dksuddeth

on one point, you are correct. I apologize to you for the insult and hostility. I'll rein it in.

no such law exists, otherwise we'd be seeing police prosecuted all the time. Now, you have the right not to be shot, stabbed, clubbed, and beat to death, but we call that murder so basically you have the right not to be murdered. Does that law stop it? no, it does not. It only allows for the punishment of the guilty. Gun laws do not stop the criminal from getting a gun, but they also make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a non-criminal to get a gun also. There is something unconstitutional about that.


because the gun can be used by a criminal or by someone defending themselves, therefore it shouldn't be regulated. Only the actions of the person wielding it should be regulated.


it's not my logic, it's the current state of all gun laws, which are not logical by any means.



Question, why are you slamming me for generalizing people as stupid but haven't even bothered to correct willravel for the same thing, especially since he used the term first? lets be consistent at least, k?

no, because they initiated the aggressive action, however, the store owner (or any other citizen thats armed) can blow both of them away.

longbough has it right, we've beat this deadhorse many times over.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

magictoy

If you discount published police reports because they appear on an NRA website, you should review the chapters on "denial" in your psychology texts.

dc_dux

dk...I know many gun owners are trained in firearm safety and appropriate use, but are they trained in how to respond, in a brief instant, to a "perceived" threatening situation, be it a personal assault, a store robbery, a car theft, etc?

I have enourmous respect for police because they face this danger every day and have the proper training to assess a situation, in a matter of seconds, before reacting. I have a concern that most civilians do not have that training and we will see too many "shoot first" scenarios (as is already evident in Florida).

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

How many times has a www.truthout.org article been dismissed by conservatives because the sites are biased? The NRA is biased, and you're inability to admit that is the only denial present. It's very easy to pick and choose police reports so that they can support your claim. With the right control of information, I could make out terrorism to be the biggest threat to the US instead of things like heart disease or ignorance. Oh, wait, someone already did that.

I dismiss the NRA websites because they show biased information. Also, you might want to leave the diagnosing to the professionals.

dksuddeth

I wish people could get over this fallacious argument that police are trained so highly in the art of perception. They are not. They qualify once or twice a year and they get periodic training on new laws or procedures and that's about it. The only ones that get this higher training are the ones assigned to SWAT teams. A young officer on patrol, even some with a few years under their belt, are no more experienced in shooting scenarios than you or I.

The other argument that alot of anti-gun people still hold on to is that the police are more qualified to protect your life than you are. While alot of police officers try very hard to help people in desperate situations, they still will hold on to THEIR safety and lives first and foremost. NOBODY is more qualified to defend your life than you, provided you haven't already given up that responsibility.

I firmly believe that this is the deeply buried fear of those that are anti-gun, that the responsibility of defending their life is too much for them to handle, so they shuffle it off to law enforcement and in doing so, wish to force it on the rest of society so they don't feel inadequate.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dc_dux

From an article I posted earlier:
Without knowing all the details, I wonder if police would have pulled the trigger on unarmed persons.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

PassionFish

That is a fascinating and thought-provoking stance.

I have always been, generally, anti-gun, simply because I believe the average Joe on the street is more likely to shoot first think later. While I can't imagine my 'getting-ready-for-work-routine' changing from 'purse-keys-sunglasses' to 'purse-keys-sunglasses-gun', I really see your point. It has given me something new to consider.

shakran

Cool. I appreciate that.


Well, no, if the police are shooting at a criminal who's threatening their or someone else's lives, there's nothing wrong with that. If the cop shoots 3 innocent bystanders while the criminal gets away I guarantee that, if not criminal charges, there WILL be civil lawsuits filed, and the cop will (hopefully) no longer have a job.

Murder is an intentional crime. If you fuck up with your gun and accidentally shoot me, it's not murder. It's still a crime, but a lesser one. In fact it's doubly criminal because people that can't use their guns properly should not have them.

Again this argument can be used against any law. Speeding laws do not stop speeding, they only fine the guilty. Rape laws do not stop rape, they only punish the rapist. And frankly I WANT it to be difficult for a non-criminal to get a gun because if it's easy to get a gun, any idiot can do it. And idiots and guns do not mix well.

So I trust you get into a riproaring fight with the DMV every time they want you to register your car?

YOU are the one trying to convince me (and Will (do not say what, Will )) to see things your way.


BTW I do agree with you on one point - that the cops are not highly trained. You're right. And they should be.

Well that's not true for this anti-gun person anyway. I've studied martial arts (real fighting, not the sport karate crap) for more than 20 years and have been a black belt for 10. I'm comfortable empty handed and with weapons. I frankly prefer to rely on myself for my defense rather than the cops, because having helped train cops who came to my school for seminars, I know I'm probably better than most of them anyway. If I ever got a gun, I'd do it right- I'd train the hell out of it before i ever thought of carrying it for self defense. One of my biggest pet peeves is these idiots that run out and buy a folding knife because they find out I carry one for defense, but they don't bother to learn how to use it. It's the same issue with guns. The vast majority of people who have guns for self defense purposes are more poorly trained than the cops, and as I've already said the cops aren't exactly experts either. Why in the hell would I want to give someone an object that can kill me from 100 feet away when that person won't bother to learn how to use it properly to ensure they WON'T kill me by accident?

dksuddeth

I've followed probably close to 100+ stories of accidental deaths, or injuries, suffered by innocent bystanders from the actions of police officers in the line of duty and I've been able to count on one hand, the number of prosecutions. The civil lawsuits get dismissed under the supremacy clause. You've seen my point out quite a few of them over the last year, so you should remember some of them.

I agree, people certainly should know how to use a gun. I just don't think it should be government regulated. If a person can't dedicate themselves to being familiar, comfortable, and competent in using a gun, they should not even bother.


Idiots and anything don't mix well, but there is no law against being an idiot in this country, unfortunately.

If I thought the DMV had any power over it, i'd certainly raise hell with them. As it stands now, my state reps don't like seeing envelopes with my return address on them.

Admirable, that you've dedicated that much of your time to the discipline, and I agree about the training, with any weapon. I still feel that, as a constitutional right, it should not be government regulated. When it is, it isn't a right anymore, it becomes a priviledge....one that can be taken away with ease.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Lasereth

This debate should be about self defense and/or lethal self defense, not simply a gun argument. The Gun Argument® has many sides and aspects to it that cannot be discussed simultaneously with self defense.

If someone breaks into your home, they've given up their right to freedom, and if they threaten the victim, their right to safety. I really don't like the notion in this thread that victims should be cute little mice hiding from badguys because that's less violent. That, in an extremely general (probably too general) sense is promoting burglary as long as no one gets hurt.

I agree with the law, but I really think it should be extremely detailed, attempting to cover multiple situations.

This isn't really an answer to anything, but more of a question: if a "bad guy" breaks into your house and you are behind a locked door with a weapon, do you really have the option of scanning the burglar, determining his threat, and then acting after your conclusion? No. If you must defend your house, yourself, or your family, you will most likely have one shot at it, and it's simply to attack the burglar if he is threatening. Killing burglars due to their being a burglar seems like the excuse that many people are giving but it's not that simple or that easy. Burglars are harmed because once threatened, victims generally only have one chance to change the outcome if the incident, and that does not include a case analysis of the Danger Level® of the burglar.

What I do not agree with is laws that punish victims. For example: in my law class at college, we studied multiple self defense cases. In one state (I apologize for my lack of hard info), a man broke into a woman's house with a knife. The woman saw the man coming through the window and cut his hand/arm with a knife. The man had not attacked the woman first, and the woman was actually charged with "attackery" or whatever it's called when you harm someone. Cases like these are absurd -- like I said before, when you defy the law and decide to forcefully enter someone's house with the intent of stealing or harming, you've given up your right to freedom and/or safety. I see these cases all over of armed robbery when the robbers are shot in a home and the home owner is charged with murder. When it comes down to it, if someone else is using lethal force against me, my property, or my family, they have just given you the OK to take their life. I did not break the law. I did not premeditate an illegal action. I killed to prevent my life from being taken by someone who was breaking the law and intending to harm me. I'm perplexed that anyone could think it's unethical to harm someone who was intending on harming you or had harmed you.

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

robodog

Personally I would like to limit such extreme power to your place of work and your home so as to deter vigilantism. While I agree that the police are not always the best people to be defending your life I think that the law as written is too broad. The fact that you could under the letter of the law shoot any burglar simply by stating that you had a reasonable belief that they intended to harm any potentially occupants of the building they are entering means to me that the law is too broad. It could probably be cleared up simply be adding an imminent danger clause or something similar but I have found that the people who write these kinds of laws generally pick their words very carefully and such a limiting clause was most likely purposefully left out.

dksuddeth

Thats exactly why these laws are being re-written. Alot of states had that 'imminent danger' statute and people were still prosecuted by aggressive DA's that didn't believe in self defense.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

I've seen just as many where the cop at the very least gets fired or reassigned somewhere where he won't have the opportunity to do that again.


I completely agree- they shouldn't bother. Trouble is, they DO bother, they DO get guns and then run around thinking they're safe and can shoot the bad guy just like in the movies. The basic problem is that people are basically stupid, especially when it comes to stuff you see a lot of in movies, and frankly can't be trusted to make good decisions. Now, if we're talking about chewing tobacco that's one thing. If people want to be stupid with that, go for it, it won't hurt me. But when we're talking about a lethal object designed specifically to kill, then to not have any regulations making it much harder for the stupid to get their hands on it, that's insane.


That's right, which means we need to protect society from the idiots.



Yeah, but then there's that whole sticky "well regulated militia" clause which clearly shows that the intent of the framers was to have an armed and. .well. . .well-regulated populace to keep the government in check. The intent was NOT to have a bunch of idiots running around shooting the wrong people.

dksuddeth

Wouldn't that be the reason for long prison terms? It USED to be, and still should be, completely unconstitutional to make laws that criminalize possession because you MIGHT commit a crime.


why should we let idiots rule our lives and how we conduct society? Wouldn't it make more sense to lock the idiot away once he's proven him/herself incapable of NOT being an idiot? does to me anyway.


getting off topic, but 'well-regulated' never has meant 'government' regulated. The 'well-regulated' militia was ALL of us citizens, not government officials or standing armies, being familiar with weapons, knowing how to use them, and being as well armed as the standing army. As for idiots shooting the wrong people, Here is a quote from the Arkansas
Supreme Court "To Prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm is
an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear
arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with
army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege".

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

reviving an older thread,

showing why 'less lethal' means of defense are really not better than lethal means of self defense.

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_...storyid=106124

see, tasers do not always incapacitate your criminal and you could end up getting killed.

This shit pisses me off to no fucking end. First off, if these criminals realize that facing no resistance at the beginning, only to have to deal with you as the only eyewitness in court IF they are caught will only cause them to kill you to avoid that eyewitness. Also, why would you embolden the criminals to recognize that they won't face any resistance in taking YOUR personal property that you worked your ass off for. Some people here don't consider the taking of life worth physical property but I say these people have no clue what it means to live life paycheck to paycheck and to value what is yours.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

I am in favor of these laws as long as they pass the vagueness doctrine.

I am also in favor of a national concealed weapons permit system.

An armed society is a polite society. The US is flooded with guns.

To take them away from law-abiding citizens is childish and fruitless.

Regardless of laws... the bad guys will always have them. Look at Wash D.C. for example.

If you don't want to participate in securing yourself? Don't.

But don't tell me that I have to resort to martial arts to defend my home / family.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

With these kinds of laws, I'm seeing...

• many abusive husbands being killed (culled?)--expeditiously (execution style?);
• chaotic club shootouts becoming more common;
• instances of road rage ending in tears;
• the collapse of the American tourism industry;
• a spike in imperfect self-defense sentencing;
• manslaughter, womanslaughter, childslaughter;
• broken lives, broken families--the disappearance of the middle class;
• gun-free gated communities, where prosperity feeds off the blood of the downtrodden; and
• many other prophetic visions of a paranoid American public.

Tyler Durden: "What's that smell?"




....

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Plan9

Wait... so laws inspire crime? I'm confused again. This happens often. Hang with me, brother.

Your logic would explain why when I got my concealed weapons permit that I felt it necessary to fire wildly into the air and rob the nearest liquor store.

I understand your points, but I don't agree with them. They make humans seem like closet psychotics just waiting for some law to let them do whatever crazy act they've simply been waiting for...

Right now? We all have the means for homicide... but no motivation. There is a social stigma, the establishment provides deterrence, etc. We'll say that motivation is something that exists outside of the physical world. If it wasn't guns... it would be swords or table legs or Halx's cock or crossbows or sharp sticks or scissors. Why did they ban civilian ownership of swords in Japan in 1588 and then in 1876? Hell, the FBI had a stand-alone group that studies violent crimes committed with a friggin' baseball bat. Go figure.

None of this blaming technology shit either. "Guns make it easy." That is always the next silly argument. To that I say: "But plasma guns would make it even easier."

Very truly I tell you that I don't think laws provide motivation for such things. Drug laws, for example, wouldn't increase the rate of narcotic consumption, I believe. I think the crime rate would remain the same or even lessen.

Issues:

- You will definitely have gummint legislation that provides the stringent training and certification criteria to allow individuals to legally carry weapons.
- You will still have weapon free zones with said legislation. Banks, schools, liquor stores, gummint buildings, and any place that doesn't want weapons.
- I seriously doubt that people that weren't previously inclined to homicide would suddenly engage in it due to some minor, heavily-red-taped legislation.
- How do self-defense laws involving firearms relate to the middle class disappearing?
- Do you understand how self defense laws work in the US? They suck. Even if you righteously kill somebody... you are first arrested, have your weapon confiscated, booked, and end up in jail until it is proven that you were in the right.
- Yuppies will continue to be rich and live in gated communities guarded by large men with submachine guns (Rosie O'Donnell, for example)

/ babble

If you've never had a significant other attacked before you don't know how awful it feels to depend on a third party for the safety of their very life.

Bumper sticker: 9 out of 10 women prefer shooting a rapist to being raped.

Self defense: I'm not a smart man but I'm a do-it-yourself kinda guy.

...

I jumped through all the many required government hoops (paperwork, training, certification) to legally carry a concealed weapon. I carry it every day, exercising my right. Does this make me more likely to commit a crime than the next guy?

edit: wow, this makes very little sense. oh well.

The mentality you carry pisses me off. You shoot Mormons for trespassing?

All carjackers get my car. All robbers get my wallet. Break into my house and steal my laptop? Just keep going; it's cool... I'm insured. The only time I'm going to use any kind of force against an armed someone who is attempting to take something from me is if that something is my life or the life of someone important to me. If I feel like I'm the target, not merely my possessions... I will retaliate at that time. You can take my stuff, but you don't touch me or my family.

Instead of brandishing your gun right machismo, go brandish your educational rights and get a better job. I was in the US military as a bottom-of-the-barrel NCO and I didn't have to live paycheck to paycheck.

What is your excuse?

Instead of regulating guns, maybe we should have mandatory morality classes.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Martian

This is sensible to me. I have no qualms about an individual with this mentality carrying a weapon.

This scares me, and is the basis for opposition of laws like this. Self-defence should carry a burden of proof, in order to discourage exactly this sort of thing. It's my opinion that the only time lethal force is justified is in preventing direct, immediate and severe harm to yourself or others. The dude who mugs you doesn't need to be shot. The dude who steals your car doesn't need to be shot. And the guy who got shot after trying the taser? He probably would've been okay if he'd co-operated.

In other words, if you shoot someone it should be for a damn good reason, the only good reason. Anything less is murder.

Canada has very strict gun control laws. The idea of someone other than a law enforcement officer carrying a gun in the streets up here is almost completely unheard of, and yet somehow we manage to maintain law and order. I realize that there is a fundamental difference in perspective between you guys and us and I'm not making a moral judgment on the right to keep and bear arms in and of itself, but making it legally defensible for individuals to shoot with intent to kill (as if there's any other intent behind using a firearm) in any but the most dire circumstances seems like a very bad move to me. I don't condone vigilantism and I never will.

EDIT- I'm pretty anti-violence and certainly feel no need to carry a gun. I don't personally think that it's necessary to the maintenance of a free society for the individual citizen to have that right and in fact, do not have the right myself, although I can apply for the privilege. However, even I don't particularly understand all the militia hoopla that comes up. Observe:

Let's look at that a little more closely.

Note the comma, which denotes a separation between two related thoughts.

It does not say there that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the people shall not be infringed, as an extension of the argument that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Whether or not you agree with that argument is one thing, but as Americans it is in your constitution and philosophic implications aside is pretty much inarguable legally.

Ipso facto, ad hoc, whatever.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

dksuddeth

That is an incredibly huge leap from stealing my property, don't you think? A good one though, worthy of an anti.

for you, if that works, great. It doesn't for me, so who are you to tell me that I should let all thieves and muggers take my property? is it my property or yours?

If you knew me personally, you'd feel like a jackass right now.

try a spouse with life threatening illness'

let me know how many thieves and robbers show up for your class.

and all you are doing is promoting the idea that it's ok to steal shit that belongs to someone else, just do it 'peacefully' and you won't have to worry about any consequences. what a crock.

my car is a damn good reason to shoot someone. with no car, i've no way to get to my job, to earn my check, to feed and clothe my family. get it?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Martian

That's not what's stated, or even implied. I'm not condoning criminal behaviour. At the same time, stuff is just that - stuff. Cars, computers, cash, it's all replaceable and in most cases insured for just such an unhappy circumstance. A human life is not replaceable and the only justification for taking one is if there is immediate threat of grievous harm to yourself or those around you. I can't imagine trying to put a price tag on a human life, even that of such a mean and low individual as the one who would resort to such crimes. That you would value your car or any other possession over another human being is very alarming to me.

Further, you seem not to take into account the fact that non-opposition in these situations is as much about protecting the victim of the crime as the perpetrator. A car jacker or mugger is not rational, but they're generally not crazy either. They know as well as you or I do that murder is a much bigger crime than theft and will generally not be inclined to commit it unless the situation is escalated. If you co-operate, the odds of a non-violent resolution are much greater, which works as much to your advantage as anyone else's. The good guy doesn't always shoot first in real life.

I can't imagine that you'd lose your job as a result of having your car stolen. Further to that, your vehicle is far more likely to be stolen when you're not actually in it. I'm assuming you have contingencies in place for such an event; most people have insurance for that very reason. Spare me the emotional appeals, please.

A human life is not something to be casually discarded. The whole point of laws like this is to allow individuals to protect their own lives or the lives of those around them without having to fear unjust repercussions for a sadly necessary action. Again, I simply do not understand how you could possibly believe that your car is equal in value to the life of another human being. The very thought is alien to me.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

MSD

It's a good thing crime rates go down with liberalization of gun laws and none of that has happened.
My property is worth what I paid for it. If someone robs me, they are telling me through their actions that they are willing to kill me to take what is mine. If someone is willing to kill me, I have the right to preempt that action with all necessary force. The only way to do that is to use the means of protection that is most likely to produce instant incapacitation and halt the attack. The way to do that is to shoot them first. I'm not thrilled with the idea of killing someone, but if I have to save my own ass by killing someone who goes around threatening to kill others if they don't hand over money, society isn't exactly losing a productive, contributing member.

Plan9

This is a big ole can of spam in that it places a dollar value on human life... both yours and your attackers.

How much is the life of the robber worth? Your new car? A plasma screen TV? Your wallet?

How much is your life worth? The contents of your wallet? You're not superman... just because you have a pistol and draw doesn't mean he can't kill you with his knife, tire iron, or cheaper pistol. As you know, a man brandishing a knife at 21 feet is considered a lethal threat. You have to figure that a mugger will be much, much closer when asking for your wallet.

Would you seriously kill somebody over the replaceable contents of your wallet?

Driver's license? Pain in the ass. Credit cards? Turned off in 30 seconds.

You have to assume that when the steel comes out of the leather and you level it at them... there are no warning shots, no flesh wounds... that you are going to pull the trigger on center mass and destroy their body with multiple rounds directed at their vital organs.

I'm not going to kill a man for the contents of my wallet.

I'm not a pussy, I'm not a coward... I'm a realist.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

dksuddeth

so anyone else that WOULD kill a man for the contents of their wallet is a pussy or a coward. Is that what you're saying?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

My laundry list of "visions" was merely a knee-jerk reaction to what I was reading here. I certainly hope none of these things come about, but the potential is certainly there.

All in all, what these laws imply is that the public is capable of making decisions that are normally within the realm of law enforcement. Ideally, it means the public is given responsibility beyond what is normally expected of them. It is a responsibility typically reserved for those who are both empowered and held accountable for enforcing laws and keeping the peace.

The problem I see is that this system is something that could easily go wrong, especially in the courts. There will be cases where one is being held accountable for manslaughter or murder charges for a situation in which he or she thought they were well within the law. What would have gone wrong, is that they misjudged the situation: they panicked, they were overwrought with emotion, etc., and they made a bad decision. People died, lives were ruined, and now someone who thought they were helping is going to jail.

While these things certainly happen even to those who work in police forces, to open these opportunities up to the public will allow for far more instances. I don't think the public is capable of adequately managing this kind of law.

A society where everyone is armed and instilled with the belief that they should use lethal force where they deem fit seems to me a Wild West form of justice. The only thing that comforts me is that everyone also seems to have video recording devices on them. At least there will be a chance for other forms of justice to have their chance.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

The only justified reason to kill in self defence is to defend your own life, or the lives of others.

I agree with everyone who has said that to kill to defend property is unjustified.

I personally have been burgled this year. Did it piss me off? Of course. Would I for one second have considered killing the person who broke into my house, ending a human life, so that I could keep $2000 worth of consumer goods? Not for a second.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

dksuddeth

Just because someone wears a badge does not mean they are smarter, quicker, or in any way superior to, or more responsible, than I am.

and I have more faith in the general public than you do.

I don't believe that lethal force is something that can be done on a whim and if you perceived that from my posted opinions, you're reading it all wrong. I do, however, believe that just because someone doesn't wear a badge doesn't mean that they shouldn't be given full means to use lethal force when necessary. I just happen to believe that protecting my own personal property can be done with lethal force.

this is only YOUR opinion. mine is different.

and I disagree.

the money in my wallet pays for my wifes medications, which are necessary to sustain her health and life, so anyone attempting to take it from me is, in my mind, threatening the life of my spouse. I will shoot them over it.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

No, but it is more than likely. Especially the responsible part. I'll throw in accountable, too.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It is commendable of you, should you do. I've simply read of too many cases of public disorder that I believe laws such as these should be heavily scrutinized. There is no sense making it easer for people to kill one another without valid reason. There is a lot of room for corrupt practices.

Are you saying lethal force cannot be done on a whim? Would you please clarify your use of the word whim for me?

You reduce the work and careers of law enforcement officers to the symbol of their badges, which you seem to be using with some disdain. Why is that? If it is because you mistrust this public service, then I understand your position. But it makes me wonder if you also mistrust other authoritarian bodies. Perhaps you think you are better than the average police officer. Do you also think you are better than judges, politicians, and lawmakers? Is this really about your belief that the American system of authority and justice has failed you? Doesn't that make laws like this a band-aid solution?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

it is my opinion, and I state that it is the decent opinion of mankind.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

dksuddeth

I don't trust authority period, simply because it's abused more often than not. As for accountability? I assure you that non law enforcement are held way more accountable than law enforcement and politicians for almost ANY unlawful act. Do I think I'm better than police or politician? depends on what you mean by better. Am I a better person? no, but they aren't either.

a whim. i'm not going to shoot someone for stepping on my patio or knocking on my door at midnight, but try to steal my only means of transportation or my wallet? That shows that the individual has no respect for me or my life and property, therefore I have no respect for theirs.

and you'd be wrong, for everyone has their own opinion, whether you think it decent or not is not for you to decide for me, or anyone else for that matter.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Plan9

Yes. I can put it in such simple terms. Shooting someone because you're scared doesn't take balls. Having a gun and the ability to shoot someone but not doing such... does.

Problem: You're suggesting that someone stealing your wallet would prevent you from taking care of the financial needs of your sick wife?

Solution: Stop carrying so much friggin' cash in your wallet, bro. Most of us have credit cards or electronic bank accounts... things that no street hood is gonna mess with too bad. Cancel the cards after you get jacked. Deal with it.

...

The current belief of most courts in the US when granting concealed weapon permits is that you will lawfully use the handgun you carry to protect your life or the life of another. Robbery makes that scenario iffy in the courtroom.

I am more afraid of the system sending me to jail for 15 years because I shot a robber "defending myself" than I am of a robber actually hurting me.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

ring

Now I am standing on my couch waving my shirt around in circles like a helicopter.

Well said and done.

1010011010

We've already seen what promoting a feeling of safety does for actual safety. I'd rather be safer than feel safer. Does not follow. The value of a gun in criminal enterprise is the large power disparity created against an unarmed victim. There is only marginal gain for "bigger gun" over "normal gun". Also, the gun may merely be a pacification prop for the criminal- he brings it out to encourage cooperation, not to use it. While a criminal is busy threatening you with his "bigger gun" is an ideal time to shoot him.How would you use a 7-11 with a knife to shoot a homeless kid? And if the homeless kid isn't doing anything (like, say, stabbing someone with a knife while trying to rob a 7-11), shooting him would be bad.

__________________
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions

dksuddeth

better to be judged by 12 than to be buried by 6. i'll do what i feel necessary and if it makes me a coward in your eyes, i guess i'll just get over it.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

Is it better to spend a life in prison than to be out $12?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

debaser

The greatest violence is not the taking of a mans life, but the taking of a mans liberty and dignity.


This law is long overdue.

__________________

filtherton

Ask someone whose had their life taken whether this is true.

Plan9

Hahaha... I'm not even married and my wallet has less than $20 in it most of the time.

Guy asks for my wallet? He can have it. I'll be out a max of $50 in replacement of cards, cash, and the leather carrier itself.

Not worth drawing a piece on, getting arrested, or "judged" by 12 idiots.

Yeah, when are we getting those things back, anyway?

*looks out his window*

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Strange Famous

There is a very important saying that many people would do well to understand

"it is better to live on your knee's than to die on your feet"

The misunderstanding of this statement causes many problems.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Plan9

Uh... I don't know. The submission thing? We all do it. Not well liked, though.

...

My response: "Yeah, I do most of my shooting from a supported knee."

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."