“Man [police officer] accidentally shoots his daughter”

[jody]

Man accidentally shoots his daughter

NEW HAVEN, Conn., May 31 (UPI) -- An 18-year-old girl in New Haven, Conn., who was shot by her police officer father, is listed in fair condition at Bridgeport Hospital.

Tasha Scott tripped motion sensors in her backyard allegedly while sneaking into her home, alerting veteran police officer Ernie Scott that there was an intruder, The Connecticut Post reported Thursday.

The 41-year-old found his daughter, whom he believed was an intruder, in their basement and shot her in the leg.

She was taken to Bridgeport Hospital, where she was in critical condition as doctors saved her leg, the Post said.

Obviously police officers should not be allowed to keep and bear arms.

[enid602]

1. accident

I suspect he accidently shot her after he accidently raped her.

[HereSince1628]

3. That's not tinfoil that's fiction made from whole cloth.

[seriousstan]

36. I hope your job doesn't involve rational thought because you appear incapable.

Please explain your thought process that arrived at that "gem" of a conclusion. I am studying mental disorders and can't get to the asylum tonight.

[enid602]

60. accident?

Just saying that it's hard to believe that someone who's trained in handling firearms could accidentally shoot his own flesh and blood in his own home. Maybe I should have explained for the sake of those lacking mental acuity.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Again, you're more likely to be shot by a gun if there's one in the house....nt

[jody]

5. Rebuttal “Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?”

Some papers in the medical literature have written a homeowner's gun is more likely to kill its owner or family member than kill a criminal, and therefore "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." The most notable (or notorious), and quoted in the previous sentence, is written by doctors Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, and is titled, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home." (New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.)

The oft cited Kellermann paper found a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintence, than it was used to kill someone in self-defense. Kellermann stated, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." Florida State University professor Gary Kleck appropriately terms these ratios "nonsensical." (Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, pp. 177-179, 1997)

Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc.

Not only is Kellermann's methodology flawed, but using the same approach for violent deaths in the home not involving a firearm, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1. Let's see why this 43 to 1 ratio is a meaningless indicator of gun ownership risk.

[aikoaiko]

6. Agreed, & you're more likely to not be able to defend yourself with a gun if one isn't in the house

nt

[Captain Hilts]

9. Statistics make the probablility that you'll need one to defend yourself very VERY small. nt

[jody]

15. Please give a link to the statistics you talk about. n/t

[aikoaiko]

16. Actually, those statistics depend upon whether or not you shoot the gun while defending yourself

There are data showing that many more defensive uses of gun don't involve shooting the perpetrator. The data come from surveys and researchers with particular points of view, but the same could be said of most gun usage researchers.

[iverglas]

19. oddly enough

There are data showing that many more defensive uses of gun don't involve shooting the perpetrator.

There are also data showing that many more ABUSIVE uses of guns don't involve shooting the victim.

Funny how nobody ever mentions that when bawling about Kellerman's analysis.

We have to take into account non-fatal firearms uses against non-members of the household when considering the the ratio of uses against household members and non-members -- but not the non-fatal firearms uses against members of the household?

At least Kellermann was comparing apples and apples. You want to throw some oranges onto one side of the scale, you need to put some on the other side too.

http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/freda/articles/rural02.htm

Guns

While the prevalence of violence using guns against women in rural and urban communities is not statistically significant, the current literature does highlight the greater accessibility and use of guns in rural areas to intimidate, terrorize and murder women who are in violent relationships (Websdale, 1998). In many rural areas, guns are part of the household, often used for hunting and protection. Nolan (1992) suggests that:

Domestic killings occur disproportionately in rural areas and it is believed that this may reflect the high levels of gun ownership in the country. Many victims of domestic violence also report being threatened with firearms. (1992:23)

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/DomesticViolence.html

Guns are frequently part of the cycle of intimidation and violence that many victims face in their homes, for every woman who loses her life to the hand of a troubled spouse with a firearm, there are thousands more who are threatened or live in fear. (Wendy Cukier. Women and Firearms in the International Context. April, 2000.) In her decision at the Alberta Court of Appeal in 1998, Chief Justice Catherine Fraser agreed that gun control is a gender issue.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/1998/1998abca305/1998abca305.html
(citations omitted, emphasis added)

Reference Re Firearms Act, 1998 ABCA 305 Date: 19980929
Docket: 9603-0497-AC
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA

... In the context of gun control, therefore, while a peaceful and safe society affects all Canadians, there is a gender dimension to this picture – one that stands out in poignant relief – that should not be rendered invisible. It is not all of the picture. But it most assuredly is part of it and that dimension is violence against women.

... Finally, increased firearms controls are also consistent with the philosophy underlying the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I am well aware that the Declaration has not been expressly incorporated into domestic law. However, where legislation is open to two interpretations, one of which is more consistent with international human rights norms, then that interpretation is to be preferred: .... Parliament’s efforts with Bill C-68 were motivated, in part, by the desire to reduce the incidence of firearms-related domestic violence. This being so, one should not ignore the international human rights context.

... Where, as here, the challenged laws include no outright prohibition of firearms against persons who might responsibly use them for recreation or work, but there is increased protection of women from actual violence and the fear of violence from firearms, the gender dimension of firearms use and equality guarantees weighs in favour of classifying the impugned laws under the federal criminal law power.

Now I could say: how do you like them oranges?

[aikoaiko]

20. nice oranges you have there, but we were talking about apples.

:)

eta: I think what you cited and wrote is a fair criticism but we were talking about people legally using firearms to defend themselves.

[iverglas]

23. Well, I couldn't say what you were talking about

but what you SAID -- and I already quoted it once -- was:

There are data showing that many more defensive uses of gun don't involve shooting the perpetrator.

So if you can tell me why it's reasonable and fine to throw that into the discussion, but not the ABUSIVE uses of firearms by household members against other household members that don't involve shooting the victims, I'll be happy.

Because --

I think what you cited and wrote is a fair criticism but we were talking about people legally using firearms to defend themselves.

-- we are actually in the subthread arising from jody's citing of the purported refutation of Kellermann on the issue of defensive vs. abusive uses of firearms; the purported refutation says:

To decide whether or not to own a gun for self-defense based solely on a "kill" ratio is folly. To estimate the risks and benefits of gun ownership many more factors need to be considered. An example is defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents, and is ignored in most of the medical research.

-- and I agree. The "kill" ratio is not the only thing to be considered in respect of "defensive" uses or in respect of abusive uses.

This defensive gun use, which outnumbers homicides, suicides, and accidents is a complete basket of unrelated fruit, concocted by its author in a pretty obvious attempt to obfuscate.

I think this is really pretty straightforward.

[thirdpower]

21. Maybe the oranges will cover the smell of the red herrings..

You keep throwing out.

Lots of mays, coulds, and mights in those papers.
Of course you'll convieniently ignore this part:

Guns preserve lives; guns employ people; guns are used for legitimate recreational pursuits; and guns are the tools of some trades. At the same time, guns intimidate; guns maim; and guns kill. It is precisely because of this paradox – that guns are used for good as well as evil – that controversy surrounds government efforts at gun control.

[iverglas]

26. I was impressed

Until I realized you were quoting from paragraph 1 of a decision several hundred paragraphs long ... that upheld the legislation in question. (I should point out that the issue was purely a constitutional division of powers question, and the court was not really addressing the legislation itself -- simply which level of government had the constitutional authority to make legislation about the subject.)

I may have ignored that part. I also ignored the price of tea in China. Neither one had anything to do with what I was saying. Do you want me to explain it really slowly?

If you are wounded by the replies, you might try not making your own so, well, obnoxiously dumb ...

Your post has nothing to do with the subject under discussion or what I said about it.

[thirdpower]

28. Nope the smell of fish is still here....

[SteveM]

22. Then, would you disarm the police?

[iverglas]

27. "Then"?

Breathe there truly people who truly believe that something like this contains some sort of logic??


Premise: Person A says that you're more likely to be shot by a gun if there's one in the house.
Conclusion: Person A would disarm the police.


I guess I missed that class when I was taking those logic courses for my philosophy degree. That one just looks like:

Aristotle is a man.
Aristotle jumped over the moon.

to me.

I'd be very surprised if it didn't look that way to the person who typed it.

[SteveM]

56. New Improved Sophistry! Now, with LESS TEXT!

[glowing]

4. I don't think that's obvious at all.. I think perhaps he should have

lifted the curfew on his 18yr old daughter so she wouldn't be sneaking into her own house. He treated the person entering into his home like he would any intruder. This has more to do with the dynamics of parent-child relationship within the household than owning a gun.... On top of that he shot her in the leg, which tells me that as a police officer he is not using his weapon for deadly intent, unlike some of the other officers out there that we hear shoot multiple rounds only to find out they shot the wrong person.

[benEzra]

7. A violation of one of the fundamental rules of gun safety...

A violation of one of the fundamental rules of gun safety...


The Four Rules of Gun Safety

1. All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not).

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on the range, at home, loading, or unloading.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot).

4. Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively identified.


That's why you need a light to go along with the gun...shooting at shadows is a very bad idea. Either turn on the lights, or use a flashlight, but don't shoot at shadows.

[pipoman]

14. Absolutely correct

My dad and I used to have a line for other hunters when they came upon us while hunting deer on public hunting ground.

Them: Doing any good?

Us: Haven't seen anything but have taken a couple of good 'sound shots'.

They generally gave us a wide berth after that.

[jody]

8. The headline is wrong. He intentionally shot a person who turned out to be his daughter. n/t

[frebrd]

10. If she's 18 years old,

why the hell was she sneaking into the house like a kid?

[Captain Hilts]

12. You have to ask? nt

[Captain Hilts]

11. This is how someone TRAINED to operate firearms acts. What about those not professionally trained?

[jody]

13. Millions of people who keep and bear arms for self-defense do not act as Scott did. n/t

[pipoman]

17. Common misconception about LEO firearms training

I have had more training than the vast majority of LEOs in the US. Of coarse I have had more than most people who shoot too. The level of training with firearms received by most LEOs is not that great. They receive training in their initial LEO training, an occasional class here or there, and annual, semi annual or quarterly (rare) qualifications. Many don't log 1 second more range time than is required by their department (which is minimal). Bottom line is LEOs are not super humans or any more qualified than many frequent shooters.

[SteveM]

24. While not precisely answering your question, consider this:

"The National Safety Council indicates that accidental firearms-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly." -- J.R. Absher, Outdoor Life, May, 2007.

Absher points out that NSC found that from 1995-2005, firearms-related fatalities fell 40%. This was the biggest decline when compared with all measured types of accidental fatalities.

BTW, gun-ownership is now at an all-time high of 291 million. 47.8 million households have at least one firearm.

Other sources show that hunting casualties are at all-time lows as well. 20% of gun-owners hunt.

[Irreverend IX]

25. Most cops have crappy training.

At the ranges I've been to, civilians usually shoot considerably better than cops, and they also tend to be more safety-conscious. It's probably because civilian shooters shoot out of enjoyment of the sport, whereas most cops have no personal interest in shooting and just see it as a hoop to jump through for their jobs. Officers in most departments get issued 100-200 rounds of ammo for training each year. Many civilians will burn through more than twice that amount of ammo during a single trip to the range.

[iverglas]

29. oh fer chrissakes

(and this is directed at all the people who replied to the post, not the post itself)

How many people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use? How many spend hours every week at a firing range -- or even visit one from one year to the next?

Jeezus. You all know perfectly well that cops get MORE instruction and training, and more appropriate practice, than the vast majority of the 672 brazillian firearms owners in the US. Lord, what hogwash gets slung around here.

[thirdpower]

30. Since there are only 672 of these brazillian firearms..

in the US,the owners probably cherish them and practice w/ them regularly.

[iverglas]

33. yes

good one.

[pipoman]

31. ...

How many people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use?

Nearly every one of them. In nearly every state there is requirement for a hunters safety course prior to purchasing a hunting license. Nearly every state with CCW laws requires a person to take appropriate classes before issuance.

How many spend hours every week at a firing range -- or even visit one from one year to the next?

Don't know how many but most CCW states require periodic qualification of one type or another. Many people train regularly at public and private ranges. As stated there is no great requirement on most LEOs to practice regularly beyond periodic qualifications with relatively low standards as compared to standards of competitive shooting.

You all know perfectly well that cops get MORE instruction and training, and more appropriate practice,

They get more appropriate practice for LEOs...offensive use of firearms.

LEOs are trained to use their firearms offensively which could be one of the problems in this OP.

[iverglas]

32. one can only wail at the .... of it all

In nearly every state there is requirement for a hunters safety course prior to purchasing a hunting license.

And just today, possibly in this very thread, it was pointed out that 20% OF FIREARMS OWNERS IN THE U.S. HUNT.

Nearly every state with CCW laws requires a person to take appropriate classes before issuance.

Somebody tried to come up with an estimate of how many of those things had been issued, a while back here. Got any notion yourself? As I recall, and my recollection may be completely inaccurate, it was fewer than 100,000 in each state that has 'em. I'd be guessing another million people, tops.


So maybe you're up to 21% of all firearms owners in the US ... assuming that everybody who hunts actually has a hunting licence ... and assuming, on the other hand, that some of the hunting licence holders did their course a few decades ago ...

[pipoman]

34. My experience with non-leo gun owners

is limited to people who I know in the plains states. Most gun owners here have their roots in hunting whether they still hunt or not and most have taken their hunters safety classes.

I have no clue how many CCW holders there are. My state just began issuing in Jan. 07 so I haven't seen any numbers yet.

I wouldn't argue that there are people who legally have firearms who do not know safe handling, I've seen them. I would believe people who own more than 1 firearm are probably safer and practice more than the person who buys a gun to keep in their nightstand.

Really if people would only practice the 4 rules nearly every gun accident could be avoided.

My point though in this sub thread is that many people believe all LEOs are somehow super safe, and train with their gun nonstop. This simply isn't so. It is also true that the majority of LEO firearms training is from an offensive standpoint not a defensive standpoint.

[Scout]

39. "Nearly every one of them." Wrong.

Just FYI, I was able to buy my shotgun without even ONE SECOND of training required by the state. I don't hunt, have never hunted, and don't intend to hunt. I have not taken a hunter's safety course. I have informal training from target and skeet shooting, but that's it.

(And I keep the shotgun put away, unloaded at home, where there are no children or teenagers. I don't advertise its presence, and when I take it in or out of the house I'm as inconspicuous as possible.)

[pipoman]

40. Good for you

was there a point? Nobody has said anything about requirements, my response was to an assertion that most gun owners have never had 'even 1 hour of training'.

Maybe this should be a suggestion to your state legislators. It would make far more sense pushing for bans on guns because of their shape. Require a cert of completion of a basic firearms safety class.

[iverglas]

42. and your response

How many people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use?
Nearly every one of them.

was so obviously flat-out false as not even to call for notice.

[pipoman]

46. prove it n/t

[Scout]

48. here's what you said:

pipoman Thu May-31-07 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. ...

How many people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use?

Nearly every one of them.

If you couldn't figure out what my "point" was, then I feel sorry for you. But I think you know good and damn well what my point was.

[pipoman]

49. Congratulations on your psychic ability N/T

[SteveM]

57. There were other options. My father gave me intensive instruction...

...in the use of firearms; shotguns, rifles, revolvers. In nearly every state, hunter education is required for newly-licensed hunters; others are grand-fathered in. Texas, for example, requires anyone born after September 2, 1971, to have a course. Part of the reason for the courses (and the grand-fathering) is a recognition that the traditional method of passing down firearms and hunting knowledge from father to son was breaking down (broken families, urbanized populations, fewer places to hunt/target practice, etc.).

I am of two minds on the subject of state-required training when it comes to a constitutionally-recognized civil right: it makes good sense to know how to safely use a gun, but a state can use the "training course" as a means to prohibit the possession of a firearm if the authority is abused. I have in mind the infamous voter literacy tests given by Southern states in order to qualify for the constitutionally protected right to vote.

Blacks were systematically discriminated against.

In short, there should be as little fettered access to firearms as possible lest the purchaser is unable to obtain a gun for self-protection. You can see how this right differs from the "privilege" of operating an auto, where a license is required. If a good proposal is forthcoming, however, I am open to it.

Why did you obtain a shotgun? I saw where you "put it away" and keep it unloaded. This is good in general, but not the best strategy for self- and home-defense, if that is the reason. I keep a loaded revolver in an unlocked lock box when at home, then lock the box when I leave. All other guns are locked in a safe, sans ammo which is locked in a separate box.

[beevul]

37. You asked...

How many people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use? How many spend hours every week at a firing range -- or even visit one from one year to the next?

Summary findings
In 2000 there were nearly 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the United States


Type of agency----------------------------------------------Number of agencies---------------------------------Number of full-time sworn officers


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------796,518
All State and local----------------------------------------------17,784------------------------------------------------708,022
Local police-----------------------------------------------------12,666------------------------------------------------440,920
Sheriff-----------------------------------------------------------3,070------------------------------------------------164,711
Primary State--------------------------------------------------------49-------------------------------------------------56,348
Special jurisdiction----------------------------------------------1,376-------------------------------------------------43,413
Texas constable-----------------------------------------------------623--------------------------------------------------2,630
Federal*----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------88,496



http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/lawenf.htm

And even if those numbers are off a bit, thats still only a million or so LEO...compared to aproximately 16 million hunters. That does not include concealed carry permit holders. The best I could find is this:

http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm


I did some addition and came up with 2,344,051 concealed carry permit holders, according to the less-than-half-complete data on that page. The site does not have data from Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I would guess the total number if those states data were available to be somewhere between 4 and 8 million nationwide.



So the anwer to each and every part of your question, I believe would be would be - A higher number of people than the entire body of law enforcement in America, in some cases many times the number of the entire body of law enforcement in America. (assuming the DOJ has numbers aproximately accurate)

I have taken gun safety, and spend quite a bit of time at the range here on the farm. Probably triple that of most LEO's. I am just an average gun owner, and I don't hunt.

[iverglas]

43. oh fer chrissakes

How many people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use? How many spend hours every week at a firing range -- or even visit one from one year to the next?
So the anwer to each and every part of your question, I believe would be would be - A higher number of people than the entire body of law enforcement in America, in some cases many times the number of the entire body of law enforcement in America. (assuming the DOJ has numbers aproximately accurate)

Yes, you go right ahead and pretend that I was talking about absolute numbers. That would have made a whole lot of sense, wouldn't it? We all know it would have made no sense at all, but don't let that stop you from pretending that it's what I meant.

You see why I choose my words carefully, and reject efforts to claim that I said something I didn't?

Because on the rare occasion when I don't, this is what happens.

I really, really wasn't asking for raw numbers. I was talking about the PROPORTION of people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use. Too obviously for it to have to be pointed out.

(And of course, in any event, this misinterpretation of what I said doesn't make the ludicrous comparison then embarked on any more meaningful. What the point would be of comparing absolute numbers of police to absolute numbers of firearms owners in the public, in this respect, I have no clue.)

And the obvious answer has already been given.

MAYBE the 20% of firearms owners who are hunters have received some instruction as a requirement of licensing. This assumes that the 20% figure is correct and that no firearms owners who hunt are not licensed, something I would not readily assume. It also leaves open the possibility that some of these hunters were first licensed decades ago and have not had instruction since then.

But of course, hunters aren't really the issue anyway. It's all the people who AREN'T hunters who are the issue. All the people who keep firearms around the house or about their person, and who may decide to use them against suspected trespassers or suspected assailants.

The actual point here is:

ALL police and other law enforcement officers have received instruction and training in the use of firearms and the laws governing the use of firearms.

A VERY SMALL PROPORTION of people who keep firearms around the house or about their person, and who may decide to use them against suspected trespassers or suspected assailants, have received instruction and training in the use of firearms and the laws governing the use of firearms.

As I really don't think you didn't know in the first place.


I have taken gun safety, and spend quite a bit of time at the range here on the farm. Probably triple that of most LEO's. I am just an average gun owner ...

No, not IN THIS RESPECT, you are not. And you now it.

[beevul]

51. Those people that aren't hunters...

Well now. You really asked 4 things.

"How many people in the US who own firearms have ever taken a single hour of safety instruction, or instruction in the laws governing firearms possession and use?"

Theres 2.

"How many spend hours every week at a firing range -- or even visit one from one year to the next?"

Theres another 2.

"The actual point here is: ALL police and other law enforcement officers have received instruction and training in the use of firearms and the laws governing the use of firearms."

That looks just great doesn't it, when written as such. The devil is in the details which written as such are left out. Things like ...oh...that in reality the great majority of those have recieved the BARE MINIMUM of instruction and training necessary to do the job. One example of this would be the police chief that had to tell his department that 2 individuals open carrying guns was in fact legal. With more than a bare minimum of training in the laws governing the use of firearms, they'd have known that right?
Cops shooting thier children sneaking in at night for, and shooting co-workers for example might just be other examples of how much or how quality that training is. So it isn't exactly like YOU said it was either.

"A VERY SMALL PROPORTION of people who keep firearms around the house or about their person, and who may decide to use them against suspected trespassers or suspected assailants, have received instruction and training in the use of firearms and the laws governing the use of firearms."

By that do you mean all non-hunting gun owners? Are you narrowing the goalposts? I can't imagine why you wouldn't just say ALL non-hunter gun owners if thats what you meant, being you choose your words carefully and all. like this "It's all the people who AREN'T hunters who are the issue." You said that. But you aren't saying that now. And the proportion...if you were countering someone elses point then fine. That would be between you and that other person. Generally though, I would have to say that the proportion is not small as you characterize it being, and beyond that, so what.

"No, not IN THIS RESPECT, you are not. And you now (know)it."

Well now. All those people that own those modern style rifles, the ones that are now mainstream, you know - the ones that certain people want to ban? Yeah, those rifles just dont jump out of a box accurate at every range, and optics just don't become attatched and accurate on thier own. Nor do they have a crystal ball that knows what distance the owner might want to shoot from. They require sighting in. And once theyre sighted in, with or without optics, you have yourself a sizable investment. People just don't make those sizable investments, and spend the time sighting them in, so they can let them sit in a case and go unused. Oh...and theres that skill thing too. People don't come equipped with the latent ability to pull a trigger and be on target, you see. It actually takes practice when the goal is to be accurate versus qualified to do a job. Practice in the form of actually shooting, after the shooting that is involved with the sighting in of a rifle. Now handguns, like the ones that police use, really don't need much of any of that, except the practice to be accurate, versus the practice to be quailified to do a job. Generally, people just don't shoot because they want to hear a loud bang you know?. They'd buy fireworks if they did. I shoot less than those folks. Does that make me or or less of an average gun owner than them?



The point, is that there are an aweful lot of gun owners that by virtue of just buying a rifle, sighting it or its optics in, and/or practicing for accuracy, meet one of those 4 things YOU asked. And the safety training. Where I grew up, gun safety training was something you just got when you were ready. Every person I knew that I ever saw handling a gun at that time, had it. Now, I am not saying EVERYONE got it. But in rural parts of this country and alot of other not so rural parts, gun safety training courses are held just about year around. They wouldn't be if noone was taking them. I know, you really weren't asking how many, you were trying to show a small proportion. Unfortunately the fact that you did actually ask how many hindered your ability to do it. The meaningfulness of that proportion changes when you can't call it "very small" doesn't it. Lets see, up to ten percent have training through CCW. Up to another 20 percent through hunting. then theres that percentage of people that buy those modern rifles, sight them in and practice with them. Target shooters of all types, trap and skeet shooters, people that take defensive handgun courses and practice likewise.

It actually helps to know whom your talking about and have more information that you can just get from a webpage about those people your talking about, before you attempt to weigh or measure them. You are not doing to swell of a job on either count, according to the things you are saying.

[iverglas]

52. so many words

so little content.

If you don't like wiki, find your own. (I omit citations for various figures given in these sources; they're there.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

About 59.1 million adults in the United States personally own a gun. Roughly 93 million adults, or 49% of the adult U.S. population, live in households with guns. There is no national gun register in the USA, so it is impossible to know exactly how many guns are in circulation or who has them, but the FBI estimates there are more than 200 million guns in civilian hands.

Another one:
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

There are approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This means that 25 percent of all adults, and 40 percent of American households, own at least one firearm. These owners possess 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns. Among legal gun owners, the reasons given for owning or carrying a weapon include hunting, sports-related activities, and home protection. Among those who own handguns, 75 percent reported in a national survey that self-protection is the primary reason for owning a firearm.

It actually helps to know whom your talking about

Yeah. And if you still want somebody to believe that any kind of a majority of the people who own handguns, just for starters, have had an instant of training in how to use them beyond what they were told over the counter at the dealer's, you're dreaming in technicolour.

[beevul]

53. Likewise...

If you still want anyone to believe that its some tiny little fraction of gun owners who have "had an instant of training in how to use them beyond what they were told over the counter at the dealer's" that technicolor dream is yours.

[beevul]

35. Perception is everything. N/T

[benEzra]

38. Here are the rules we non-professionals follow:

The Four Rules of Gun Safety

1. All guns are always loaded (until you establish whether they are or not).

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your gun pointed in a safe direction at all times: on the range, at home, loading, or unloading.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target (and you are ready to shoot).

4. Be sure of your target. Know what it is, what is in line with it and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you haven't positively identified.


That's why you need a light to go along with the gun...shooting at shadows is a very bad idea. Either turn on the lights, or use a flashlight, but don't shoot at shadows.

Apparently, some departments don't train their officers to follow Rule 4. (Thankfully, most do, methinks.)

[iverglas]

44. really?

Here are the rules we non-professionals follow

Are they kinda like the rules we car drivers follow?

1. Do not speed

2. Do not tailgate

3. Always signal when changing lanes

4. Never park in a no-parking zone

[spoony]

59. The difference being

that gun users have the incentive of not wanting to die. Turn signals and parking violations don't generally strike me as of mortal consequence.

[SteveM]

58. Are you inferring that those not "professionally trained" are more dangerous?

[iverglas]

18. obviously jody's pretences at logic grow tiresome

Obviously police officers should not be allowed to keep and bear arms.

But hey, he's got a half-assed sort of a point here. Police officers, doctors, lawyers, Wal-Mart greeters, letter carriers, graphic artists and retirees, the unemployed and divinity students should not be allowed TO SHOOT AT TRESPASSERS unless they can prove to the requisite standard that they had a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury and had no reasonable alternative to using the force they used. And I don't see any reason to think that this guy came within a kilometre of that standard.

The fact that this individual was a police officer had precisely sweet fanny adams to do with what he did. He didn't have a firearm BECAUSE he was a police officer, he didn't shoot his daughter BECAUSE he was a police officer, he wasn't acting IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES as a police officer. He was just one more untrustworthy self-centred asshole with a gun in his residence that he used without justification on his own time. His occupation is no more relevant to the situation than it would be if he were a circus clown.


Now if he were in Florida or one of its vicious loony sister states, he COULD NOT BE CHARGED with anything in this scenario, because he would meet all the tests to benefit from the PRESUMPTION that he was acting "in self-defence". Maybe it will happen one day in Florida or one of those places, and maybe somebody will die. And maybe somebody else will give a shit. I doubt it.

[benEzra]

41. You know better than that, iverglas...

Now if he were in Florida or one of its vicious loony sister states, he COULD NOT BE CHARGED with anything in this scenario, because he would meet all the tests to benefit from the PRESUMPTION that he was acting "in self-defence". Maybe it will happen one day in Florida or one of those places, and maybe somebody will die. And maybe somebody else will give a shit. I doubt it.

You know better than that, iverglas.

All of the Castle Doctrine statutes I am aware of (including Florida's) explicitly apply only the in the case of an UNLAWFUL entry.

In this case, the daughter lived there, hence her entry (however unorthodox) was NOT an unlawful entry. Therefore, this would not fall under the Castle Doctrine presumptions.

[iverglas]

45. why would you pretend to be such a donkey?

All of the Castle Doctrine statutes I am aware of (including Florida's) explicitly apply only the in the case of an UNLAWFUL entry.

Do you really really want to claim that this is what you believe?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=125237&mesg_id=125237
- one of many times this has been discussed here, with the following reproduced yet again in one of the posts in the thread (my emphasis):

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

Now, you tell me that knowing that your alarm had been tripped and that someone had entered your house without being admitted would not meet that requirement. G'head.

[benEzra]

47. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, isn't it...

Here's what I said:

All of the Castle Doctrine statutes I am aware of (including Florida's) explicitly apply only the in the case of an UNLAWFUL entry.

In this case, the daughter lived there, hence her entry (however unorthodox) was NOT an unlawful entry. Therefore, this would not fall under the Castle Doctrine presumptions.

YOU said that the legal presumption of justifiability created by the expanded Castle Doctrine statutes would prevent the negligent shooter from being charged. In your own words,

(iverglas)

Now if he were in Florida or one of its vicious loony sister states, he COULD NOT BE CHARGED with anything in this scenario, because he would meet all the tests to benefit from the PRESUMPTION that he was acting "in self-defence".

*I* said that no, the Florida Castle Doctrine law allows no such thing, because the presumption of justifiability ONLY applies to unlawful entries, so there would be no presumption of justifiability in this case. The rules would be the same as any other self-defense shooting in any of the other 50 states, i.e. the "reasonable person" test, which you cite above. He can indeed be charged.

Here's what the statute you are mischaracterizing ACTUALLY says:

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0790/ch0790.htm

Florida Statutes

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

Read the law. The Castle Doctrine presumption of self-defense DOES NOT APPLY in this case, as I stated. It reverts to the ordinary rules for self-defense, which as you know is an affirmative defense, with the burden of proof on the shooter, not the state.

Now, it may well be ruled justifiable (even if negligent--the fact that he is a police officer will probably work in his favor), but if it is, it will NOT be because of the Castle Doctrine presumption of justifiability, which is inapplicable in this case.

[iverglas]

50. well, let's play with that, shall we?

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

Here we have what's known as "mistake of fact". The father mistakenly believed that the person in the basement was NOT a lawful resident of the dwelling.

Plainly, the exception set out in that provision is intended to apply to a situation in which the victim is KNOWN, to the person who used the force, to be a lawful resident of the dwelling.

A little conflict here.

(1) a person may not be charged if s/he meets the requirements of the provision;

(2) a person who has acted under a mistake of fact has a defence to any charge relating to an act that would otherwise be unlawful, and in this case would then fall back within the requirements that must be met in order to benefit from the prohibition on prosecution.

Does the mistake of fact vitiate the "lawful resident" exception to the general rule that the person may not be charged? -- i.e., does it bring him back within the prohibition on prosecution?

That is -- may the father not be charged? Or may he be charged, and then have to raise the mistake of fact in defence in order to be acquitted?

In either event, he certainly cannot be CONVICTED, even if he may be charged, if the trier of fact is satisfied that his mistake is genuine.

I wouldn't want to advance an opinion as to whether he may be charged, now that you've drawn that bit to my attention. I would just go with what that Kentucky judge said -- Sept 2006, article no longer available on line, cited by me here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=129974&mesg_id=130189

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/15651715.htm

Home intruder law baffles courts

... The law grants immunity to people who kill, in self defense, an attacker or robber in their homes or anywhere they "have a right to be." Legal experts say confusion over the law threatens to throw a wrench in homicide and assault cases across the state because defendants so frequently argue that they acted in self-defense.

... "In my 32 years of practice in the criminal justice system, I have never seen such a confusing mess," said Harry Rothgerber, the first assistant commonwealth's attorney in Jefferson County.

Oh, that was the prosecutor. The judge is quoted here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=127275&mesg_id=127275

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/15132235.htm

A Fayette judge struggled to make sense of Kentucky's new "home intruder" law yesterday, calling the National Rifle Association-backed legislation confusing, vague and poorly written.

"I'm not quite sure that the drafters had even a marginal knowledge of criminal law or Kentucky law," Circuit Judge Sheila Isaac said. "It is absolutely silent on the court's role."

... Prosecutors around the state have expressed concerns about the law, which they say is difficult to interpret and raises numerous questions.

... "It is the worst legislation I have ever seen in 40 years," said Lawson, the principal drafter of Kentucky's penal code, which was adopted in 1975.

And that other guy. I wonder what will happen in Florida now?

[benEzra]

54. No, it doesn't.

"(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle"


(iverglas)
Here we have what's known as "mistake of fact". The father mistakenly believed that the person in the basement was NOT a lawful resident of the dwelling.

Correct so far.

(iverglas)
Plainly, the exception set out in that provision is intended to apply to a situation in which the victim is KNOWN, to the person who used the force, to be a lawful resident of the dwelling.

No, the exception is there to prevent someone from shooting a family member or other lawful resident and then claiming "self-defense." This is clear not only from the legislative history, but from the plain text of the law itself. The text of the law does NOT, in fact, allow a person who wrongly believes that an entry is unlawful, to be accorded the presumption of justifiability; if the legal criteria (unlawful forced entry) are not in fact met, then the presumption clause is not triggered. If the shooting does not involve an unlawful forced entry, then the question of justifiability reverts to the standard "reasonable belief" test under Florida law.

The exception clauses also deny the homeowner the presumption of justifiability if he/she shoots a police officer serving a lawful warrant in Florida, IF the officers clearly identified themselves, because the police have a legal right to enter the home (as granted them by the warrant). Again, no "reasonable belief" qualifier applies to the presumption; if the legal criteria are not met, then the presumption does not apply.

[iverglas]

55. well, I think we should just agree to scratch our heads

The text of the law does NOT, in fact, allow a person who wrongly believes that an entry is unlawful, to be accorded the presumption of justifiability; if the legal criteria (unlawful forced entry) are not in fact met, then the presumption clause is not triggered.


Now indeed, that "knew or had reason to believe" does sound like it conflicts somewhat with ""was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered". The thing is that if that condition were present -- if there were or had been an unlawful and forcible entrance -- I can't imagine why it would be necessary to refer to the person using force as knowing or having reason to believe that it was present. It strikes me that the only reasonable inference from the inclusion of the "reason to believe" provision would be to cover cases where there was NOT an unlawful and forcible entry.

But at bottom, I think the whole thing is simply one great big dog's breakfast, as I and that Harvard student and that Kentucky judge and prosecutor have said, some of us at length and in great detail. And I don't feel called upon to interpret it in any way that would make any sense at all.


Of course, Florida law doesn't apply in Connecticut. Let's go back to looking at the case at hand, which is generating some buzz.

http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18405762&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=590581&rfi=6

'Reasonable force' an issue in shooting
05/31/2007

STRATFORD — While state law seems to indicate that New Haven police Officer Eric Scott was justified when he shot what he thought was a burglar — but was actually his daughter — in his home, legal experts said Wednesday that it might not be that simple.

Key to the case will be what Scott, 41, saw and thought when he fired a single shot from his Glock service weapon at a "shadow moving in the basement bathroom" of his home early Tuesday morning, experts said. The shadow turned out to be his 18-year-old daughter, Tasha.

"The basic rule is you can take action to defend yourself," said Linda Meyer, a professor of law at Quinnipiac University who said she was speaking on the law and not about Scott's case. "Then there's the question of how much action you can take; you can't kill someone on sight unless they're coming at you with a weapon."

... Kim Coleman, an associate for attorney Norm Pattis, who frequently pursues excessive-force cases, said that it's impossible to say whether the shooting was justified without knowing all the facts. But Connecticut's law is not an open invitation to use any amount of force against an intruder, she said.

"Reasonable is the key word," Coleman said. "But reasonable is that legal term that's very fact-specific."

The international buzz is ... what one would expect:
http://blogs.smh.com.au/sit/archives/2007/05/a_shot_in_the_dark.html

Family life: A shot in the dark

A case of mistaken identity has once again highlighted the dangers of the American right to bear arms and the high cost of sneaking away for a midnight rendezvous with your lover. An off-duty policeman shot and critically wounded his teenage daughter in Connecticut late on Monday night, apparently mistaking her for an intruder. Tasha Scott, 18, had snuck off to meet her boyfriend and as she crept back through the basement door she triggered a backyard motion-sensor light.

Ha, like no parents have shot their curfew-breaking kids in Australia lately.