Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 38




CHICKAMAUGA, Ga. (AP)

A 72 year old man with Alzheimer Disease walked out of his house in the middle of the night. Three hours later he knocked on a stranger's door. The girlfriend of the house guest called 911, but instead of waiting for the police to arrive, the house guest pulled out his loaded .40 caliber handgun. Then he went outside, found the old man wandering on the property, and fired repeatedly into the man’s body.
The house guest didn’t want to comment to the press, but his attorney said, "He's a man who thought he had to take action because of what he believed to be a real and imminent threat."

The house guest’s name is not George this time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
One well-known home invasion is the November 15, 1959, quadruple murder of the Clutter family by Richard Hickock and Perry Edward Smith during a home-invasion robbery in rural Holcomb, Kansas. The murders were detailed in Truman Capote's "nonfiction novel" In Cold Blood. However, the perpetrators were convicted of murder, not home invasion.

More recently, two paroled criminals were each charged with three counts of capital murder during a home invasion into the Petit family home in Cheshire, Connecticut on July 23, 2007. During the invasion, the mother died of asphyxiation due to strangulation and the two daughters died of smoke inhalation after the suspects set the house on fire. The men were charged with first-degree sexual assault, murder of a kidnapped person, and murder of two or more people at the same time. The state attorney sought the death penalty against the suspects. The first defendant, Steven Hayes, was found guilty of 16 of 17 counts including capital murder on October 5, 2010 and on November 8, 2010 was sentenced to death. His co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, was convicted of all 17 counts against him in October 2011, and was also sentenced to death.

Another home invasion occurred on November 26, 2007 when Washington Redskins star Sean Taylor was murdered during an overnight home invasion of his suburban Miami home. Four defendants were charged with this crime.

In none of these cases is anyone named George.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Another home invasion occurred on November 26, 2007 when Washington Redskins star Sean Taylor was murdered during an overnight home invasion of his suburban Miami home. Four defendants were charged with this crime.

Sean Taylor owned a gun, and had been arrested for pointing it at another person two years before he himself died. Owning a gun didn't seem to help him.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 43



In none of these cases is anyone named George.



Let me help ya out with this; the guy that got murdered was not invading anything other than a doorbell. The 34 year-old house guest, was safe inside his home (just like george was safe within his car) but decided to get a Big Gun and chase down a 72 year-old man with alzheimer's and fire a Cannon Repeatedly into his body because... "he felt threatened."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I am not sure whether this guy shoots the other guy dead, or pummels him over the head with a bat until he is dead, is a big difference.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 30
ST P:

not sure whether this guy shoots the other guy dead, or pummels him over the head with a bat until he is dead, is a big difference.

*********

Lordy lordy lordy the amount of explaining and clarifying needed on this board.

If someone IS murdered, the OUTCOME of being dead is the same whether you use a pistol, a bat, or a fountain pen. Yes, but basically IRRELEVANT to the question at hand.

What matters is the likelihood of a man committing murder if he is armed with a gun vs being armed with a bat (I'll leave fountain pens out of my analysis as too complicated a murder weapon, except to suggest examining the case of Joe Stalin).

Very very few people (famously, Al Capone) will approach another human with a bat, engage, and physically bash a person to death. (Chase him until you catch and corner him [you think he stands still as you lift the bat above your head?] Thunk re-set-body THUNK re-set-body THWACK re-set-body CRUNCH) the blows painfully slowly go into an increasingly blooded and crumpled body.

Many many more will, from a distance that is safely outside a normal mammal's "fight or flight" zone, point and pull. Ask any "blooded" front line soldier.

Firearms are far more deadly in use, and far far less likely to trigger inhibition in all but those crazed on drugs or full scale berserker combat.

How do I know this?? Experience. Dad taught brother and me to hunt (years with a single shot .22 rifle until I proved myself, and then shotguns and heavier gauge rifles, although single shot .22 squirrel hunting remains my favorite) and then went on to teach me self-defense through use of his 1942 issued army officer sidearm, a Colt .32 model 1903 (allowed in my hands only at the shooting range). As Mom adamantly refused to allow firearms in the house (even on Army bases), Dad also taught brother and me the use of knives and, yeap, BATS. I wept the first time I used a bat, as directed, on a hatted dummy made of bags of junk with a sandbag encased melon head until the juices ran. Shooting targets, no problem.

I still keep a couple special knives and a bat in handy locations, and no guns in the house.

Decades later one of my employees, a computer techie, upon leaving a gay bar in 1987 was tailed and then cornered by a gang of "gay bashers". The ringleader used a bat on him, but lost his nerve and ran away after just one blow, unfortunately to the head. My poor employee survived but never recovered. The gang was caught and it turned out the ringleader had been on a mix of alcohol, speed, and marijuana. Years later he took responsibility for his actions after, finally, accepting his own homosexuality (yeah after a couple years of prison).

Only crazy people like yours truly would really use a bat to smash people into pulp. My inhibitions have been trained down. However, "not-George" would probably have stayed cowering in his girlfriend's house if all he had was a bat, and a senile man would have spent a little time with the police, a social worker, and then been home again with his family.


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, an elderly man died recently after one punch to the.face in a knockout game. It wouldn't take Al Capone to kill him. A lot of things went wrong to put this demented person loitering around a house that had recently been attacked by a strange man.
We don't know what he was saying. If he was yelling or threatening. For him to be able to get his dogs...walk out of his house?? A cop sees him wandering at two thirty am and leaves him alone?

I don't have a gun, but if I was in that guys situation, I would wish I had.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



I don't have a gun, but if I was in that guys situation, I would wish I had.



And... Why couldn't he have just stayed in his house and wait for police who did arrive just in time to see the 72 year-old cough up his lungs?


Do you happen to have information when was the last time a 72 year-old "took out" and 34 year-old?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We know that an out of control young man was banging at the same doora week before.



We don't know what the shooter thought the elderly man was doing, or how old he thought he was.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3



We don't know what the shooter thought the elderly man was doing, or how old he thought he was.



And...

Like Gorgieboy, He couldn't wait for professionals to make those decisions and clarify the difference between a threat and a 72 year-old with alzheimer's.


By the way, the old man only rung the doorbell. He wasn't bashing the door down.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know of anyone that believes guns are the only way to stop a home invasion. What is your point?

That there are other means of stopping home invasions so none of us needs guns?

If we outlaw guns do you believe that outlaws won't get guns? That outlaws never kill innocents?

We already outlaw a lot of weapons and don't try to tell me those illegal arms sells are coming from Joe Blow the gun owner or small gun shops.

The largest peddlers of guns to whackos is the U.S. government and there are far more incidents of gang violence involving guns than some dope who guns down a man with Ahlzeimers.

If it is the belief by some that individual gun owners are of no threat to someone or group of someones hell bent on a totalitarian takeover anyway, why are they so fervent in wanting to collect guns? Is it their belief they will be less formidable if all they had was baseball bats and knives?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Firearms are far more deadly in use, and far far less likely to trigger inhibition in all but those crazed on drugs or full scale berserker combat.
_____________________

Do you believe, in reality, those types of people would not get guns whether or not they were legal?

NY and IL have some of the most strict gun laws in the land and not a day goes by where they are not used in those states to commit murder.

You believe if all states had the same laws as NY and IL those same people could not get guns?

Think again.

Although I think the NRA is nothing but a money churning organization getting loaded off of fear mongering, their counterparts in the kumbaya league and their reactionary "solutions" will pretty much guarantee the NRA is going to get stronger and richer than ever.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not sure what a Gorgieboy is, but it did take some time for the cops to get there, considering the poor guy was wandering the street after the cops.stopped him earlier.

I think he did more than ring the bell, he did try to get into the door, although obviously not by bashing in anything.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Only crazy people like yours truly would really use a bat to smash people into pulp. My inhibitions have been trained down. However, "not-George" would probably have stayed cowering in his girlfriend's house if all he had was a bat, and a senile man would have spent a little time with the police, a social worker, and then been home again with his family.

_____________________________

If one were to take a tally, how many Georges are there in the world as opposed to those in countries where the civilian population only has one gun store and subject to the whims of a state's police force.

How is this working out for the civilians in Mexico?



Los Zetas was formed out of Mexico's army elite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas

ps Those guns Los Zetas, et al are using, aren't coming from small time gun owners or gun sellers.

They are coming from other governments.

http://deadlinelive.info/2011/07/06/deadline-live-exclusive-...

Fast and Furious was funded with "stimulus money".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Fast and Furious was funded with "stimulus money".

Nope, yet another lie from the wingnut whiners and hypocrite howlers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Fast and Furious was funded with "stimulus money".

Nope, yet another lie from the wingnut whiners and hypocrite howlers.
___________________-

Are you saying the Recovery Act of 2010 did not provide for this?
http://www.recovery.gov/Accountability/inspectors/Documents/...



I am not saying the GOP hasn't done likewise, but who is calling whom hypocrites is kind of a joke.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let me help ya out with this; the guy that got murdered was not invading anything other than a doorbell. The 34 year-old house guest, was safe inside his home (just like george was safe within his car) but decided to get a Big Gun and chase down a 72 year-old man with alzheimer's and fire a Cannon Repeatedly into his body because... "he felt threatened."

So we wait to see what the evidence says and what he's charged with. What's your point?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
What's your point?

Paul Blart Mall Cop, the point is that in a country such as yours which is absolutely awash with guns - hundreds of millions of them - that there will be quite a few people who are sacrificed at the altar of the holy phallic symbol so that guys like you can feel more sexually attractive and significant because you're PACKIN' HEAT.

In other countries where it's much less mathematically probable that some hothead has lethal force in his hands it won't happen as much. Take here in Australia. If you're a psychotic wanting to get your hands on a semi-auto, you'll have to try to buy it from a bikie. That's not going to go down well. In your gun-obsessed country, you must might just get it from your mother's personal arsenal.

Now, you can successfully make the argument that even if there is an increased chance of being the victim of gun crime or accident it is still actually statistically low even in America - getting in a car is more likely to kill you. True. But can you just admit that - all so you can feel like a real TOUGH GUY (and that the corporations that make money from your insecurity) that thousands of people will die in your country that wouldn't have otherwise?

And I hope you know better than to start spewing fundamentally destroyed "research" that justifies your redirected sexual fetish.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Paul Blart Mall Cop, the point is that in a country such as yours which is absolutely awash with guns - hundreds of millions of them - that there will be quite a few people who are sacrificed at the altar of the holy phallic symbol so that guys like you can feel more sexually attractive and significant because you're PACKIN' HEAT.

I'm not a guy. (you know that) and I don't "pack". I have shown a few bad boys my target after I practiced shooting a handgun. That would be because my husband insisted I get a handgun and learn to shoot it, let some unsavory types know I could shoot it, when I was often alone out in the boondocks.

In other countries where it's much less mathematically probable that some hothead has lethal force in his hands it won't happen as much.

Why is it much less mathematically possible? Are you making the argument in all countries where there are more people who are not allowed to own guns, that there are statistically less murders than the United States. You're a smart boy, you know that isn't the case.

Take here in Australia. If you're a psychotic wanting to get your hands on a semi-auto, you'll have to try to buy it from a bikie. That's not going to go down well. In your gun-obsessed country, you must might just get it from your mother's personal arsenal.

Maybe your ATF, CIA, and FBI aren't selling to them in the first place?:) Quite frankly, I am beginning to believe this ongoing argument gets stirred up by the very ones, who pretend they want gun reform, but in reality need people to set up to do their smuggling for them, and when things get transparently out of hand, have somebody to throw under a bus. They are getting pretty desperate when they have to resort to already troubled youths with IQ s close to zero.

Now, you can successfully make the argument that even if there is an increased chance of being the victim of gun crime or accident it is still actually statistically low even in America - getting in a car is more likely to kill you. True. But can you just admit that - all so you can feel like a real TOUGH GUY (and that the corporations that make money from your insecurity) that thousands of people will die in your country that wouldn't have otherwise?

Of those thousands of people who are dying from guns, 2/3 are from suicide. Most of the rest have to do with criminals who obtained their guns, most often, unconventionally. Is it your belief that in those countries that prohibit guns, but still have lots and lots of guns are only being supplied by the United States?

And I hope you know better than to start spewing fundamentally destroyed "research" that justifies your redirected sexual fetish.

How about pictures?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.sodahead.c...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-su...

MAP: Which Kills More People in Your State—Cars or Guns?
Plenty of states are hitting a grisly milestone; for the nation, it's only a matter of time.
Back in December, not long after the massacre at Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, Bloomberg News published a study suggesting that by 2015, guns would kill more Americans than traffic accidents do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Does that mean that less people are getting killed on cars?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why is it much less mathematically possible?

Because per capita there are vastly less guns here.

Of those thousands of people who are dying from guns, 2/3 are from suicide.

I'm not suggesting you are saying this, but it's hardly something to be glad about.

And the murder rate is still comparatively high in the US. Yes, there are specific influences like gangs that bump up the figures, but it's just not possible to argue that fomenting a culture where there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation doesn't have an effect. Frankly, the best argument to be made is that you'd think the carnage would be even higher, but I doubt that people left to grieve after someone close to them has been killed worries much that the already obscene figure might be lower than could be conceived.

Is it your belief that in those countries that prohibit guns, but still have lots and lots of guns are only being supplied by the United States?

I don't quite follow your train of thought here - but since you've brought it up, Mexico (which doesn't prohibit guns) is heavily supplied with illegal weapons brought into the country from the USA - often purchased legally there.

But no - the US doesn't supply all the world's illegal guns. But what was the point of the question?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Why is it much less mathematically possible?

Because per capita there are vastly less guns here.

That cause and effect assumption doesn't hold water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_civilian_gun_...

Of those thousands of people who are dying from guns, 2/3 are from suicide.

I'm not suggesting you are saying this, but it's hardly something to be glad about.

Suicide rate in the U.S. is about the same or slightly better than Canada and Germany. It is a lot less than in France, Finland, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and South Korea. Who knows what it is in countries that don't furnish that information or tweak it. In places like Mexico it is supposedly a lot less. If the statistic is valid it probably has to do with their Catholic belief that they would go to hell. Who knows what it is in Moldova. From what I understand, they sort of relish in their misery.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html
I don't know if they are doing themselves in with guns or not.

And the murder rate is still comparatively high in the US. Yes, there are specific influences like gangs that bump up the figures, but it's just not possible to argue that fomenting a culture where there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation doesn't have an effect. Frankly, the best argument to be made is that you'd think the carnage would be even higher, but I doubt that people left to grieve after someone close to them has been killed worries much that the already obscene figure might be lower than could be conceived.

Many of the countries a lot of people like to hold up as less prone to murder don't include

(1) Countries that are very selective in regard to their immigration policy and enforce those policies. If they tout themselves as multicultural, like Australia does, they don't have an open border policy, meaning they set standards and uphold them.

and/or

(2) Have a very homogeneous population.

Is it your belief that in those countries that prohibit guns, but still have lots and lots of guns are only being supplied by the United States?

I don't quite follow your train of thought here - but since you've brought it up, Mexico (which doesn't prohibit guns) is heavily supplied with illegal weapons brought into the country from the USA - often purchased legally there.

But no - the US doesn't supply all the world's illegal guns. But what was the point of the question?


Mexico allows guns, but on a very limited basis, and since the 1960s have been disarming the population by introducing Article 10. They shut down gun stores, outlawed private sales of firearms, closed down public shooting facilities, and put the federal government in control of all things related to firearms. Moreover, the government decides who can legally purchase firearms and it is gangsters running the government.

The point of the question is to illustrate that in The Great Game of things, double standards abound, especially by those who want to speed up their vision of an utopian society.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I wrote
Many of the countries a lot of people like to hold up as less prone to murder don't include

should be
Many of the countries a lot of people like to hold up as less prone to murder don't include the fact that........
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Colovion, as a practical matter I assume you have thought about these situations and have your own thoughts on this. While each situation is different, are there any practical "rules of engagement", so to speak that someone could use to help prevent unnecessary shootings? Know my father kept his .45 in one room and the ammo in another because he had kids, and because he wanted a little space to think. Have any advice?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
While each situation is different, are there any practical "rules of engagement", so to speak that someone could use to help prevent unnecessary shootings?

Of course!

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Rule I means that you assume all guns are always loaded, not that you always go out of your way to make sure all your guns have ammo in them. What this means is if someone says, "Don't worry, it isn't loaded" you DO NOT believe them until you verify that it isn't loaded.

Rule II is pretty self-explanatory. You don't point guns at anything you aren't willing to destroy. Period. End of discussion. If you are going to point your gun at something (or someone) you better be fully prepared to fire that gun. It's not just good safety advice but good legal advice because pointing a gun at someone is considered assault so you better have a damn good reason for doing so.

Rule III is the most often violated by those unfamiliar with firearms. Modern guns don't fire unless someone or something pulls the trigger, so keeping your finger off the trigger unless you are prepared to fire prevents negligent discharges. Also be sure your sights are lined up on the target so you hit what you are aiming for, not something (or someone) unintended.

Rule IV is important from a liability standpoint. Know what your target is and what is behind it.

It sounds trite but these four basic rules are beyond crucial. If you know what your target is you aren't going to shoot your kid coming in late. If you assume every gun is loaded you aren't going to point an "unloaded" gun at someone only to have it go off and kill them. If you keep your finger off the trigger you aren't going to jump and shoot someone negligently. If you are always conscious of where your gun is pointed you won't fire it through a wall and into your kid's head.

As for keeping the gun loaded with ammo, if it's a self-defense gun then that is the correct thing to do. It's always ready for self-defense, it's always loaded. That doesn't mean you leave it on a dresser if kids are around, even if your kids know not to touch it they may have friends over who don't know the safety rules, etc. There are ergonomic safes which allow for very quick access to firearms for you but keep them out of the hands of kids, that's one solution that works well. They're not even terribly expensive (far cheaper than a lawsuit, criminal defense or a funeral at any rate). You could also use trigger locks... though that means it'll take longer to use that gun for self-defense if that need arises.

Always follow the laws of where you live too. Admittedly that sometimes leads to situations where you have to follow ridiculous laws (New York's SAFE Act or jurisdictions that ban hollow point ammo which is actually safer than FMJ... that's just infuriatingly stupid to me!) but it's better to move than to become a felon. Preventing bad laws is the best idea, though, which is why I fully support the NRA (I'm a proud life member) and the MCRGO (Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Take here in Australia. If you're a psychotic wanting to get your hands on a semi-auto, you'll have to try to buy it from a bikie.

******************************

I promise you, even a vaguely competent shooter could kill a lot of people quickly with a lever action rifle. A .44 magnum lever action deer rifle holds 10 shells and those slugs make BIG holes in whatever they hit.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Suicide rate in the U.S. is about the same or slightly better than Canada and Germany.

Taken as a whole - yes.

But then - if you look at it on a state-by-state basis, you find some very pertinent factors.

Read this:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98Q0S320130927?irpc...

State-wide gun ownership tied to suicide deaths

"Living in a home with a gun greatly increases the risk of suicide, and that increased risk is not because people who live in homes with guns or in areas where guns are more prevalent are more suicidal," Miller told Reuters Health.

those who want to speed up their vision of an utopian society.

The main utopian I see here is Paul Blart Mall Cop - whose entire fibre of being seems centered around frickin' things that go bang because it gives him a cause to belong to and makes him feel sexually powerful and important.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Suicide rate in the U.S. is about the same or slightly better than Canada and Germany.

Taken as a whole - yes.

But then - if you look at it on a state-by-state basis, you find some very pertinent factors.

Read this:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98Q0S320130927?irpc......

State-wide gun ownership tied to suicide deaths

"Living in a home with a gun greatly increases the risk of suicide, and that increased risk is not because people who live in homes with guns or in areas where guns are more prevalent are more suicidal," Miller told Reuters Health.


He also said the number of suicides via non-gun methods was about the same in both groups.

"The number of non-gun suicides in the two sets of states was similar, at about 4,200 and 4,300, respectively. What's more, state-wide rates of suicide attempts did not differ based on levels of household gun ownership."

The difference is, if you use a gun to commit suicide, you're more likely to succeed. It would be interesting to know in countries with higher rates of suicide than ours, how they got it done.


those who want to speed up their vision of an utopian society.

The main utopian I see here is Paul Blart Mall Cop - whose entire fibre of being seems centered around frickin' things that go bang because it gives him a cause to belong to and makes him feel sexually powerful and important.

Well, there are folks who are fixated and like things that go bang world wide, to be sure, especially physicists and chemists, who like to dream up stuff to do BLOW UP things in a REALLY BIG WAY. Never thought about whether or not they did it for sexual pleasure, but some of them did it for "a cause". Some of them do it just because they like to blow stuff up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnqUyz3R4sA

I think it has more to do with the y chromosome.

What's your take on the violence in Star Wars? Star Trek, The Next Generation?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What's your take on the violence in Star Wars? Star Trek, The Next Generation?

My general view on violence isn't revolutionary - men are, on balance, more violent than women.

And many men are attracted to guns because they are an object that confers power that either the man lacks or has in such abundance that guns are a natural extension of their aggression.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
OK, but when should you be "willing to destroy"? And when does something qualify as a target?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
OK, but when should you be "willing to destroy"? And when does something qualify as a target?

************************

When the critter in question is in season.

Or (in my state, with a "make my day" law on the books) when a miscreant has entered my home.
Print the post Back To Top