Here is a reason to own a gun

[natty bumppo 297]

Is it sufficient to identify by sound (voice, grunts, etc.) or must a person actually see the intruder before being able to shoot?

There was an incident a few years back where some bounty hunters raided the wrong house.

how can you identify a target with seeing the target?

[natty bumppo 297]

how can you identify a target without seeing the target?

fixored ...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

how can you identify a target with seeing the target?

Here's more to the story of what happened with the bounty hunters raiding the wrong home:

In a flurry of bullets early Sunday morning, at least five bounty hunters wearing ski masks forced their way into a house here and killed a couple who apparently did not know the bail jumper who was being sought. The Maricopa County Attorney, Richard Romley, said today that the deaths of Chris Foote, 23, and his girlfriend, Spring Wright, 20, were ''troubling,'' and warranted a look at new laws that would force bounty hunters to be licensed and undergo background checks.

The bounty hunters, who wore body armor and ski masks, burst into the house at 4 A.M., held three children and another couple at gunpoint, then opened fire into a bedroom that Mr. Foote shared with Ms. Wright. Mr. Foote returned fire, wounding two of the attackers.

Mr. Foote later died of his wounds.

Today, while the authorities announced the arrest of one bounty hunter on charges of second-degree murder, members of Mr. Foote's family said they would conduct a petition drive to persuade Arizona lawmakers to restrict bountyhunters' activities.

''I used to think I was safe in my house,'' said Tom Foote, Chris Foote's father. ''Now I don't. This could happen to any family.''

The Foote family took little solace in the arrest late on Sunday of three men, Matthew Brackney, 28, his father, David Brackney, 45, and Michael Sanders, 40. The elder Mr. Brackney and Mr. Sanders were under police guard in a Phoenix hospital, recovering from wounds the police said they received when Chris Foote returned fire.

The two wounded men were expected to be charged with second-degree murder. Officers were also looking for two other men in connection with the shootings.

The deaths have raised questions about the little-known world of bounty hunters, who do not need court orders or warrants to bring bail jumpers back to jail. ''Whatever force necessary,'' Linda Ownbey of Liberty Bail Bonds, the state's largest bail business, told The Associated Press. ''It's spelled out in the contract that people have to sign.''

link

So my question is - what could the homeowner have done differently that would have changed the outcome?

[Peikko 1,575]

That's a perfect illustration how American society simply isn't as sophisticated as other western industrial nations. Bounty hunters shooting people in their own homes, home owners shooting back. What kind of idiocy is this?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's a perfect illustration how American society simply isn't as sophisticated as other western industrial nations. Bounty hunters shooting people in their own homes, home owners shooting back. What kind of idiocy is this?

Stories like this are just alien to me - you just don't hear about this kind of thing outside the US.

Nutty.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Let's try a straw pole - who has been involved in a situation where they would have been safer if they had had a gun, or having a gun saved them from being adversely involved in a criminal event?

This is not about wildlife you understand I have never stated that it is a bad idea to have a gun in wilderness situations were there is always a chance that wildlife can turn a situation into a life threatening one and where having a gun can be useful and is not inconvenient.

Humans are, in general, far more dangerous than wildlife.

If it really is a perpetrator with a gun and intent to kill you in the dark, who's going to get the first shot off if you need time to identify the target?

That's what combat flashlights are for.

[Peikko 1,575]

Stories like this are just alien to me - you just don't hear about this kind of thing outside the US.

Nutty.

It's just collateral damage and the price of real freedom

I wonder at what level of societal impact real freedom becomes untenable even for the gungho gang?

Edited March 19, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Humans are, in general, far more dangerous than wildlife.

But is our society inherently dangerous?

The self-defence argument that many of our resident gun owners like to use kind of implies that a home invasion, robbery or mugging is not only commonplace, but inevitable.

Indeed if these things are common (and I don't think that it can be convincingly argued that they are), how can it be claimed that the wide availability of guns make society safer?

I never worried about these things in the UK (or here for that matter) and in 32 years I have never, once, been the victim of any kind of violent crime. The reply to this is usually that I will change my tune toute suit were that to happen, but then I would have to ask why a person would do such a thing. It wouldn't be out of a reasoned desire to protect oneself, but out of fear of being victimized.

Edited March 19, 2010 by Its a MADHOUSE

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

If it really is a perpetrator with a gun and intent to kill you in the dark, who's going to get the first shot off if you need time to identify the target?

steven, have you tried shooting at anything in the dark? it takes lots of practice to be able to even hit something that presents an outline in the dark, in total darkness you're liable to hit everything but the target.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

That's a perfect illustration how American society simply isn't as sophisticated as other western industrial nations. Bounty hunters shooting people in their own homes, home owners shooting back. What kind of idiocy is this?

to me, it's a perfect illustration of how shooting into a bedroom without even knowing what all is present in that room displays a complete lack of common sense.

[Peikko 1,575]

to me, it's a perfect illustration of how shooting into a bedroom without even knowing what all is present in that room displays a complete lack of common sense.

It doesn't happen anywhere else Charles, only in America. Sure, we have crime all over the globe, but no where else do innocent people get gunned down in their own home in the name of pursuit of justice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Firing a gun inside a home is a bit demented.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

But is our society inherently dangerous?

The self-defence argument that many of our resident gun owners like to use kind of implies that a home invasion, robbery or mugging is not only commonplace, but inevitable.

Indeed if these things are common (and I don't think that it can be convincingly argued that they are), how can it be claimed that the wide availability of guns make society safer?

I never worried about these things in the UK (or here for that matter) and in 32 years I have never, once, been the victim of any kind of violent crime. The reply to this is usually that I will change my tune toute suit were that to happen, but then I would have to ask why a person would do such a thing. It wouldn't be out of a reasoned desire to protect oneself, but out of fear of being victimized.

i suppose whether it's inherently dangerous depends on whether one has been victimized or not. additionally, depending on where one lives will increase or decrease the likelihood of a home invasion - i.e. if in the dirt poor part of town, i'd suspect that would be increased. if in the rich part of town, say a gated community, odds are it will be decreased. in short, if your neighborhood has a pattern of break ins, eventually you may well be a victim too.

furthermore, one must take into account an individual's place and type of work (for the mugging aspect). going to work in a white collar job in a major corporation's office building is probably not as dangerous as driving say, a beer vending service truck through the seedy side of town.

as for if one feels safer with or without a firearm, i leave that up to the individual's judgement. they, more than you or i or anyone else, knows what the likelihood is more than anyone else. lastly, just because you've not been a victim in 32 years that does not mean such will be the case for the next 32 years.

It doesn't happen anywhere else Charles, only in America. Sure, we have crime all over the globe, but no where else do innocent people get gunned down in their own home in the name of pursuit of justice.

i highly doubt the "only in america" part.

Firing a gun inside a home is a bit demented.

on the part of who? the homeowner, or the invader?

Edited March 19, 2010 by charles!

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, I don't think Charles believes firing a gun in a home is demented, just firing one without knowing exactly what is being fired at. However, I expect the defense of the bounty hunters will argue something on the lines that the couple who were shot were shot because they sufficiently resembled the person/persons they were perusing, that they did everything they reasonably could to make sure their quarry were correctly identified and they had every right to fire and kill them in the reasonable pursuit of their job. Collateral damage

i suppose whether it's inherently dangerous depends on whether one has been victimized or not. additionally, depending on where one lives will increase or decrease the likelihood of a home invasion - i.e. if in the dirt poor part of town, i'd suspect that would be increased. if in the rich part of town, say a gated community, odds are it will be decreased. in short, if your neighborhood has a pattern of break ins, eventually you may well be a victim too.

furthermore, one must take into account an individual's place and type of work (for the mugging aspect). going to work in a white collar job in a major corporation's office building is probably not as dangerous as driving say, a beer vending service truck through the seedy side of town.

as for if one feels safer with or without a firearm, i leave that up to the individual's judgement. they, more than you or i or anyone else, knows what the likelihood is more than anyone else. lastly, just because you've not been a victim in 32 years that does not mean such will be the case for the next 32 years.

i highly doubt the "only in america" part.

on the part of who? the homeowner, or the invader?

You can highly doubt it all you want. There are no bounty hunters in the UK or the rest of Europe for that matter. There is no legal right to enter a home with a gun to bring someone before the court system outside of the US, so yes, it only happens in countries were such idiocy is permitted.

[Ban Hammer 13,408]

Oh, I don't think Charles believes firing a gun in a home is demented, just firing one without knowing exactly what is being fired at. However, I expect the defense of the bounty hunters will argue something on the lines that the couple who were shot were shot because they sufficiently resembled the person/persons they were perusing, that they did everything they reasonably could to make sure their quarry were correctly identified and they had every right to fire and kill them in the reasonable pursuit of their job. Collateral damage

demented is a rather offensive term to use, but not unexpected given the view of either of you regarding firearms.

don't look to me to defend the bounty hunters - they failed one of the cardinal rules: Know your target and what is beyond.

link