<p>Look, it’s against the law to shoot a fleeing person. These people were fleeing. They were outside the house. Once they left the house, it was unnecessary (and stupid) for the guy to leave his house. I can have some sympathy, because nobody knows what they’ll do in the heat of anger, but we can’t tolerate private citizens chasing people down in the street (or alley) and shooting them to death as they run away. The next victim will be the meter reader, or the paper boy. This guy will get away with it because he’s 80 years old, but (in my opinion) he clearly broke the law.</p>
<p>Even a police officer would not have been able to legally shoot this woman under these circumstances, as she was no longer posing a danger, because she was running away.</p>
<p>If they do decide to prosecute him, I predict it will be because of the second shot.</p>
<p>Research John Lott who has extensively studied this. I also recommend researching his critics and his responses to critics. </p>
<p>However, to answer your question from one perspective - a whole lot less people are accidentally killed by guns than are accidentally killed by the family car each year; in comparison only are fraction are killed accidentally by guns. Not sure how many cars prevent robberies and save lives, but if my family and I were ever home invaded or walk in on criminals I do want the option to defend them in the most expeditious way possible, since that is my responsibility.</p>
<p>Not only that, but both girls died of smoke inhalation. As the police and fire department hung around outside until the criminals tried to flee in a car. If those cowardly, incompetent bastards had tried to enter the house, they could have saved both girls. The older one, the rower, actually managed to fight free of her bindings and made it to the top of the stairs, which is where the cowardly bastards found her body.</p>
<p>That case just drives me crazy, as you can no doubt tell.</p>
<p>This is a false comparison and false parallelism.</p>
<p>The drunk and texting drivers are not bad people, as per the above construction; they are stupid people who caused an accident. The drunk may even have an actual disease, alcoholism. Their intent was never to harm someone or to invade anotherpetson’s do ace or take their property.</p>
<p>The burglars intended to enter another’s property and intended to harm the individual. Their intent was to harm a person in one way or another. Now, that is a bad person because his intent is to be bad.</p>
<p>That one particularly upset me. Possibly because I also have two daughters. Maybe it’s due to some of the close calls which happened in that case which could have possibly resulted in a better outcome if just one thing had gone differently; it is just such a gut wrenching case. Any time innocents are murdered it’s horrific, but that case in particular just elicits a really emotional response in me.</p>
<p>I’m not necessarily a gung ho death penalty advocate, but I can’t manage to come up with any sad feelings at the prospect of the planet being minus those two animals.</p>
<p>It is easy to say someone is discredited. Disagreeing does not equate to discredit. And disagreeing does not make one’s position automatically correct. </p>
<p>This is why I recommended reading his work, his critics, and his response to his critics, then decide the reader can decide for themselves. </p>
<p>Best to read everything and decide for oneself who is more credible and who is not.</p>
<p>Drunk drivers are horrible people. They are worse than burglars, because they repeatedly take actions that endanger other people’s lives. They may drink because of a disease, but they drive because they don’t take any responsibility for their disease. Burglars hardly ever kill anybody; drunk drivers do it every day. I’ll never understand why we don’t lock them up for at least a year for the first offense.</p>
<p>Not only that, but both girls died of smoke inhalation. As the police and fire department hung around outside until the criminals tried to flee in a car. If those cowardly, incompetent bastards had tried to enter the house, they could have saved both girls. The older one, the rower, actually managed to fight free of her bindings and made it to the top of the stairs, which is where the cowardly bastards found her body.</p>
<p>That case just drives me crazy, as you can no doubt tell.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>the case sickens me as well. I thought there were only 2 cops outside, but if there were a bunch then I am even more disgusted. </p>
<p>I didn’t know that the older one got free from her bindings.</p>
<p>There was just too much time from when the bank called the police and when the criminals (not sure if one or both went with her to the bank) and Mrs. Petit arrived back home for the cops not to have beat them there! They went to a gas station before going home.</p>
<p>I also never quite understood where the criminals were when she was with the teller. </p>
<p>@Hunt I agree with the locking up of drunk drivers after the first offense. I did not advocate not punishing them, but their intent was not to go out and attack someone, so I do see it a bit differently.</p>
<p>However, this is not true for someone who has no position re guns and defense. The poster asked a legitimate question and it is up to him to read. </p>
<p>I do not fall into the camp that confirmation bias is as strong as you think, unless politics are involved. As a scientist, I have had to accept many a times my hypotheses or positions were just dead wrong. Goes with the territory.</p>
<p>“I do not fall into the camp that confirmation bias is as strong as you think, unless politics are involved. As a scientist, I have had to accept many a times my hypotheses or positions were just dead wrong. Goes with the territory.”</p>
<p>This is a prime example of confirmation bias. If you think science is bias-free… Think again. BTW, I’m a scientist, too. </p>
<p>^^ When it comes to confirmation bias, that is something very different. </p>
<p>Having a hypothesis not pan out for years and accepting those results, even though one thought differently, is not bias. Humbling is more like it.</p>
<p>There seems to be a conflation of two different issues: fright and self-reliance. These are two different motivating forces. </p>
<p>Just because one has a gun does not mean one is frightful of his surroundings at all - I count myself in that crowd. However, the world has proved that there is enough of a criminal element that on the chance something were to occur waiting around for someone else to rescue or save me is not in my makeup. I am action-oriented, not cower and wait for others to save me oriented.</p>
<p>If an unseemly situation rears its head, the responsibility to save myself and my family is a front line responsibility that I view as uniquely mine, not some police officers’ who may not arrive in time to assist. I could not live with myself if I could have done something, but all hell broke loose waiting the 10 minutes for the police to show up. Simply, being at the mercy of someone with intent to harm is not in my makeup at all. </p>
<p>In this case, it seems the old man had both things working in tandem: he was frightful of being further harmed because he was beaten, and he also decided to be more self-reliant. He may have crossed a legal line, but not the instinctual protect thyself line.</p>
<p>So do you carry a gun to Starbucks so that if someone pushes ahead of you in line, you can show them who’s boss? Or if someone tries to hold up the store, you can be the Hero who Saves the Day, who takes down the bad guy and ensures that no bystanders are hurt? If the latter, how do you have the assurance that your gun skills are so good? And how do I, the nice lady waiting for my latte, know that you’re not a nut job who is going to turn your gun on me if I accidentally spill my latte on your coat? </p>
If you think science is bias-free… Think again. BTW, I’m a scientist, too. </p>