Agreed. We should do that. In my state they overwhelmingly passed a youth firearms education bill that the Democrat governor then vetoed. I can’t comprehend why the governor would do that, unless she didn’t want kids educated about guns. But they DO want to force advanced adult sexuality concepts on those same kids. Fascinating.
I am a firm believer that gun safety classes should start in kindergarten or first grade at the latest.
But the anti self defense crowd would rather risk their kids’ lives than have them learn how to safely avoid firearm accidents.
Don’t open the door, call 911. Don’t open the door.
I strongly doubt that in either of those cases the Utah laws would protect the home owners. Just being there, outside of the home, probably wouldn’t meet the reasonable belief that a felony was being commited.
|(a)||An individual is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the extent that the individual reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the individual or another individual against the imminent use of unlawful force.|
|(b)||An individual is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the individual reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the individual or another individual as a result of imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.|
|(a)||An individual is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (2) if the individual:|
|(iii)||was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the individual withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other individual the intent to withdraw from the encounter and, notwithstanding, the other individual continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.|
|(4)||Except as provided in Subsection (3)(a)(iii):|
|(a)||an individual does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (2) in a place where that individual has lawfully entered or remained; and|
Yeah, it’s pretty hard to argue that someone had unlawfully entered your house when you shot them through the door or in their own car exiting the driveway.
Sure I will do what if, what if the shooter is a racist f@&$ who saw a black a the door and thought, “■■■■, castle doctrine “, smiled and shot.
And that is why “what if’s” suck because your bias hangs out for everyone to see.
These stories get push, because going to the wrong house mistakenly should not be a death sentence.
Speaking of firearm owners behaving badly, shooting kids, and embarrassing the rest of us…
It was in Farmington New Mexico.
I can’t say if he was a pathetic scared racist, a scared old man, or a scared old man influenced by racial biases and stereotypes or just a guy looking for a very poor excuse to shot someone. Whatever the underlying motivating factors, baring some significant unknown facts coming to light it’s very likely he will be spending the rest of his life in prison.
My comment was an example of why “what ifs” kinda suck, you let your biases hanging for the world to see…
I wouldn’t mind these two particular incidents being pushed to a broader audience if the news media would stop intentionally ignoring all the equally news worthy stories of the people who use firearms every day to save lives.
Press does not report, “Kitty on tree saved by Good Samaritan “
There are lots on the left (my side) that suck and I am glad there is a press to point that out.
Being killed by a mistake and asking how we can change either policy or such is reasonable.
Agree as long as we are discussing realistic solutions and not just listening to anti self defense politicians tell us how we need to make everyone “safer” by passing laws that usually do nothing to address the problems and everything they can to violate the rights of law abiding citizens.
I think many people on the left and the right would be willing to promote firearm safety classes and find ways to get as many people as possible to take them. But the anti self defense politicians on the left consider it a none starter and go straight to ban the ARs every time someone gets shot with a handgun.
Kitties get way more coverage than reports of legitimate defensive firearm uses. Even though the defensive firearm uses would get them just as many clicks and adds as the criminal firearm uses. If it bleeds it leads. Unless the person bleeding was a bad guy shot by a civilian who saved a bunch of lives.
I have to wonder aloud why nobody is asking if enforcing speed limits (like, actually enforcing them) is reasonable given that literally tens of thousands die in car accidents annually and speed is a huge contributor the severity of accidents (and also the frequency)
I suspect it has something to do with motives beyond ‘saving lives’
Humm, things like this your asking for?
Its not a zero sum game.
But the anti self defense politicians treat it like one. The vast majority of firearm owners don’t commit criminal acts with their firearms yet many politicians want to set significant limits on the types of tools they can use for their protected right to self defense if not outright ban them all.
Many if not most drivers break the speed limit every day. More than a few of those incidents lead to unnecessary deaths. Yet no one is talking about banning cars or adding governor gears or software to keep them from being able to exceed the speed limit. What is the difference? Aside from bearing arms being a constitutionally protected right while vehicle ownership is not?
If you are of the opinion that the right of “…people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” is an amendment that is higher in predominance to the other Amendments and even other parts of the Constitution, then the only conclusion that I can see concerning events like these is this, mistakes are a simple, unavoidable and (perhaps) regrettable cost within our system that is required in order to ensure our freedoms.
Please understand that other voters look at this moral structure agasht.
Well, major difference is that very few of use require a gun to make a living, most of us require a car to go to work, get our food and such. Most of us use our car everyday, again unlike our guns.
Then they should utilize the constitutionally provided structure to try and amend or repeal the 2A.
And yes living in a free society has its costs. The alternative is an authoritarian state where crimes by individual civilians are more limited, though not eliminated. Though in those authoritarian states the government is free to kill, torture and rob as many of their citizens as they wish.
I believe there are a lot of ways to reduce violence without violating the rights of law abiding citizens. Too bad we can’t discuss those more often.