<p>How in the world can you blame me for that other thread getting shut down (I assume you are talking about the one regarding Malia Obama preparing for college)? Are you actually kidding?? </p>
<p>As for this thread, I have not inserted politics gratuitously the way some others have. Perhaps you have me mistaken with someone else.</p>
<p>No, but I’m not at all surprised you don’t see it after reading Post #81…</p>
<p>This is what I said in post #81:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, my comment was directed at people who were intentionally stirring the pot. </p>
<p>In any case, both sides have examples of running right up to that line wherein they make a statement that is highly suggestive of a personal crack about another member. Please just state your position and your supporting evidence and before hitting “Post Comment”, read it over again and remove anything that is even marginally personal about another poster.</p>
<p>
With a little effort we can make this a thread about BOTH abortion and gun control. Bravo!</p>
<p>This thread began with a discussion of just how far the law does (and should) go in supporting a person’s right to defend himself. It’s not surprising that it devolved into a discussion of gun rights. But everybody agrees, I think, that there is some limit to the right of an individual to kill somebody he perceives as a potential future threat to himself. Surely nobody thinks that if the couple had escaped, but the guy saw them in 7-11 the next day that he’d be justified in pulling out his gun then and shooting them. It’s beyond any question that this would be against the law; does anybody want to argue that it would be morally justified for him to do that?</p>
<p>Finally an Op Ed has appeared regarding this case. Apparently the scenario was not simply firing shots at a fleeing suspect, she was actually on the ground wounded, bleeding and pleading for her life when he fired the second lethal shot. I guess she hoped the pregnancy claim would snap him out of his determination to execute her.
<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/opinion/navarrette-shooting-pregnant-intruder/”>http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/opinion/navarrette-shooting-pregnant-intruder/</a>
</p>
<p>Well, I think he was wrong in that it is certainly no longer self-defense. However, I also think that robbing someone and beating them to the point that they have broken bones and then expecting them to show you mercy is a little optimistic whether you lie about pregnancy or not.</p>
<p>I agree with that Op Ed–with the possible exception of his statement that it was a cold-blooded act. One of the comments points out that it was probably a hot-blooded act, which mitigates it to some degree. But there’s no question in my mind that the guy crossed the line and committed a crime. Strangely, people who believe in law and order don’t seem to want to see this particular lawbreaker punished.</p>
<p>Note: what will the next set of burglars do when they are surprised by a homeowner like this, before he gets hold of his gun?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering his words in that press interview, a reasonable person could interpret his actions as cold-blooded considering he admitted how deliberate his thought process was when he decided to fire the second shot and his reason for doing so. </p>
<p>Any defense which relies on “heat of passion” or “fear” went out the window with that interview. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is nothing to convince me that appeasement and hoping a criminal is nice because one chooses to unarm oneself gets any victim anywhere. Case-in-point is what this guy experienced - they beat him before he got his gun. He was just plain lucky he was not hit in a way that killed him. </p>
<p>@momsquad - I get what you are thinking, but I do believe intent matters. The poster was accurately addressing an erroneous statement. That post was not out if the blue or an effort to derail the thread with another controversial topic, and was directly relevant to the post it was correcting. It would be a shame if discussion is so denuded of addressing relevancy that posts cannot correct something.</p>
<p>“Note: what will the next set of burglars do when they are surprised by a homeowner like this, before he gets hold of his gun?”</p>
<p>Hunt, apparently, burglars do not follow the news (and do not learn from others’ mistakes). </p>
<p>Cobrat, I agree. Even if it was a “hot blooded” fatal shot at the moment it was fired, by giving that interview the guy did a lot of damage to his own defense. Bottom line: never volunteer information!</p>
<p>My statement was because generally, women are viewed as vulnerable and a pregnant woman, takes that to the extreme.
YMMV</p>
<p>Sure EK, but not so much after you burglarize and beat an elderly man in his home. And, she was lying. Not a particularly sympathetic victim. His statements definitely damage his defense, if he needs a defense. He may not.</p>
<p>I am just speaking to the mans perception of what is admirable behavior.
I think he has it skewed.</p>
<p>I realize it is in his rights to shoot someone who forcibly enters his house, even if they hadn’t assaulted him, and even if they had just been drunk and confused.
Thats why people are not generally charged when they do so.
But I missed if my earlier question was answered, which was are registered owners of firearms ever tested for vision & whatnot, to identify if they can still operate their weapons safely as they age, the way operators of motor vehicles have their vision tested?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not at all comfortable deciding how others should choose to lawfully defend themselves and what type of assault they should be expected to endure, irrespective of what the criminals do. I just do not get the come hit me, and I will purposely defend myself less approach to personal safety. I view the choice of lawful self-defense as a personal issue, not to be decided by others. </p>
<p>And yes, criminals do learn. That is why, for example, 95%+ of mass shootings take place where the perpetrators know that no guns are allowed. They purposefully choose gun-free zones. On the more larger point, our company trains employees on safety issues and all safety trainers say the same thing - criminals choose the easiest targets, which they know have the least defense, regardless of the type of targets.</p>
<p>I think drivers have their eyes test once. I’ve heard of visually impaired people getting their concealed weapons licenses. Not sure how true the story was, but I heard it from the man teaching my concealed weapons class. If that is true, both scenarios of a visually impaired driver or gun owner worry me.</p>
<p>If criminals learn, what they’ll learn from this case is that they should have killed him, or at least further incapacitated him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The basic answer is no. </p>
<p>In most states though, to conceal carry one must go through a gun safety course, which varies from state to state in its requirements. For standard purchases, a background check that shows no mental illness or felony charges is about it. </p>
<p>As for some specific physical test, there is a reason such tests do not exist. They are not allowed by the Constitution. The foundational rights granted the individual by the Constitution are automatically granted without litmus tests or qualifications. To draw the analogy, imagine if there were a litmus test for free speech before someone spoke or a test to be able to exercise your religion. Such tests are no-go’s.</p>
<p>Driving, on the other hand, is a privilege granted by each state. A state can go as far as to outlaw all cars and not allow driving on its streets, but the states cannot tell its citizens they cannot own guns. </p>