board77

Alatar wrote:

CG, I don't think anyone is arguing that he was wrong to intervene. People are arguing that he was wrong to kill.

Some people appear to be arguing both.

Ara-anna wrote:

Oh they have been published by the families. I will try to get information with in the next few days.

Thank you! I will look forward to it.

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

As I asked, had he not killed them would you still condemn him for intervening on behalf of a neighbor?

No, perhaps not. It depends. But if he's going to do that then he'd better be ready to refrain from blowing his wad for just any old reason (sorry, couldn't resist).

In placing himself in that situation he assumes responsibility of his own (and culpability): he assumes that the people are in fact breaking and entering, and are in fact criminals for doing so. What if they were the neighbors' kids just fooling around at night, or someone else whose presence there was sanctioned by the neighbors? What if the person breaking and entering was the neighbors' drugged-out junky son who just needed money and so decided he was going to steal it from his parents' house? A criminal? Technically, but you better not just go shooting him in any case. In fact, in that case, it would be better to let the "crime" carry itself out without intervening at all.

In other words, by intervening the guy drastically alters the potential course of events, possibly for the worse. He is not a cop, not trained, not a sanctioned law-enforcer. People cannot just be allowed to intervene haphazardly for others without being sanctioned to do so. Even if he assures himself that he will only fire when his life comes under direct threat, he still places himself in the position of being responsible for shooting and perhaps killing the other person (even when that other threatens him). There are usually ways in which neighbors can prevent crime without resorting to direct, cop-like intervention.

jadeval wrote:

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

As I asked, had he not killed them would you still condemn him for intervening on behalf of a neighbor?

No, perhaps not. It depends. But if he's going to do that then he'd better be ready to refrain from blowing his wad for just any old reason (sorry, couldn't resist).

In placing himself in that situation he assumes responsibility of his own (and culpability): he assumes that the people are in fact breaking and entering, and are in fact criminals for doing so. What if they were the neighbors' kids just fooling around at night, or someone else whose presence there was sanctioned by the neighbors? What if the person breaking and entering was the neighbors' drugged-out junky son who just needed money and so decided he was going to steal it from his parents' house? A criminal? Technically, but you better not just go shooting him in any case. In fact, in that case, it would be better to let the "crime" carry itself out without intervening at all.

In other words, by intervening the guy drastically alters the potential course of events, possibly for the worse. He is not a cop, not trained, not a sanctioned law-enforcer. People cannot just be allowed to intervene haphazardly for others without being sanctioned to do so. Even if he assures himself that he will only fire when his life comes under direct threat, he still places himself in the position of being responsible for shooting and perhaps killing the other person (even when that other threatens him). There are usually ways in which neighbors can prevent crime without resorting to direct, cop-like intervention.

Well said, jadeval.

Calling the cops was the proper "intervention". That's why we have cops. They assume the responsibility and the risks in these situations: we have authorized them to do so and we pay them for it.

It's not as much fun as blowing bad guyz away, though. That idea is very attractive to a certain mindset.

vison wrote:

It's not as much fun as blowing bad guyz away, though. That idea is very attractive to a certain mindset.

Anybody in particular, vison?

vison wrote:

As for guns being more dangerous than Skilsaws, Maria? It is possible that you could murder someone with a Skilsaw, but it's much easier to shoot someone. A gun is solely a weapon, but you can make a nice gun cabinet with a Skilsaw. You can't do the reverse.

Tut, tut, vison! I didn't say they were more dangerous, I said they "scare me more".

I wrote:

Power cutting tools scare me more than firearms! I've known quite a few people injured with such tools, and I've never known someone who has been shot. Not personally, anyway.

Fear isn't always reasonable, and people can have phobias about the strangest things, but I've been in far more danger from shop tools than I ever have from firearms and I've squeezed off many hundreds of rounds of differing calibers over the years. Shooting, for me, is a controlled process. The violence only comes out of one end, and I'm very careful to keep the business end of the weapon pointed at something I want to shoot. Powered saws, however, SCARE me. The path of possible destruction is much wider than that of a single bullet and there is the distinct danger of becoming careless through overfamiliarity. In my life, I've been involved in using an ancient sawmill, chainsaws, tablesaws, radial arm saws, scroll saws, skill saws, tile saws and sawzalls, and every time I do, I'm scared. I've only dared to use a skill saw myself in the past year of my life- preferring before then to just use a hand saw. The pucker factor goes up with those fast spinning blades!

And even higher on my fear list is the power take off on our tractor. The potential for life ending destruction is significant.

I've never mentioned these fears before, because ... well... it's not like I let them interfere with doing what needs to be done, but they are there.

It's really a matter of control. Use of firearms in our household is extremely controlled and therefore quite safe. The less control one has over a dangerous tool and the less safe one is. That's why the skill saw was the tool I held out longest on using. That blade is NOT on a framework and is easily swung about, and therefore is more dangerous. Control is the issue. I can rappel off a hundred foot building with only a momentary qualm as I go over the edge, whereas riding a ferris wheel pretty much paralyzes me with fear. Rappelling, I am in near complete control. In a Ferris Wheel, I'm sitting in a rickety open seat with no kind of harness to keep me in, and no confidence that the carnies who assembled the structure were paying proper attention.

Anyway, now you know. If you want to see me scared, take me on a Ferris Wheel...

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:

vison wrote:

It's not as much fun as blowing bad guyz away, though. That idea is very attractive to a certain mindset.

Anybody in particular, vison?

Jeez. If the shoe fits?

But I don't really think that shoe fits you.

It evidently fit the shooter, though.

Chainsaws scare me to death. I've only used one once, and the whole time I was thinking about what would happen if the chain were to suddenly snap...

jadeval wrote:

People cannot just be allowed to intervene haphazardly for others without being sanctioned to do so.

There's nothing wrong with intervening on behalf of others! Sometimes they need help!

I going to be really annoying and point out in yet another thread that, statistically speaking, owning a pool is more dangerous than owning a gun. At least it is for children; I don't know about the population in general. Maybe it seems like a pool does a better job of justifying the risk since it is pretty much guaranteed to give you enjoyment on a regular basis whereas a weapon at best helps you keep what you have and quite possibly will never be needed. But other people can reach different conclusions.

Oh, I agree with you, Maria. I am terrified of even the cordless drill.

And I know a really good true story about a guy who got his goolies caught on the PTO of his tractor. No time to tell it now.

But it had a happy ending, strangely enough.

Dave wrote:

Maybe it seems like a pool does a better job of justifying the risk since it is pretty much guaranteed to give you enjoyment on a regular basis whereas a weapon at best helps you keep what you have and quite possibly will never be needed.

You wouldn't believe how often when we have people over, that they want to shoot skeet, or plink with a 22. Target shooting is fun. And some people think hunting is fun. (I personally don't find fun in hunting, but I do appreciate the meat.) But most hunters do get a thrill from the stalk and the kill.

Firearms are a significant source of entertainment.

I bet that's some story, vison!

MariaHobbit wrote:

Dave wrote:

Maybe it seems like a pool does a better job of justifying the risk since it is pretty much guaranteed to give you enjoyment on a regular basis whereas a weapon at best helps you keep what you have and quite possibly will never be needed.

You wouldn't believe how often when we have people over, that they want to shoot skeet, or plink with a 22. Target shooting is fun. And some people think hunting is fun. (I personally don't find fun in hunting, but I do appreciate the meat.) But most hunters do get a thrill from the stalk and the kill.

Point taken. I guess I was only considering weapons kept for self-defense. Personally, I prefer archery. I hope to someday have enough space that I can set something up.

MariaHobbit wrote:

And even higher on my fear list is the power take off on our tractor. The potential for life ending destruction is significant.

I know your sentiments. I grew up on a farm and one of the things that always frightened me most was the number of diesel powered well pumps we had with open driveshafts on the engines. You often had to come within inches of a fully turning, exposed driveshaft to throw the clutch, and if your clothes or body caught on one of those things... well, it probably wouldn't have been pretty... as with most things of this type, however, I've found that the more afraid you are, the more likely the situation is to present a danger to you. Caution is another matter.

guns are comparatively safe if used properly for recreation, and I've had moderate experience with rifles, shotguns and handguns. But I still consider the prevalence of guns in this country, and especially handguns, as unnecessary.

We got my husband a big compound hunting bow a couple of years ago, and even though he's a good shot with non-living targets, he has yet to hit a deer with it. They hear the string twang and run before the arrow reaches them! So that hasn't worked so well for us, as after a miss then you have to spend lots of time retrieving the arrows, or else leave a razor blade arrowhead lost in the grass. Not good on bare feet! The last time that happened, we had to go rent a metal detector to find them! Most annoying.

I don't know how people ever managed to hunt adequately with archery, when the deer are so wary. You'd have to get really close, I think, so the deer don't have so long to react. Maybe?

I've been told by an knowledgeable hunter that when hunting insurance is sold to people going on hunting trips, that the insurance premiums for archery hunts are much higher than for firearms hunts. The insurance companies make their living on figuring the odds, and historically a much higher percentage of people have been hurt or killed on archery hunts than on gun hunts! The reason being that the potential for falling on and getting sliced open with the razor arrowhead is measurably more likely than getting shot. I've heard second hand stories of people climbing into stands with their arrows clipped to the bow, and they slip, fall on the arrow, and bleed to death from a slashed artery before they could get help.

*adds pucker factor to vocabulary*

A quick version of the PTO story: the guy in question was straddling the shaft, I can't remember why. He was wearing loose coveralls, the spinning joint caught and ZAP!!! quick as could be there he was, slammed to the ground and the spinning shaft ripped the clothes off him and then, sadly enough, his loose bits were caught. He said he knew he had ONE chance to survive and so he managed to find the strength to stand up again and with his bare hands he stopped the shaft spinning and fell clear. Anyone who's ever seen one of these setups knows what superhuman strength he had to find, but he did. His tackle was still loosely connected to his body and he stuffed some of the loose clothing up against it all, WALKED to his house, called 911, and sat while waiting for the ambulance.

The doctors reconnected everything. He has since married and fathered a couple of kids and he says everything works fine. He often offers to show people (women) the miraculous equipment, but I, for one, have always declined. He is Polish and according to him, Poles are capable of anything and I must say, I have to believe him.

True story. I don't much like the guy, to be honest, but it's an amazing story.

vison wrote:

He is Polish and according to him, Poles are capable of anything

as is a Pole's pole, it would seem

vison wrote:

A quick version of the PTO story: the guy in question was straddling the shaft, I can't remember why. He was wearing loose coveralls, the spinning joint caught and ZAP!!! quick as could be there he was, slammed to the ground and the spinning shaft ripped the clothes off him and then, sadly enough, his loose bits were caught. He said he knew he had ONE chance to survive and so he managed to find the strength to stand up again and with his bare hands he stopped the shaft spinning and fell clear. Anyone who's ever seen one of these setups knows what superhuman strength he had to find, but he did. His tackle was still loosely connected to his body and he stuffed some of the loose clothing up against it all, WALKED to his house, called 911, and sat while waiting for the ambulance.

The doctors reconnected everything. He has since married and fathered a couple of kids and he says everything works fine. He often offers to show people (women) the miraculous equipment, but I, for one, have always declined. He is Polish and according to him, Poles are capable of anything and I must say, I have to believe him.

True story. I don't much like the guy, to be honest, but it's an amazing story.

wow... moral of the story: be careful when straddling shafts. It's relatively simple though, really, if you follow the rule of NOT placing your BODY in the path of large, moving mechanical parts! jeesh... another "duh" tip for tractors is NEVER stand in front of the rear wheel near the step while someone is in the seat and/or the thing is running. It sounds simple enough, but you'd be surprised how often people do it unthinkingly. My family knows someone who was run over and killed that way as the tractor kicked into gear when he started the thing from the ground.

I didn't know it was possible to stop a PTO bare handed! Impressive.

I always worry when I'm operating our smaller tractor, that if I'm not careful while driving the thing, that my hair will hang down too far and get caught in the PTO. It's not a reasonable fear, as there is a good foot or so between where the PTO is, (I think) up to the lowest possible height the end of my braid could swing to, but I worry anyway. What if I bend over or something, and the braid goes lower than I think it would? Woudn't that be a horrible way to get scalped?