What do you think of this quote?

[Axion]

I was listening to a radio show on KTAR (for those of you in the AZ) and the show host said something that I wasn't expecting.

Ok so he's talking to a representative from Taser international about the new line of tasers coming out and asks about weather buyers would need training with one. He then goes on to say(I'm typing from memory but this is pretty close to what he said) , "I have a concealed weapons permit, I have a Glock and I'll blow the head off of anyone trying to break into my home"

My first though was I would hate to be in court defending my self in a self defense case and have a quote like that come up. My second thought was, that quote does not make gun owners look good. What do you think?

 

[USN_JWS]

Personally, I think it shows a lack of forthought on the host's part and makes him look stupid. I know the anti's predilection for misinformation though, and his statement is more fuel for their propaganda machine.

 

[wolverine350]

Well he was blowing off steam, but if he is that sarcastic he probably does not even need to be a CCW permit owner, wander if they checked his background throughly lol

 

[Trapper L]

Politically an incorrect but accurate statement. I make no qualms about it for my things. Try to steal them and I will try my best to kill you. Fortunately, where I live most folks know the family. Everybody around here knows the statement to be fact and generally we have had no problems but one. And when he gets out of jail...........

 

[wolverine350]

i agree trapper

 

[robc]

Remind me to return Trapper's monkey wrench... real soon!

 

[Axion]

I make no qualms about it for my things. Try to steal them and I will try my best to kill you.

Not to stir the pot too much but do you REALLY mean that? Would you be ok with killing someone over things. I fully believe in the right to use deadly force to protect yourself from a dangerous attacker and feel that if your use of deadly force to stop the attack causes that person to die it's their fault for forcing you to defend yourself. To me though, that is very different then intentionally setting out to kill someone over material goods. Furthermore I think it's this mindset, that it's ok to kill over "stuff", is what fuels the anti's fire.

*note* I'm not passing judgment just trying to see how people feel about this as I feel this posters sentiments mirror that of the talk show host's.

 

[joab]

Politically an incorrect but accurate statement

Yep

If you break into someones home you run the risk of being shot, what is wrong with that sentiment.
The only thing I see is delusions of granduer concerning the capabilities of his handgun

If you try to come into my home uninvited I'll have a shotgun and I will shoot you

I'm in Florida I will have no need to defend that statement in court

 

[MPanova]

Quote "I make no qualms about it for my things. Try to steal them and I will try my best to kill you."

I could not agree more with Trapper

Welcome to Texas boys!!!

If someone is going to steal something I worked hard for then they better be prepared to die for it.

If someone is going to try and harm me or my family they better be prepared to die for there act.

I have no problems taking someone's life again for either of the 2 reasons stated above.

Yes I did say again

Rule#1 Life is precious
Rule#2 There are exceptions to every rule!

For the most part every single human life is worth preserving but like I said there are exceptions IMO

If you are going to go through life trying to harm others and breaking into peoples homes and stealing there valuables then I would just rather you not be taking up space on this Earth or sharing the air the rest of us breathe.

 

[blume357]

Of course 'we' would not kill someone over a 'thing'

but how do you know the intent of someone who has broken into your house to get that thing. Do you ask them to go in the living room and have a cup of coffee to discuss it?

It's not that simple when you wake up in the middle of the night to breaking glass or some stranger walking down the hall. Yes, I agree in principle that a life is not worth a few items of mine... but when a person invades anothers home (this is a crime) with the further intent to commit other crimes then they have forfeited their rights... you 'own' them.

 

[Slugthrower]

Firearms are made to kill, not stop. Political correctness and legal liabilty in addition to the wussyfication of society is why we shoot to "stop". I suppose that if I stabbed a person multiple times to "stop" them it is ok, but if I kill them it is not.

Tazers work much better at stopping aggression than a firearm, even though they are very short ranged.

One day we will wake up from this fantasy world of liberal retardation. Till then, shoot to stop.

 

[USN_JWS]

I will also use whatever force is necessary to protect my home and my family. I would not, however, broadcast my CCW and intent to 'blow someones head off', especially in a medium for mass consumption. The wording he chose is the issue.

 

[Musketeer]

Not to stir the pot too much but do you REALLY mean that? Would you be ok with killing someone over things.

Personally, I have no moral probelm what so ever with killing a criminal who chooses to steal anything from me and my family. If I had my way I would be allowed to stake the corpse out as a warning to others.

That being said I know I cannot respond in that way, regardless of whether I feel it justified in my personal moral code. There are rules for the society in which we live which I choose to comply with (although the criminal does not). For that reason I will not kill a theif out of hand for simply the crime of theft nor will I hang the body from a tree in my front yard.

I will use all the force I am justified to use under the law and will not feel bad about it in the least.

 

[M14fan]

Slugthrower

I always shoot only to stop. Isn't the OFF switch located at the top of the bridge of the nose?

 

[Slugthrower]

True M14fan very true.

When in doubt "reach" for the light "switch". Don't want to waste power.

 

[44 AMP]

Tasers

are not better at stopping than firearms (with proper bullet placement). the best they can do is equal firearms, and they don't do that reliably.

the main drawbacks to tasers are (currently), short range, widely variable effectiveness (remember Rodney King?), limited firepower, and the fact that in many jurisdictions they are regulated like firearms.

I do believe the only valid reason for shooting someone is to make them stop. Whether they die as a result of being stopped is of supreme indifference to me. The important thing is that they are stopped.

Firearms have one added benefit to society that tasers do not. Someone stopped with a firearm may die as a result. Beside the deterrent effect of this knowledge (which may prevent such a situation in the first place), if they die, there is very little chance that they will become a repeat offender.

Remember the Goetz subway incident years ago? Goetz shot 4 teenagers. One of them was permanently disabled. That one was the only one who did not go on to commit further crimes. It is a sad state of affairs, but when your life is on the line, a taser wouldn't be my choice.