Thread: Guns on school campuses?

Originally Posted by Syme

Just for the record, violent crime in America is a lot more common than, say, house fires, and yet people who keep fire extinguishers in their homes manage to avoid being accused of paranoia. I dunno, just a thought.

You are right that most home intruders are probably there to take possessions, not inflict mayhem. I don't think it's hard to understand, though, why many people are uncomfortable with the idea that if their home is broken into, their only recourse is to cower in helpless fear and hope that all the intruder wants is money, even if that is the more likely alternative. It's the same mentality that leads people to wear a seatbelt every time they drive even though they are unlikely to get in an accident, or to keep a fire extinguisher in the pantry even though they are unlikely to have a kitchen fire, and so forth. Keeping a gun in the home, just in case a violent intruder does show up, doesn't strike me as any more paranoid than those things. I guess paranoia is in the eye of the beholder.

The moral dimension aside, it is ILLEGAL* to use lethal force unless someone's life is in immediate danger. If someone is raping your 9-year-old daughter and you shoot them in the head, you will probably go to jail for murder. I think, thankfully, that most gun owners understand the circumstances under which they can use their guns. Certainly the statistics seem to suggest that most do.

*Except in Texas, of course


EDIT: Looking at it from outside the particular confines of the "gun issue", this is an interesting example of how people generally tend to approach improbable but highly dangerous or damaging events; i.e. those events that are very unlikely to occur, but if they do occur, are very bad. Examples might be a large asteroid hitting the planet Earth, or various forms of economic disaster, or catching rabies from a dog bite (or, say, a dangerous killer breaking into your home). When it comes to the question of how to prepare for those events, some people say "Nah, it's too unlikely, you're just being paranoid" and others say "It might happen no matter how unlikely, so it's better to err on the side of caution and be prepared". I find it interesting how different people react at this far end (in terms of probability and severity) of the risk-analysis spectrum. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of which personality types, or demographic sets, or whatever, tend to react more strongly to the probability of the threat or to it's severity, because people tend to perceive that one aspect of the threat "overrides" the other, and I wonder what predisposes someone in either direction.

For the record I think Utah has the castle doctrine (Ironically named) where as long as you think someone is about to commit a felony in your home lethal force is acceptable. I'm not 100% sure, and I'm sure that there are times when lethal force will get you put away, but I am reasonably certain that the castle doctrine protects most usages of lethal force in your home, even if slightly unnecessary. Just thought I'd point that out.

Edit - Your edit brings up a really good point and I've often wondered that myself.

Hmm, I thought "castle doctrine" laws mean that you don't have any duty to retreat when threatened with deadly force in your own home, and can respond in like kind without first attempting to get away?

EDIT: Oops, nope, you are right.

"Utah Criminal Code
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

It looks like several other states have similar arrangements. That is interesting.

Originally Posted by Syme

Hmm, I thought "castle doctrine" laws mean that you don't have any duty to retreat when threatened with deadly force in your own home, and can respond in like kind without first attempting to get away?

EDIT: Oops, nope, you are right.

"Utah Criminal Code
76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
(2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

It looks like several other states have similar arrangements. That is interesting.

Kind of weird, right? I mean, I'm glad I'm protected in case I happen to use lethal force(Ie: he dies from what I thought was an incapacitating shot) and it's technically not the right situation for it. I like the idea in general but it seems to be a bit too broad.

Oh well, score one for the paranoid mavericks.

Originally Posted by John Galt

FYI: If you shoot at someone it's lethal force no matter where you hit them, where you intended to hit them, or what type of shot you wanted it to be (and I'll ignore for this post the silliness of the whole concept of "incapacitating shot" when it comes to a live firefight).

Bottom line: discharge of a firearm is always lethal force. Period.

Well thanks for pointing that out, but I refuse to believe you'll be treated the same by a judge/prosecution if you tell them you fired into the guys chest and face exhausting the magazine, or you shot him in the leg in an attempt to put him down and he happened to bleed to death.

Regardless, I'm safe bitches. Castle Doctrine ftw

Originally Posted by Syme

Actually the latter situation is not necessarily better. A prosecutor can really go to town on you if you admit that you knowingly used what is legally lethal force (i.e. fired a gun) in a situation where you didn't believe lethal force was justified (since you didn't shoot to kill). You are basically saying "I used lethal force even though I didn't think it was necessary to kill", which amounts to handing the prosecution your ass on a plate. You should NEVER EVER "shoot him in the leg in an attempt to put him down" or anything like that; that's TV nonsense, it has no place in real life. If you shoot at all, shoot for the center of mass. Every professional self-defense instructor will tell you exactly the same thing.

So what you're saying is Tv and movies has lied to me?!?

Originally Posted by Syme

Actually the latter situation is not necessarily better. A prosecutor can really go to town on you if you admit that you knowingly used what is legally lethal force (i.e. fired a gun) in a situation where you didn't believe lethal force was justified (since you didn't shoot to kill). You are basically saying "I used lethal force even though I didn't think it was necessary to kill", which amounts to handing the prosecution your ass on a plate. You should NEVER EVER "shoot him in the leg in an attempt to put him down" or anything like that; that's TV nonsense, it has no place in real life. If you shoot at all, shoot for the center of mass. Every professional self-defense instructor will tell you exactly the same thing.

QFT

If you are in a situation where you need to shoot, then it is a life and death situation, and you need to be shooting to kill. Dont give warning shots, or shoot in the leg. Ive actually heard of a criminal sueing a homeowner for shooting him and the homeowner had to pay all kinds of money to pay his medical bills, pain and suffering, etc etc. BS if you ask me, but thats the way the legal system works sometimes.