Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

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

"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.

[English assassin]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[English assassin]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Fragony]

edit: you guys are no fun at all.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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.

Well, your right. It doesn't remove their right to die.

[Duke of Gloucester]

The Right to protect one's property and life should have no contraints other then your action will be reviewed by the legal authorties to ensure that the application of deadly force meet the standards established by law (that a reasonable man would of acted in such a matter.)

Agreed.

What we believe as individuals to be common sense - should have no bearing on the right for someone to protect their property and life. If our actions are not reasonable when reviewed - then the individual should deal with the legal and civil consequences of their unreasonable use of force.

This is true for any society governed by the rule of law, but little consolation to someone killed by an "unreasonable" person.

Just because there are unreasonable and irresponsible people does not mean our right to defend our property and life should be restricted to prevent the unreasonable and irresponsible from the consequences of thier actions. Nor should your definition apply - its the application dicitated by the society in which will judge your actions through the judicial process.

Which definition?

Incorrect - it is a responsiblity.

Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.

Reasonable application of force is the standard that must be judged, not the blanket removal of certain abilities to apply a reasonable measure of force to the situtation to protect one's self, family and property. To advocate that a home-owner under no circumstances should ever use deadly force to protect themselves and their property is as irresponsible as the individual who leaves a loaded gun laying on the table for kids to play with.

Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made. I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.

The previeced fear of danger when someone breaks into your dewelling can and will often result in just that situation, especially if the break in is happening during the hours of darkness.

I agree. However their is a big difference between saying "I killed this man because I was afraid he might hurt me" and "I killed this man because I thought he might steal my stuff." The former may be acceptable, the latter certainly isn't.

[Redleg]

This is true for any society governed by the rule of law, but little consolation to someone killed by an "unreasonable" person.

Then your position is based solely upon emotional appeal not the law.

Which definition?

primarily the use of only the individual's definition.

Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.

Read the following sentences - it explains the responsiblity.

Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made.

Then you understood the previous comment correctly, which negates your previous question.

I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.

Read what you wrote previosily and what you wrote here. You are only applying one standard - yours. The standard about wether the home owner used reasonable force to protect himself and his property comes from the legal argument of the reasonable man. What I would do as an individual when someone breaks into my home - is most likely different then what you would do. What is reasonable is solely based upon the individual circumstances of each event. Blanket positions become irresponsible when dealing with individual circumstances, especially when discussing home invasion by unknown people for unknown reasons.

I agree. However their is a big difference between saying "I killed this man because I was afraid he might hurt me" and "I killed this man because I thought he might steal my stuff." The former may be acceptable, the latter certainly isn't.

When one breakes into someone's home - the fear exists regardless if someone dies or not. The application of force by the homeowner in this regards has been often judged as reasonable. It is in certain circumstances after the initial breakin that the law has judged that unreasonable force has been applied.

For instance most legal systems have ruled that unreasonable force was used when the home invader was shot in the back in the front yard of the dwelling. Then there is the case that was alreadly mentioned that happened in the United Kingdom. That also could only be seen as unreasonable force being applied. Hince the criminal charge of the property owner was applied by the legal authority.