Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol

From here.

The important bit:

Quote:

---

Hollywood teen shoots intruder after father says on phone, `Do what you have to do'
Hollywood · Javaris Granger wished his father was there instead of him.

His father was on the phone, urging Granger, 15, to get the gun they used for shooting practice. "Do what you have to do," his father said.

Granger did. He aimed the gun and fired at the violent intruder.

Family and friends are awed by Granger's bravery. "Anyone who takes charge like that is definitely a hero," said Maxine Chandler, his mother.

---

If any of what are called 'reasonable' laws by anti-gunners were in effect here, like not being able to buy pistols, requiring all guns to be locked away from children, etc., the boy and his family would all be dead. Thank goodness they were not in England.

The whole story:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hollywood · Javaris Granger wished his father was there instead of him.

His father was on the phone, urging Granger, 15, to get the gun they used for shooting practice. "Do what you have to do," his father said.

Granger did. He aimed the gun and fired at the violent intruder.

Family and friends are awed by Granger's bravery. "Anyone who takes charge like that is definitely a hero," said Maxine Chandler, his mother.

Before the McArthur High School freshman fired the gun, he kept a cool head and remembered his father's shooting and safety lessons during the chaos early Saturday morning.

His father, Lyndon Chandler, had left the house to visit a friend at the hospital. His wife heard a knock at the door and, thinking it was her husband, opened it. A stranger grabbed at her; she pulled free and slammed the door.

It was 3:30 a.m.

Granger woke with a start, hearing his mother's frantic voice and something slamming against the front window.

He ran out to the dark living room and saw his mother screaming as a man, cursing and muttering, threw a bicycle at the window.

Granger yelled at the intruder to leave, while his mother called his father on the phone and handed it to her son. The stranger began turning the doorknob, intent on getting in the home.

Within seconds, Granger ran into his parents' bedroom, found the safety box, unlocked it and loaded two guns for him and his mother. He ran back to the living room as the intruder threw a bicycle at the door and started kicking it in.

His mother was too shaken to take a gun, so she ran to another bedroom where her daughters and visiting family members were hiding.

"I was real scared and nervous, but I knew I had to stay focused on what I had to do because my mom and the kids were there," Granger said.

The next moment the man kicked down the door and jumped into the living room, yards from Granger.

"I didn't want to hurt anybody, so I fired off a warning shot," the ninth-grader said.

The intruder didn't leave until four shots later.

Since the incident, friends and family members have called to congratulate the modest teenager who didn't tell his story until news reports made it hard to hide. His three sisters call him brave, his dad is very proud of "the man of the house" and his mom says her family would have died if the man police later identified as Keil Jumper had laid hands on them.

Jumper, 22, is in Memorial Regional Medical Center with two gunshot wounds. He has a string of arrests dating to 2001, including one for attacking a Seminole Reservation Police Officer the day before he allegedly broke into Granger's home.

Granger does not face charges. The second oldest child in the family, he often goes to the range at Markham Park to practice shoot with his father. He was never a victim of crime before, but calmly went through all the gun safety steps his father taught him, even after one gun jammed after the first shot Saturday.

He even locked up the guns after Jumper left, before he checked on his mother. "My husband tried to get everyone to learn the safety of a gun," Chandler said. "It paid off."

I will not deny that guns can be used for bad purposes. But it is important to remember what anti-gunners want you to forget; guns are tools which can be used for good or evil. To infringe on the liberty of everyone because someone missuses a tool of any type is against the spirit of freedom.

Crazed Rabbit

So... okay... great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

From here.

The important bit:


If any of what are called 'reasonable' laws by anti-gunners were in effect here, like not being able to buy pistols, requiring all guns to be locked away from children, etc., the boy and his family would all be dead. Thank goodness they were not in England.

The whole story:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hollywood · Javaris Granger wished his father was there instead of him.

His father was on the phone, urging Granger, 15, to get the gun they used for shooting practice. "Do what you have to do," his father said.

Granger did. He aimed the gun and fired at the violent intruder.

Family and friends are awed by Granger's bravery. "Anyone who takes charge like that is definitely a hero," said Maxine Chandler, his mother.

Before the McArthur High School freshman fired the gun, he kept a cool head and remembered his father's shooting and safety lessons during the chaos early Saturday morning.

His father, Lyndon Chandler, had left the house to visit a friend at the hospital. His wife heard a knock at the door and, thinking it was her husband, opened it. A stranger grabbed at her; she pulled free and slammed the door.

It was 3:30 a.m.

Granger woke with a start, hearing his mother's frantic voice and something slamming against the front window.

He ran out to the dark living room and saw his mother screaming as a man, cursing and muttering, threw a bicycle at the window.

Granger yelled at the intruder to leave, while his mother called his father on the phone and handed it to her son. The stranger began turning the doorknob, intent on getting in the home.

Within seconds, Granger ran into his parents' bedroom, found the safety box, unlocked it and loaded two guns for him and his mother. He ran back to the living room as the intruder threw a bicycle at the door and started kicking it in.

His mother was too shaken to take a gun, so she ran to another bedroom where her daughters and visiting family members were hiding.

"I was real scared and nervous, but I knew I had to stay focused on what I had to do because my mom and the kids were there," Granger said.

The next moment the man kicked down the door and jumped into the living room, yards from Granger.

"I didn't want to hurt anybody, so I fired off a warning shot," the ninth-grader said.

The intruder didn't leave until four shots later.

Since the incident, friends and family members have called to congratulate the modest teenager who didn't tell his story until news reports made it hard to hide. His three sisters call him brave, his dad is very proud of "the man of the house" and his mom says her family would have died if the man police later identified as Keil Jumper had laid hands on them.

Jumper, 22, is in Memorial Regional Medical Center with two gunshot wounds. He has a string of arrests dating to 2001, including one for attacking a Seminole Reservation Police Officer the day before he allegedly broke into Granger's home.

Granger does not face charges. The second oldest child in the family, he often goes to the range at Markham Park to practice shoot with his father. He was never a victim of crime before, but calmly went through all the gun safety steps his father taught him, even after one gun jammed after the first shot Saturday.

He even locked up the guns after Jumper left, before he checked on his mother. "My husband tried to get everyone to learn the safety of a gun," Chandler said. "It paid off."

I will not deny that guns can be used for bad purposes. But it is important to remember what anti-gunners want you to forget; guns are tools which can be used for good or evil. To infringe on the liberty of everyone because someone missuses a tool of any type is against the spirit of freedom.

Crazed Rabbit

---

I agree. I'm glad this happened in a country where this kid wouldn't be looking at jail time for saving his family's life. If I am determined to break into someone's house (illegal) and rape (illegal) and kill (illegal) them, whether possessing a gun is legal or not will not effect me one bit. I'd only be breaking 4 laws instead of 3.

Unfortunately that's not true for law abiding citizens who would have the right to defend themselves taken away. They most likely would not have any means of defense available which would give someone intending to do them harm (who obviously has no regard for the law in the first place, and would be armed whether it was legal or not if they wanted) a greater advantage.

Most violent gun crime occurs with guns that are illegally aquired under current laws.

"Toddler dies after accidental shooting":

http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2851455

"11 year old accidentally shot by 16 year old brother":

http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=v...y&storyid=1523

I won't provide a link for this next headline, because you have all seen the story:

"Vice President of United States Accidentally Shoots Friend in Face"

So why didn't she call the police first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So why didn't she call the police first?

---

Probably because when one panics they call the person they normally call when they have an issue on something.

When people react to stress and panic one can never predict exactly what they are going to do.

Is this supposed to be convincing, Rabbit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

"Toddler dies after accidental shooting":

http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2851455

"11 year old accidentally shot by 16 year old brother":

http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=v...y&storyid=1523

I won't provide a link for this next headline, because you have all seen the story:

"Vice President of United States Accidentally Shoots Friend in Face"

---

:laugh4:

Anyway, if anything good comes out of this, everyone can admit at least he fired warning shots. That was a very mature and sensible thing to do. Most intruders plan on only theft and if that was the case no one had to be hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joker85

Most violent gun crime occurs with guns that are illegally aquired under current laws.

---

Doesn't that just prove the point? Or would you rather these people legally acquire their firearms?

Ah, thanks Rabbit.

Finally, complete and irrefutable proof as to why no-one ever suffers violent crime in the USA, whereas we in Europe groan under constant rapine and aggravated burglary.

It is all so clear to me now.

~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

"Toddler dies after accidental shooting":

http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2851455

"11 year old accidentally shot by 16 year old brother":

http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=v...y&storyid=1523

I won't provide a link for this next headline, because you have all seen the story:

"Vice President of United States Accidentally Shoots Friend in Face"

---

These are usually products of negligence on behalf of the aprents.


The world is filled with billions of idiots, all just flesh feeding like leeches on the earth. They seek nothing but the'r own immediate gratification. This spit children out and never instill values or necessary instruction.

Humans are disgusting and vile. Lately, I've been rooting for the birds and the weather. Sometimes I just want to start with myself. But then I remember, that if we were all to act as the will of God, there would be no wars, destruction, or even crime. Utopian, yes. But even if all others remain the selfish sacks of crap that they are, at least I can do the will of God.

It is not our nature that is evil. It is our ignorance and selfishness that causes our evil. Thus if we could scientifically prove the existence of God, then people would actually be forced to realize they have a choice to serve him or not. Denial would cease to exist and peace would reign.

Luckily for the family, the attacker didn't had (or used) a gun in response.

Warning shots ARE irresoponsible and dangerous. If you are in a situation that rquires you use a gun in self defense, you need to shoot to kill, not fire a warning shot or try to wing the guy

Anyway, acts of guns being used in self defense are largely ignored by the media, and certain "statistics" based on studies fail to mention certain mitigating factors or explanations, like the one that says people with a gun in the home are 100 times more likely to die from a gunshot. Thanks God for the NRA

I believe almost everyone has guns in Switzerland, lowest crimerate in europe. If that guy didn't have a gun he was probably dead by now. Better to have one and not need it then vica versa, I find it amazing that we aren't allowed to have a loaded gun in the house when most criminals are packed with them. If the police wants a monopoly on violence they should at least be worthy of it, but the police is no more then just another government agency leeching on minor mistakes. Crime? What can we say it exists, did you just drive 3 kilometers to fast? That is a serious offence mia muca, money, now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Warning shots ARE irresoponsible and dangerous. If you are in a situation that rquires you use a gun in self defense, you need to shoot to kill, not fire a warning shot or try to wing the guy

---

Yeah, that's the only problem I had with the story- warning shots are a dumb idea. As someone else pointed out, what if he had a gun too? You warning shot could be your last then.

Quote:

---

Anyway, acts of guns being used in self defense are largely ignored by the media, and certain "statistics" based on studies fail to mention certain mitigating factors or explanations, like the one that says people with a gun in the home are 100 times more likely to die from a gunshot. Thanks God for the NRA

---

Agreed. And the kid should be praised, he saved his family- he's a hero. :bow:

Here's the probably the most important part of the article:

Quote:

---

"My husband tried to get everyone to learn the safety of a gun," Chandler said. "It paid off."

---

If you have guns in the home everyone in the household should know that they're dangerous and know how to handle them properly.

When police firearms training no longer requires the police to give a warning whenever possible before opening fire, that's when I'll believe a warning is a dumb idea. What if he had a gun too is a valid question. So is, What if he didn't?

My two cents.

Oddly enough, as a gunowner, I'm more scared of cops than of criminals. The possibility of being killed by a cop or off duty cop while holding a gun is much greater than the possibility of getting carjacked or raped or murdered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

What if he had a gun too is a valid question. So is, What if he didn't?

My two cents.

---

Then he was plenty stupid to break into a house where they do have one, and should thus be nominated for the Darwin Award. I'd rather see it this way, if he hadn't broke in he would still be alive, such a tragic loss of life byebye.

I know this seems to be a difficult concept for some shades of opinion to grasp, but a decision to commit a crime does not remove ALL rights from the criminal.

Damn, there goes my heart, bleeding again.

If any of what are called 'reasonable' laws by anti-gunners were in effect here, like not being able to buy pistols, requiring all guns to be locked away from children, etc.,
Thats wierd ........Within seconds, Granger ran into his parents' bedroom, found the safety box, unlocked it and loaded two guns for him and his mother.....the guns were locked away .:no:

edit: you guys are no fun at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

:laugh4:

Anyway, if anything good comes out of this, everyone can admit at least he fired warning shots. That was a very mature and sensible thing to do. Most intruders plan on only theft and if that was the case no one had to be hurt.

---

Never fire a warning shot or try to wound em!

1 they could come back with friends.

2 Its harder to shoot to wound then shoot com (center of mass) and if he lives he could A sue you B come back after you.


Also if doesn't respect your life, why respect his?


Massad Ayood a gun law expert says no go on the warning shots, so i tend to side with him he knows his stuff!

*update*

This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.

Another fun one.

Woman has big bad doberman. Burglar breaks into house. Doberman chews on burglar. Burglar is traumatised by this experience and needs someone with a beard and sandals. Burglar sues woman. Burglar wins. Why did he win? Well, the woman only had a 'I guard this place' warning on her frontdoor, the burglar however had entered trough the balcony, where she didn't have a warning. Woman has to pay burglar compensation for the harrowing experience he had to endure.

You have the right to remain silent and pay taxes.

3 words, ash baseball bat. No need for a pistol if you got a bat. This is hardly a good example for allowing people to have pistols. In fact IMO using guns was not justified at all.

:2thumbsup: I'll keep my cz75 and 16+1 rounds of 9mm thank you.:2thumbsup: Besides why do you want to take away my gun, what did I ever do to you:no: . I am not going to hurt any one that isn't trying to kill me.\

You want to take the criminals' guns great! But dont even think about mine:furious3:



My god I just read all my post in this thread I kinda' look like a jerk:help:



Frag if you kill them (dead men don't sue), would you still be in trouble over there or not.

Quote:

---

3 words, ash baseball bat.

---

I prefer a composite/carbon fibre one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

Frag if you kill them (dead men don't sue), would you still be in trouble over there or not.

---

#1 rule in the Netherlands: never call the police. First of all it's of no use, and more importantly, you will probably end up screwed yourselve. So if you find a burglar you have two options, let him take everything and fight it out with your insurance compagny later, or chop him up and dump him. If you hit him you will have 'assaulted' him, which is a more dire crime then burglary. If the burglar then puts charges on you he will win, the breaking and entering would be instantly forgotten because of the more hidious crime of trying to defend your property. Yes, being a criminal rocks here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

#1 rule in the Netherlands: never call the police. First of all it's of no use, and more importantly, you will probably end up screwed yourselve. So if you find a burglar you have two options, let him take everything and fight it out with your insurance compagny later, or chop him up and dump him. If you hit him you will have 'assaulted' him, which is a more dire crime then burglary. If the burglar then puts charges on you he will win, the breaking and entering would be instantly forgotten because of the more hidious crime of trying to defend your property. Yes, being a criminal rocks here.

---

I should move to Holland. Then I can pillage, rape and maim all I want and smoke weed too.


:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

#1 rule in the Netherlands: never call the police. First of all it's of no use, and more importantly, you will probably end up screwed yourselve. So if you find a burglar you have two options, let him take everything and fight it out with your insurance compagny later, or chop him up and dump him. If you hit him you will have 'assaulted' him, which is a more dire crime then burglary. If the burglar then puts charges on you he will win, the breaking and entering would be instantly forgotten because of the more hidious crime of trying to defend your property. Yes, being a criminal rocks here.

---

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices -- does this not implicitly mean that you have no right to your own property? The application of justice you mention favors the criminals right of person OVER your right to your property. So you could only defend your daughter, without threat of jail for your actions, DURING and not just prior to her rape, since only then has a crime of person been committed? (Yes the example is hyperbolic). If so, I am glad that Die Nederlunds have legalized most substances -- you've got to keep the criminal element happily stoned to avoid losing everything.

I'm definately convinced by the article. I hope everyone can walk around with all kinds of dangerous weapons. It's bound to make the world safer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices -- does this not implicitly mean that you have no right to your own property? The application of justice you mention favors the criminals right of person OVER your right to your property. So you could only defend your daughter, without threat of jail for your actions, DURING and not just prior to her rape, since only then has a crime of person been committed? (Yes the example is hyperbolic). If so, I am glad that Die Nederlunds have legalized most substances -- you've got to keep the criminal element happily stoned to avoid losing everything.

---

So your daughter is your property, that is pretty oldschool ~;)

Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him. It may change though, there have been some politicians talking about how it is worth it to talk about discussing the right to self-defence.

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices
Thats a big IF, so hold on with the credit there Seamus .
Notice this bit....This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.
.....interesting huh , shocking , and bullshit ......Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, If the burglar has the knife first the homeowner get the self defence provision .
Also a criminal with a weapon is commiting an entirely different crime than one without a weapon , in this case that would be aggravated burglary , though in the example put forward it would stick at that as the burglar took the knife from the house , if he bought his own knife it would be aggravated burglary with intent , which is an even more serious charge .
And of course serious charges involving violence or the intent to violence , get different treatment .......Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him.

So Frag , considering your long running "unique" interpretations of Dutch legal cases , could you provide any details of cases involving homeowners killing armed intruders then being found guilty ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So Frag , considering your long running "unique" interpretations of Dutch legal cases , could you provide any details of cases involving homeowners killing armed intruders then being found guilty ?

---

Well here is one, fast huh

http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/2...eersteken.html

Well here is one, fast huh

So you have two people who knew each other having a dispute over ownership of a games console ?
Right frag :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well here is one, fast huh

So you have two people who knew each other having a dispute over ownership of a games console ?
Right frag :dizzy2:

---

Nope it went more like this,

This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.

as I said before, different case though. I just don't make that much effort for you.

I just don't make that much effort for you.
No it appears that you just make it up .:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it appears that you just make it up .:juggle2:

---

But of course, we have this every time. You ask links/evidence/anything and I kindly provide it, and when I do so you are out hunting haggis.

You ask links/evidence/anything and I kindly provide it, and when I do so you are out hunting haggis.
No Frag , I asked for a case that backed up your claim about dutch law , what you provided has absolutely nothing to do with what you claimed .

Now there was a case in Britain where someone killed a burglar , he was found guilty because he killed the burglar when the thief was not a threat to him so it was not self defense , there was a case just up the road recently where a farmer was found guilty of manslaughter (though it was clearly murder) after killing a burglar when it was not self defense .
Everywhere has laws defining murder , manslaughter and every other type of killing , just as they have laws stipulating what constitutes self-defense and intent .
For you to try and claim that Holland does not have these laws and that the courts do not follow the laws of the land just shows that once again you are giving your "unique" interpretation of Dutch laws .

Fascinating story but I don't believe you, link please.

It is just as I told you, violence>burglary. If there is anything the dutch judges don't like it's taking matters into your own hands when the police is to busy warming their ass with their own; if that strikes you as insane by all means ride with me. There is having the law and applying it. I gave you what you wanted, one case, exactly what you asked for. Can give you a whole lot more.

so despite all the thousands of deaths every year from fire arms one person managed to make a correct use of one?


well....woooopty freaking doo!!!

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up? :wall:

Also I have a clear opinion regarding the regulation of gun ownership, i.e. favouring rather restrictive regulations (at least for countries where it currently is regulated - the situation is abit different for countries like the US, where guns are already so spread that regulations would be extremely difficult to implement), I have to admit that the pro-gunners have a bit of an unfair disadvantage when it comes to statistics that prove their position.

It is certainly much easier to statistically measure deaths caused by guns than lives saved by guns - for the latter you rather have to rely on anecdotal evidence as it will be next to impossible to show statistics with a bullet-proof methodology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Fascinating story but I don't believe you, link please.

It is just as I told you, violence>burglary. If there is anything the dutch judges don't like it's taking matters into your own hands when the police is to busy warming their ass with their own; if that strikes you as insane by all means ride with me. There is having the law and applying it. I gave you what you wanted, one case, exactly what you asked for. Can give you a whole lot more.

---

Probably the article Tribesman was refering to

Thing is Frag, Tribesman (and I) can't believe that Dutch law is that daft. British law is not keen on allowing people to take the law in to their own hands. In the case above, as Tribesman says, the man was not a threat. Therefore it was murder to shoot him. In the case you describe, in Britain at least, the householder could claim self defense. The same applies to the original case in the thread. The boy clearly had good reason to believe that he and his family were at risk, and took action to protect himself and them. This is why we want to see a link to stories illustrating what you describe. It is so daft we don't believe it. (Of course, if it is in dutch, I won't be able to understand it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

so despite all the thousands of deaths every year from fire arms one person managed to make a correct use of one?


well....woooopty freaking doo!!!

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up? :wall:

---

They manage to use them in defense 2.5 million time a year in good ol' USA, And the good news is you don't need to sign up in my state:laugh4: (unless it's a handgun:no: )

If somebody comes into your house with the intension of robbing you I don’t think thy will care if they hurt you, so you should have the right to do anything you want to them short of killing them.
For example tie them up put them in the boot of your car drive them to Wales then leave them there with nothing, that will teach them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZombieFriedNuts

If somebody comes into your house with the intension of robbing you I don’t think thy will care if they hurt you, so you should have the right to do anything you want to them short of killing them.
For example tie them up put them in the boot of your car drive them to Wales then leave them there with nothing, that will teach them.

---

A professional burglar will not want to confront a householder, so if you know he (or she) is in the house, then that is a mistake. They have either been too noisy or mistakenly thought you were out. They will want to get out ASAP. They won't want to hurt you and get blood or other evidence on their clothes. They will probably be more scared than you are. Of course, professional burglars are not the only people who break in to your house. The point I am making is that you can't make generalisations about burglars.

As EA says: I know this seems to be a difficult concept for some shades of opinion to grasp, but a decision to commit a crime does not remove ALL rights from the criminal.

If we allow people to "do what they like to burglars then":

• lots of teenagers being silly will be killed, maimed or tortured
• you'd better trust anyone you vist, or they could kill you and claim you were a burglar
• you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

I think this is a good story. I am 100% for the responsible use of guns; it is a right we should not dismiss the importance of.

I’m sure you have all heard about Kennesaw, the “gun city”, but incase you haven’t take a look. Pro-gun arguments often lead to this city as an example. I think the idea is sound and some cities could benefit but I don’t think it would work everywhere.

Here’s a little exert from the Kennesaw Historical Society.

Quote:

---

The Gun Law
Kennesaw rocked the world when on May 1, 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring all heads of households to maintain a firearm and ammunition. The law was passed partly in response to a law passed in Morton Grove, Illinois (June, 1981) banning private possession of handguns. Since passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw has gone down significantly, while the rate in Morton Grove has gone up.

---

Guns are not bad, idiots are bad. There should be laws against them. ~D

If any one wants to stop the "what if scenarios" and look at incedents that happened and statistics I will post more in this thread.

The what if thing is ok but in gun control threads there is to much misinformation.



Like this

Quote:

---

you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

---

They won't shoot you ( and be within their rights) if you knock on the door and ask for help. Even with the castle law you can't kill every one who comes on your property.

On the gun control topic (sorry if someone mentioned this, I didn't read everything):

A gun is a tool, not a toy. It can be bent to do your will. If guns are outlawed, knives will simply be used more often.

The problem is not the weapon, it is the responsibility with which it is used. Take Switzerland as an example. HOWEVER, that being said, a gun can obviously be used for evil. What if that man had a firearm on his person? I would be more likely to fire at a person with a weapon pointing at me then a person who is unarmed, personally.

I am not an advocate of gun control, BUT I believe that all weapons should be stored properly, and that every legal owner of a firearm must pass a basic safety course. :bow:

In the case above, as Tribesman says, the man was not a threat. Therefore it was murder to shoot him.
The conviction in the Martin case was reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter , the other case to which I refer (there is a topic on it here somewhere) is currently being appealed as the manslaughter conviction is a joke , it was definately murder .
Now while in the second case I think the farmer did the area a favour and probably should have killed the rest of the family while he was at it . It doesn't change the fact that the law is the law .
And if you break the law then you pay the consequences , as set out by law .
edit to add
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1111/nallyp.html
Nally screwed himself with his own testimony (which is why the appeal will come out and change the manslaughter conviction )that he kept beating Frog with the stick (after first shooting him) because he was like a bad badger that wouldn't die , so to then return to the house , reload his weapon and kill the thief it makes it murder .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up? :wall:

---

In Lisbon, I do not know. Here in the USA, you can try a Wal-Mart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

"because he was like a bad badger that wouldn't die"

---

Slight tangent, but that'll make a great retort when next you cross swords with Divinus Arma...

:bounce:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

So your daughter is your property, that is pretty oldschool ~;)

---

Thanks for the wink. As you surmised, my statement did NOT equate the two nor do I place a lesser value on women in any way, shape, or form. Prole' would ace me if I thought that way, and she'd be correct, though I would probably have been offed by the wife before then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him. It may change though, there have been some politicians talking about how it is worth it to talk about discussing the right to self-defence.

---

I was trying to emphasize that, in your example, only when the crime being committed had risen to the level of a crime against another person, and not merely the threat of same, would violence be justified. I prefer a more aggressive form of self defence and consider property rights central to a functioning capitalist republic. If you cross my threshold without permission, I should have the right to blow you back across it with nearly anything short of a WMD.

Slight tangent Banquo , but did you hear Frogs wife giving testimony:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: classic
Off topic a bit more , she is up on nearly 2 dozen charges next month .

The difference between first and second degree burglary is whether or not someone is likely or unlikely to be "home", therefore first carries a much larger penalty in the states. Burglarizing a business after hours or a home (where the thief has a reasonble cause to believe no one is home) will almost always be 2nd degree. Burglarizing a home at a time when people are more likely to be present will almost always net 1st degree.

The possibility for violent confrontation -- from both sides -- skyrockets when people are home, and a large part of criminals hurting people during break-ins comes from their presence being discovered and the burglar trying to gain control of the situation.

Being in someones home in and of itself isn't justifiable cause to kill them, nor is it justifiable to kill over property (running off with your tv/car)and that will be the case in any state, and may vary slightly (as always) because of juries. Certain aggravating factors may contribute to this, though, like if it is late at night and dark, if the burglrar surprises the victims, if the home has been hit repeatedly or the occupants assaulted before etc etc.


You will be hard pressed to find a jury that will convict someone for killing a home invader unless it was a clear cut example of the burglrar attempting to flee, i.e. shot in the back 4 times on the front porch holding a stereo.

What I have a real problem with are the situations where the gun owner was clearly in the wrong for se3veral reasons, and is not charged so much with manslaughter, like the man in Muskogee 6 months ago who was a landlord who kept a loaded 30/30 in the back of his pickup. He had a drunk tenant he was trying to collect from at 10pm, they had a verbal exchange, the guy followed him out on the porch, the landlord pulled out the gun and shot the man in the chest, killing him, and claimed he didnt know the gun was loaded it was an accident. He shot the guy as he reached into his pocket to get out another beer as he stood 25 feet away.

Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish, pulling it out on a guy who not a direct threat is illegal brandishing and escalating the situation, and then shooting him because he's reaching into his pocket to possibly pull out a gun to defend himself against your illegal brandishing...sheesh, i can't believe the landlord walked without so much a s a fine.

And to clarify an issue from page 1, we were talking about warning shots, not shouting a warning. Cops don't fire warning shots, no one should. Yerlling a warning is an entriely different matter and should be done if possible, although police don't always bother with that nicety if they feel time is of the essence. Thats what scares me about using a gun in self defense, the possibility that if its in a public place a cop who is nearby could just shoot me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

What I have a real problem with are the situations where the gun owner was clearly in the wrong for se3veral reasons, and is not charged so much with manslaughter, like the man in Muskogee 6 months ago who was a landlord who kept a loaded 30/30 in the back of his pickup. He had a drunk tenant he was trying to collect from at 10pm, they had a verbal exchange, the guy followed him out on the porch, the landlord pulled out the gun and shot the man in the chest, killing him, and claimed he didnt know the gun was loaded it was an accident. He shot the guy as he reached into his pocket to get out another beer as he stood 25 feet away.

Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish, pulling it out on a guy who not a direct threat is illegal brandishing and escalating the situation, and then shooting him because he's reaching into his pocket to possibly pull out a gun to defend himself against your illegal brandishing...sheesh, i can't believe the landlord walked without so much a s a fine.

me

---

I agree he should not have shot the guy...but what is wrong with a gun in the truck? It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own:furious3:

It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own
Hmmmmmm.... read what you wrote in post #25 . You are at it again Ceasar:dizzy2:
Look......Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish....if you cannot see what is wrong with having a weapon , loaded or unloaded in the open bed of a pickup truck driving around town(or country for that matter) then perhaps you need a few lessons in responsible gun ownership .

Any one have a link to this incedent, I doubt it was in the bed of the pick up.

american citizens should be allowed to keep whatever they want, gun-wise, on their property. i'm not pro-gun, i'm just anti-the-government-taking-my-sh**-away-from-me.

I doubt it was in the bed of the pick up.
So if it was indeed on the bed of the pick up would it be a problem ? Remember , it is just a piece of metal , right~;)

I googled a little bit and coulnd't find anything.


Oh darn ya got me tribes :oops:

They are made of metal and are inatmimate(sp)? But I do agree they do require a little bit of responsibility. Like following the 4 rules.



Keep it pointed in a safe direction (most important IMO)

Only shoot what you are willing to destroy

finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

be aware of what is beyond your target

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The conviction in the Martin case was reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter , the other case to which I refer (there is a topic on it here somewhere) is currently being appealed as the manslaughter conviction is a joke , it was definately murder.

---

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

The what if thing is ok but in gun control threads there is to much misinformation.



Like this



Quote:
you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I prefer a more aggressive form of self defence and consider property rights central to a functioning capitalist republic. If you cross my threshold without permission, I should have the right to blow you back across it with nearly anything short of a WMD.

---

Do I need to justify the "misinformation" any further? As a matter of fact, British visitors to the Southern states of the US have been advised not to approach rural dwellings at night in case they are shot.

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

Well the main difference between murder and manslaughter is intent and the mental condition of the accused .
Martins' defense could argue that he didn't intend to kill , whereas Nallys own testimony shows his intent , the only chance that Nally has in beating the prosecutions appeal is if the defense can succesfully question his mental state .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

Well the main difference between murder and manslaughter is intent and the mental condition of the accused .
Martins' defense could argue that he didn't intend to kill , whereas Nallys own testimony shows his intent , the only chance that Nally has in beating the prosecutions appeal is if the defense can succesfully question his mental state .

---

You can be convicted of murder even if you did not intend to kill if you were reckless about whether death would be a result of your actions. If you shoot someone, that seems to me to be res ipso locutor reckless. However, the state of Martin's abode probably made it easy for his lawyers to argue poor mental condition. If Martin was lucky, maybe Nally will be too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

I agree he should not have shot the guy...but what is wrong with a gun in the truck? It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own:furious3:

---

Did you even read my post? It was in the back of the truck, on the outside. This guy is driving around a densely populated city with a loaded large caliber rifle in the back of his truck where anyone can grab it. Having it locked inside the truck is a lot different than what this man was doing, but having a RIFLE in a truck is just retarded for self defense anyway, because there aren't any scenarios where it would actually be useful and where a handgun wouldnt serve a better purpose. If they guy was waving a revolver around the victim might actually still be alive.

You're pretty funny, you just accused me of being a gun grabber.

Slightly OT, I'm not too sure how Martin got away w manslaughter. The future Richard III has the mens rea for murder slightly wrong, it is intent and not recklessness, but intent to cause GBH would be enough (ie it doesn't have to be intent to kill).

I struggle to see how you can discharge a shotgun at someone at close range in the back without intending to cause them GBH (I'd just about buy that you didn't intend to kill them, supposing the gun wasn't loaded with buckshot).

I can only guess there was just about enough reasonable doubt that Martin intended to fire a "warning shot", and was reckless as to where he did it. Personally if I was a Lord Justice of Appeal his arse would still be in jail, seeing as the concept of a warning shot, dubious at best, is even more unlikely when the burglars were running away, and I struggle with the idea of a warning shot fired horizontally at chest height, as opposed to, say, into the air or the ground.

Of course if the police had actually done anything about the criminal careers of the scumbag burglars none of this would have happened, but that isn't the point.

For you ceasar, you probably coudlnt find it because i got some facts wrong: it was a 30-.06, not a 30/30, it was Stillwater, not Tulsa (still a heavily populated college town) and he wasnt standing on his porch, he was in the street



Jury acquits landlord in shooting death of tenant

The Associated Press
STILLWATER, Okla. — A Payne County jury acquitted a Stillwater landlord of first-degree murder after he shot a former tenant who owed $350 in back rent.
John Gilbert Buntin, 65, claimed self-defense at his trial in the death of Darran Keith Brannon Mooreland, 33, who shot in the chest with a rifle in his front yard on Sept. 5, 2003.

Buntin told jurors he thought the rifle was unloaded and that he was trying to bluff his former tenant. He also said he thought the slain man had a gun in his pocket. The gun turned out to be a can of beer.

Buntin, who admitted he made several trips that day trying to find Brannon and his wife to collect back rent, testified that he only carried his rifle in his pickup "when I went to my farm to kill dogs killing my cattle." He said he had been to his farm that morning.

The jury deliberated nearly eight hours over two days and also on Wednesday acquitted Buntin of pointing his rifle at the victim's wife, Janeene Sumpter.

Sobbing, she kept saying, "I just can't believe it," of the jury's verdict.

The victim's aunt, Pamela Brannon Hathron of Tulsa, filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Buntin on behalf of the slain man's family in Payne County District Court on Monday.

"Just because the court found this man not guilty does not mean he is not guilty," Hathron said.

Throughout the trial, defense attorney Cheryl Ramsey repeatedly pointed out that the slain man was an ex-convict and the defendant was a law-abiding citizen who counted among his friends retired Stillwater Police Chief Hilary Driggs, who testified for the defense as a character witness.

In his closing argument, District Attorney Rob Hudson told the jury, "You can't shoot somebody because they have a can of beer in their pocket." He argued that Buntin "murdered Darran Brannon in cold blood."

Regarding the acquittal, Ramsey said, "We're very excited the jury believed Mr. Buntin and the situation he was in was life-threatening."

Buntin had testified that when he saw Brannon walking toward him from across the street, he thought Brannon had "a shiny pistol in his pocket," and "I thought I might be shot."

Also,


http://www.adaeveningnews.com/Crime/...003110716.html

http://www.cushingdaily.com/local/lo...004132755.html

http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp...nav=menu99_2_6


So there you have it. He was trying to "defend" himself with an "unloaded" gun because the victim was reaching for a chrome plated handgun that was really a can of beer.

I hope this old man loses everything he has in the civil suit, since the federal grand jury investigation, as many of us in the states know very well, means absolutely nothing. Kenneth Trentandue, anyone?

Oh wait, they had police records, they deserved to die, right? Police never make mistakes, people never rehabilitate.

As I understand it, if you intend to cause harm (not necessarily grevious harm) and are reckless about whether death will result, you can be convicted of murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Do I need to justify the "misinformation" any further? As a matter of fact, British visitors to the Southern states of the US have been advised not to approach rural dwellings at night in case they are shot.

---

It seems your government is under the same delusion.

The rural south that I grew up in doesn't shoot people because they approach the house at night.

Quote:

---

It seems your government is under the same delusion.

---

I can't blame the government for this one - it was a travel agent.

These guys are taking one or two examples of some over-paranoid gun owner and using it to justify the villification of an entire people.

Out in the middle of nowhere, where no one ever passes through and your amongst the osrt that even shoots at the Census man? Oaky, okay, avoid the house with the cattle skulls on the fence posts that say NO TRESPASSING painted on the sides of old shot up cars. Fat chance tourists would be there. Fat chance any of us would.

A few crazies doesn't make us all crazies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

These guys are taking one or two examples of some over-paranoid gun owner and using it to justify the villification of an entire people.

Out in the middle of nowhere, where no one ever passes through and your amongst the osrt that even shoots at the Census man? Oaky, okay, avoid the house with the cattle skulls on the fence posts that say NO TRESPASSING painted on the sides of old shot up cars. Fat chance tourists would be there. Fat chance any of us would.

A few crazies doesn't make us all crazies.

---

Absolutely correct - I know a few places in the United States just like that - the unfortunate thing is that they are not just in the South, hell they are not even primarily in the South. What the travel agents in Britian should be advisings is that the tourist check with the locals about what areas to avoid.

One sould not be surprised that the gun toting parniod people that shoot on sight are not average citizens but belong to groups that isolate themselves from the rest of society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

As I understand it, if you intend to cause harm (not necessarily grevious harm) and are reckless about whether death will result, you can be convicted of murder.

---

I wouldn't hold myself out as the greatest expert on criminal law, but I am pretty sure its intent to kill or cause "really serious harm" (ie GBH) only. Intent or lack of it is the key difference between murder and manslaughter. (Ignoring defences).

You may be thinking of the rule that the law takes you to "intend" the natural consequences of your actions, even if your true intention was something else, and you merely accepted the natural consequence as an unfortunate byproduct of your actions. So, for instance, if I poison chocolate bars in Sainsburies, my real intention may be to blackmail Sainsburies out of a lot of money, but I am deemed also to intend the harm caused to people who eat the bars.

I seem to remember the "avoid the south" advice in the UK was connected with the law in Florida that said it was OK for citizens to start shooting people who annoyed them. Except that on further investigation the law didn't say that, it said something like when a jury is considering whether you were shooting in self defence, the fact that you did not retreat does not necessarily mean you cannot have been acting in self defence.

Which as a legal rule seemed perfectly reasonable to me, even if retreat would be the better option in the majority of cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Did you even read my post? It was in the back of the truck, on the outside. This guy is driving around a densely populated city with a loaded large caliber rifle in the back of his truck where anyone can grab it. Having it locked inside the truck is a lot different than what this man was doing, but having a RIFLE in a truck is just retarded for self defense anyway, because there aren't any scenarios where it would actually be useful and where a handgun wouldnt serve a better purpose. If they guy was waving a revolver around the victim might actually still be alive.

You're pretty funny, you just accused me of being a gun grabber.

---

I know of plenty of people who keep rifles in the truck:inquisitive: They keep it there incase their handgun just won't do. One guy I shoot with (rarely) cracks me up about this. He carries a keltec pocket gun(p3at), a glock 17L and keeps a rifle in his truck.:laugh4:

So a responsible gun owner could be one who leaves his weapons lying around in his truck for all to see, not to mention take?

Doesn't seem that responsible to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ceasar010

I know of plenty of people who keep rifles in the truck:inquisitive:

---

I don't think that this is a very good justification - it just shows that there are apparently quite a lot of irresponsible gun owners

Quote:

---

They keep it there incase their handgun just won't do.

---

What kind of situations would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

What kind of situations would that be?

---

zombies. Guns are blown waaaaay out of proportion. Teach your kids how to use them go hunting shoot cans etc. If you need to use it go ahead. There are more guns on my street than there are at Ft.Hood. (including an rpg) and yet no ones been killed shot or maimed.

Here we go again, swerving waaaay OT in a gun thread, but okay I'll try to clear it up.

In CAs original story threat of bodily harm on the assailant and locked doors with screaming people inside did not dissuade him from the crime he was intending to commit. He deserved to be shot.

In the story I refer to, the man should have -- at the least -- been charged and convicted with manslaughter. It's people like himt hat make the rest of us look bad. As for the DA in that case, maybe the murder charge was a dummy charge...based on the law straight up murder might not stick, maybe the DA was pandering, trying to look tough, either way, this guy should be brought up again on manslaughter charges or negligent homicide as that would not be double jeopardy. Simply put, he should not be able to get away with such fool hardy negligence. The whole "i felt threatened" argument is as gay as an Elton john concert...

the florida (and now Oklahoma yaaay) law simply removed one criteria from the self defense act of using a handgun to defend yourself: you have to retreat. that's right, you have to retreat. Before these self defense laws were enacted you were required by law to retreat if a person meant you grievous bodily harm and there was an escape route rather than to "stand your ground." If a man with a gun kicked in your front door you could not shoot him if you had a back door to flee from, or if he carjacked you you could not shoot him if you could flee out the other door, or if 5 guys jumped you in a dark alley you could not shoot at them if there was the option to run. that is ridiculous. People are maimed and killed all the time by people who don't mean to seriously hurt them, or by people who are just using fists and feet but are superior in strenght and numbers. I'm not very willing to get my ass kicked by some drunks jerks who don't like my shirt and possibly end up with missing teeth and a bum shoulder the rest of my life. People who make decisions to asault people in such manner are void of rights, and deserve what they get if their intent is clear.

Growing up in the country, many of the people I knew that had a truck also had a gunrack in it and always had a gun of some kind there. I am not even sure if they are legal anymore but at the time, legal or not, many people had them. And just to clarify the guns were typically used for shooting coyotes, wolves, traveling salesmen or other dangerous pests. ~D

Of all the hundreds of people I know who have a gun/guns I don’t know anyone who has ever been accidentally (shoulder burses don’t count) injured by one. Fireworks are another story :pirate:.


I was thinking about this last night and some people mentioned a baseball bat, I don’t think a 15 year old and a hysterical mother could have protected themselves from a serious intruder with just a bat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

zombies.

---

Good point - quite a nuisance ... and they seem to get peskier each year :sweatdrop: