WWTBAM Bored

Georgia Grandfather with federal security clearance killed by police in no knock raid based on oath of man who stole his car.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/cops ... jE.twitter

Who is the War on Drugs protecting??

According to SSS its his fault. He should not have been armed. Only the trained law enforcement officers should have been armed.

BackInTex wrote:According to SSS its his fault. He should not have been armed. Only the trained law enforcement officers should have been armed.

I would imagine SSS would be more upset by the accelerating abuse of power by police. And no matter how well Mr. Hooks might have been armed, I doubt he could have done anything against a no-knock raid by a SWAT team.

And it's not just drug raids gone bad either. We had a situation here in podunkville, where the police didn't think to check whether someone might be stealing the wifi at an address that was traced to vague threats against the chief of police, and so raided the house, throwing flash grenades and busting down the door of a 70-plus grandma and her teenage granddaughter. And they had a video crew with them, which looked great on the evening news: grandma face down on the living room rug while the police cuffed her and her granddaughter.

It's out of hand, folks. I'm glad some people are finally starting to talk about it.

BackInTex wrote:According to SSS its his fault. He should not have been armed. Only the trained law enforcement officers should have been armed.

It's his fault in the same sense that if he was killed in an auto accident when he wasn't wearing a safety belt it would be his fault.

This does serve as further proof of my point. Having a gun in the house makes a house less safe as it substantially increases the chances of someone in the house being killed or wounded.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:According to SSS its his fault. He should not have been armed. Only the trained law enforcement officers should have been armed.

It's his fault in the same sense that if he was killed in an auto accident when he wasn't wearing a safety belt it would be his fault.

This does serve as further proof of my point. Having a gun in the house makes a house less safe as it substantially increases the chances of someone in the house being killed or wounded.

The Police can't protect this man against burglars, but they can break into his house unannounced and kill him, probably motivated by the chance to seize his assets. In Georgia if law enforcement seizes assets they get to keep them not turn them over the the civil government.

mrkelley23 wrote:I would imagine SSS would be more upset by the accelerating abuse of power by police.

And that is one reason to allow private gun ownership, not to deny it.

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:I would imagine SSS would be more upset by the accelerating abuse of power by police.

And that is one reason to allow private gun ownership, not to deny it.

Given the level of militarization our police are gaining, I can't help thinking of . . .



--Bob

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:I would imagine SSS would be more upset by the accelerating abuse of power by police.

And that is one reason to allow private gun ownership, not to deny it.

I don't have a problem with private gun ownership. I have a license to carry, acquired mostly to accompany my middle son, now 20, to shooting ranges because he loves it so well. In Indiana, you are allowed to carry a handgun at age 18 if properly licensed, but you are not allowed to purchase or own one. Don't really understand the logic of that one, but for his 18th birthday, we bought father-son licenses, and I purchased a Colt 1911 .22 (his choice) to target shoot. We already had several shootable long guns -- hand-me-downs from both grandpas, but the Colt was a first for me. On his 21st, we will transfer ownership to him.

I'm not a "gun guy." I've never felt the enjoyment my friends describe with gun sports, whether it's hunting, target shooting, skeet, or anything else. I have tried most of them, enough to know that I'd rather chase a little white ball through a manicured field. I do enjoy sharing time with my son, doing something he clearly does love, even at the risk of diminishing his respect for me in the short term (I really suck at target shooting).

I support private ownership, but I do also think guns should be regulated at least as well as cars, because of their potential for mayhem. That's why I've never considered joining the NRA. I was a little surprised at how easy it was to acquire the license.

When Chapin turns 21 next year, I think I will probably purchase a shotgun for home protection. I think the sound of a shotgun will suffice for most home protection situations, and I would never trust my marksmanship enough to use any other type, anyway.

That's my contribution to the great gun debate. Sorry for the lack of ad hominem attacks, straw men, and reductio ad absurdam that characterizes most national debate on this issue.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote: The Police can't protect this man against burglars.

Which is a good reason for people to invest in good burglar alarms or even a large dog, not to buy a gun.

If this guy's house were on fire, would he run back in to try to save his big screen TV or his wife's jewelry? Of course not. But in essence, that's what he did and paid the ultimate price because the presence of that gun influenced his thinking. If he hadn't had a gun and suspected burglars, he would probably have called 911 and tried to remain inconspicuous and would still be alive today.

If the intruders were unarmed burglars, there's a good chance he would have frightened them off by confronting them with a gun. There's also a chance they might have panicked and tried to get the gun away from him. And if they were armed, there was a very good chance that the confrontation might have resulted in a shootout. In either case, he's risking his life and his family's lives to save a few possessions. Is that really worth it?

I was robbed at gunpoint. I lost credit cards (which I cancelled) and about $60 of cash. I would never have run into a burning house to reclaim my wallet with $60 and some credit cards. But if I had carried a gun and attempted to use it, I would have in essence been doing the exact same thing.

BackInTex wrote:

mrkelley23 wrote:I would imagine SSS would be more upset by the accelerating abuse of power by police.

And that is one reason to allow private gun ownership, not to deny it.

And that's just more likely to get yourself killed, because then you're going up against people who have a pretty good idea how to use guns. Remember David Koresh? He had a ton of guns and people who weren't afraid to use them. What good did it do him?

If the police come after you, right or wrong, and you resist with a gun, there's only three ways it's going to end, with you in handuffs, on a stretcher, or in a body bag. It's better to take your chances in court than try shooting it out with a SWAT team.

And I haven't even begun to talk about the numerous other, far more likely, ways that a gun in the house can lead to someone getting shot.

silverscreenselect wrote: If the police come after you, right or wrong, and you resist with a gun, there's only three ways it's going to end, with you in handuffs, on a stretcher, or in a body bag. It's better to take your chances in court than try shooting it out with a SWAT team.

I guess you're right. Without guns you and 16 million of your closest friends could get to go to camp, and concentrate.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: If the police come after you, right or wrong, and you resist with a gun, there's only three ways it's going to end, with you in handuffs, on a stretcher, or in a body bag. It's better to take your chances in court than try shooting it out with a SWAT team.

I guess you're right. Without guns you and 16 million of your closest friends could get to go to camp, and concentrate.

I guess you're right. David Hooks followed your advice to the letter. Look what it got him.

If I lived in some third world country where wild animals and bands of marauders roamed around free, I might think differently. I choose to protect myself as best I can from the most realistic threats I face rather than illusorily guard myself against something highly unlikely while making myself far more at risk against far more likely risks.

Your line of thinking is the equivalent of insuring your home against meteor damage instead of buying homeowners insurance.

silverscreenselect wrote:I guess you're right. David Hooks followed your advice to the letter. Look what it got him.

These folks followed your advice to the letter and look what it got them.

Given the choice of ways to die, I'll take my advice over yours.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I guess you're right. David Hooks followed your advice to the letter. Look what it got him.

These folks followed your advice to the letter and look what it got them.

Given the choice of ways to die, I'll take my advice over yours.

Of course, you're also putting your family at greater risk, but maybe that's okay with you. Hooks put his wife at risk too since there could easily have been a shootout with stray bullets flying around. Given the choice between choosing the "wrong" way to die and attending my wife's funeral, I know which decision I would make.

The vast majority of assaults and robberies are not committed by stone cold killers on violent sprees. Posting what you did is the equivalent of my posting an article about someone winning the lottery and using that to argue that buying lottery tickets is the best method of financial planning. You continue to ignore the vast amount of statistics that I've cited in earlier threads and that I have no intention of wasting my time citing again.

But I'll sum it up. Having a gun in the home substantially increases the chances of someone in that home becoming a shooting victim. Having a gun in the workplace substantially increases the chances of someone in that workplace becoming a shooting victim.

And I do have experience in this area, because I've actually had a gun pointed in my face. I followed my advice and I'm alive. (I had actually "followed" my advice a few years earlier in the episode with the boar and I survived that as well). If I followed your advice, you quite possibly would never have heard of me because this robbery took place a few years before I joined the original Bored.

silverscreenselect wrote:Given the choice between choosing the "wrong" way to die and attending my wife's funeral, I know which decision I would make.

The one survivor in the article I mentioned, was brutally raped, was forced to watch her companions also be brutally raped, and attended four funerals.

Given the choice between having a statistical chance of being shot or having to watch my wife be brutally raped and possibly murdered, I know which decision I would make.

I defend your right to remain unarmed and defenseless, if that is what you want for yourself and your wife. But I choose something different

BackInTex wrote: Given the choice between having a statistical chance of being shot or having to watch my wife be brutally raped and possibly murdered, I know which decision I would make.

Even if the people breaking into David Hooks' house had been burglars, it's highly unlikely she would have been brutally raped or murdered. But once shooting starts in a house, you don't know where the bullets will wind up and there's a lot greater chance she'd get caught in the crossfire. I doubt David Hooks would have felt very good about defending his home from those burglars under those circumstances.

If Mrs. SSS or my mother (who was actually visiting us when I was robbed and was upstairs in our condo when it happened) had been outside with me at the time of the robbery, I'm almost certain they wouldn't have been raped or murdered. If I'd been carrying a gun and attempted to use it, they might just as easily have been shot as me and it's much more likely one of us would have been shot than the robbers since they already had their guns drawn when they confronted me. If I'd been robbed by the Atlanta version of the Wichita murderers, my chances of survival might increase marginally if I had a gun and tried to use it. However, as it actually happened and as it happens In the vast majority of breakins, snatches, and muggings, there's an excellent chance of surviving the encounter, but those chances go down substantially if I got involved in a gunfight.

You choose to ignore statistics and fixate on a very remote possibility and make your plans around that, ignoring the far greater risks you are causing by having a gun in your home. I'll repeat it once more, since you don't seem capable of understanding the point. If you have a gun in your home, you substantially increase the chances of someone in your home being shot. If you have a gun in the workplace, you substantially increase the chances of someone in the workplace being shot.

silverscreenselect wrote: You choose to ignore statistics and fixate on a very remote possibility and make your plans around that, ignoring the far greater risks you are causing by having a gun in your home. I'll repeat it once more, since you don't seem capable of understanding the point. If you have a gun in your home, you substantially increase the chances of someone in your home being shot. If you have a gun in the workplace, you substantially increase the chances of someone in the workplace being shot.

I don't believe I've ever argued your statistic about having a gun in the house increases the chances of someone in the home being shot. I may argue the 'substantially' part. That is a subjective measure anyway.

The increase in chance of getting electrocuted in your home by having electricity over not having electricity is more substantial (probably an infinite increase.... from 0% to something small, but the increase is statistically substantial). But most of us have it anyway because we find the utility of having it worth the risk. And we take measures to minimize the risk. Same with having a gun.

There is a substantial increase of someone drowning at you home if you have a pool. In fact, probably a greater risk than someone getting shot by having a gun. I read more about more children drowning accidently here in Houston than about children being shot accidently. And there are a heck of a lot more homes with guns than with pools. Again a known risk measured against the utility with the decision made by most to take the risk.

BackInTex wrote: The increase in chance of getting electrocuted in your home by having electricity over not having electricity is more substantial (probably an infinite increase.... from 0% to something small, but the increase is statistically substantial). But most of us have it anyway because we find the utility of having it worth the risk. And we take measures to minimize the risk. Same with having a gun.

There is a substantial increase of someone drowning at you home if you have a pool. In fact, probably a greater risk than someone getting shot by having a gun. I read more about more children drowning accidently here in Houston than about children being shot accidently. And there are a heck of a lot more homes with guns than with pools. Again a known risk measured against the utility with the decision made by most to take the risk.

An apples to oranges comparison.

Removing cleaning products from the home reduces the risk of accidental poisoning. But the purpose of cleaning products isn't to make the home more safe; it's to clean the home. So you're comparing one type of cost to another type of benefit.

The supposed purpose of having a gun in the house is to make the people in the house safer and to reduce their risk of becoming the victims of a violent crime. In fact, it does the opposite. It makes it more likely people in the home will become the victim of a shooting (whether homicide, accident, or suicide). So having a gun doesn't produce a benefit... it adds to the very risk it is supposed to reduce. It's the equivalent of putting asbestos in the walls of your home because you want to make your family safer.

silverscreenselect wrote:You choose to ignore statistics and fixate on a very remote possibility and make your plans around that, ignoring the far greater risks you are causing by having a gun in your home. I'll repeat it once more, since you don't seem capable of understanding the point. If you have a gun in your home, you substantially increase the chances of someone in your home being shot. If you have a gun in the workplace, you substantially increase the chances of someone in the workplace being shot.

If you have a knife in your house you substantially increase the chances of someone in your home being cut.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:You choose to ignore statistics and fixate on a very remote possibility and make your plans around that, ignoring the far greater risks you are causing by having a gun in your home. I'll repeat it once more, since you don't seem capable of understanding the point. If you have a gun in your home, you substantially increase the chances of someone in your home being shot. If you have a gun in the workplace, you substantially increase the chances of someone in the workplace being shot.

If you have a knife in your house you substantially increase the chances of someone in your home being cut.

But the purpose of the knife in the home is not to protect people from intruders. The purpose of a gun is. So if people do not get any benefit in terms of being safer from injury , and in fact, become more likely to be killed or injured in their home as a result, then it provides no benefit. It's the equivalent of taking a cancer "medicine" that actually increases the mortality rate from cancer.

silverscreenselect wrote: But the purpose of the knife in the home is not to protect people from intruders. The purpose of a gun is. So if people do not get any benefit in terms of being safer from injury , and in fact, become more likely to be killed or injured in their home as a result, then it provides no benefit. It's the equivalent of taking a cancer "medicine" that actually increases the mortality rate from cancer.

If a cancer drug is not administered properly or handled safely, then it does increase the risk of death.

The statistics you use do not take into account that folks such as I or Bob J who own guns are more responsible than perhaps other owners. When properly handled, guns are safe. Many of the accidents included in your statistic will not happen in my house or Bob J's house simply because of who we are.

Your statistics also do not account for the increased gun ownership in areas where folks are likely to be shot with or without guns, which would skew your statitics. People in high crime areas are more likely to be shot regarless of gun ownership, but gun ownership is likely to be higher there as a result. So many of the people who become a negative statistic for gun ownership had a higher probability of being the victim of gun (or other) violence to begin with.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: But the purpose of the knife in the home is not to protect people from intruders. The purpose of a gun is. So if people do not get any benefit in terms of being safer from injury , and in fact, become more likely to be killed or injured in their home as a result, then it provides no benefit. It's the equivalent of taking a cancer "medicine" that actually increases the mortality rate from cancer.

If a cancer drug is not administered properly or handled safely, then it does increase the risk of death.

The statistics you use do not take into account that folks such as I or Bob J who own guns are more responsible than perhaps other owners. When properly handled, guns are safe. Many of the accidents included in your statistic will not happen in my house or Bob J's house simply because of who we are.

Your statistics also do not account for the increased gun ownership in areas where folks are likely to be shot with or without guns, which would skew your statitics. People in high crime areas are more likely to be shot regarless of gun ownership, but gun ownership is likely to be higher there as a result. So many of the people who become a negative statistic for gun ownership had a higher probability of being the victim of gun (or other) violence to begin with.

I'm pretty sure those factors are, in fact, controlled for. --Bob

BackInTex wrote: When properly handled, guns are safe. Many of the accidents included in your statistic will not happen in my house or Bob J's house simply because of who we are.

I'm sure many of the parents and grandparents mentioned in this article would have said the same thing, right up until they realized they were wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/ch ... wanted=all

And of course, the more safeguards you take to prevent gun accidents, such as securing them in locked locations, the less likely it is you can effectively use them in the event of an actual breakin or assault. And also of course, that doesn't account for the vastly increased number of suicides in homes where guns are present (and I'm sure the relatives of many of those victims didn't think there was a chance someone in the house might commit suicide with a gun). And also of course, that doesn't account for the possibility that an attacker, who's probably younger and in better physical shape than you, me, or Bob J, might get your gun away from you and decide to use it on you or your loved ones.

If not having a gun in your house would keep you from getting killed by the police, I might consider keeping mine in my car and just keeping a well oiled chainsaw at hand, but there are plenty of stories of unarmed citizens killed by law enforcement.

Just because it showed up today.

The raw figures show there were 600 accidental shooting deaths in 2010, yet there were 30,781 accidental poisoning deaths in that same year. There were 554 accidental shooting deaths in 2009 vs. 31,758 accidental poisoning deaths and 592 accidental shooting deaths in 2008 vs. 31,116 accidental poisoning deaths.
Moreover, the CDC shows that Americans are approximately 10 times as likely to die from accidental suffocation vs. an accidental shooting and almost 6 times more likely to die via accidental drowning (non-boating related) than accidental shooting.