Which is better? Protect yourself/family or remove criminal from face of earth? - Page 2
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93

Thread: Which is better? Protect yourself/family or remove criminal from face of earth?

  1. I guess my question is more of attitude rather than willingness to shoot. Yes, I certainly am willing to shoot someone in defense. But it appears as if some people have the attitude that it is less desireable to simply deter the criminal from attacking me or my family than it is to kill the criminal to prevent them from moving on.

    For example... a criminal invades your home and you meet them with a gun in hand. They start backing towards the door. Clearly, it appears as if QilvinLEO would have no problem shooting them because he would be doing the world a favor. I'm just wondering how many other gun carriers feel the same way... given the choice, which would you rather do, end the criminal's career permanently, or spare only your family from the attack and let the criminal move on. And if you let the criminal move on, do you think you bear part of the responsibility if the criminal goes next door and rapes the 19 year old girl.

    Personally, I feel like QilvinLEO's comments are pretty much B.S.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    I guess my question is more of attitude rather than willingness to shoot. Yes, I certainly am willing to shoot someone in defense. But it appears as if some people have the attitude that it is less desireable to simply deter the criminal from attacking me or my family than it is to kill the criminal to prevent them from moving on.

    For example... a criminal invades your home and you meet them with a gun in hand. They start backing towards the door. Clearly, it appears as if QilvinLEO would have no problem shooting them because he would be doing the world a favor. I'm just wondering how many other gun carriers feel the same way... given the choice, which would you rather do, end the criminal's career permanently, or spare only your family from the attack and let the criminal move on. And if you let the criminal move on, do you think you bear part of the responsibility if the criminal goes next door and rapes the 19 year old girl.

    Personally, I feel like QilvinLEO's comments are pretty much B.S.
    Total BS.

    If life were like the movies, and you were faced with some malicious jerk, and you KNEW his past, and you KNEW the nature of his crimes, and you KNEW the system was going to fail, then morally, I would not object to someone getting all Dexter on a scumbag.

    But the danger is in assuming that you know the history and motives of everyone out there.

    The guy LCDR was engaging is obviously looking to play out his revenge scenario on the first available candidate. It's just not a smart thing to do. Frankly, it's not even a smart thing to talk about.

  4. #13
    I carry to keep bad things from happening to me. I never want to kill it harm anyone. I think if the BG just see the gun, in most cases that is all that is needed

  5. #14
    By executing the criminal you secure your status as a sheepdog. Which to some around here is very important.

  6. OK, maybe it is not a criminal per say, but anyone that is about to committ an act of violence to me, my family, or friends, I will stop them by any means necessary. Escalation of Force.

  7. If the username QilvinLEO means that person is an LEO, then you can see where he's coming from. Today's LEO's know that so long as politics doesn't get into it, they can pretty much kill anyone, as long as they say the magic words "I believed my life was in danger." Also, the real legal difference between cops and ordinary mortal citizens is that they can shoot a fleeing criminal if they believe it likely said criminal will cause more harm to society. Ordinary folks may only shoot to stop an immediate threat.

    I trust we all know that not even the cop "shoots to kill" when he's on a stand in court. We always "shoot to stop." Only a capital court can legally make the deliberate choice to take life.

    Since the 13th century, and better codified in the 15th, a part of British common law (from which our law is descended - notwithstanding the Napoleonic Code in Louisiana) was the duty of the citizen to kill a felon if possible. Somewhere in the mid twentieth century this vanished -- and a few years later, so did the guns of British subjects (I'll no longer call them citizens).

    Insert favorite British quote here: "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
    --George Orwell


    Many of us, in our hearts, subscribe to varying degree to Col. Cooper's "duty to society" to stop the goblins. But, today, we don't have the legal authority to take that that far. If my daughter is raped and mutiliated by a known serial monster, and I come upon him as he's stabbing her, I may shoot him to stop him. But if my first shot stops him without killing him (and though I'm certain modern emergency medical care will ensure he survives my inadvertantly low shot to his gut), I have no legal right to put him down with a coup de grace through the head. No matter the horrors he perpetrated, my legal right to shoot ends the instant he ceases to be a threat. (I will not comment on what actually might happen in such a situation.)

    Priority One is survival of Family and Self.
    In this "Age of the Wimp," as the good Colonel put it, you may expect to be vilified and likely prosecuted if you defend yourself. The odds vary with the politics of your location.
    If you end up in jail, that does not help your family's odds of survival - or yours.

    That's the bottom line.

    As to what might REALLY happen, given criminal attack in the middle of nowhere, with no witnesses, I'd say each person here must make up his or her mind, and face the consequences of his or her decision.

    (Officer) Masaad Ayoob often gives the legal and correct advice to call police immediately and tell them the entire truth. But his recent article in Combat Handguns, detailing several wrongful "witch hunt" prosecutions (and, incidentally how famous Expert Witness Ayoob helped some of the wrongly accused be acquitted - but all of those defenses cost a great deal of money), certainly makes it easy to understand why people sometimes try to hide defensive shootings instead of disclosing the truth.

    In my heart, I believe in a duty to society to stop the goblins, to TAKE OUT any monster who would threaten the lives of my family or my friends. But in my head, I know the legal reality of the matter. And I intend to maximize the survival odds for my family and myself.
    “The police of a State should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight is the foundation of civil freedom.” Heinlein

  8. Yes, QilvinLEO is a LEO. Here's the deal with him, though... without getting too much into another open carry v. conceal carry debate. And this is the crux of my question. He prefers to conceal carry when he is off duty because he would RATHER kill the criminal, "for the benefit of society", than to simply deter the criminal from attacking him/his family and moving on to another, less prepared victim.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Yes, QilvinLEO is a LEO. Here's the deal with him, though... without getting too much into another open carry v. conceal carry debate. And this is the crux of my question. He prefers to conceal carry when he is off duty because he would RATHER kill the criminal, "for the benefit of society", than to simply deter the criminal from attacking him/his family and moving on to another, less prepared victim.
    Something tells me he got into law enforcement for all the wrong reasons.

  10. #19
    The idea of carrying a weapon is to protect yourself and your family. Beyond that is beyond the scope of concealed weapon carry. If you want to do more than that, become and LEO.

  11. #20
    I carry for similar reasons that I qualify for CPR. To render aid until authorities/medical personnel arrive on the scene. If I can avoid a fight, I will. Don't attack me or my family, don't have to worry about my gun.
    A man's life, liberty, and property are only safe when the legislature is NOT in session. Will Rogers

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast