'cause in Texas potted plant purloiners are legitimate targets

[Kathryn]

But changing the topic changes the complaint. Self defense is something else entirely. Self defense when you're in the house and the guy is stealing your plants is not self defense at all. The UK has different laws, obviously, but by changing the tact you're avoiding the thing that we see as the problem: the death penalty for theft along with the dehumanization of the thief.

First off, I believe that, as with most threads on this forum, the conversation is allowed to wander off into related topics - such as the rights of homeowners when it comes to protecting their lives and property with force.

That being said, I agree that it's, pardon the pun, OVERKILL to shoot an intruder in the back over potted plants. I certainly wouldn't do it, or condone it.

However, this entire scenario can easily be avoided - by not trespassing on the property of others to commit crimes.

 

[Drolefille]

That is one view.
Others might prefer less-than-lethal methods.

Personally, I favor your approach.
To shoot is a very very last resort to avoid danger.

The less than lethal is nice, until you find out that it wasn't actuallly loaded with rock salt. Hence my preference.

I doubt I'll ever own a gun in my current situation - despite my line of work - but I'm not comfortable with the concept of killing someone unless I absolutely have to to protect the life of another. So I won't own one until or unless that changes.

First off, I believe that, as with most threads on this forum, the conversation is allowed to wander off into related topics - such as the rights of homeowners when it comes to protecting their lives and property with force.

The conversation is 'allowed' to go wherever you wish it to. You can spend the next four pages talking about what is and isn't southern, I don't really care.

My point was, that changing the situation to one where the life and not just the property is at risk didn't make very much sense with regard to the objections raised, other than to create a more defensible moral grounds for the one with the gun.

Interestingly, self-defense is why most of the felons I work with claim that they get guns too. Not that they only use them for that, but if they know someone else has a beef with them, they'll get a gun - and often give it to the youngest one of their guys. They get guns to defend their homes too, at least at first. For some it's the lifestyle, and for some it's the alcohol, drugs, etc. And the fight, and the gunshot and the end of things for a very long time.

That being said, I agree that it's, pardon the pun, OVERKILL to shoot an intruder in the back over potted plants. I certainly wouldn't do it, or condone it.

We agree.

However, this entire scenario can easily be avoided - by not trespassing on the property of others to commit crimes.

Yep, and let me know when you figure out how to solve that one en masse. I only have about 75 people to work on at a time.

 

[Father Heathen]

It seems kind of juvenile to shoot a potted plant thief.

What if it was, like, a really nice plant?

 

[Kathryn]

Interestingly, self-defense is why most of the felons I work with claim that they get guns too. Not that they only use them for that, but if they know someone else has a beef with them, they'll get a gun - and often give it to the youngest one of their guys. They get guns to defend their homes too, at least at first. For some it's the lifestyle, and for some it's the alcohol, drugs, etc. And the fight, and the gunshot and the end of things for a very long time.

Your line of work and your chosen associations would naturally result in you having more interaction with criminals who own guns.

My line of work and my associations result in the fact that I personally don't know ANY felons who own guns. I also do not willingly or knowingly associate with any felons. However, I'm sure they're around, and I'm sure many of them own guns.

The only people I know (on more than a passing acquaintance level) who own guns are law abiding citizens who own them for self protection and own them legally and responsibly.

Yep, and let me know when you figure out how to solve that one en masse. I only have about 75 people to work on at a time.

Like I said earlier - reducing the crime rate is not my area of expertise, nor is it the focus of my gun ownership. However, the fact that you alone are working with 75 known offenders bolsters my belief that I should continue to own a gun for self protection - and use it if necessary to protect the well being of my family and myself.

Now - I won't shoot someone for stealing a potted plant off my patio. However, if I see a stranger on my patio and there's any indication they are planning on coming into my home - that's a completely different story.

 

[Drolefille]

Your line of work and your chosen associations would naturally result in you having more interaction with criminals who own guns.

Uh, yes, my work does. My "chosen associations" however, have no effect on whether I know criminals. I work with them professionally, that's not a chosen association unless you choose to associate with every customer of the bank who walks in your door.

My "chosen associations" involve more people who own guns for their own professional or personal reasons. Although none can conceal-carry unless they're law enforcement professionals, Illinois being to my knowledge the only state that bans it entirely.

My line of work and my associations result in the fact that I personally don't know ANY felons who own guns. In fact, I am not sure that I even personally know - and I certainly don't regularly associate with - any felons.

I don't know any personally, either. I feel the slightest hint of some sort of superiority about that in your tone here though. Odds are you know someone who has a felony, even if they were 'just' being a stupid kid. Here your second DUI or your 3rd-4th driving on revoked will send you to prison now. A single domestic, a first DUI, maybe probation. Sadly the sentences will vary greatly from someone whose family has the $$ to defend the case properly and someone who has a public defender.

The only people I know (on more than a passing acquaintance level) who own guns are law abiding citizens who own them for self protection and own them legally and responsibly.

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying "Felons have guns, therefore guns BAD." I was just pointing out that the motivations behind getting a gun are likely not that different between a criminal and a non-criminal. Odds are, in fact that the criminal's life is in greater risk because they involve themselves in those situations more frequently and deliberately.

Like I said earlier - reducing the crime rate is not my area of expertise, nor is it the focus of my gun ownership. However, the fact that you alone are working with 75 known offenders bolsters my belief that I should continue to own a gun for self protection - and use it if necessary to protect the well being of my family and myself.

That's my office's case load. But we, in one city, in one county do not see all the individuals on parole, only the ones deemed to be at greater risk of recidivating for a variety of reasons. Something like 65% of parolees will go back to prison, about 50% will catch a new case. We try to reduce that.

If the fact that one <100k population city has (far more than) 75 parolees at any given time scares you, it's just because you're not aware of the realities of how many people go to prison and are on parole at any given point in time. And the world keeps spinning, with crime rates generally going down still.

 

[Kathryn]

That's my office's case load. But we, in one city, in one county do not see all the individuals on parole, only the ones deemed to be at greater risk of recidivating for a variety of reasons. Something like 65% of parolees will go back to prison, about 50% will catch a new case. We try to reduce that.

If the fact that one <100k population city has (far more than) 75 parolees at any given time scares you, it's just because you're not aware of the realities of how many people go to prison and are on parole at any given point in time. And the world keeps spinning, with crime rates generally going down still.

My father was a federal parole officer who worked for the federal penitentiary in Virginia for several years. I'm pretty familiar with crime in general because he was passionate about his line of work, especially the programs which he was involved with that were aimed at trying to acclimate parolees back into their communities.

Also - I worked in the staffing industry for many years. We ran a criminal background check on every person we hired. Thru that line of work, I'm very familiar with just how common criminal behavior is - and the ratio of people walking around with a criminal record.

I'm not "scared" of the ratios or the facts - I am, however, realistic about it. Crime rates are high, repeat offenders are likely to continue to be perpetrators, and violent crime is more common than most people realize.

That's why I own guns. Oh, that and the fact that it's fun to go to the shooting range with my husband and win bets.

 

[Drolefille]

My father was a federal parole officer who worked for the federal penitentiary in Virginia for several years. I'm pretty familiar with crime in general because he was passionate about his line of work, especially the programs which he was involved with that were aimed at trying to acclimate parolees back into their communities.

Also - I worked in the staffing industry for many years. We ran a criminal background check on every person we hired. Thru that line of work, I'm very familiar with just how common criminal behavior is - and the ratio of people walking around with a criminal record.

I'm not "scared" of the ratios or the facts - I am, however, realistic about it. Crime rates are high, repeat offenders are likely to continue to be perpetrators, and violent crime is more common than most people realize.

That's why I own guns. Oh, that and the fact that it's fun to go to the shooting range with my husband and win bets.

Then I don't understand your previous comment when writing as if such a number was news to you. Or perhaps it was an intended slight on me, I'm not sure which, although I suppose coupled with your "chosen associations" comment, the latter is more likely.

Your realism and mine look quite different, it seems. Violent crime is not nearly as common as the TV would have you think, and crime rates are dropping.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I doubt there is any one on this site who has never broken a law.
I don't think I have, but who knows?
I know very few of the laws, of either this country or the ones I have visited.
Happily most people don't take pot shots at law breakers.

 

[Kathryn]

Then I don't understand your previous comment when writing as if such a number was news to you. Or perhaps it was an intended slight on me, I'm not sure which, although I suppose coupled with your "chosen associations" comment, the latter is more likely.

Your realism and mine look quite different, it seems. Violent crime is not nearly as common as the TV would have you think, and crime rates are dropping.

When I stated "associations," it was in the professional sense. Working with a large number of parolees, it seems quite possible that you might run into them in the community. I know my dad was always pretty cognizant of that fact.

I wasn't SURPRISED by the number. I was merely mentioning that CONSIDERING the large number of criminals/parolees/ex convicts in the general public (verified by your own caseload), that's all the more reason to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves.

Since having a gun has been a DIRECT (and beautifully instantaneous) deterrent to violent crime for three members of my family, I consider responsible gun ownership to fall within the category of "reasonable steps to protect" myself and my family.

 

[Kathryn]

I doubt there is any one on this site who has never broken a law.
I don't think I have, but who knows?
I know very few of the laws, of either this country or the ones I have visited.
Happily most people don't take pot shots at law breakers.

I'm not taking any pot shots at law breakers - hell, I is one. Like you said, aren't we all?

However, I am not a felon and don't ever plan on becoming one. It seems pretty easy to avoid.

There's also a pretty big difference between violent and non violent crimes, and between felonies and misdemeanors. Likewise, there's a big difference between a person with an isolated crime on their record (bar fight when they were 22 and nothing for the next 20 years) and repeat offenders.

My youngest son is on parole. He had no prior criminal record, but he was with a group when a fight broke out in front of a club. He wasn't involved in the fight, but when the cops showed up, everyone ran in opposite directions. He was caught and charged with evading a police officer. He's now on parole and if he doesn't violate his parole, his record will be cleared. He's got about two months to go and I think he's learned his lesson - in fact, the whole ordeal scared him absolutely to death (and good - because he was hanging out with a pretty rough crowd and at least for the past 10 months his behavior has been curtailed!).

But if he continues to hang out with the same bunch, doing the same things, he's likely to end up with a criminal record - and he will deserve it. My association with him may in the future be limited, depending on if he continues to rack up a criminal record and what those future offenses may be - and what his friends' criminal activities and criminal records may be.

Ah, the realities of life...

 

[Revoltingest]

The less than lethal is nice, until you find out that it wasn't actuallly loaded with rock salt. Hence my preference.

Pish posh.....a convenient presumption that such a mistake is the consequence.
I could presume that you could sneeze while driving & kill someone.
It's not an argument against driving.

I doubt I'll ever own a gun in my current situation - despite my line of work - but I'm not comfortable with the concept of killing someone unless I absolutely have to to protect the life of another. So I won't own one until or unless that changes.

Interesting.
Self defense is not about being "comfortable" with killing an attacker.
It's about survival.
I've no desire to kill anyone, but if needed to survive, then I'd rather be alive.
At least I'll be able to face the discomfort of the consequences by avoiding death.

 

[Revoltingest]

I doubt there is any one on this site who has never broken a law.
I don't think I have, but who knows?
I know very few of the laws, of either this country or the ones I have visited.
Happily most people don't take pot shots at law breakers.

We have innumerable laws, some useful, some arcane & not needed.
It's impossible to lead a normal life without breaking some.
The issue is real crime, eg, theft, assault.

 

[Drolefille]

Pish posh.....a convenient presumption that such a mistake is the consequence.
I could presume that you could sneeze while driving & kill someone.
It's not an argument against driving.

Guns are a tool designed to kill. All the target practice in the world is still designed to help you kill someone. You may not mean to kill someone when you pull the trigger, but that is the function of the gun. Cars are not really comparable in that way.

Interesting.
Self defense is not about being "comfortable" with killing an attacker.
It's about survival.
I've no desire to kill anyone, but if needed to survive, then I'd rather be alive.
At least I'll be able to face the discomfort of the consequences by avoiding death.

I disagree. Training yourself in self-defense (with a gun) is about becoming comfortable with killing an attacker. Purchasing a gun with no training leaves my situation very little improved. If I'm not comfortable with using it, I'm not going to pull it out, I'm going to get it taken away, miss, escalate a situation, etc. If I'm trained, then the point is to become comfortable with pulling that trigger. The emotional responses after the moment will come later.

That's the reason I don't care much for internet tough guys when it comes to guns. I respect the people trained for crisis situations - and even they screw up - and the people who are realistic about it, but not the braggarts.

When I stated "associations," it was in the professional sense. Working with a large number of parolees, it seems quite possible that you might run into them in the community. I know my dad was always pretty cognizant of that fact.

It's a pretty small number, overall. And maybe once a month I see someone at Walmart or Walgreens. Depends on what part of town I'm in and when.

I wasn't SURPRISED by the number. I was merely mentioning that CONSIDERING the large number of criminals/parolees/ex convicts in the general public (verified by your own caseload), that's all the more reason to take reasonable steps to protect ourselves.

My caseload- which is typically about 25 until the state cut our funding - isn't that large, which is what I was trying to express. Additionally, the only way you're in danger from most of the clients I see is if you're selling drugs, buying drugs, or are dating them. Not all, but most. And most of the rest you're in more danger on the road than you are at home or in the store. DUIs appear to be a hard habit to break.

This is of course just a general average. Your response to want a firearm is fine, but I don't feel any thing of the sort - which is also fine - but neither are more reasonable than the other.

Since having a gun has been a DIRECT (and beautifully instantaneous) deterrent to violent crime for three members of my family, I consider responsible gun ownership to fall within the category of "reasonable steps to protect" myself and my family.

More power to you.

My youngest son is on parole. He had no prior criminal record, but he was with a group when a fight broke out in front of a club. He wasn't involved in the fight, but when the cops showed up, everyone ran in opposite directions. He was caught and charged with evading a police officer. He's now on parole and if he doesn't violate his parole, his record will be cleared. He's got about two months to go and I think he's learned his lesson - in fact, the whole ordeal scared him absolutely to death (and good - because he was hanging out with a pretty rough crowd and at least for the past 10 months his behavior has been curtailed!).

But if he continues to hang out with the same bunch, doing the same things, he's likely to end up with a criminal record - and he will deserve it. My association with him may in the future be limited, depending on if he continues to rack up a criminal record and what those future offenses may be - and what his friends' criminal activities and criminal records may be.

Ah, the realities of life...

He's getting parole written off his record? I assume he did prison time if you're talking about parole and not probation, correct? That's quite unusual, and I'm curious to know what kind of program they have to wipe off those sort of convictions. We have probation that gets you conditional discharge, and your official record wiped - although I don't think it ever goes off the county clerk records honestly - but nothing that removes your prison sentences.

The only way to expunge or seal records here is for some very specific offenses - prostitution is one - with no violent history and the like and that takes a good amount of time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Guns are a tool designed to kill. All the target practice in the world is still designed to help you kill someone. You may not mean to kill someone when you pull the trigger, but that is the function of the gun. Cars are not really comparable in that way.

They are quite similar in that they both serve a legitimate purpose, but have dangers associated with their misuse.
You've kept pointing out that errors with guns can result in wrongful death. An identical argument can be made
for cars. If you insist that a rationale is valid, then it would apply to both. Can't do that....then we have a fallacy.

I disagree. Training yourself in self-defense (with a gun) is about becoming comfortable with killing an attacker.

I am quite thoroughly trained with rifles & pistols. Not once did it ever occur to me that it was to become comfortable with killing.
Rather, it was to become proficient in using the weapon when needed. It's an important distinction to me.
I suppose that first person shooter video games could innure one to killing, but I've no interest in such games.
(I play go occasionally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29)

Purchasing a gun with no training leaves my situation very little improved.

Anyone who has one should be well trained. It's a lotta work.
Anyone who can't commit to that should try something else, eg, pepper spray.

That's the reason I don't care much for internet tough guys when it comes to guns. I respect the people trained for crisis situations - and even they screw up - and the people who are realistic about it, but not the braggarts.

There are many types of people on the internet I don't care for either. But why bring them up?

 

[Kathryn]

He's getting parole written off his record? I assume he did prison time if you're talking about parole and not probation, correct? That's quite unusual, and I'm curious to know what kind of program they have to wipe off those sort of convictions. We have probation that gets you conditional discharge, and your official record wiped - although I don't think it ever goes off the county clerk records honestly - but nothing that removes your prison sentences.

The only way to expunge or seal records here is for some very specific offenses - prostitution is one - with no violent history and the like and that takes a good amount of time.

I'm sorry -my bad. I meant to say that he's on probation, not parole.

 

[Drolefille]

They are quite similar in that they both serve a legitimate purpose, but have dangers associated with their misuse.
You've kept pointing out that errors with guns can result in wrongful death. An identical argument can be made
for cars. If you insist that a rationale is valid, then it would apply to both. Can't do that....then we have a fallacy.

No, I disagree. The successful use of a gun is far more likely to result in death than the successful use of a car. Same so with the accidental usages. You can fall down your stairs and die, but you don't have to register to walk up stairs, right? I see a distinct difference in a tool that has the primary purpose of killing.

I am quite thoroughly trained with rifles & pistols. Not once did it ever occur to me that it was to become comfortable with killing.
Rather, it was to become proficient in using the weapon when needed. It's an important distinction to me.

I want to be clear I'm not talking about the emotional aspect of killing someone, but the physical response, the pointing and pulling the trigger at someone -even in self defense- is not something that happens without training. That weapon, that tool is designed to kill. Being proficient in it is becoming proficient in killing with that weapon. Even if you never shoot it at a person, that's what you're training to do.

I suppose that first person shooter video games could innure one to killing, but I've no interest in such games.

I'm great at FPS arcade games - crappy at ones on the computer or console, I seem to do better when pointing the toy gun at the screen - but I have no weapon training beyond a rifle range at camp when I was a kid.

As I said, not talking about the emotional response though.

Anyone who has one should be well trained. It's a lotta work.
Anyone who can't commit to that should try something else, eg, pepper spray.

Fully agreed.

There are many types of people on the internet I don't care for either. But why bring them up?

See the comments on the article (oh man I know, my fault for reading them.)

That wasn't his plant to take. And if guns were outlawed, there are still plenty of ways to kill a piece of **** thief. And George, I agree, **** the ten commandments.

Class act.
I've been reading more than just this article on the subject, I do try to read up before I comment

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I disagree. The successful use of a gun is far more likely to result in death than the successful use of a car. Same so with the accidental usages. You can fall down your stairs and die, but you don't have to register to walk up stairs, right? I see a distinct difference in a tool that has the primary purpose of killing.

Actually, successful use of a gun usually results in wrecking pieces of paper, spinning metal silhouettes, or other such benign tasks.
The likelihood of lethality here is minimal, & certainly less than the vehicular carnage on our highways. I've been dang near killed
by a drunk driver, but I've no gun related injuries whatsoever. Of course, my anecdotal experience is quite significant.

I want to be clear I'm not talking about the emotional aspect of killing someone, but the physical response, the pointing and pulling the trigger at someone -even in self defense- is not something that happens without training. That weapon, that tool is designed to kill. Being proficient in it is becoming proficient in killing with that weapon. Even if you never shoot it at a person, that's what you're training to do.

Understood.

I'm great at FPS arcade games - crappy at ones on the computer or console, I seem to do better when pointing the toy gun at the screen - but I have no weapon training beyond a rifle range at camp when I was a kid.

I don't even target shoot seriously anymore....too much work & my abilities are degrading.
It's more work than fun.

Fully agreed.

Woo hoo! Moreover, I think even more training should be required of us licensed concealed carriers.
With great power comes great responsibility - Ben Parker

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I don't think it's a good idea to shot people who are outside your home. What if you miss and accidentally hit some else? In Colorado, the "Make My Day Law" applies to strangers who are in your home.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Um, Terry...
I have a criminal record.

 

[Drolefille]

Actually, successful use of a gun usually results in wrecking pieces of paper, spinning metal silhouettes, or other such benign tasks.
The likelihood of lethality here is minimal, & certainly less than the vehicular carnage on our highways. I've been dang near killed
by a drunk driver, but I've no gun related injuries whatsoever. Of course, my anecdotal experience is quite significant.

It'd be interesting to look at numbers, but my guess is that per item (gun or car) or per use, the risk from a gun is quite a bit higher.

Woo hoo! Moreover, I think even more training should be required of us licensed concealed carriers.
With great power comes great responsibility - Ben Parker

I think some states in particular definitely should require more training. We'll see if Illinois actually passes the law here and what they require since we're the lone holdout AFAIK