Accidental gun deaths, intentional gun deaths, and gun control

Dec 18, 2007 Full story: Plunderbund 13

Ohio State freshman Marissa Plakosh was shot and killed in her Youngstown-area home when she was on holiday break at about 5:50 a.m. Saturday, December 15. via Plunderbund

Full Story

“American Sheepdog”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1 Dec 18, 2007
accidental gun deaths... you mean some guns were accidentally killed? And yet other guns were intentionally killed? How is gun control going to help that? oh my gosh!

“Veritas vincit. Truth Conquers”

Since: Mar 07

Nunquam redono. Never give up

#2 Dec 18, 2007
How about a little statistical information from the 110th Congress session 1 on H.R. 73.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated:`[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the UnitedStates use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:
(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.
(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.
(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

Since: Dec 07

Dahlonega, GA

#3 Dec 19, 2007
feedup wrote:
How about a little statistical information from the 110th Congress session 1 on H.R. 73.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
I don't know if your state has a Castle Doctrine law in effect but many do. Including where I live. The residents of Georgia cannot be sued or charged for defending themselves regardless of the location where the incident occured. And, there is no duty to retreat. The horror stories I read in your post seem to have occured prior to enactment of the "Castle Doctrine" by Florida, who was the first to do so. As for the rest of your post, well, you just can't argue with facts and figures and I most certainly agree with you on the fact that police cannot defend you unless they are present.

Since: Dec 07

Dahlonega, GA

#4 Dec 19, 2007
After reading the article all I can say is that I'm sure the writers intentions were in the right place even though he is misguided in the fact that we just don't need any more gun laws or regulations. I do agree with training but that training should not be mandated by law, just common sense. I don't recall anything in the second amendment which says "as long as you have third party professional training".
Jeffy

Loxahatchee, FL

#9 Dec 22, 2007
Right on!

“Veritas vincit. Truth Conquers”

Since: Mar 07

Nunquam redono. Never give up

#10 Dec 22, 2007
Hank_Concealed Carrier wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know if your state has a Castle Doctrine law in effect but many do. Including where I live. The residents of Georgia cannot be sued or charged for defending themselves regardless of the location where the incident occured. And, there is no duty to retreat. The horror stories I read in your post seem to have occured prior to enactment of the "Castle Doctrine" by Florida, who was the first to do so. As for the rest of your post, well, you just can't argue with facts and figures and I most certainly agree with you on the fact that police cannot defend you unless they are present.
Our State has, stand your ground act.
By that your do not have to try and flee even if your not at home. You could be on the street, store, park, or anywhere. Used to be even in your home you had to try and flee the situation before force could be used. We always had protect you home act.

“American Sheepdog”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#11 Dec 22, 2007
feedup wrote:
<quoted text>
Our State has, stand your ground act.
By that your do not have to try and flee even if your not at home. You could be on the street, store, park, or anywhere. Used to be even in your home you had to try and flee the situation before force could be used. We always had protect you home act.
Colorado has the "Make My Day" law which supposedly protects you if you shoot an intruder in your home. But after looking at various other states and what they define as "Castle Doctrine Laws" which are supposed to protect you inside and outside the home - Colorado is not listed as a castle doctrine state. So I am now thinking that there is a gray area there.

One thing that I did was obtain a copy of the Jury Instructions for when cases of homeowners shooting predators are taken to trial. It has the specific things that the jury is to determine for a finding of "guilty" for a crime of manslaughter, murder, or anything else.

I guess the bottom line is that more and more it seems like criminals have more rights than their victims.

“It's all in the reflexes.”

Since: Jun 07

Good ol' USA

#12 Dec 22, 2007
Trin Tragula wrote:
<quoted text>

One thing that I did was obtain a copy of the Jury Instructions for when cases of homeowners shooting predators are taken to trial. It has the specific things that the jury is to determine for a finding of "guilty" for a crime of manslaughter, murder, or anything else.
Trin... are you familiar with AOJP?

“American Sheepdog”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#13 Dec 22, 2007
Jack Burton wrote:
<quoted text>
Trin... are you familiar with AOJP?
Hmmm.. no I'm not....

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#14 Dec 22, 2007
Trin Tragula wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm.. no I'm not....
See this:
http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

“American Sheepdog”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#15 Dec 22, 2007
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
See this:
http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/
Great info - thanks

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#16 Dec 22, 2007
Trin Tragula wrote:
<quoted text>
Great info - thanks
Oh, I couldn't take credit for that!f

Thank Jack!
I'm just his go-fer. ;-)
Steve Dexter

Norfolk, VA

#17 Dec 16, 2012
feedup wrote:
How about a little statistical information from the 110th Congress session 1 on H.R. 73.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated:`[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.
(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the UnitedStates use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.
(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families' defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:
(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park's handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.
(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs' residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.
(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell's store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.
(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.
It seems to me that folks who willingly use firearms enter a whole new arena of responsibility and liability. They want a blanket safety net from that - after all, I was only trying to defend my <<< when I accidently killed by >>>>>. Life does not work that way; you do something and you have to accept some responsibility for it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 23 min Aquarius-WY 10,855
Opinion Line 3 hr kuda 60
Moms Demand Action Calls On Kroger Family Of St... 5 hr Squach 10
Fact or Fiction: Push-Feed Rifles Won't Cycle R... Tue Tory II 1
3 year old shoots AR and survives Sep 15 Tory II 4
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Sep 15 Tory II 96
Chicago Liberals Outlaw the Firearm Industry Sep 15 Tory II 1
•••

Guns People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••