Skip to main content

I bear witness before whatever gods there may or may not be, you just can't make this stuff up.

For the uninitiated, "DGU" stands for "defensive gun use." And to me, this is the best kind, and also the kind that doesn't tend to show up in the counts of same by the anti-gun folks: the kind where nobody gets shot.

At least, no one got shot with a FIREARM in this one.

More below the orange crack brillo.

Raw Story:

Deputies in Fort Meyers say they Tasered and then arrested a naked Florida man who broke into a home to steal a television but then masturbated and defecated after the homeowner pulled a gun.
Proof, to me at least, that the human race did indeed evolve from monkeys.
Lee County Sheriff’s deputies said they were called to a home in North Fort Myers on Monday after the resident heard noises on the roof of his home, according to WTSP. The victim went outside where 21-year-old Gregory Matthew Bruni allegedly jumped from the roof and knocked him down.
But wait! There's more!
The victim told investigators he yelled for his wife to get a gun as Bruni continued to thrash around the house, knocking over a wet/dry vacuum and spilling its contents on the floor.The wife fired three shots from a .38 caliber revolver at Bruni, but missed and hit a wall. Bruni then fell to the ground and began masturbating in the living room before he ran into the victims' son's bedroom and began rubbing his face with clothing, according to the report...Deputies later discovered Bruni defecated near the front door and in a hallway inside the residence.
Another news source says the misses were warning shots:
Bruni then headed toward the couple's son's bedroom, where several guns were stored, so the man's wife fired three warning shots from a .38 revolver.
He rubs the clothing on his skin and then he gets the Taser again......
Bruni tried to flee the deputies, and they ended up using a Taser to subdue him. He was taken to the hospital, but doctors told deputies they couldn't identify the substance Bruni was on during the incident.
Two words: bath salts.

911 call here

“He’s laying on my floor,” the homeowner told 911 operators. “He run in my fucking house naked, hooting and hollering and tearing shit up.”
Do with this as you will. I really can't supply too much in the way of editorial commentary. Some things speak for themselves.

Disclaimer: This is not an official RKBA diary. I wouldn't do that to my buddies. :)

Poll

Soon to be a major motion picture?

2%2 votes
30%24 votes
42%33 votes
24%19 votes

| 78 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Why do we always think of it as "descended from" (9+ / 0-)

    the apes?  Why can't we just see ourselves as another different kind?

  •  Tipped for the weirdness (6+ / 0-)

    Rec'd for the OMC video...

    Can't make this stuff u,p indeed.

    Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. ~ Yoda Political Compass: -8.50, -6.46

    by Cinnamon on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:05:53 AM PST

  •  Play us off, Afroman..... (6+ / 0-)

    I don't know which lie to believe anymore.

    by Captain Janeway on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:06:25 AM PST

  •  Sounds like bath salts, they're lucky all he did (10+ / 0-)

    was wank and poop.  Seriously.  I couldn't bring myself to watch the clip of that face-eating attacker guy who was on a bath salts rampage last year.

    Sounds like these folks are the legally-owning, non-assault-weapons wielding types, keeping a defense weapon in their own homes, in which case President Obama's gun control proposals do not threaten to take their "DG" away.  

  •  Yet another example... (11+ / 0-)

    ...of how the gun fetishists enslave and endanger us all.

    The incredible, near-nuclear concussion from those .38 "Special" rounds obviously induced a TBI in the innocent victim, short-circuiting his pain and pleasure responses. He deserves our pity and our love. (Anyone who wants to volunteer for wet-nap duty, please contact kestrel).

    We should ban all guns, and entitle all such victims to VA benefits for life: after all, he is a soldier in the War on Guns.

    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

    by Tom Seaview on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:10:19 AM PST

  •  So, the gun was absolutely worthless in this.... (13+ / 0-)

    situation then?  Given that the guy was out of his head and completely out of control, the gun had no effect on his behaviour and subsequent actions, I mean.

    Kinda, don't really see the point of this diary unless it is "Don't Do Drugs" (or at least bath salts).

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:12:28 AM PST

    •  Well (12+ / 0-)

      it sorta kinda seems like it changed dude's trajectory, if you will....
      Chalk this up to, "News Of The Weird" now with extra gun!

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:15:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know if it even did that. I'm not saying (4+ / 0-)

        the gun wasn't a comforting thing for the homeowners to have but I put myself in the same situation using a baseball bat (my attitude adjustor of choice) and I don't see any different outcome.

        Guess you can never tell, but it is a weird story none-the-less.

        Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

        by LiberalCanuck on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:26:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They fired warning shots, can you do that with a (9+ / 0-)

          baseball bat?  What's the sound of one hand clapping?

          Besides one good hit with a baseball bat can do so much damage.  

          It seems the sound of the firearm may have helped.

          Now that's an option to explore, marketing gunshot fire to ward of home invaders, hummmmmm or maybe an Air Horn of sorts.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:34:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  three warning shots? (5+ / 0-)

            You believe that? I wouldn't without seeing the bullet holes in a ceiling. Sounds like bullshit.

            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

            by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:51:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's the claim to obfuscate the woman's (6+ / 0-)

              bad shooting skills.

              ;)

              "She wasn't firing blindly, no officer, not at all, she intentionally meant to hit the TV, the family pictures and the dog"

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:21:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  lucky it wasn't my wife shooting at him (4+ / 0-)

                If my wife shoots at a target three times, it gets hit three times. He would probably still have shit himself, perhaps posthumously, but blood on the carpet is preferable to idiot semen any day of the week.

                Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                by Tom Seaview on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:44:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bragging about how you and your wife (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Miss Blue, SilentBrook

                  would'a killed the shit out of that guy--classy.

                  I wonder if it's possible to maintain your right to defend your home without sounding descending into hyperbolic blood lust?

                  I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                  by coquiero on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:08:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Contrary to current popular media, some people (8+ / 0-)

                    do not feel using a firearm to stop a criminal is a bad thing.

                    The "blood lust" is of your own design in an attempt to make others believe as you do; shaming them into accepting your morality as superior.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:20:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Read his comment again (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      SilentBrook

                      and read mine.

                      Your comment has nothing to do with what I was saying.

                      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                      by coquiero on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:22:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry, I saw it as a snarky remark, not your (5+ / 0-)

                        "blood lust" comparison.

                        It seemed appropriate for the humor being displayed in the diary.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:40:24 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Odd sense of humor (0+ / 0-)

                          I saw your comment and could see that as humorous, but his was not.

                          There comes a point where it seems like some people are almost wishing for a break in, so they can defend themselves.  I stand by the blood lust comment.

                          I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                          by coquiero on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:47:42 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You see, that's the problem right there. (6+ / 0-)

                            You judge them by your standards, not theirs.  Tom is a very good man whom takes life very seriously, especially his own.  It isn't a game or a joke, it's a reality when confronted with these very real occurrences, what will one do?

                            Since I do not own a firearm, I'm gonna have to think quick on my feet but for those not capable of physically defending themselves from a drugged up intruder, there has to be alternatives...

                            The snarky part of his comment drew an image in my head of having to clean up some other man's semen in his own home.  The shame and irony of it.

                            I also understood his thought about cleaning up the blood.  I had to do that after my older roommate passed away at our kitchen table and after the medics came and tried as they could to save her.  I had to clean up the blood soaked floor...

                            Neither instance is hilarious or funny or equal to "blood lust".

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:59:14 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry you fail to get it (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, PavePusher

                    My wife and I, owning and carrying defensive firearms, have discussed our plans for the use of weapons to defend ourselves and our home.
                    Here's the bottom line as far as this case goes (and feel free to take advantage of this, if you need a TV or laptop): we would not hurt anyone to protect property.
                    If some poor drugged-out loser -- or an entire moving crew -- decided to break into our home, and if we were satisfied that their entire intent was to steal stuff, we would point weapons at them and yell warnings... but we would not kill anyone over mere belongings.

                    My comment was simply to indicate that my wife, like myself, has been extensively trained, and has fired thousands of rounds in practice at the range. She shoots better than most men we know... including some cops and combat veterans. She is calm, competent and capable. She would not miss a man-sized target at household distances: not once, let alone three times. Neither would I.

                    The other point of my comment was to indicate that I personally understand how awful it would be to kill someone. I have seen people die violently; their blood was by far the least awful part of the experience. I would happily lose and/or replace a whole lot of "cherished" belongings to avoid seeing that again, let alone cleaning up after it... and my wife has never seen anything that awful; keeping it that way is, for me, a priority.
                    I have also been in a fight with someone determined to kill me; what I had to do there was not pretty.

                    Faced with a lethal threat to myself, my wife, or my mother-in-law, then yes I would use deadly force. I've faced that decision before, so I know all too well what I would do... and, again, I know from experience how infinitely preferable it would be to avoid it.

                    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

                    by Tom Seaview on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:01:50 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  What goes unsaid is that rounds were flying about (4+ / 0-)

          and they had a young son in the vicinity. No thought given as to what tragedy those wild rounds could have done.

          I'm not anti-gun, but I think the average citizen would be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn under these circumstances.

          They should have had a sawed-off shotgun loaded with birdshot.

          •  Me? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Seaview, KenBee, PavePusher

            I probably woulda thrown a kitchen chair at dude then just bum rushed him. I doubt I, personally, woulda gone straight for a gun.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:46:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  NFA Class III weapon, prohibited since 1934, (7+ / 0-)

            without license and applicable Tax Stamp.

            •  Justified by the SCOTUS on the (obsolete) belief (5+ / 0-)

              that fully-automatic weapons and short-barreled shotguns had, in 1939, no reasonable connection for use in a militia.

              That's right, the ban on civilian ownership of full auto weapons and sawed-off shot guns was upheld by the SCOTUS not because Congress is permitted under the 2nd to prohibit personal arms deemed that only a military should be allowed to have (which is the current gun-controller mantra), but that these weapons did not receive 2nd Amendment protection because they were exotic weapons no military would use - at least in the minds of elderly justices in 1939 who apparently hadn't been keeping track of such things since well before WWI (and that there was no opposing counsel to argue facts to the contrary).

              If U.S. vs. Miller were reargued today, not questioning reasoning behind the decision, but the facts behind it, not only would any AWB fail, but it's likely that the Hughes amendment and possibly much of the NFA would be overturned.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:14:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Not just "in the vicinity", but... (4+ / 0-)

            they were aparently keeping the gun in the kid's closet?!? Perhaps this is just another example of incomplete journalism, but lacking anymore detail, this is a textbook example of unsafe gun storage. Under similar circumstances, that kid in ABQ armed himself to kill family, and preped to do the same to strangers who almost made the fatal error of shopping in public. Not to mention the "wild rounds" you cite, Buckeye.

            It's no wonder this is explicitely an non-RKBA diary; this sort of unsafe gun storage provides little confidence that these gun-owners aren't a fatal accident (or 2) waiting to happen.

            That, arguably, this incident was not substantially altered by the presence/use of the gun (in spite of the headline's implying that the tresspasser pooped after those three rounds were fired), brings this whole story into perspective: poor gun safety, minimal (if any) positive result, but some guy still went nuts and pooped & jerked to his heart's content, then was tased into custody.

            How this all advocates DGU remains unclear; it seems to take on faith that somehow, this situation would have gotten face-eatingly worse had there not been "warning shots". Which means you have to buy the fear of the worst possible outcome to accept the premise. Forgive me if I think such paranoia to be a most unwelcome attitude for any "responsible gun owner".

            A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

            by SilentBrook on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:00:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A naked man broke in, stole, shit and masterbated (4+ / 0-)

              How is finding that a threat 'paranoia', exactly?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:10:02 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Proportionality (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, splintersawry

                A naked man, masterbating and deficating in someone else's house is certainly unsettling and entirely worthy of calling the cops, but to assume that it reaches the level of an existential threat compelling one to use deadly force is a huge leap of logic, so far enough to be grossly excessive. Since the motive here is fear, grossly excessive fear is rightly named paranoia.

                I realize that sometimes someone is paranoid and they are at the same time under threat. That their fears can meet such reality is more luck than design. Such concordances, however, do not justify paranoia.

                A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

                by SilentBrook on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:46:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  A person could reasonably fear for their lives (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  in a situation like this.
                  There is no court in this world that would agree with your analysis.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:32:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, really. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FrankRose, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                    Just the fact that a stranger is in my home is enough for me to know my life is in danger.  The fact that he's unclothed tells me my life is in even greater danger as there is clearly a mental issue of some sort involved.  But some would suggest that, if faced with such circumstances, the homeowner should ... what?  Question the invader to try and determine his intent?  Assume nothing is wrong and go back to sleep?

                    People who think like that are more likely to wind up being a (dead) victim than people who take the chance of having a gun in their home (presumably well-secured).

                    And no, I'm not a gun-owner.  But if I ever feel life becomes dangerous enough where I live that I'd be wise to become one, you can bet I'll be buying one that can do the most damage in the least amount of time because I'm not going to make the assumption that the bad guys are carrying pea shooters.

                    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                    by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:13:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Luckily so: only in "unofficial" RKBA world (13+ / 0-)

      does the shooting and missing three times add knee-slapping yuk-yuks.   Everywhere else it's just luck that a addled but clearly not dangerous person wasn't condemned to death, or that the husband wasn't killed bt the three "warning shots"  Or that the perp didn't stumble onto the other guns in the house.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:49:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever. (9+ / 0-)

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:51:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  If the intruder (11+ / 0-)

        was on bath salts, he could have been dangerous.  Just ask the man whose face was eaten off - oh, wait.  You can't.

        People high on drugs can be very dangerous because they don't perceive things as undrugged people do.

        I'm thinking his bodily fluid deposits weren't made from fear of the gunshots so much as they were a result of the drugs.

        All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

        by Noddy on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:58:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the hilarious part of the story is (4+ / 0-)

          that it would have been a good kill because he "could have" been dangerous, even though he wasn't, and wife could have killed her husband or herself or her son, and the burglar could have stolen the other guns and those guns could have been used in crimes.  

          Clearly the more potential deaths in any situation, the funnier it is. It's like the NRA exists to create these hilarious situations.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:12:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are deliberately (5+ / 0-)

            misconstruing what I said, and conflating my comment with everyone else's.

            I don't happen to think this diary was funny.

            I think the family whose home was invaded was terrified by this drugged out intruder, and I sincerely feel for the violation they suffered. I particularly feel for the woman, as she is probably the one who has to clean up after the intruder - something you seem to not care about.

            You are so concerned about the intruder you've totally forgotten the family who was intruded upon.

            And yes, it would have been a good kill if the intruder had been killed, and a sad one if any of the family members had been injured or killed - whether it was by "friendly fire" or the intruder eating their faces off.  

            It's a risk every family that buys guns takes - and it is their right to take that risk.

            What some people are finding funny (not me) is the scatological humor any 8 year old would find in someone defecating inappropriately.

            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

            by Noddy on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:47:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  What? You don't find NRA statements laughable? n/t (0+ / 0-)

            A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

            by SilentBrook on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:18:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So, the worst case scenario justifies the most (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miss Blue

          robust of responses?

          You are aware that this is precisely the argument that the neo-cons made about invading Iraq, aren't you.
          To wit:
          If the dictator, surrounded by his bubble of sycophants, has WMD, he could be dangerous.
          People in a sycophant bubble can be very dangerous because they don't perceive things as unbubbled people do.

          I also agree with Inland's sense that this is less than the laugh riot it's sold as. Noddy, you note that the likelyhood that the "bodily fluid deposits" were not resultant from the gunshots, which means that the hilarity of the headline ("when faced with gun, sh1+s on floor") is false.

          Somewhere between his hyperbolic fears of a worst case scenario and the false headline, the diarist finds humor. I can only laugh at the notion that any of this is funny.

          A winning campaign? You didn't build that...

          by SilentBrook on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:17:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did I say that? Really? (5+ / 0-)

            You must be confusing me with someone else.

            All I said was that someone on drugs could be dangerous. Of course, any home invader could be dangerous.

            The residents have the right to take what measures they feel necessary to protect themselves and their family inside their home, including risking their own lives using whatever weapons or tools they legally own.

            Your comparison fails on so many levels that we aren't talking about the same thing at all. You are talking apples while I'm talking opals.

            Dealing with an intruder in your home is not the same as declaring war on another country. t never has been, it never will be.  

            Nor did I, at any point, say I found this diary funny.  Indeed, I pointed out that I felt the scatological humor others found in it was rather juvenile.

            All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

            by Noddy on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:57:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  TONIGHTS MAIN EVENT: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher

        In the blue corner, wearing  mismatched clothes from Wal-Mart & the GAP-- the typical, the boring--the ORDINARY AMERICAN FAMMMIIILYYY!

        In the red corner, wearing....nothing--the sultan of stroke, the beastie with the feaces, the anywerea mastabata--THE NAKED HOME INVADER!!

        Interesting cheering section you've chosen for yourself.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:19:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Palin Cadet Culture War Attempt Fail. (0+ / 0-)

            You forgot to mention Eastern Ivy leaguers in your attempt at weak culture war sauce.  

          Your type is so intent on trying to find a culture war that you invent one between people who get their rocks off at the thought of naked burglaries and the people who get their rocks off at the thought of killing them.

          Here's a clue, cadet: there's nobody on the former, and pretty much you on the latter.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:44:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No...there actually was a naked masterbater (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            But I am curious.....exactly what demographic do you think the naked, masterbating, pooping home invader 'represented'?

            "Thought of killing them"
            He wasn't killed, smart-guy.

            But an impressive demonstration of clairyoyance. A somewhat less impressive display of literacy.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:28:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Reading is your friend. (0+ / 0-)

              There isn't anyone on the side of the naked, masturbating home invader.  You just pretended that someone who didnt get a boner at the thought of killing him was somehow in favor of that behavior.

              I know that for the true gun fanatic, shooting is the answer to everything, from opening beer cans to making a guy stop masturbating.  But some of us think that, as distressing as the guy was, somehow shooting and missing three times wasn't the best response.  It being North Fort Myers, Florida, someone might of just, you know, called the police.  Since they seemed to be the ones who handled it anyway.

              That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

              by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:37:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is not a court in this world that wouldn't (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                rule this case as self-defence if the intruder was killed.
                But do continue siding with masterbating home invaders, it exposes how irrational & out of touch you are.

                "I know for the true gun fanatic....."
                Clairvoyance again.
                How convinving.
                 

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:19:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There you go again. (0+ / 0-)

                  If I'm not all for killing the guy, I'm for him.

                  It's one reason why everyone suspects that gun rights people like killing even more than they like guns: they freely anounce that they want people killed, even though they don't deserve it, even though it's not necessary to protect anyone.  

                  But you're even worse than that.

                  You see an opportunity to kill a guy, get away with it (no court would ever) and you not only wanted them to take the opportunity, you can't stand the fact that someone might not enjoy it.

                  It's not enough for you to fantasize about the guy getting killed.  It's not enough for you to advocate the guy being killed.   You really can't stand the fact that someone is up and saying that maybe, just maybe, nobody should have died in this situation.

                  Because you think the way to be "against" someone or something is to kill it, and nothing less.

                  I'd call it vigilante justice, except that you have no intention of being just.  Nobody would suggest there's something just about the man dying, even you.  You just think that shooting people is the best end result because that's what gets your rocks off.  

                  That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                  by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:30:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The naked home invader wasn't killed. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                    Perhaps you should take more time reading & less time displaying your clairvoyance.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:39:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Inland (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      fuzzyguy, FrankRose

                      trolls this issue with impunity by virtue of his UID.
                      Spoiled brat.

                      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                      by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:41:01 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  That's right, he wasn't. (0+ / 0-)

                      All that's left is for you to be disappointed and to say that everyone who isn't disappointed with his survival is for naked masturbating break ins.  Given what's at stake..a human life with the only cost being you exhibiting your bloodlust....I consider it a good result.

                      Don't worry, someone is being shot somewhere as we speak for something or other.

                      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                      by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:22:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  More clairvoyance. How exciting! (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                        I am glad he wasn't killed. But I certainly wouldn't blame someone put in that situation to use deadly force....and neither would any court nor any reasonable person (not you).
                        Please, continue with your spirited defense of  an insane home invader whom was masterbating, stealing, and deficating.
                        It amuses me.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:21:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's just reading. Try it yourself some time. (0+ / 0-)

                          It just looks like magic, like lighters.

                          I am glad he wasn't killed.
                          Strange, according to somebody, that puts you on the side of masturbating break in naked people.  

                          I can't quite put my finger on it, but it was something like

                          Please, continue with your spirited defense of  an insane home invader whom was masterbating, stealing, and deficating.
                          Well, I can see that you're too smart to let yourself be buffaloed by people who pretend that being glad nobody was killed is the same as actually being for breaking in and anything else.  Really, if that sort of transparent bullshit makes you sick, stay away from whatever RKBA diaries are left, official or otherwise.   Between Palin wannabes and "funny" diaries, there's a center of dishonest arguments and people hiding their true beliefs by clamming up like street perps and trolling their own diaries.

                          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                          by Inland on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:08:47 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh no, don't sell yourself short... (0+ / 0-)

                            In order to be on the side of masterbating home intruders, you have to shamelessly blame the victims of the very threatening act & repeatedly poo-poo the threat of a naked & masterbating drugged up psyco......

                            Its a helluva feat to manage the batshit & hilarious stance of being on the side a masterbating home intruder.
                            You should be proud of yourself for this.
                            I know I'm awfully proud of ya!  

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:57:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More Palin Cadet striving. (0+ / 0-)

                            "blame the victim"?  It sounds good in a culture war way, but you were saying I was cheering the perp.  Which isn't any less a lie because I'm not so in love with gunplay that I find shooting...and missing...three times to be a real kneeslapper.  All that's left is pointing out why you're making that up.  And it's because you're a mini-Palin with weak culture war shit.  

                            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                            by Inland on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:51:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  "Don't Do Drugs" is an good message to send. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, a2nite, myboo, Cinnamon, fuzzyguy

      *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

      by glorificus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:50:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The ratio of gun fatalities to DGU: 80/1 (6+ / 0-)

      I have often wondered about the claim by gun enthusiasts that the gun is an important tool of self-defense.  If that is so, given the great amounts of crime we have in this country, we should see frequent news stories documenting defensive gun uses.  

      So here is one such story, and we occassionally see other news stories documenting defensive gun use, but no where near the numbers that one could expect given the optimistic claims of gun enthusiasts.

      Contrast this with the actual reality of gun ownership, as repeatedly demonstrated by empiric studies showing that guns are far more likely to injure and kill someone than to save someone.

      And that reality is supported daily in long lists of news stories documenting the huge numbers of Americans wounded or killed every day by gun fire.  The CDC reports that every year, over 30,000 Americans are killed by gunfire, averaging out to over 80 gun fatalities every day.

      To sum: 80 documented gun deaths every day, compared to this one documented case of defensive gun use this day.

      Gun enthusiasts are deluding themselves in pretending that posession of a gun makes them safer: owning a gun puts one at increased risk of injury.  

      This thinking is analogous to those travelers who think they are safer going by car than by plane.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:26:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where the hell are you getting that number? (8+ / 0-)

        Kellerman's discredited crap (which changes every time he opens his mouth).

        Peer-reviewed surveys repeatedly come in with on the order of 2.5 million DGUs a year. Even people who don't believe the results keep getting that number, and have to start making dubious excuses for why (usually involving accusing respondents of being mass confabulators, or doing statistics with subpopulations of respondents that are too small to do statistics on).

        In fact, you have the ratio upside down - the ratio of gun fatalities (including suicides and accidents) to DGUs is actually 1/80.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:33:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Didn't you know? (5+ / 0-)

          It's only a DGU if the attacker is shot. And killed.

          Also.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:52:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And people responding consistently to (5+ / 0-)

            19 questions about a DGU to the survey-taker, and then being able to repeat those same answers to a supervisor in a follow-up call, is exactly like a single "yes/no" question about communicating with aliens.

            (to cite another bogus excuse used against the DGU surveys)

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:58:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Defining a defensive gun use (5+ / 0-)

            Admittedly, documenting a "defensive gun use" is much more difficult than documneting a gun injury or fatality.

            But that documentation is 100% necessary if gun enthusiasts want to make credible claims that a gun has defensive uses.

            Take the case described in the article above.  Clearly, a crime of trespass was in progress.  Clearly, a gun was fired.  It is altogether not clear that the criminal intended any harm to occur, and it seems likely the criminal did not even know he was trespassing.  It is also pretty clear that the shooting did nothing to interrupt the crime or deter the criminal in any way.  The suggestion that this is a "defensive gun  use" seems highly questionable.

            Take now the case of the shooting in the Texas college library 2 days ago.  Two men pull out guns and start shooting each other.  Both men swear on a stack of Bibles their use of a gun in that situation was entirely defensive in nature.  Should we count that as two defensive uses of a gun?

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:04:08 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Peer reveiw and credibility (5+ / 0-)

          Silly boy!!  

          You can't dismiss Kellerman's peer-reviewed study as rubbish while simultaneously holding up Cook and Ludwigs peer-reviewed study as some kind of paragon of credibility.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:58:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Kellerman's studies were not peer-reviewed (5+ / 0-)

            They appeared as special articles. Kellerman has never released his raw data. Kellerman's control group were half made up of households with someone with a criminal arrest record - a high-risk population that can not be compared to the population at large. Kellerman relied on this 53% criminal control group to self-report on the presence of a gun in the household, while the study group of shootings had the presence of a gun determined by police. Kellerman had no ability to measure DGUs where no shot was fired, which turn out to be the overwhelming majority in actual DGU surveys, and where no police report was generated (since he only studied shootings, not DGUs). The Kellerman studies (which vary in risk an order of magnitude from paper to paper) aren't worth the ink they're printed with.

            Kellerman's studies are the worst kind of junk science.

            Kleck's is the most comprehensive study, and is still the gold standard among criminologists.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:04:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Peer review and credibility II (9+ / 0-)

              Kellerman's 1996 study (Injuries due to Firearms in Three Cities) was published in the New England J. of Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal.  The article was published under the heading "Special Article", a designation the NEJM reserves for research they think are highly important.   The "Special Articles" receive the same peer-review the NEJM give all quantatative research they publish.  The NEJM peer-reviews everything they publish (except editorials), even Letters to the Editors.

              So you are flat wrong in claiming that Kellerman's work was not peer-reviewed.

              Kellerman is under no obligation to release his raw data; he has already published his written peer-reviewed study.  Claiming Kellerman's study is unsound because Kellerman did not release his raw data is like claiming that Pres. Obama cannot be president because he did not release his college records - Sour Grapes!!!

              Interesting that you should mention Kleck, whose 1995 study was published in a law journal.  It may well have been reviewed by lawyers, but not by scientists with experience and expertise in the areas of study design, data collection and analysis, and statistical reporting.  

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:30:36 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The 96 paper's methodology was as much a joke (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, KenBee, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                as the '93 paper (and I cite only a few of its problems above), differing from the '93 paper only in the exclusion of suicides. If the '96 paper was peer-reviewed (something I'm now double-checking), it was by people unqualified to review most of the major contentions of the paper.

                The fact is, epidemiologists are not qualified to review a paper of this nature - since they were unqualified to determine if the control group was representative or a comparable sample to the general population, if the definition of defensive shooting Kellerman used was appropriate, if the method of positive data collection was appropriate, or if the conclusion even matched the question studied. Especially ones not closely connected to Handgun Control (now Brady), something Kellerman did not disclose at publication. This is why epidemiologists can not replace criminologists.

                The best that can be said of Kellerman's 96 paper (which gives a 2.7:1 risk, not your bullshit 80:1 risk) is that it shows the following:

                Assuming that high-risk households, up to half of which contain a potential prohibited possessor of firearms, accurately self-report firearms ownership rates, members of these households are 2.7x as likely to be shot in the home for some unspecified reason (whether a legitimate police action, legitimate self-defense by a co-habitant, or by an intruder) than to shoot an intruder who then remains on scene or near-by to be found by police and to appear in the police report.

                This finding is so opaque as to be worthless. It does not measure the largest type of DGU, where no shot is even fired, and because of its completely unrepresentative demographic sample, it can not be extrapolated to the general population.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:54:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Peer review and credibility III (5+ / 0-)

                  Again, you are arguing that peer-review is meaningless in the case of Kellerman, but supportive in the case of Kleck.

                  You cannot claim that peer-review is worthless when you do not like the findings of one study, but an important supporting bulwark for a study whose results you like.  Such is not the thinking of a scientist, but the fact-free opinions of a partisan.

                  If you have a disagreement with Kellerman's methods and findings, you should address those to the editors at the New England Journal (who reviewed and found acceptable Kellerman's work).  Your arguments will be reviewed (by scientists with expertise in that area), and if found to have merit, will be published, and perhaps addressed by other researchers.  

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:33:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, PavePusher

        You're comparing gun fatalities to justifiable homicide, not DGU.

  •  Getting shot at gives me the bloody horn. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:13:53 AM PST

    •  The what? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tom Seaview, fuzzyguy

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:15:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sometimes I plumb forget that my fake british (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, 43north, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

      accent doesn't translate in the spoken word.  Them moment I read your words, I immediately thought of an old "Derek and Clive" skit, with Duldley Moore sitting around with his comedy partner (whose name escapes me at the moment) talking about what makes them horny.

      "The Queen gives me the bloody 'orn"
      "The word "the" gives me the bloody 'orn"

      It actually is quite hilarious, tho my post.....ahh, that was left wanting.

      Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

      by Floyd Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:35:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Peter Cook. n/t (4+ / 0-)

        Capital Punishment: them without the capital get the punishment - John Speneclink (executed 06/25/79)

        by Tapestry58 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:46:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo!!! (4+ / 0-)

          They had some VERRRY funny moments!!!

          Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

          by Floyd Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:03:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One leg too few. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            Still cracks me up.

            Capital Punishment: them without the capital get the punishment - John Speneclink (executed 06/25/79)

            by Tapestry58 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:49:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Some lines.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher
              Cook: Need I say with over much emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.

              Moore: The leg division?

              Cook: Yes, the leg division, Mr Spiggott. You are deficient in it to the tune of one. Your right leg, I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That's what I said when I saw you come in. I said, "A lovely leg for the role". I've got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is - neither have you.

              Capital Punishment: them without the capital get the punishment - John Speneclink (executed 06/25/79)

              by Tapestry58 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:52:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i love it!! (0+ / 0-)

                That last line is priceless!!

                (and the humor is so british....the tone and punch lines, and even the subject matter remind me of several python skits:  eg:  the man with 2 (or was it 3?...i forgot) noses; Ken Kleen Air Systems; Arthur 2 sheds Jackson....shit, even the line from Mary Poppins about a man with a wooden leg named smith (what's the name of his other leg?)......i love the british humor!)

                Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

                by Floyd Blue on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 04:36:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. (7+ / 0-)

    What a crazy story!

    I notice it's getting harder and harder for me to find my favorite Calgon English Garden bath stuff at the discount stores. Hmmmmm....

    "It's not enough to acknowledge privilege. You have to resist." -soothsayer

    by GenXangster on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:13:53 AM PST

  •  This is my rifle, this is my gun... (5+ / 0-)

    ...This is for fighting, this is for fun.

    Buy Aldus Shrugged : The Antidote to Ayn Rand, and tear Ayn and the GOP new orifices. ALL ROYALTIES BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 31, DONATED TO THIS SITE, DAILYKOS!! @floydbluealdus1

    by Floyd Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:14:41 AM PST

    •  Guns for fun. (0+ / 0-)

      Did the frog say what is fun or joke to you, is death to me.
      Guns for fun.
      We have all gone batshit crazy.

      Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

      by JoanMar on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:09:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So (6+ / 0-)

        did you come in here just to see who all you could bust on?

        Let me help clear this up for you:

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:19:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I came in here from the hiddens (3+ / 0-)

          and I hoped that this diary was about you showing some sympathy for those who have lost loved ones. Who are still suffering.
          I hoped to see a glimmer of the person I have admired on this site for a while now.
          I hoped to see some contrition.
          I hoped to see that you got it.
          I didn't think that I would see someone attempting to make a joke out of this sick crisis.

          Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

          by JoanMar on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:24:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Or, put another way: (6+ / 0-)

            now, pitchforks and torches are on sale at Home Depot.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:36:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  With pitchforks and torches you get (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SilentBrook, Sharon Wraight

              a chance to defend yourself.
              With guns your only bet is that the shooter has no earthly clue what s/he is doing, see the example in your diary.

              Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

              by JoanMar on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:42:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That (8+ / 0-)

                doesn't make sense.

                "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:50:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The woman missed (5+ / 0-)

                  so it's proof that guns are bad. If she had killed him, it would be proof that guns are bad.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:55:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  some would rather he got beaten with a bat (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fuzzyguy, happy camper, PavePusher

                    or worse it sounds like to me.
                      Of course it was their fault for having a house to break into, so there's that...

                      I would guess that these freakazoid killer gun owners had plenty of time to murder this poor innocent child, but somehow, with their...'wild gun play' ?! they actually didn't.

                    Why not, one wonders, they could have....but didn't...if it was me there I would have said I didn't have to because he was kept from some attacking them by their ability to self defend until the police arrived.

                    Far from 'heh, wild gun play' that was a careful application of the gun resulting in one bath salt crazed person being captured and hopefully treated to live another day. She didn't miss, she hit what she was aiming at which wasn't this kid...and then had less bullets to defend herself with should he become violent instead of crazed and bizarre.
                      By having less bullets available she was now more vulnerable, by choice...and of course all these people complaining about her know he didn't have friends waiting to rush in or that he wouldn't go into the kitchen and get a knife, and that the police would actually get there and not have a 'shift change' excuse or similar........

                    My first thought was two words as well: bath salts....and then maybe shaken' bake.

                    Bizarre.

                     

                    This machine kills Fascists.

                    by KenBee on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:38:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe the guy had diarrhea. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, SilentBrook, high uintas, fuzzyguy
  •  wow, hilarious (12+ / 0-)


    a woman fired three shots at an intoxicated intruder.  Why am I finding this unfunny?  would it be funnier if he was lying dead with three bulletholes in him?  clue me in.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:40:01 AM PST

    •  If the guy'd been killed (9+ / 0-)

      I probably would not have diaried this, as he wouldn't have had the chance to shit on the floor and beat off.

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:48:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and that makes it all better does it? (7+ / 0-)

         
        the wife missed firing three shots at a burglar, so - LOL.  is that about it?

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:51:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  dbad nt (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Seaview, kalmoth, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:06:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No...kestrel apparently thinks the gun (13+ / 0-)

          made the guy shit on the floor.  You know, the big, bad power of the gun and quake in its presence.  

          David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:15:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The whiners (7+ / 0-)

            are out in force, I see.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:19:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  oh, OH, now I get it (10+ / 0-)


            this is about how life and home were protected from the completely out-of-his-head burglar who leapt off a roof and had no control of his bodily functions.  Because this is how these things USUALLY go.  A few spent rounds into a wall and it's all back-slapping down to the precinct.  Good thing we have our second amendment protections and home defense weaponry eh?

            "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

            by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:26:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The guy (7+ / 0-)

              tore a TV off the wall, and the cops had to taser him to get him subdued, so he was apparently far from helpless. Are you saying there was no danger from this man or his potential actions? Would you be so certain of that if he was tearing YOUR house apart and shitting on YOUR floor in the middle of the night?

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:01:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  what i'm saying is that (6+ / 0-)


                the homeowners - who were on the scene, and armed, and shooting, clearly had a firepower advantage.  And were exploiting that firepower advantage - whether the wife could hit the side of a barn door or not - against an unarmed intruder.

                Kestrel felt moved to put this story up as an example of "Defensive gun use" when in actual fact it is an example of using deadly force against an intoxicated - and unarmed -  intruder.  My comments are highlighting the lack of funny in the situation - defecation or no defecation.

                "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

                by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:08:12 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Where do any of have to live or die by your (5+ / 0-)

                  standards?

                  when in actual fact it is an example of using deadly force against an intoxicated - and unarmed -  intruder
                  You've made it sound like he's the innocent victim here.  The 1st violent act was this obviously drugged up individual breaking into a home.  What the homeowners do after that is the responsibility of the criminal, not them.

                  They can only react to the unknown imminent threat presented before them.

                  Even in NYS, the quintesential example of Gun Control, allows us to use whatever force we feel necessary, within our own homes, to stop an intruder.

                  "intoxicated" with what? Do we even know? Does this justify his violent acts?  Are we supposed to stop and take a blood-urine sample before we defend ourselves?

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:15:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i wasn't the one holding this example up as (4+ / 0-)

                    'best defensive gun usage ever' gerrilea, so I don't have to enunciate a standard.  I think it is safe to say that I find it reprehensible to fire repeatedly upon an unarmed person, which is what the wife apparently was doing in this apparently 'hilarious' situation.  I find it neither hilarious nor a good idea.  And I don't think it does anything to enlighten the discourse about how to handle gun violence.

                    I don't give a rat's ass, actually, whether it's legal to gun down an intruder in Florida if they break into my home.  I don't think gunning people down is the way we achieve a peaceful society.  Calling a cop does a much better job.

                    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

                    by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:39:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Then call a cop. (5+ / 0-)

                      They will be happy to take a report.

                      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                      by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:45:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Your "enunciation" was obvious to me, thanks for (5+ / 0-)

                      clarifying it.

                      Again, your standard of "killing an intoxicated-unarmed-" intruder is your morality.

                      Calling the cops is not going to achieve a peaceful society.  

                      They are there to clean up after the event, not prevent or stop it.

                      The only way to do that is to elect people to office that will enact laws and policies that will create living wage jobs, fully fund public health care, including mental health, not demand we pay for "services" from a for-profit private corporation, fully fund public education and secondary education for all, stop unfunded resource wars, legalize drugs and rebuild our inner cities destroyed by their policies.

                      Then we will have a chance at a "peaceful society", not until.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:49:25 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  What are you saying here? (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, KenBee, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                  That unless an intruder has a gun, homeowners are not supposed to shoot them, no matter what they're doing? If he's unarmed, they should limit their response to what, talking? Punching the guy? If the guy had a knife, they should limit their response to grabbing a knife from the drawer? Should they wait until they are physically assaulted before responding? If you wish to play by such rules you are welcome to do so.

                  That's not how it works in the real world, though. He was committing a crime, threatening these people in their own home. He's lucky to be alive, IMHO. And if he had been killed, the fault would be his, 100%.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:43:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  maybe I used too many big words (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino

                    let me clarify: I believe that using deadly force against an unarmed person is wrong.  And further to this: putting a story on DailyKos about 'best defensive gun use ever" in which deadly force is repeatedly used against an unarmed person as if it were FUNNY - is neither funny nor laudable.  Whether or not he was an intruder does nothing to decrease the fact that the intruder is still a human being; and shooting him down may be "legal" and it may be "justifiable" but it is still HOMICIDE.

                    Your mileage may vary.

                    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

                    by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:53:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Homicide is unlawful killing. (5+ / 0-)

                      Legally, shooting a violent intruder in your home is not homicide. It is self defense. Typing HOMICIDE in CAPS does not change that fact.

                      Again, if you wish to rely on the mercies of a drug crazed burglar to refrain from injuring or killing you while the cops are on the way, then please proceed.

                      Whether or not he was an intruder does nothing to decrease the fact that the intruder is still a human being
                      So what? Charles Manson is a human being too. Some humans are dangerous to others.

                      As for humor, this is "OMFG how bizarre is that???", not "wow, hilarious!"

                      You need to loosen up a little.

                      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                      by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:24:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  check your dictionary (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sandino


                        particularly with respect to the term "justifiable homicide."  Homicide is killing your fellow human beings.  I don't find that an acceptable solution to burglary, myself.  And I'm not the only person who believes this - so, I don't think I'm out in left field with this opinion.

                        Repainting the situation as something other than what it is, is a poor argument.  And as you yourself previously pointed out - 'what drugs'? I find the facile belief in using homicide as a proper response to burglarly and break-ins to be a horrifying commentary on the value Americans place on human life.  Yes, I am against the death penalty, before you ask.  I am particularly against the death penalty in cases of burglary.

                        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

                        by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:28:51 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I too am (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KenBee, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

                          against the death penalty. I am for self defense, though, and if that happens to end with the death of someone engaged in a criminal act, one which could have ended much differently than it did in this case, then that is the fault of the person who decided to break in to an occupied dwelling.

                          Shoot someone to protect property? No, never. Shoot them to protect life and limb? If the circumstances make it absolutely necessary, yes.

                          Note that I didn't make the "what drugs" comment.

                          It is worth considering too that burglars who are only after stuff to sell almost never break into occupied homes. Someone who does that often has a very different intent. If I am the homeowner in that situation, I will err on the side of expecting the worst.

                          I also think that if the homeowners had really wanted to kill this guy, he'd be dead. When he started whacking his willie and shitting on the floor in response to gunshots, they probably decided to hold off on that...

                          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                          by happy camper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:50:51 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Unless your telepathy is better than mine..... (0+ / 0-)

                          I generally assume that a naked, violent person unlawfully in my home, probably does not mean to make tea and serve crumpets.

                          YMMV.

                      •  Errr... actually, no. (0+ / 0-)

                        Homocide is simply the killing of a fellow homo sapien.  Murder is unlawful homocide.

                    •  Please tell us how many homocides.... (0+ / 0-)

                      were commited by beating people to death.

                      We'll wait for your answer, and your explaination of how "umarmed" people are not potentially dangerous.

                      This... should be good.

                    •  Homocide in self-defense is not immoral. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      Which is what you are actually trying to imply.

                •  "umarmed"=/="not dangerous" (0+ / 0-)

                  But you knew that.....  didn't you.

              •  A cop tasering someone is hardly proof (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, splintersawry

                that they are dangerous.  Witness several recent incidents of cops tasering people with Downs Syndrome, having heart attacks, sitting still, etc.

                When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

                by Bisbonian on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:51:03 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  louisev, if the headline read: (8+ / 0-)

          Florida woman shoots naked deranged man, assaulting her husband.

          What would be your remark?

          "She should have fled out the door or window with her child."

          "He was NUTS not deadly.  Yet another Zimmerman-like vigilante, just female this time."

          "The real story is about her husband and his young lover.
          She came home and surprised them, freaked-out and shot him.  Homophobic bitch.  Fry her ass."

          •  Misogynistic much? (5+ / 0-)

            You obviously have a low opinion of women.

            Keep it to yourself.

            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

            by glorificus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:54:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, he has a low opinion of the bullshit excuses (10+ / 0-)

              gun-controllers in their rush to justify and make apologetics for criminals and attack acts of lawful self-defense.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:26:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lawful acts of self-defense like Gerald Loughner (3+ / 3-)
                Recommended by:
                Miss Blue, SilentBrook, Sandino
                Hidden by:
                Tom Seaview, Red Sox, fuzzyguy

                and Adam Lanza?

                Not that I expect Robobagpiper to respond, the gang has their strategy of not replying to questions, someone else steps up.

                Is it meagert or Tom Seaview or FrankRose's turn?

                Just another reason I have so little respect for RBKAers.

                *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                by glorificus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:00:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  As there was nothing lawful about the actions of (7+ / 0-)

                  these two individuals, your statement was non-responsive.

                  Of course, the mpeverse belief that violent criminals are the ones being "lawful" would explain some of your desire to make excuses for them, at the expense of the ordinary citizen.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:08:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And if I hadn't specifically named you, someone (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino

                    else would have responded.

                    Just as you responded to a coment directed at 43North.

                    *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                    by glorificus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:47:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Pot meet Kettle /alt/ Reading IS Fundamental (0+ / 0-)

                      See bold:

                      louisev, if the headline read: (8+ / 0-)
                      Florida woman shoots naked deranged man, assaulting her husband.

                      What would be your remark?

                      "She should have fled out the door or window with her child."

                      "He was NUTS not deadly.  Yet another Zimmerman-like vigilante, just female this time."

                      "The real story is about her husband and his young lover.
                      She came home and surprised them, freaked-out and shot him.  Homophobic bitch.  Fry her ass."

                      so glorificus, as the Actor in this gunplay was FEMALE, what's the appropriate, approved response?

                      1) this story reeks of bullshit if anyone shot a gun, it was the husband.

                      2) The naked man was obviously not up to the accepted Court Standard of "actions of a reasonable and prudent individual" and thus this was a MEDICAL condition, not a home invasion.
                      Vigilante much Florida?  How many old white men shooting young men does this make?  Still not buying a WOMAN would do this.
                      First it was a Hoodie, now it is a Woodie? God damn, take ALL the guns away.  NOW.

                      3) "Knocked down" by a naked man?  Har har.  
                      Going down more like it.  Caught.  Burned.
                      Three shots, due to shooting at two men trying to get away.
                      THAT would be justified.
                      Don't do this shit in my home, with our children present.
                      Get a divorce, move in with him.

                  •  Didn't Loughner LEGALLY purchase those guns (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino

                    under laws you oppose changing?

                    Robobagpiper, are YOU in favor of limiting magazine size?

                    *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                    by glorificus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:55:53 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The legality of his purchase is irrelevant. (9+ / 0-)

                      His actions with the weapons were unlawful - and yet you consistently conflate criminal uses of guns with lawful ones because you want to present the lawful owner as one bad day away from being a criminal, an assertion contemptuous of both the facts regarding who engages in violent crime, and a slander against your fellow citizen that undermines the very principles of democratic governance.

                      I do not advocate limiting magazine size. A DOJ report on the effects of the AWB found no evidence connecting a magazine capacity limit on outcomes of incidents.

                      The obvious reason for this is that a magazine limit merely disadvantages those not looking for a fight against those who have premeditated and prepared for such by bringing a large number of magazines.

                      The VT shooting involved a mix of 19 10- and 15-round magazines, 17 of which were used. In Columbine, 13 10-round magazines were found for Harris' gun. In neither case was the killer deterred by limit in magazine capacity, simply carrying more magazines to compensate. In Sandy Hook, the attacker used multiple handguns instead, leaving the oh-so-deadly AR in his car's trunk.

                      Meanwhile, a lone defender against multiple attackers, especially one who has grabbed a weapon in haste in response to an attack and has retreated (as controllers wish to require him or her to do) has no ability to reload should the limit of 10 (or, now in NY, 7) prove insufficient, as the magazines for reload may well not be available. The same is true for when attackers who, as in the recent GA home defense shooting, so not go down after being hit 5 times out of 6 shots (at which point the defender, using a revolver, was out of ammo).

                      The Aurora and Giffords shootings are often cited as evidence for the need for capacity limits, as the perp was taken down during a reload. But neither appears to have been the case. In both cases, the shooter's extra-capacity magazine (>15 for the pistol, >30 for the AR) either jammed in the well, or in the feed, because extremely large magazines are inherently unreliable in both loading and feeding for engineering reasons. Had either used standard capacity magazines, they could have continued firing indefinitely.

                      The gun debate is contaminated by the controllers' conviction that force, and the instruments thereof, are a moral evil in all cases, and thus propose measures purely directed at prohibitions against the instruments, regardless of whether or not they are the prevailing factor in acts of violence.

                      There is no more clear evidence of this than the obsession to prohibit "assault weapons", despite their receiving the strongest degree of Constitutional protection under the reasoning used in US vs. Miller, and despite their use in violent crime to be virtually non-present (2% of gun crimes, 0.6% of homicides, and present in only about a quarter of the already-rare mass shooting-type scenario).

                      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:29:21 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thank you for your comprehensive response. (4+ / 0-)

                        I disagree, but having your argument out there informs the debate.

                        *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                        by glorificus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:04:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I skimmed this before as I was late for a (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sandino

                        meeting but now that I actually read it I'm wondering what happend in VT. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy if you meant CT. I thought gun owners were supposed to be so super careful?

                        The legality of his purchase was crucial, as in that was how he obtained the weapon.

                        By the way, Cho in Virginia, Adam Lanza, Gerald Loughner, the Aurora shooter were all

                        one bad day away from being a criminal
                        as the cops weren't looking for them before the massacres.

                        If you weren't absolutely horrified with the slaughter at Shady Hook, possible ONLY with weapons designed for military use, I don't ever wish to deal with you again.

                        *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                        by glorificus on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:35:26 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  VT = Virginia Tech (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose, Robobagpiper

                          Adam Lanza bought no weapon.  He got them the old-fashioned way.  He killed for them.

                          Cho, like Loughner, like Holmes, should have been in a NICS database.
                          The NRA did not block that database, but instead advocated for it; as an alternative to a statutory 14 day waiting period, with no duty to act or investigate would-be gun purchasers.

                          The NRA has not blocked the addition of the "adjudicated mentally defective" as that's statutory law.
                          That Court-adjudication is also fought extensively by families and mental health patient advocates, as the ramifications in certain circumstances reach far-beyond the patient.

                          In other circumstances, it's very difficult to get the Authorities interested in a person's actions.  
                          Loughner would be a prime example.  Colin Ferguson would be another prime example, and the impetus for the first AWB ban on handgun magazine capacities.  Both men were on the "he's beyond weird" radar - but didn't rise to the level of Felony - therefore worth the money - until that one fateful day.  
                          And it's all about the money.

                          Gun bans are easy.  Who cares if it's effective.

                          "We banned the guns!  
                          A victory against the Tea Party and their NRA henchmen!
                          I will do even more if re-elected!"
                          Mental Health is hard.
                          So hard we've ignored it for 40 plus years.
                          Otherwise we'd have to do something with the homeless, much of the prison population, and those who self-medicate into oblivion with alcohol or illegal drugs.
                          That's messy, costly, and obviously just handing out the flav flavor of-the-day pill, ain't a-working.
                        •  Once again you lie (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose

                          Typical. We know enough about these individuals to know they were mentally ill and should have been prohibited possessors under extant law, had it been fully enforced. Your authoritarian Prohibitionist ideology requires you to portray them as typical citizens.

                          Your perverse belief that the typical citizen is no different from these monsters is reprehensible and treasonous to the principles of democracy.

                          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:36:19 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You say "Mental Health is hard." yet are (0+ / 0-)

                            completely comfortable ascribing various motives and beliefs to me which you have no way of knowing.

                            Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

                            And with 80-90 gun deaths A DAY I'm not sure

                            that the typical citizen is no different from these monsters
                            is a statement you should bet the rent on.

                            As to the murderers being prohibited from owning guns under "extant law" I think you are wrong.

                            What laws prohibited Loughner from assembing his arsenal?

                            What laws prohibited Nancy Lanza from keeping guns in her home?

                            I thought there were laws that kept Cho's mental state from being reported to authorities. Or maybe it was human sloppiness.

                            I'm pretty sure the "principles of democracy" do not now nor ever did include the right to gun someone down because of an argument over football. Or leaving your gun in the living room where 4 y o can shoot it.

                            Which is only possible because you wrap yourself in the flag and scream 'Second Amendment!!!! DON'T TOUCH MY GUNS!!!!!!!! at the top of your voice.

                            "authoritarian Prohibitionist ideology" What. the. Fuck.?

                            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                            by glorificus on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:20:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  legally purchase? Not at all. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      Loughner had at least 3 meaningful interactions with the Authorities, which if-entered into the NICS database, would have precluded his purchase of a firearm at a licensed dealer.

                      under laws you oppose changing?
                      There isn't a single person on these boards, who participates from a pro-gun p.o.v., who advocates for psychotics or sociopaths to have unfettered access to firearms, nor dangerous devices.

                      That's an entire construct.  Once again glorificus, you like to make character assassination comments, and then cry foul.

                      •  Well, if you consider people who are fine with (0+ / 0-)

                        not banning AR-type weapons or not banning 30 bullet magazines or refusing to consider registration as being fully on board with preventing 'psychotics and sociopaths' from getting guns, you are very confused.

                        Because if the average Pete can get them, so can the Loughners, Chos, Lanzas, etc.

                        I don't have to be a board-certified mental health expert to know if those items are avaiilable to all, people who shouldn't have them will fake their way through the process.

                        Or if their mother has them, they'll steal it.

                        I understand there will NEVER be no accidental/homicidal gun deaths in this country.

                        However, just HOW HIGH ARE RKBAers SETTING THE BAR for ACCEPTABLE DEATHS?

                        20 kids not enough? Will it take 40 or 60 or a THOUSAND?

                        Not that it matters, because the American people are sick of this shit. The train's acomin', too bad for you.

                        *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

                        by glorificus on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:55:23 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Come on. (7+ / 0-)
                  Lawful acts of self-defense like Gerald Loughner (0+ / 0-)
                  and Adam Lanza?
                  You are smarter, and, as a person, better, than that kind of shit.

                  And we both know that.

                  "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                  by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:27:11 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I resent the callout, glorificus! (16+ / 0-)

                  I was staying out of this silly thread, but calling me out specifically as if I was a pariah, or rabid partisan involved in some conspiracy theory of yours about the RKBA group is beyond the pale.
                   Your obvious hatred of the group, and the intimations of extremist views that you so cavalierly assign to individuals, shows your bias, and, frankly, uncivil participation on Daily Kos.

                  These types of comments are becoming typical on Daily Kos, lately, and the cause of much of the discord. They are not policy oriented. They are not argumentative. They are aimed at individuals. Especially so because the individuals you name aren't even in conversation with you.

                   I won't respond to any further comments by you. Not because of the conspiracy planning you accuse the group of,  but that's all this border line slanderous comment of individuals deserves.

                  "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

                  by meagert on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:47:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Your dictionary is fucked. (0+ / 0-)

                  Try again.

    •  Well, it's funny because... (9+ / 0-)

      1) It happened in Florida. Something like this happening in Florida would be like my family selling diamonds and making usurious loans at my Bar Mitzvah;

      2) Some lunatic went from naked burglar to public masturbator/defecator after getting caught. Bizarre + Bodily Functions = Hilarity, and;

      3) It's a humorous way to intriduce a real life example of why there is a logical middle ground between the gun nuts of the NRA and the gun grabbers of the far left: the intruder posed a threat to the family in this home. They were able to use their gun as a deterrent, and thankfully not leave him "lying dead with three bullet holes in him." However, had it been necessary (homeboy was heading toward their kid's bedroom), this would have been a perfectly reasonable defensive use of one's handgun, and if, as I suspect, our criminal was indeed high on bath salts, someone's face probably would have been chewed off before a 911 call could draw a first responder.

      Unapologetic Obama supporter.

      by Red Sox on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:57:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You just have no appreciation for gun porn (0+ / 0-)

      and neither do many other Americans --- despite evidence (like this diary) to the contrary.

  •  It is not all death and destruction, (6+ / 0-)

    hospital emergency rooms, trauma and nightmare with guns, it seems. If one looks really, really hard one can find the funny.
    Haha! So funny. LMAO!
    Took my mind off the over thousand human beings who are no longer here since SH, because some other people claimed their God-given right to guns.

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:17:53 AM PST

  •  as an (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, Wee Mama, Quicklund, SilentBrook

    anthropological note, it is not at all uncommon for burglars to defecate on the floor. After cleaning a place out, they leave a little pile behind as a sort of marking of territory, a gesture of contempt for the homeowner.

    What's interesting is that cops do it too. The only difference is that they use the toilet. We frequently receive clients puzzled as to why law enforcement, after serving a warrant, in the process of which they contemptuously trash the place, rhythmically use the john, until it is completely clogged with feces and tissue.

    Humans are strange. With or without bath salts.

  •  Kill the crazy people!!! (11+ / 0-)

    What is the proper response to a crazy naked man invading your home?

    There aren't any really good answers to this question.

    Some would say that it would be right to kill anyone coming into your home without an invite - be they purposeful and murderous or naked and crazy.

    Others would say it is not right to kill someone who is clearly unarmed and out of their minds.

    Both arguments have merit and both are supported by law.

    Fortunately, in this situation, the police arrived and controlled the situation without bloodshed.

    When I was growing up, my father expalined to me that in our country we so value liberty that we believe it is better to let 100 guilty people go free than incarcerate on innocent person (my father was an unabashed liberal who fought in WWII).  Today, we are a country that so loves our guns we would rather kill 100 harmless people than allow one law regarding gun sales be enacted.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:47:41 AM PST

    •  agreed, hugh (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SilentBrook, Sandino, WakeUpNeo


      the cops didn't see fit to gun this guy down, it's curious why the homeowners felt they had to - particularly since the guy was clearly incapable of controlling his own bodily functions.  How hard is it to immobilize someone who is masturbating on your front porch?

      "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

      by louisev on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:55:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I love "expalined" it's like he removed the Sara (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Inland, Sandino

      Palin from you by educating you about something.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:06:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Crazy burglar on drugs seems a poor example (6+ / 0-)

      when discussing whether someone was harmless or not.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:46:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Intruder, not burglar (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        splintersawry, Sandino

        In general, I agree with you: a crazy burglar is a poor example of when discussing dangerous vs. harmless.

        In this particular case, we know the outcome, and your argument does not hold.

        Apparently, the person intruding in this home did not steal anything, and seemed to have no mind to attempt to steal anything.  They cannot be accurately described as a burglar.

        It is likewise clear that the intruder did not intend any harm, and it seems likely that person did not even know they were intruding in someone else's home.  (Interestingly, had any family members been injured by the wild gunplay of the home-owners, the intruder would have been criminally charged as perpetrating the injury.)

        And clearly, this naked man was unarmed, tho' unarmed individuals can still be dangerous.

        In this particular case, the gun-owning home-owner was a "loose cannon", and posed as much a danger as the crazed intruder.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:43:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Burglar/intruder (6+ / 0-)

          Who cares?

          "In this particular case, the gun-owning home-owner was a "loose cannon", and posed as much a danger as the crazed intruder." srsly?

          I'm sorry but that is almost as crazy as the poop and shoot dude was.

          "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

          by high uintas on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:45:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep, seriously (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino

            Let's look at it dispassionately.

            One party thows stuff, poops and masurbates.  No shooting with eyes closed, no lead careening around wildly at 800-900 f/s.

            The other party grabs a gun and hurriedly gets off three shots.  Any bodily fluids released are done so in the privacy and comfort of their own underwear.

            And when was the last time you read a news story about anyone getting injuried by errant poop?  What about news stories of people getting wouned or killed by stray bullets from eager shooters - sometimes blocks away from where the shots were fired?

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:53:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We can safely look at this (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy, PavePusher, ER Doc, FrankRose

              "dispassionately" because we know the outcome. The people involved had no idea what would come to pass and frankly neither do we if crazy nude dude hadn't been scared into dropping to the ground.

              "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

              by high uintas on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:57:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'll give you that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                high uintas

                OK, I'll cop to monday-morning quarterbacking.

                The fact remains that no one ever died from poop on the carpet.

                I think you have to agree that both parties engaged in dangerous behavior.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:27:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  listened to a slightly inebriated (5+ / 0-)

    crowd of 70's age folks at dinner last night.   Talking about needing more guns and more ammunition.

    Of course, the .38 special for defense pistol of one couple was apparently not working out too well.  They went to the range to practice and neither could hit the target, zero hits.   They bought a shotgun.  

    Several shots were fired in this incident, so it wasn't the mere presence of a gun, and from the description of the suspect's behavior, he might have shit regardless of the gun.    And the news reports conflict if not shooting the guy was on purpose or incompetence.  The police eventually  took him down with a taser.  It would seem that the substance abuse was in control of the suspects behavior, not the people nor the gun.

  •  Typical Anti reaction (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, PavePusher

    No bath salts,

    just the average penis fetishist grabber  
    mentality

    Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:36:46 AM PST

    •  not word one about Dianne Feinstein's Anti Bath (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, PavePusher, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

      Salts legislation.

      This shit is hard to track and test for and sold openly at smoke shops.

      The people going and coming from the 'smoke shop' are the strangest most freaky looking meth  headed victims you will ever see.

        Meth, crack, shake'n bake, bath salts are killing and maiming many more than DGU ever has.

      That is truly pitiful.

      This machine kills Fascists.

      by KenBee on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:59:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a DGU case (0+ / 0-)

    where a tennis racket would probably have served just as well :-)

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:13:59 PM PST

  •  Or was that "fired warning shots through (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fuzzyguy

    the walls?" I'd be interested to know the details on that since the most likely wall penetrations in my house will be from either .38 or from .45 ACP. Unless I decide to get something you can load with something a bit more penetrating than birdshot.

    At least I hope I have the presence of mind to remember where other inhabitants of the house might be so I can try to avoid launching anything in their direction.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:36:46 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site