Hostage situation in Aurora Colorado. 4 dead.

[Sarojini]

Statements like this are just going to invite nation bashing. Coming from a moderator... disappointing.

I don't perceive it as inciting nation bashing. It's quoting the pro-gun lobby's own arguments back at them. If they pro-gun lobby wish to use that argument, then they can't expect it not to be brought up in rational discussion. Not all Americans are pro-gun. Wikiy is correct though, it is a significant amount.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 12:04 PM ----------

So if a criminal breaks into your home, you'd hold him prisoner.

How could the woman, hiding in her closet, hold the man with a crowbar, prisoner? If she hadn't shot, he'd've had the upper hand on her.

Which brings us to the next issue. Why shoot to kill? She was point blank, if she did indeed *HAVE* to shoot (which I don't believe) she could have shot him anywhere. She could have shot him in the shoulder of the arm wielding the crowbar, shouldn't all of this be part of basic gun training? She made the decision not to "defend herself" but to take a life.

Whether that was through a conscious decision or pure panic, it happened.

[Sicarus]

Bolded for emphasis.

You are right, it's not.

Yet there you are, being your own cop, judge and executioner all in one go. See the problem?

So if a man attacked you, and stabbed you, you'd hold them prisoner, or, if you had the chance, would you kill them?

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 10:04 PM ----------

You wouldn't mind if I borrowed that last part for a sig, would you?

Heh, go ahead!

[Sarojini]

So if a man attacked you, and stabbed you, you'd hold them prisoner, or, if you had the chance, would you kill them?

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 10:04 PM ----------



Heh, go ahead!

Did he actually stab her? I was under the impression that he simply opened the door and got shot. Five times.

Personally? I would only kill as a last resort. There is no glory in taking a human life, no matter how base or debauched that human may be.

[Xothic]

So if a man attacked you, and stabbed you, you'd hold them prisoner, or, if you had the chance, would you kill them?[COLOR="red"]

If I had the chance, I'd shoot them in the bloody leg or something. Why are you so obsessed with killing? Guns may be inherently violent, but a single well placed bullet can incapacitate almost anyone. Before someone says something like you might hit a major artery in the leg and kill them anyway, consider how resilient the human body is. The robber that got shot in the face got shot five times, and still lived long enough to be placed in critical condition.

Also, it has occurred to me we are really off topic. Thread has become more about the robbery case then the kidnapping.

[Svifnymr]

Did he actually stab her? I was under the impression that he simply opened the door and got shot. Five times.

Personally? I would only kill as a last resort. There is no glory in taking a human life, no matter how base or debauched that human may be.

We don't really know what the exact circumstances are. According to the one article, she yelled from upstairs for the kids not to answer the door, thinking it was salesmen or something. Then the guy went a little nuts. She hid in the closet of the home office on the third floor to wait for the police as the guy broke into the door with a crowbar.

I don't know how long the cops took to get there, but if he was just looking for stuff to steal, in the middle of the day after just smashing the front door in, then he was there way too long. I presume he knew someone was home, and assume he went looking for them. He doesn't have a history of theft, he has a history of violence.

But yeah, I don't know. To me, the idea that my wife should gamble her life and the life of our children to see if he's peacable and not a threat at that point is not how I'd want things to go. She retreated as far as she could, she plugged him when he found them, and then she ran to safety. Maybe he heard the kids crying or maybe everyone was silent, we don't know any of that.

It's not like she reloaded and finished the guy off, like some other stories we've seen. She hid in the closet of her home office on the third floor.

---------- Post added 2013-01-06 at 11:20 PM ----------

If I had the chance, I'd shoot them in the bloody leg or something. Why are you so obsessed with killing? Guns may be inherently violent, but a single well placed bullet can incapacitate almost anyone. Before someone says something like you might hit a major artery in the leg and kill them anyway, consider how resilient the human body is. The robber that got shot in the face got shot five times, and still lived long enough to be placed in critical condition.

I think she aimed at the center of mass like she was taught, and recoil drove the shots up. 6th shot was probably over his head. It's not important whether he lived or died, so long as she stopped the threat to her and her children.

Also, it has occurred to me we are really off topic. Thread has become more about the robbery case then the kidnapping.

The original story lacks a lot of details still, until they determine motive and means.

I'm also not sure it was ever a hostage situation, 3 dead before the cops arrived (they were called in response to those shots) and the other person had escaped before they got there I believe, so it was just him in a house.

[Porcell]

If I had the chance, I'd shoot them in the bloody leg or something. Why are you so obsessed with killing? Guns may be inherently violent, but a single well placed bullet can incapacitate almost anyone. Before someone says something like you might hit a major artery in the leg and kill them anyway, consider how resilient the human body is. The robber that got shot in the face got shot five times, and still lived long enough to be placed in critical condition.

... I read your statements and can not understand how you came to your conclusion. The guy was shot in the neck and head 5 times and he didn't die, and you want to shoot someone in the leg instead? You shooting someone in the leg makes it all the more likely that he'll get pissed off, keep coming, and stab/shoot/otherwise bludgeon you. It is exactly the reason why you shoot center mass; you want to hit those vital organs.

I'm sure you'll feel really good about yourself when you "shoot to wound" and the violent criminal does not return the favor.

In another thread I posted a link to a story about a rape victim. Followed home from a gas station, assailant pushes his way into her home and grabs a knife from her kitchen. She retreats to her bedroom and says "Leave or I will shoot you." He is putting the knife to her neck and says "You won't shoot me." He grabs for the gun under her pillow and shoots him in the chest. If she had "been nice" and shot him in the arm or shot him in the leg, what do you think the chances of the knife ending up in her neck would be?

Shoot to wound is a dumb idea.

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

"When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it's very often 'Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?'" Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, told Force Science News in a 2006 interview centered on Paterson's proposed legislation. "When civilians judge police shooting deaths-on juries, on review boards, in the media, in the community-this same argument is often brought forward. Shooting to wound is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.

"In reality, this thinking is a result of 'training by Hollywood,' in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director's dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers."
--------------

Read that whole article and put all the "shoot to wound" ideas to bed. It's not reasonable.

[Realsykes]

We live in the 21st century. There are such things as markets and pig/chicken farms.

Also, the idea of going out into the wilderness to kill wildlife and then eat it seems pretty crazy to me. As far as i know, in my country, all wildlife that anyone would get the idea of eating is forbidden from being hunted and bears (pun intended) a prison penalty. That sounds like a good principle to me.

Lol someone doesn't live in hunting country obviously.

I live in Colorado, and it is very much apart of the lifestyle here, at least where I'm from.

[Deleted]

So sick of theese gun discussions.. But I feel for the citizens of Aurora! Must suck to have to start a "fresh year" with this happening. Specially after last years incident.

[Palmatum]

Why not take him prisoner?

I will have to try and find the news report, but I'm almost certain there was a case where a guy broke into someone's house with high security shit that blocked all the doors and windows with shutters and he sued or was suing the home owner for imprisonment or something along those lines lol.

[zalmatra]

if you want to tell me there is some moral high ground for not shooting a potentially dangerous intruder.

im sorry im not going to risk death for myself or anyone else in my home. the situation changes depending on the nature of the intruder as any reasonably intelligent person can.

Any tactical decision i make to secure my life my property and those within my home is my decision.

i have no moral ramifications about killing someone that is obviously hostile and a danger to myself or my family if non lethal force is not present then lethal force will always be applied as quickly and as precisely as possible

by entering my home with hostile intentions you may have forfeited your life.

i dont see anything morally wrong with self defense and defending my property my life or those within my house.

im not a sheep.

if you want to bend your knee and run from any dangers and not protect your family and yourself thats your business.

If you want to live in your happy world where disgusting vile people dont exist that will hurt you and dont give a %#@% about you or your family. so be it

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 09:43 AM ----------

No gun law will really stop any criminal from getting a gun its never stoped any gang in la from obtaining illegal guns.
its never stoped any mafia or larger criminal org from obtaining weapons

can anyone tell me what possible law or restriction will keep criminals from obtaining lethal and powerful weapons?

passing these gun laws just make you feel safe but i have a secret for you. they never will take away a gun from a gangmember or stop anyone in my own small hamlet from obtaining drugs or weapons there are so many "illegal guns" drugs and even prostitution in my own town its all illegal but it still happens

there are ways to stop it but it involves money time and actully caring about poor communities looking at larger issues.

but thats a fairy tale at least with the current political climite its more clear plastic laws, laws that mean nothing to any criminal org

[Wikiy]

If a guy enters my house, whether or not it's to steal something or anything else, whether or not he wants a cup of sugar, if he broke in, his ass is going down.

Sure it is, it still doesn't mean you're right to bring down his ass (for life). Okay, sorry, in the US you are, I still think the law that allows you to kill an intruder regardless of circumstances is pretty silly though.

He's breaking the sanctuary of my home, interupting my life, and is quite possibly out to harm me or my family. He deserves what's coming for his criminal actions.

Let's see, breaking the sanctuary of a home, interrupting one's life, possibly wanting to harm someone? KILL WITH FIRE.

Also, why are so many posters on the other side of the fence (where i am not) replying in a manner where they say what's going to happen to the intruder and don't actually give any reasons as to why? Yes, i know, if someone breaks into your home, you're gonna blow their face off, I'm aware of the fact that that's the current situation in the US. The whole thing I'm arguing about is that the situation is pretty fucked up if most people consider that normal. Yet no one is actually addressing that point.

[Sicarus]

Did he actually stab her? I was under the impression that he simply opened the door and got shot. Five times.

Personally? I would only kill as a last resort. There is no glory in taking a human life, no matter how base or debauched that human may be.

Oh I figured we were both providing hypotheticals.

Apparently only the "logical" can do so.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 06:25 AM ----------

If I had the chance, I'd shoot them in the bloody leg or something. Why are you so obsessed with killing? Guns may be inherently violent, but a single well placed bullet can incapacitate almost anyone. Before someone says something like you might hit a major artery in the leg and kill them anyway, consider how resilient the human body is. The robber that got shot in the face got shot five times, and still lived long enough to be placed in critical condition.

Also, it has occurred to me we are really off topic. Thread has become more about the robbery case then the kidnapping.

Obsessed with killing? No, I'm not. I'm not going to leg-shot them because it's more 'moral', the fucker has already broken good morality by coming into my home in the first place.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 06:29 AM ----------

If a guy enters my house, whether or not it's to steal something or anything else, whether or not he wants a cup of sugar, if he broke in, his ass is going down.

Sure it is, it still doesn't mean you're right to bring down his ass (for life). Okay, sorry, in the US you are, I still think the law that allows you to kill an intruder regardless of circumstances is pretty silly though.



Let's see, breaking the sanctuary of a home, interrupting one's life, possibly wanting to harm someone? KILL WITH FIRE.

Also, why are so many posters on the other side of the fence (where i am not) replying in a manner where they say what's going to happen to the intruder and don't actually give any reasons as to why? Yes, i know, if someone breaks into your home, you're gonna blow their face off, I'm aware of the fact that that's the current situation in the US. The whole thing I'm arguing about is that the situation is pretty fucked up if most people consider that normal. Yet no one is actually addressing that point.

That it's, "normal"?

Is it "normal" to get your door knocked in?

Is it "normal" for who has just knocked in my door to not have bad intentions?

Then you'd better bet it's "normal" they go down.

[Wikiy]

Statements like this are just going to invite nation bashing. Coming from a moderator... disappointing.

Well that is the fact of the situation. I don't see what's wrong with pointing out a rather relevant non-insulting fact that has a lot to do with the topic.

If i said something like "only in America", it would've been pretty bad. I didn't though.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 01:33 PM ----------

So if a man attacked you, and stabbed you, you'd hold them prisoner, or, if you had the chance, would you kill them?

We'd all shoot someone who's trying to attack us with a knife. The difference is, you'd shoot the moment you saw a silhouette in the shadows.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 01:37 PM ----------

Obsessed with killing? No, I'm not. I'm not going to leg-shot them because it's more 'moral', the fucker has already broken good morality by coming into my home in the first place.

And? You kill the fucker as punishment? That case where an old man executed two robber teens he had already incapacitated comes to mind.

[Deleted]

It's no use to discuss, or you think there will be a conclusion in the end ?

If your state or country or whatever you live in decides you are not allowed to have a gun, this will be the end of mindless discussions. Or you go crazy and say the state is trying to take my rights ?

You dont need to kill, ever. Thats the point.

[Jackmoves]

You dont need to kill, ever. Thats the point.

Sometimes you do.

We had a shooting(jewelry robbery) here in my country this weekend, it doesn't happen very often but if someone opens up with a ak47 on the police I think lethal violance is perfectly fine.

'No hope' for jewel thief shot by police: doctor

Doctors have said there is "no hope" for the thief who was shot in the head during a robbery in Södertälje on Friday, according to relatives, as investigators continue to probe the dramatic heist.

"He's in a coma, we're just waiting for the announcement of his death," a relative told the Aftonbladet newspaper.

"The doctors have said there is no hope."

The 26-year-old man was shot in the head while attempting to make a getaway from a robbery at a jewellery store in Södertälje, an hour south of Stockholm.

Police arrived before the thieves could escape, and a shoot-out in front of the store began, with the police hitting the 26-year-old in the head.

His accomplices left him on the ground and drove off amid the gunfire. The man's body and a weapon were left behind at the scene.

Six people between 19 and 26 years old were arrested over the weekend for the heist, and at least four have a criminal record. One of the suspects was released on Sunday afternoon, and another young woman was arrested for her suspected participation in the heist.

The 26-year-old thief, who is currently under continued surveillance by doctors at Karolinska Hospital, has been joined by family and friends from Norway and Germany, wrote Aftonbladet.

Relatives said the bullet is still lodged in his head.

[Deleted]

Well that is the fact of the situation. I don't see what's wrong with pointing out a rather relevant non-insulting fact that has a lot to do with the topic.

If i said something like "only in America", it would've been pretty bad. I didn't though.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 01:33 PM ----------



We'd all shoot someone who's trying to attack us with a knife. The difference is, you'd shoot the moment you saw a silhouette in the shadows.

---------- Post added 2013-01-07 at 01:37 PM ----------



And? You kill the fucker as punishment? That case where an old man executed two robber teens he had already incapacitated comes to mind.

Remember the case of the guy shooting the seafood and steak salesman? It was justified because he had signs ups saying "no solicitors" and he felt threatened.

http://www.examiner.com/article/flor...und-for-effect

[Jackmoves]

Remember the case of the guy shooting the seafood and steak salesman? It was justified because he had signs ups saying "no solicitors" and he felt threatened.

http://www.examiner.com/article/flor...und-for-effect

Yeah that was pretty damn disturbing. Worst part was there were actually posters on this forum who thought it was justified because of those signs. ;P

[Deleted]

Yeah that was pretty damn disturbing. Worst part was there were actually posters on this forum who thought it was justified because of those signs. ;P

Thats why I believe there is no civilising some people, better to stay out of their way and let them live in their Mad Max world.

[Wikiy]

Remember the case of the guy shooting the seafood and steak salesman? It was justified because he had signs ups saying "no solicitors" and he felt threatened.

http://www.examiner.com/article/flor...und-for-effect

I actually didn't know about that. Was he convicted?

[Twotonsteak]

The victims were dead before police even arrived. As such there are two ways of looking at this.

1. The Liberal agenda suggests that banning all "assault rifles" will stop mass shootings. I guess the next, logical (for them), step would be to ban all guns and shootings will stop. This ignores a couple of facts. First, criminals don't care about the law. That's why they are criminals. If you outlaw a gun that they want they WILL get it. The second si that more people are murdered by hammers than assault rifles. More people are murdered by knives than by hammers. More people die in drunk-driving accidents than by hammers and knives combined. Does this mean we should ban hammers, knives, and alcohol/cars as well?

2. Every other party (as in just about everyone that isn't part of the Liberal agenda) would suggest that if the home-owner had a gun maybe this wouldn't of happened. They could also call this a case-study in what would happen if guns were outlawed. The criminal had a gun, which they almost certainly will. The legal, law-abiding, citizen apparently did not. The victims relied on the police who apparently showed up too late.

But don't worry. I'm sure Obama and the Fed's will have a solution for us simple, common, folks that obviously can't help ourselves.