Pelicans guard Bryce Dejean Jones Shot and Killed

[TheSundanceKid]

A combat situation? A bit extreme. As I said above maybe fear breads fear here. I just can't comprehend a society where killing a man with such ease is accepted as alright

I am a combat veteran.   Anytime another person, is trying to harm you it is potentially a combat situation.   You claim, I am full of fear, I volunteered for a war.   Your beyond naive, do you think he was kicking in the door to bring her flowers?   I hope you never get close a crisis situation because, your likely toast.  Let me put in terms you might understand.  There are sheep and their are wolves,  your a sheep, I am a dog who protects sheep like you from wolves.

can't comprehend

That is pretty obvious.  People do not kick in doors at 3 am to be your friend.   Try talking, and face it guys who kick down doors are not in a talking mood, and you might end up dead.

You forgot the last part of that sentence. In America

Name the countries of the world where people go around breaking down other people's doors at 3 am in the morning without getting someone getting seriously hurt.

Any country in Northern Europe. Sure in some cases there will be escalation but the likely scenario is some hot headedness, police involvement and an ASBO or something. The key element is a gun won't be involved and that seriously reduces the chances of a fatality in this scenario

Look, I understand that one guy from England isn't going to convince anyone to change their philosophy of a lifetime. I just think that in other westernised countries we have proven that guns aren't necessary for safety to exist. And in a lot of ways have produced a less threatening environment. I don't imagine it being pleasant knowing that if in general someone else misinterpreted my actions then I could end up with a bullet in my head

[Ogaju]

what if the homeowner had stood behind his bedroom door with a baseball bat or ceramic table lamp and slammed the guy in the head after he broke in the room causing him to die or be disabled for life from serious head trauma? Would that be better. OR

What if the homeowner had just waited in bed for the intruder, and the intruder had pummeled him to death in the bed because he thought he was involved with his ex-girlfriend? Better?

[A Future of Stevens]

In this situation, the right of human life trumps all others. Like those here have said, it was 3 am in the morning, and a man broke down not 1 but 2 doors while not responding to verbal inquiries to his motive. The shooter had every right to protect his own life, because quite frankly all the evidence pointed to this man doing him harm.

The man who died violated another man's safety.

[TheSundanceKid]

what if the homeowner had stood behind his bedroom door with a baseball bat or ceramic table lamp and slammed the guy in the head after he broke in the room causing him to die or be disabled for life from serious head trauma? Would that be better. OR

What if the homeowner had just waited in bed for the intruder, and the intruder had pummeled him to death in the bed because he thought he was involved with his ex-girlfriend? Better?

Neither would be good. Neither would be sound judgement. However the first scenario offers a lower chance of death as a baseball bat will immobilise and not kill in more real life scenarios than a gun.
The second would raise serious questions about why a guy who is probably scrutinised more than your average Joe managed to have a clearly psychotic trait hidden.

There is not substantial evidence that the 2nd scenario was about to happen btw.

[Roy H.]

what if the homeowner had stood behind his bedroom door with a baseball bat or ceramic table lamp and slammed the guy in the head after he broke in the room causing him to die or be disabled for life from serious head trauma? Would that be better. OR

What if the homeowner had just waited in bed for the intruder, and the intruder had pummeled him to death in the bed because he thought he was involved with his ex-girlfriend? Better?

Neither would be good. Neither would be sound judgement. However the first scenario offers a lower chance of death as a baseball bat will immobilise and not kill in more real life scenarios than a gun.
The second would raise serious questions about why a guy who is probably scrutinised more than your average Joe managed to have a clearly psychotic trait hidden.

There is not substantial evidence that the 2nd scenario was about to happen btw.

I don't know. Is there a huge difference between the state of mind that causes someone to kick down two doors at 3am, and the state of mind that causes somebody to violent pummel somebody? Both are violent irrational acts.

[Roy H.]

A combat situation? A bit extreme. As I said above maybe fear breads fear here. I just can't comprehend a society where killing a man with such ease is accepted as alright

I am a combat veteran.   Anytime another person, is trying to harm you it is potentially a combat situation.   You claim, I am full of fear, I volunteered for a war.   Your beyond naive, do you think he was kicking in the door to bring her flowers?   I hope you never get close a crisis situation because, your likely toast.  Let me put in terms you might understand.  There are sheep and their are wolves,  your a sheep, I am a dog who protects sheep like you from wolves.

can't comprehend

That is pretty obvious.  People do not kick in doors at 3 am to be your friend.   Try talking, and face it guys who kick down doors are not in a talking mood, and you might end up dead.

You forgot the last part of that sentence. In America

Name the countries of the world where people go around breaking down other people's doors at 3 am in the morning without getting someone getting seriously hurt.

Any country in Northern Europe. Sure in some cases there will be escalation but the likely scenario is some hot headedness, police involvement and an ASBO or something. The key element is a gun won't be involved and that seriously reduces the chances of a fatality in this scenario

Look, I understand that one guy from England isn't going to convince anyone to change their philosophy of a lifetime. I just think that in other westernised countries we have proven that guns aren't necessary for safety to exist. And in a lot of ways have produced a less threatening environment. I don't imagine it being pleasant knowing that if in general someone else misinterpreted my actions then I could end up with a bullet in my head

England? This happened in your country five days ago:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-four-murdered-after-throat-8037853

No guns involved.  Same here from last month:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3519121/Police-launch-murder-investigation-ex-miner-80-died-five-months-robbers-beat-ransacked-home.html

The only difference is that in these cases the homeowners were killed, instead of the home invaders.

[Eja117]

A combat situation? A bit extreme. As I said above maybe fear breads fear here. I just can't comprehend a society where killing a man with such ease is accepted as alright

I am a combat veteran.   Anytime another person, is trying to harm you it is potentially a combat situation.   You claim, I am full of fear, I volunteered for a war.   Your beyond naive, do you think he was kicking in the door to bring her flowers?   I hope you never get close a crisis situation because, your likely toast.  Let me put in terms you might understand.  There are sheep and their are wolves,  your a sheep, I am a dog who protects sheep like you from wolves.

can't comprehend

That is pretty obvious.  People do not kick in doors at 3 am to be your friend.   Try talking, and face it guys who kick down doors are not in a talking mood, and you might end up dead.

You forgot the last part of that sentence. In America

Name the countries of the world where people go around breaking down other people's doors at 3 am in the morning without getting someone getting seriously hurt.

Any country in Northern Europe. Sure in some cases there will be escalation but the likely scenario is some hot headedness, police involvement and an ASBO or something. The key element is a gun won't be involved and that seriously reduces the chances of a fatality in this scenario

Look, I understand that one guy from England isn't going to convince anyone to change their philosophy of a lifetime. I just think that in other westernised countries we have proven that guns aren't necessary for safety to exist. And in a lot of ways have produced a less threatening environment. I don't imagine it being pleasant knowing that if in general someone else misinterpreted my actions then I could end up with a bullet in my head

Do we really want to stack up the history of violence in Europe vs the history of violence in North America?  Do you suppose maybe it is specifically because in Europe people don't have guns?

[greece66]

A combat situation? A bit extreme. As I said above maybe fear breads fear here. I just can't comprehend a society where killing a man with such ease is accepted as alright

I am a combat veteran.   Anytime another person, is trying to harm you it is potentially a combat situation.   You claim, I am full of fear, I volunteered for a war.   Your beyond naive, do you think he was kicking in the door to bring her flowers?   I hope you never get close a crisis situation because, your likely toast.  Let me put in terms you might understand.  There are sheep and their are wolves,  your a sheep, I am a dog who protects sheep like you from wolves.

can't comprehend

That is pretty obvious.  People do not kick in doors at 3 am to be your friend.   Try talking, and face it guys who kick down doors are not in a talking mood, and you might end up dead.

You forgot the last part of that sentence. In America

Name the countries of the world where people go around breaking down other people's doors at 3 am in the morning without getting someone getting seriously hurt.

Any country in Northern Europe. Sure in some cases there will be escalation but the likely scenario is some hot headedness, police involvement and an ASBO or something. The key element is a gun won't be involved and that seriously reduces the chances of a fatality in this scenario

Look, I understand that one guy from England isn't going to convince anyone to change their philosophy of a lifetime. I just think that in other westernised countries we have proven that guns aren't necessary for safety to exist. And in a lot of ways have produced a less threatening environment. I don't imagine it being pleasant knowing that if in general someone else misinterpreted my actions then I could end up with a bullet in my head

England? This happened in your country five days ago:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-four-murdered-after-throat-8037853

No guns involved.  Same here from last month:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3519121/Police-launch-murder-investigation-ex-miner-80-died-five-months-robbers-beat-ransacked-home.html

The only difference is that in these cases the homeowners were killed, instead of the home invaders.

Ehm, I'm not sure this is still on topic, but in any case, the case that gun ownership reduces/prevents deaths has still to be proved.

The same argument pops up every time guns are debated ('without guns innocent ppl would be in the mercy of criminals') , but this only begs the question of whether gun ownership does anything to  reduce the number of victims. We will never know for sure, but IMHO the 23 yo bball player did not intend to kill anyone. It seems reasonable to claim that had the flat resident not owned a gun the worst thing that could have happened was a violent fight: at least to me this seems better than someone losing his life; I understand that some people think that it is better for a transgressor to die than for an innocent to risk getting beaten, but this is not a a belief I share, nor do I think this is the right place to debate ethics.

The list of people who have lost their lives needlessly is pretty long actually, just to stick to the famous ones, Sam Cooke could still be around. One could add the people who die/get injured every year in accidents with guns  (eg a toddler firing a gun completely on accident)- this is IMO the most uncontroversial case of violence caused by gun ownership.

Just to be clear, I am not claiming to know whether gun control would reduce crime in the States - I have absolutely no clue about that; all I am saying is that based on what I know  I am not at all convinced that gun ownership reduces the total number of violent deaths, which to me is the most crucial aspect of this issue.

[TheSundanceKid]

A combat situation? A bit extreme. As I said above maybe fear breads fear here. I just can't comprehend a society where killing a man with such ease is accepted as alright

I am a combat veteran.   Anytime another person, is trying to harm you it is potentially a combat situation.   You claim, I am full of fear, I volunteered for a war.   Your beyond naive, do you think he was kicking in the door to bring her flowers?   I hope you never get close a crisis situation because, your likely toast.  Let me put in terms you might understand.  There are sheep and their are wolves,  your a sheep, I am a dog who protects sheep like you from wolves.

can't comprehend

That is pretty obvious.  People do not kick in doors at 3 am to be your friend.   Try talking, and face it guys who kick down doors are not in a talking mood, and you might end up dead.

You forgot the last part of that sentence. In America

Name the countries of the world where people go around breaking down other people's doors at 3 am in the morning without getting someone getting seriously hurt.

Any country in Northern Europe. Sure in some cases there will be escalation but the likely scenario is some hot headedness, police involvement and an ASBO or something. The key element is a gun won't be involved and that seriously reduces the chances of a fatality in this scenario

Look, I understand that one guy from England isn't going to convince anyone to change their philosophy of a lifetime. I just think that in other westernised countries we have proven that guns aren't necessary for safety to exist. And in a lot of ways have produced a less threatening environment. I don't imagine it being pleasant knowing that if in general someone else misinterpreted my actions then I could end up with a bullet in my head

England? This happened in your country five days ago:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-four-murdered-after-throat-8037853

No guns involved.  Same here from last month:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3519121/Police-launch-murder-investigation-ex-miner-80-died-five-months-robbers-beat-ransacked-home.html

The only difference is that in these cases the homeowners were killed, instead of the home invaders.

I mean I don't want to open this up to the atrocities people commit but I think bringing up a few examples of it going the other way does not condone the action. There are very few violence related deaths in the UK compared to other countries. Knife crime is something we continue to struggle with, however that is harder to combat than gun crime.

I understand the train of thought. It would be more unfair for the homeowner to die than the intruder. I agree with that entirely. I'm saying it's a shame anyone needs to die in these scenarios. I'm going out on a limb here because I haven't done the statistical analysis but I would say a lower proportion of break ins in the UK end in a death compared to the USA. Can I link that directly to gun control? Of course not but surely it is likely to have some correlation?

[Roy H.]

A combat situation? A bit extreme. As I said above maybe fear breads fear here. I just can't comprehend a society where killing a man with such ease is accepted as alright

I am a combat veteran.   Anytime another person, is trying to harm you it is potentially a combat situation.   You claim, I am full of fear, I volunteered for a war.   Your beyond naive, do you think he was kicking in the door to bring her flowers?   I hope you never get close a crisis situation because, your likely toast.  Let me put in terms you might understand.  There are sheep and their are wolves,  your a sheep, I am a dog who protects sheep like you from wolves.

can't comprehend

That is pretty obvious.  People do not kick in doors at 3 am to be your friend.   Try talking, and face it guys who kick down doors are not in a talking mood, and you might end up dead.

You forgot the last part of that sentence. In America

Name the countries of the world where people go around breaking down other people's doors at 3 am in the morning without getting someone getting seriously hurt.

Any country in Northern Europe. Sure in some cases there will be escalation but the likely scenario is some hot headedness, police involvement and an ASBO or something. The key element is a gun won't be involved and that seriously reduces the chances of a fatality in this scenario

Look, I understand that one guy from England isn't going to convince anyone to change their philosophy of a lifetime. I just think that in other westernised countries we have proven that guns aren't necessary for safety to exist. And in a lot of ways have produced a less threatening environment. I don't imagine it being pleasant knowing that if in general someone else misinterpreted my actions then I could end up with a bullet in my head

England? This happened in your country five days ago:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-four-murdered-after-throat-8037853

No guns involved.  Same here from last month:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3519121/Police-launch-murder-investigation-ex-miner-80-died-five-months-robbers-beat-ransacked-home.html

The only difference is that in these cases the homeowners were killed, instead of the home invaders.

Ehm, I'm not sure this is still on topic, but in any case, the case that gun ownership reduces/prevents deaths has still to be proved.

The same argument pops up every time guns are debated ('without guns innocent ppl would be in the mercy of criminals') , but this only begs the question of whether gun ownership does anything to  reduce the number of victims. We will never know for sure, but IMHO the 23 yo bball player did not intend to kill anyone. It seems reasonable to claim that had the flat resident not owned a gun the worst thing that could have happened was a violent fight: at least to me this seems better than someone losing his life; I understand that some people think that it is better for a transgressor to die than for an innocent to risk getting beaten, but this is not a a belief I share, nor do I think this is the right place to debate ethics.

The list of people who have lost their lives needlessly is pretty long actually, just to stick to the famous ones, Sam Cooke could still be around. One could add the people who die/get injured every year in accidents with guns  (eg a toddler firing a gun completely on accident)- this is IMO the most uncontroversial case of violence caused by gun ownership.

Just to be clear, I am not claiming to know whether gun control would reduce crime in the States - I have absolutely no clue about that; all I am saying is that based on what I know  I am not at all convinced that gun ownership reduces the total number of violent deaths, which to me is the most crucial aspect of this issue.

I didn't say any of that. But, the argument was put forth that but for gun culture, nobody would be dead, and that home invaders aren't likely to kill somebody. Those articles are counterpoints.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Wouldn't have happened if they didn't live in a gun culture.. I'm never gonna be able to understand that.

I don't blame gun culture for this one. If you kick down somebody's front door and bedroom door at 3am, there are likely to be bad consequences in any culture.  This seems like nothing other than legitimate home protection.

have to agree that this can't be blamed on the gun culture.  if anything, it supports the notion people should be armed to protect themselves and their home from break ins.

unfortunate no matter how you look at it

Doesn't have to be a lethal weapon like a gun does it?

[Roy H.]

Wouldn't have happened if they didn't live in a gun culture.. I'm never gonna be able to understand that.

I don't blame gun culture for this one. If you kick down somebody's front door and bedroom door at 3am, there are likely to be bad consequences in any culture.  This seems like nothing other than legitimate home protection.

have to agree that this can't be blamed on the gun culture.  if anything, it supports the notion people should be armed to protect themselves and their home from break ins.

unfortunate no matter how you look at it

Doesn't have to be a lethal weapon like a gun does it?

What if there were multiple intruders? What if they were armed?

[Eja117]

A combat situation? A bit extreme. As I said above maybe fear breads fear here. I just can't comprehend a society where killing a man with such ease is accepted as alright

I am a combat veteran.   Anytime another person, is trying to harm you it is potentially a combat situation.   You claim, I am full of fear, I volunteered for a war.   Your beyond naive, do you think he was kicking in the door to bring her flowers?   I hope you never get close a crisis situation because, your likely toast.  Let me put in terms you might understand.  There are sheep and their are wolves,  your a sheep, I am a dog who protects sheep like you from wolves.

can't comprehend

That is pretty obvious.  People do not kick in doors at 3 am to be your friend.   Try talking, and face it guys who kick down doors are not in a talking mood, and you might end up dead.

You forgot the last part of that sentence. In America

Name the countries of the world where people go around breaking down other people's doors at 3 am in the morning without getting someone getting seriously hurt.

Any country in Northern Europe. Sure in some cases there will be escalation but the likely scenario is some hot headedness, police involvement and an ASBO or something. The key element is a gun won't be involved and that seriously reduces the chances of a fatality in this scenario

Look, I understand that one guy from England isn't going to convince anyone to change their philosophy of a lifetime. I just think that in other westernised countries we have proven that guns aren't necessary for safety to exist. And in a lot of ways have produced a less threatening environment. I don't imagine it being pleasant knowing that if in general someone else misinterpreted my actions then I could end up with a bullet in my head

England? This happened in your country five days ago:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-four-murdered-after-throat-8037853

No guns involved.  Same here from last month:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3519121/Police-launch-murder-investigation-ex-miner-80-died-five-months-robbers-beat-ransacked-home.html

The only difference is that in these cases the homeowners were killed, instead of the home invaders.

Ehm, I'm not sure this is still on topic, but in any case, the case that gun ownership reduces/prevents deaths has still to be proved.

I wouldn't exactly say that. It's just that at least in cases like these it makes it so that the wrong deaths happen less and the right deaths happen more.   

What is the theory that BDJ was going to do? Have a nice conversation over tea or something?

[Green-Bananas]

Wouldn't have happened if they didn't live in a gun culture.. I'm never gonna be able to understand that.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I find it odd that you go by, "The Sundance Kid"! He was a ruthless outlaw who robbed trains and banks at gun point. 

[Eja117]

Wouldn't have happened if they didn't live in a gun culture.. I'm never gonna be able to understand that.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I find it odd that you go by, "The Sundance Kid"! He was a ruthless outlaw who robbed trains and banks at gun point. 

Maybe it's  a reference to the film festival