while I'm home, it will likely be the last mistake they ever make unless they immediately surrender.

:twocents-02cents: