Freedom at work

[Turtle]

Blood lust?

Yes, blood lust. You want the guy dead. Shooting him isn't enough for you. You've stated that more than once now.

That girl, and EVERYONE in this country has the following ABSOLUTES:

The RIGHT to her LIFE

The RIGHT to her SAFETY

The RIGHT to defend HER life

The RIGHT to private property

The RIGHT to DEFEND that private property

NO ONE has the following:

A RIGHT to INVADE another's private property
A RIGHT to threaten another's life or safety

I don't disagree with any of that.
[quoteYeah, she WAS lucky, she was LUCKY she was in a home that had the MEANS for her to defend herself. [/quote]Agreed again.

As to how I characterize your comments, well, I often feel the same about how you characterize mine, we are even there.

The difference is, you make assumptions about me, using things I haven't said, and then characterize my comments incorrectly. I characterize yours based solely on what you actually write. There is no possible way you could intelligently conclude from anything that I have written here in this thread or anywhere else that I would rather have seen this girl murdered, or worse. That's something you made up, all on your own, without anything whatsoever to base it upon.

You can't imagine worse that murdered? I can. Happens out there ALL the time.

Sure I can. I never said I couldn't. There you go again commenting about something I never said and then using your own incorrect assumptions to reach a flawed conclusion.

I am not sure the what if part of the story you mean. The WHAT WAS is that her home WAS broken into, she retreated and hid, and when her life WAS threatened, she defended it. as is her ABSOLUTE RIGHT.

The 'what if' part is how you base your assumption that "her life WAS threatened", when there is nothing in the story that said her life was threatened. The story, in fact, said the man was charged with "burglary", not "attempted murder by doorknob turning". She may very well have feared for her life, and rightly so, but to assume her life was actually threatened is just that, a grand assumption of the 'what if' category.

 

[scottm4211]

This is about the time where he says he's done with the thread.

 

[layoutshooter]

I did not comment I ASKED you a question, I asked if you could imagine something worse than murder, at least that was my intent. Sorry if it came across other wise. Then STATED that I could.

EVERY home invasion is a threat to life. The PRIMARY THREAT is to the LEGAL resident of that home.THEY are the ones under attack. EVERY home invasion IS an attack on the home and residents. There is NO valid reason for a home invasion. They are be their very nature, dangerous and should be treated as such.

It would not have bothered me ONE BIT if a home invader got killed while practicing his/her/it's ILLEGAL trade. It would also save us money. No need wasting money on feeding them. Home invaders would be in ZERO danger IF they found other work. Getting shot and/or killed is just the risks one takes when one CHOOSES to invade someone else's home. They bring on 100% of the problems they have on themselves.

 

[Humble2drive]

One, NOT similar situations, TWO PROVE that happens probably happens 100X as often, I DOUBT very much that you could. There is ZERO evidence that firearms accidents/mistakes are common, in fact, the PROOF shows beyond ANY doubt that they are VERY rare.

I said probably - you said the PROOF [why you hafta yell, anyhow?] shows beyond ANY doubt they are VERY rare, so where's the proof?

By the way we DO need to fight to keep our RIGHT to own, carry and use, firearms. That RIGHT has been under attack for decades. Not because of fear of LEGAL gun owners, who as a group have a magnificent, safety record, but from those who would rather see a country of victims to control.

FYI Cheri - For those of us with color challenges it would be really really helpful if you could learn to use the quote thingy properly. Thanks!

 

[Turtle]

I did not comment I ASKED you a question, I asked if you could imagine something worse than murder, at least that was my intent. Sorry if it came across other wise. Then STATED that I could.

Kind of an odd question to ask someone who hadn't indicated that they couldn't imagine something worse, but OK.

EVERY home invasion is a threat to life.

That's simply not true. Even Michigan law, as well as the laws of other states that clearly define "home invasion" as a crime, clearly and plainly state that a Home Invasion is the act of illegally entering a private and occupied dwelling with violent intent for the purpose of committing a crime against the occupants, and that entering an occupied dwelling without violent intent is not a threat to life and is therefore classified as something else, usually burglary. Breaking and entering into an occupied dwelling isn't in and of itself a violent crime that threatens life. It all depends on the intent. If the invader is unarmed, for example, it's really stretching credulity to assume the intent is a violent threat to life.

 

[shadow7663]

I'm just wondering why a 6th grader was left home alone

 

[layoutshooter]

When someone enters MY home, without my permission, my home HAS been invaded. The law may play word games, I do not.

Enter MY home, when I am there, and it is more than likely that the offending thug will NOT leave under their own power. I ALWAYS make the assumption that when MY home is entered, illegally, that the safety and lives of the those of us who are in that home legally ARE IN DANGER and will act to eliminate the danger with every means I have available to me. I can assure you that Mrs. Layoutshooter will act the same. We BOTH spend time on the range to insure that IF we ever need to defend our lives/home AND property that we are prepared to do so.

It is a VERY simple thing. There is NO valid reason for ANYONE to enter my home, at ANY time, without my permission. I do NOT have to wait to somehow "prove" danger. The act of entering is enough to prove that. My home is my 'safe zone'. I am entitled to my safety there and have EVERY right to defend it.

 

[layoutshooter]

I'm just wondering why a 6th grader was left home alone

I think is said she was just getting home from school. I left my sons alone at the age from time to time. 12 is old enough for a few hours here and there. We would head to the store or something. I see no problem there.

 

[shadow7663]

. I see no problem there.

Of course you don't !

 

[layoutshooter]

Of course you don't !

It was also a MUCH different world back when my kids, and I, were 12. As to leaving today's kids alone at that age I would have to say it depends on the kid. The girl in this story proved she was MORE than up to handling things at 12 than many 40 year olds I know.

 

[Humble2drive]

All I can say is WOW! I'm done here!
But not completely done. I reserve the right to make more comments should I decide that I am not completely done.

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[Turtle]

I'm just wondering why a 6th grader was left home alone

Beeeeecuz not everybody is a helicopter parent? Because from about 4th grade on most kids are perfectly capable of being home alone for a few hours after school?

 

[layoutshooter]

Shoot, my grandfather was working, FULL TIME, in the coal mines in PA at 11. My other grandfather was married at 15.

 

[cheri1122]

Here a good one, long, read it all. LOTS of really GOOD information here


Gun Control - Just Facts

The first link is statistics, [from the NRA, which few would consider strictly unbiased] but only on the rates of accidental firearm deaths.

The 2nd link: Just the facts? Every 'statistic' that refers to using a weapon for self defense [against a perceived threat, which could be like your example: someone in their home w/out permission] is taken from a survey. Those aren't facts, unless you imagine that people always report truthfully to surveys. You don't think that, do you?

It IS a good thing to know fact from fiction, and how to tell one from the other.

 

[Ragman]

Shoot, my grandfather was working, FULL TIME, in the coal mines in PA at 11. My other grandfather was married at 15.

 

[layoutshooter]

The first link is statistics, [from the NRA, which few would consider strictly unbiased] but only on the rates of accidental firearm deaths.

The 2nd link: Just the facts? Every 'statistic' that refers to using a weapon for self defense [against a perceived threat, which could be like your example: someone in their home w/out permission] is taken from a survey. Those aren't facts, unless you imagine that people always report truthfully to surveys. You don't think that, do you?

It IS a good thing to know fact from fiction, and how to tell one from the other.

Better read them again. You seem to have missed a few things. Like the NRA was citing government stats and footnoted the sources. Did you follow the footnotes? Try looking up the Red Cross stats, they concur. They ALL concur. You can also look up the rates on insurance for hunt/gun clubs etc. The rates on insurance for those thing are lower than most every thing else. Why? Shooting sports are SAFER than most, if not all, contact sports in the country. The DEATH rate for high school football, per 100,000 participants is HIGHER than gun deaths.

You could not cite ONE source, if you tried or wanted too, that could refute those stats.

 

[Humble2drive]

I'm just wondering why a 6th grader was left home alone

This is always a difficult decision for parents.
Oklahoma has no laws restricting the age of a child left home alone so there were certainly no laws broken.

Most authorities believe that leaving a 12 year old at home for a period of 1 to 2 hours is Acceptable.
The legal check is whether or not they are safe and able to take care of themselves.

Some basic guidelines from Child Welfare:

Being trusted to stay home alone can be a positive experience for a child who is mature and well prepared. It can boost the child's confidence and promote independence and responsibility.

There is no agreed-upon age when all children are able to stay home alone safely. Because children mature at different rates, you should not base your decision on age alone.

Leaving Your Child Home Alone

They list many criteria to consider and it seems that this girl was responsible and mature enough.

 

[layoutshooter]

It was common in my grandfathers, fathers, day. Even into the '50's it was not abnormal for teens to work the mines without going to high school. Times were tough back then.

 

[Turtle]

A girl is running from her crazed ex-boyfriend who is trying to kill her. He's wearing a hockey goalie's mask and weidling a Boy Scout's hatchet. He catches her, but she rips out of her clothes and gets away, temporarily slowing him down by kicking him in the nuts. He loses track of her as she cuts through the neighborhood zig zagging between houses. She hears him in the not too far off distance. He's still coming for her! She stumbles up to Layout's front door and bursts through the door, frightened, no shirt and torn pants. Layout promptly pulls his gun and shoots her three times center mass. As she draws her last breath before she dies, she asks in vain, "Why?'

"Sorry, my dear, but there's just no valid reason to invade my house and put my life in danger. No exceptions. Sorry."

 

[cheri1122]

Better read them again. You seem to have missed a few things. Like the NRA was citing government stats and footnoted the sources. Did you follow the footnotes? Try looking up the Red Cross stats, they concur. They ALL concur. You can also look up the rates on insurance for hunt/gun clubs etc. The rates on insurance for those thing are lower than most every thing else. Why? Shooting sports are SAFER than most, if not all, contact sports in the country. The DEATH rate for high school football, per 100,000 participants is HIGHER than gun deaths.

You could not cite ONE source, if you tried or wanted too, that could refute those stats.

YOU seem to have missed something: what I pointed out as NOT factual is from the 2nd link, which is the rate of self defense usage. Even if the first link is accurate, there's no way to compare the rates, as the self defense reports are strictly anecdotal.
And it's no surprise that insurance rates are low for hunt/gun clubs, as they have very strict rules on the range - my ex was a safety officer on one, and they are serious about safety.
But there's still a lot of people who own firearms that never go to anyplace to learn the rules, too, so the insurance rates & safety aspect at places where they do is irrelevant to this discussion.