Your views on Stand-Your-Ground, AKA Lethal Self Defense, laws
 

so, first thread I've ever started, scary. ^_^

Anyway, the recent thread about the guy driving off armed robbers with his own gun made me think of this, and since I didn't want to threadjack that one any more than I already had I figured I'd start a new one.

How do people feel about the Stand-Your-Ground laws?

Since Florida passed theirs in October of last year there have been quite a few states that have passed them and others that are considering it.

In case people don't know what the heck I'm talking about, here's some parts of the wikipedia article on it, which as we all know is the be-all-end-all of internet knowledge.

To start things off, I am overwhelmingly in support of this. Putting the law squarely behind people who are willing to put their lives on the line for others is awesome.

One interesting note, and something I hope will spur vigorous arguments, is that robbery and burglary are on the list of acceptable reasons to kill a criminal. In these two cases the criminal does not neccessarily, in my mind, have to be threatening anyone with harm. I personally still think they should be fair game, but I can also see how people might consider that over the limit of acceptibility.

So, what do you think? Should Joe Public be allowed to whip out his gun in a public place and attempt to kill criminals or not?

If you purposely go out to committ a robbery, burglarly, etc. in my mind you're forfeiting any rights that you have. So if someone you try to victimize shoots you, then tough luck, you had it coming to you.

Um... I don't think that the law is intended to promote killing criminals.
I am fully in favor of using force, deadly if need be to stop criminal activity.
If I am in a store and I have a gun and someone tries to rob the store you bet I would attempt to stop them. Would I shoot them? not without sufficient warning. And not if they were trying to flee the scene. Only if I felt myself or others there were in harms way. I must also stress one important rule of pulling a gun on someone, ONLY PULL YOUR GUN IF YOU ARE WILLING TO USE IT. If you don't have the necessary resolve to use it to take someone's life then you shouldn't have it.

"Fair game" is a hunting term. Sort of points to your position on this thing...

The law doesn't say you can kill someone robbing your house. It says you have the right to use force including deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself from someone in the act of committing one of the listed crimes.

I'm for this law as it's written, but I'm worried about how it will be interpreted by the lay public. This law is not an invitation to vigilantism. This law does not declare open season on human beings. I hope that the courts will interpret this law strictly--and put people who casually kill criminals behind bars where they deserve to be.

'stand your ground' laws are long overdue. For decades we've had this 'submission' agenda forced upon us, on pain of prosecution, and it's all been an intentional push to force us to rely on police protection, to accept the reality of 'we're not capable'. Hopefully the future will continue to restore our natural rights to defend ourselves, our families, and our property.

If someone intends to take something from you, by force or threat of force, we should absolutely have the unmitigated right to apply equal force to prevent such crime.

If you want them, fine. I respect your wish to defend yourself. I don't want them, though. In the end, it all boils down to the allowing of more violence, and I can't agree with that. The more guns on the street, the less safe I will feel. I know how irresponsible people can be with important things like driving or voting or reproduction, and I don't trust them at all with guns. Frankly, I don't trust anyone with guns. Also, the issue of escalation has to be addressed. If violent criminals feel that more people are carrying handguns, they'll get bigger guns. The populace will get bigger guns, then what? We have a heavely armed populace against heavely armed criminals and no one benifits from that.

Lethal self defence isn't self defence. Prevention is self defence. Running is self defence. Disarming the attacker is self defence. Shooting dead a homeless kid in a 7-11 with a knife is murder, and murder is wrong.

Everything you postulate is an advocation of turning over the world to the criminal class. How does freedom and liberty result from that? It doesn't. What you want is nothing more than anarchy.

What I want is to not have idiots with guns. I'm not getting into this again. Unless there can be a certianty that having more guns with more people isn't going to result in accedents or bad decisions, I cannot and will not support this ever. Your continued postualtion that the world will be a safer place when everyone is armed is dangerous. People shouldn't have guns for the same reason that most (if not all) countries should not have nuclear weapons.

What I want is reasonable safety. What I want is criminals not carrying dangerous weapons. Did you know that some people right now that are not criminals will become criminals? Laws like this are arming future criminals. Also, how many crimes are committed with guns stolen from people who purchased them legally?

I've asked this before in several other threads, but where do the guns from criminals come from? Somewhere between the companies that produce the guns and the distributors, guns must go missing. Are they stolen? Are they sold under the table? Why aren't we focusing on disarming the criminals instead of arming the populace?

I agree with this law. However the devil is in the details. Hopefully the definitions of things like aggravated assault won't include someone accusing you of cheating at cards and threatening to beat you up or aggravated stalking is more than just following someone around the club trying to get a date, etc...

Something about life you should start learning will, is there is no certainty except death and taxes. Everything else is chance, just chance. To quote something from a semi-stupid segal movie, 'chance favors the prepared mind'. 75% of the population should also take huge exception to your suggestion that they shouldn't have guns because they are certain to fly off the handle and shoot wildly with abandon.

keep them in prison then. pretty simple.
This is called 'free will', you should know all about this, considering your spirituality.

so we should mandate compliance for the entire populace to be a victim to insure that .001% of the population can't use 'self defense' claims to commit murder?

what relevance does this have for allowing someone to defend themselves at a grocery store parking lot?

Because 72 years of government stupidity still hasn't taught anyone that you CANNOT disarm criminals, EVER. The only way to keep a criminal from having a gun is to lock them away, period. Right now, this very moment, someone is prevented from defending their life because an idiot politician (supported by idiot citizens) thinks that a gun control law will stop crime.

I support this law. I hope we have it too in California, especially in California. For a state that's so "prgressive, I don't know why we don't have this yet.

But, I also understand and share similar concerns about potential vigilantism or trigger-happy people killing shoplifters. Obviously common sense needs to be deployed here.

What's important to me is that, if one should use a gun in defense, then the law allows them that much more latitude. I don't think it's a matter of extremes: either shoot to kill or cower in fear and let criminals run all over you. If someone invades your home etc, you should be allowed to defend yourself accordingly.

Will, I do agree with you that we should disarm criminals. Here in LA, the criminals have guns more powerful than the police (WTF?). But in the meantime, while we work on that and wait for that to happen, we the people should be allowed to protect ourselves. Will, I appreciate your sentiments as a pacifist too, but I think this type of law can do good.

How do you feel about non-criminals, aka law abiding citizens, having firepower that is equal to law enforcement?

It's very gratifying to see that others share my philosophy.


Can you explain why crime has gone DOWN in every instance I'm aware of, in which concealed carry permit laws have been made less restrictive? Do you know this from your psych degree, from your other studies, or did you pull it out of thin air?

Why is it murder, and why is it wrong? Are you saying the kid who brandishes a knife at the grandfather behind the counter has a right to be free from harm related to his crime? Or that the employee is required to try to disarm him? Particularly in this situation, the employee is very unlikely to have an avenue of escape, and the criminal may not want to leave a witness behind. Or, the criminal may be in a less than rational state, due to drugs.

This criminal is even less entitled to sympathy than the idiots who lose an arm while beating alligators. At least the one-armers can say they were drunk and stupid.

How about a mugger? The victim's life is likely to be changed forever, either emotionally or physically, and the mugger is unlikely to get much more than probation.

I invite you to do a little light reading:

http://www.nrapublications.org/armed...izen/Index.asp

Here is the first of MANY:

I think it's overly broad. I have no objection to the use of deadly force to prevent homicide, rape, or an ongoing aggravated assault, but treason, stalking, burglary, or robbery? That seems excessive.

If I'm reading this correctly, it would authorize me to kill the guy who groped me in the hobby store last year (sexual battery), or the purse snatcher who took my purse and knocked me down a few years back (robbery with use of physical force). Neither of those boys deserve to die for those crimes, and it certainly shouldn't be my decision.

I carry a concealed handgun as one more tool I can use to stop somebody who may want to hurt me, my family, or those around me. I also carry a cell phone, my car keys, and most importantly, my brain. In any self defense situation the primary goal is always to make the situation safe. Sometimes that means fleeing, sometimes that is not an option. I would support such a law provided it is carefully written.

Well, That theory seems to work just fine for the worlds largest and most powerful countries. I have no problem applying it to general citizens.
The best example ever is the USA and the USSR. continually eying each other sideways and building bigger and bigger weapons with witch to destroy each other. That mutually assured destruction never happened because both sides knew just how big the other guys gun was.
I personally would have no problem knowing the bad guys on the street had full auto asault rifles. Not if I had one too, and the guy across the street from me. and mabey the guy driving by. And the guy loading groceries into hes truck, the truck with the mini gun mounted in the bed...
Criminal activity will always occur but I feel that violent use of guns would droop in most situations if more people had them. I've said it before, a couple of guys with guns will think twice about using them to rob a store or car jack someone if they know everyone else around them is just as heavily armed as they are.

I'm not backing off the "generally people are stupid" mentality. It has served me well. As for death being certian: death may be certian, but I do not welcome it. I will do everything within reason to have a full, healthy, happy life so long as it doesn't hurt others.
If our prison system worked, and prisoners were released as corrected individuals who were ready to be functional and safe members of society, I might agree. That is not the case, so putting them all in prison is not a wise solution.
It takes more than free will to become a criminal, but that's a different conversation.
If my neighbor has a knife, and he is a proven danger to the people around him with that knife, would it be more wise to get a knife yourself or try to take his knife? Self defence is great as a last resort, but I've seen no mention, beyond my own, in all of these wonderful gun threads about actually taking an active role in stoipping criminals from getting guns.
I wasn't talking about grocery stores. I was talking aobut the sources of weapons for criminals.
The government will be broken until we, the populaec, fix it. If we want something done we have to fight for it. Instead of fighting to get guns away from criminals, you seem to want to fight to simply arm everyone. You're skipping ahead.
Again, the first logical step should be to disarm criminals. Do you know the statiscitcs of accedental shootings in areas where these laws are in effect? Probalby not. I've tried to find real statistics about the many aspects of gun laws, and I'll I've found on the internet is NRA propoganda. As for escalation, I know it becuase I know a lot of police. It's a reality. Escalation is reality. I didn't pull it out of thin air.
Murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation is called second-degree murder. If you buy a gun and keep it on your person, it can be assumed that if the right situation presents itself, you are ready to try to kill or to kill. If you wanted to just slow down or subdue a criminal, mace or a taser would do just fine. If you open fire on someone, you obviously have a lack of concern for human life. That's second degree murder.

I'm not going to argue why murder is wrong.

As for you're hypothetical situation:
My version: a teenager walks into a convenience store that's operated by an elderly gentleman. The teenager, presumably looking to rob the store, pulls a knife on the old man. The old man gives the kid what he wants and the kid leaves. Later, the old man describes the kid to the police and the police do their job and catch the kid. The old man is given back what was stolen, the kid is sentenced for theft an

Your version: a teenager walks into a convenience store that's operated by an elderly gentleman. The teenager, presumably looking to rob the store, pulls a knife on the old man. You pull out a baretta and pump 6 rounds into the kid. The kid is dead before he hits the floor, and you almost grazed the old man who frantically jumped behind the counter to avoid your wild spray of bullits. You've also put a hole in the wall behind the kid. Little did you know, but there was a 3 year old girl playing in the apartment on the other side of that wall, and she's now dead, too. During your sentencing for second degree murder, you think to yourself why did I disagree with Willravel?

That was fun, but for the sake of the sanity of everyone in this thread, let's refrain from using hypothetical arguments, as they are silly and just flights of fancy.
And what of the emotional effect of taking a life? Have you ever killed someone? I hear it's even traumatic for people who are trained to do so.
An NRA website!!! Fair and balanced reading, I hope...?

No one should be held a criminal for defending themselves, and their loved ones.

I fully support stand-your-ground laws. It's laughable that a criminal, a person willing to physically harm or murder someone, should have as equal a right to their life as their victims.

this is why sentencing guidelines don't work. If someone commits a violent crime, don't make the max 10 years or parole him in half time for good behavior. If you can't trust an 'ex-con' with a weapon, you don't let him out at all.

yeah, sometimes all it takes is for the government to decide that they don't like your freedom to do such an activity, or for your neighbors to not like it.

has he committed a crime with that knife? Just because someone MIGHT do something is no cause to outlaw a possession. It's not any different than cutting someones vocal chords because they MIGHT let out a national security secret.

I gave you the best one. you chose to dismiss it.

There are only two ways to keep criminals from getting a gun. Kill them the first time they are convicted or don't let them out again, ever. Other than that, they WILL get a gun. whether its robbing the gun store, robbing a home, killing a gun owner, or a cop, to get the gun. They WILL get a gun.

If I am not the aggressor, I am not the murderer. If someone draws a gun on me but i'm faster or a better shot, I am certainly not the murderer.

but at least they are still alive to feel bad about it, aren't they?

the NRA is not the demonic organization that the gun control groups are trying to make them. The so called 'gun lobby' is just another lobbying group, much like the brady campaign, the violence policy center, and the AHSA.

Using lethal force to stop treason?

That can only end badly.

What? I was always the one to bring up things like barcodes on guns to track their sources. I was the one that suggested holding gun companies liable when their guns go "missing" and end up being used in a crime. I was the one that brought up gun running.

You want to arm everyone becuase a few bad people want guns. I want to disarm the bad people. We are working two very different sides of the same problem.

barcodes? thats what serial numbers are for, but it's not about the sources anyway. The laws, chronologically, were made to forbid gun ownership to felons (well that didn't work because felons ignored the damn law), then they were made to prevent selling to felons (the brady law only applied to dealers), and now you want to hold a private individual responsible for selling a marketable item. Talk about giving congress total control through the commerce clause. What should they regulate next? how many times you flush the toilet during the day because of water shortages?

Again, you will NEVER be able to disarm bad people because bad people will ALWAYS find a weapon. When will you realize that regulation of activities will NEVER work. NEVER. In order to keep bad people from getting a weapon, it is necessary to remove them from society. Whether you choose execution or life imprisonment is up to you. Know that you will NEVER be able to keep a bad guy from getting their hands on a gun. It is not possible.

Escalation is a thing to consider, but I believe it is limited to police vs criminal situations. If everyone on the street had a 9mm, even if the bad guys had ak47's and grenades they wouldn't stand much of a chance. In more even numbered matchups between police vs criminals the person with the better arsenal will win because there aren't enough people to overwhelm them.

The problem I have with the "disarm the bad guys" argument is that I don't believe its possible. We've tried to, but laws don't get enforced and people are lazy and there's the black market that will never be controlled. No matter the laws I don't believe there is a way to keep guns out of the criminals hands if he wants one. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, but it should not be the only thing we do.

Creating laws that allow the public to protect themselves with deadly force is a way to decrease the incentive to be a criminal. If anyone on the street could have a gun and kill me for attempting a robbery, even if i have a submachine gun under my trenchcoat I'm sure as hell not going to try it. I don't think anyone commits a crime thinking they will be caught. If you can increase the likelyhood that a criminal will be punished for a crime I believe there will be less crime. The knowledge that anyone could pull a gun and kill anyone committing a felony increases that likelyhood significantly.

We'll never disarm bad people, eh? Well, then let's not even try!!!

In order to prevent guns from getting in to the wrong hands, you must find out where they are getting them from. I imagine that the sales of guns from producers to middlemen to distributors is well regulated, but what about simply tracking every single gun? Mark every gun produced and track them from the factory all the way to the person that buys the gun. A complete paper trail. So what happens when we retreive a gun used in a crime? We investigate that paper trail and discover where they got the gun. Maybe it was slipped to them by a middleman. Maybe it was stolen. However they got it, we now know how they got it and can work to prevent that from happening again. Multiply that by 1,000,000. The police track criminal after criminal after criminal, cutting off all the supply lines. Eventually, guns on the street will be so rare that the idea of arming the public for self defence will be entirely unnecessary. Gun laws will be irrelevant. Our coversation will be over, and then I'll give you links to hundred of websites with data on how gun crime kills less people per year than sharks.

So read that, and remember, no where in there did I infringe on your right to bear arms. No where did I take your weapon. Disarm the bad guys, and the good guys won't need to be armed.

first thing you've said right about this issue, but only because it's not the right solution.

all of which will be 1,000 times more expensive than just taking the guy that used the gun in a criminal act and throwing him in prison the rest of his life.

tell me, what happens when a dealer sells to a felon? they lose their license.
so what do you do when a private individual sells to a felon? you want to indict him. why? because you don't want to hold the felon responsible for breaking the law. start holding the criminals responsible and watch crime drop like the hindenburg.

everything that you propose is a long vision attempt to keep people from having guns. You don't like guns. I understand that. Lots of people don't like guns. But what do YOU do when the government is the only one with the guns? Where is your freedom then?

I am all for the right to protect your own home. Many states have laws that support the old english common law "castle" doctrine (your home is your castle, you have a right to protect it).

Beyond that, I see opportunities for serious abuse of the "stand-your-ground" laws, either intentionally or accidentally. Citizens have no training in how to act in public scenarios like the kid with a knife robbing a grocery store. A successful outcome may result or it may result in a deadly overreaction.

THere is a case in Florida under investigation:

In Tampa, a tow- truck operator shot and killed a man he said was trying to run him over and used the "Stand Your Ground" law as a defense. The district attorney is evaluating other forensic evidence and eyewitness testimony that the shots came from behind, and therefore were not in self-defense.

A lot of law enforcement is really expensive. Maybe we should just stop having police! Also, do you have any idea how much the US pays for privately owned and run prisons?
The dealer should be charged with involintary manslaughter if anyone was killed with their gun.
HAHAHA!!! So where did I say that felons wouldn't be heald responsible? Maybe in your mind, to make your argument a little easier? Yeah, that's called a strawman. Incid the felon on charges, and indict the "private individual" for involuntary manslaughter. Make it clear that if you are found supplying guns to bad people, you will not get away with it.
Longvision is only as long as it takes to get into effect. If my idea started tomorrow, we could very easily see gun crime drop within a few months. The thing is, arming everyone is a great way to give everyone too much power. I can name on one hand the amount of people I know that I'd trust with a gun, and that's just not good enough.

As for the potential insurgency against our government thing: guns aren't really the weapon of an insurgency against a government and powerful military. Bombs are. The only way for them to stop me from making bombs is to find me and stop me, as the stuff that can be made into bombs can be found anywhere.

which is exactly the way things should be. The government has to prove it's case, not automatically assume guilt and force the defendant to prove innocence. Why do you think the magna carte was written? and the constitution?

we have a choice. do we imprison people, do we execute people, or do we just ignore the crime?

so charge someone with a crime they had no knowledge of, nor participation in? where is the sense in that?

If the government can prove a case of a lone individual supplying guns to felons, then by all means, do so. But if I sell a single gun to a single individual, why should I have to do the background check on someone that should still be in prison? Why should I be charged with being an accessory to a crime I was nowhere near? Should you be charged with aiding and abetting a felon because you know someone who smokes pot, but didn't say anything, and he got caught with an amount to be charged with distribution?

Should we put willravel in charge of who gets rights and who doesn't? Should you be the overseer of who gets to drive and who doesn't? Should you only give rights to people that YOU trust? Face it will, the reason you want people disarmed and guns off the streets is because you don't want to have a gun yourself. If you feel you are incapable of dealing with gun ownership, you want everyone on the same footing as you. Nobody should have a gun because will doesn't like them.

good snipers are the most lethal tool in any combat situation. I have that on good authority. (USMC 84-80)

The problem is the inconsisency in how the law is being interpreted.

An article in the Orlando Sentinel from earlier this year reports that 13 people in Central Florida have "pulled the trigger" under this law:

...They killed six men and wounded four more. All but one of the people shot were unarmed. So far, three of the shooters have been charged. Five have been cleared; the other cases are under review.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-d...8.story?page=1

There is a reason why many Florida law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys oppose the law.

because it makes more work for them. boo hoo. I'm sure they loved having things clean and simple, like having a dead citizen who didn't have a gun to fight back. It makes it easy just to have to find a gunman who broke the law. It makes work for them to have to uncover the truth and determine whether or not someone actually used lethal force as a means of self defense.

Don't fall in to the trap that the police and DA's are there to help you. They are not. Your rights trump their workload.

We bring the guilty to justice. Again, I'm obviously not suggesting we ignore a crime.
If you sell a gun illegally, you have knowledge that it's in the hands of someone who shouldn't have a gun. Consider North Korea. We're all worried that they'll sell nukes to terrorist organizations. Should they not be heald responsible for the nuclear weapons they sell to terrorists?
This isn't like selling a car. This is a gun, a weapon built to do harm and kill, as it's primary purpose. If you sell it to someone who doesn't have a license, you should be heald accountable, as you will have supplied the weapon of a criminal. Do pot suppliers get in trouble if caught? Shit yes. The same should be true of illegal gun dealers.
That's just silly. Youre' silly. The reason I want guns off the street is so that gun violence will go down. I don't ever want to read another story about how a kid finds his father's gun and accedentally shoots himself. I don't want to hear about shootouts in Oakland, or even around the corner from my house. I'm sick of people glorifying guns as some sort of shield against bad guys. It's absurd. The bad guys wouldn't have power if it weren't for guns. Can you imagine the power of drive by knifings? How dangerous would gangs be with judt sharp objects or sling shots? A simple taser or pepper spray would keep them at bay without any difficulty.
They have enough snipers to cover every government building in the US? I doubt it. Also, snipers have a lot of trouble with suicide bombers becuase they look just like everyone else until they explode. If you're seriously considering the mecahnics of defending the populace from the government, keep it real. Look at Iraq. They are running as succesful a campaign as Korea.

Absolutely correct! And while we're at it, you will NEVER stop people from speeding so let's get rid of those laws. You will NEVER stop people from raping, so let's get rid of those laws too! Hell all laws are broken - otherwise we wouldn't need the damn law in the first place - so let's just dissolve the country into a state of anarchy since it's pointless to have a law if people are just gonna go break it, right?

Oh and all the mods/admins here can just log off right now and resign, because there's no point in enforcing board rules since some people are gonna break the damn things anyway.

Maybe I won't be able to keep all the really bad guys from getting their hands on guns. But I might prevent the good guy who happens to be an idiot from getting one and shooting the wrong guy. I might be able to prevent the sorta bad guy . .the 14 year old who thinks gangbangers are cool maybe. . from getting a gun and turning INTO a really bad guy.

How should I know this?

Do you realize I can sell someone a car, even if they don't have a license to drive? It shouldn't matter what the purpose is, because if we make that a part of congressional power, they could regulate your power to have a garage sale.

So, like Australia or europe, gun deaths will go down, but other crimes can go up? If a 3 year old kills himself with a gun, is that my fault, the countries fault, or the parents fault?

Will, you couldn't be any more wrong than you are with this sentence. If there were no guns, bad guys would have blades. If there were no blades, bad guys would have clubs, or other weapons. Bad guys will seek every advantage over decent folk. guns are not the issue.

which should prove that any government military can be beaten, or held in check, by a well armed populace.

what a complete load of crap, but I shouldn't expect any different from a member of the media. SOME laws were put in place to let people know you are not supposed to violate individual rights of people. If you do, this is what will happen. Where did we go when we moved from regulation actions to regulating thoughts of crimes and the tools that are used in crimes?

In other words, you can't do squat against any of the real crime, so lets make feel good laws that only affect the ones that want to be law abiding. Maybe the generally stupid people will think that we're doing the right thing. Another bunch of crap that does NOTHING to address the real issue. Let's just smother it the best way we can so the idiots in this country will think we're doing the right thing. Makes me want to puke.

Because you understand the meaning of the word "illegal".
You actually can't sell someone a car if they don't have a drivers licence. The transfer of ownership won't work, and the car will still be your responsibility.
I'm not arguing gun bans in this thread. I'm arguing that a lack of gun control isn't as effective as actually stopping criminals from getting guns. I'm not interested in having a trans-thread argument.
What kind of power is a knife or bat compared to a gun? As I stated before, a drive by kniffing would be useless. Anyone with a taser or pepperspray should be able to properly disable a potential criminal without having to be worried about getting shot.

Guns are the means by which they are powerful.

Before I start responding to your comments, I feel I have to note that you're becoming insulting and hostile again. Didn't getting a temporary ban the first time teach you any lessons about this board's anti-jerk policy?


A vague insult that means nothing. You seem to be good at this since you resort to it every time you can't coax your mind into coming up with a logical comeback.

Such as the right not to be shot by some Rambo-wannabe who thinks he's saving the day?

This sentence was barely english, but I think you're saying you are opposed to regulating items that are used in committing crimes. I find it difficult to believe that you would want to encourage criminals by deregulating items which are meant for one purpose and one purpose only - - -killing things.

That's your logic, not mine.

More insults. Let's be totally open and honest with each other here. As long as you continue to act like a colossal jackass regarding this issue, you're not going to drum up support for it from anyone who didn't already support it. I don't know how the hell you manage to convince anyone of anything by talking to people like that, but it's not going to work here.

This entire paragraph says nothing except to reiterate your vitriolic, hate-filled-yet-empty-of-all-meaning arguments.

You cannot go around saying that you want guns and therefore everyone else is a dumbass, and expect us to see things from your point of view. I'm not asking you to become an expert debater here, I'm just asking you to get even the smallest clue regarding social skills so that we can have a debate rather than logical arguments from our side, and a temper tantrum from you.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...ugh/371895.gifhttp://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...ugh/371895.gifhttp://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i3...ugh/371895.gif
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=101330
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97303

If someone breaks into your house, you deserve the right to blow his piehole into the next millenia. End of story

Why stop at your house? In Florida, the chad state, you can blow away some piehole into the next millenia wherever you want.

If two people are robbing a 7-11 in Florida, can they legally blow each other away?

Absolutely yes. Because it is my right. Because it is my responsibility to be responsible for my own safety and protection.

That doesn't mean I plan on staking out my front porch to pick off would be muggers etc.

People, just because we have the right to defend ourselves does not automatically mean that it is now open season and people will start shooting indiscriminately. I don't think that people (mostly) are advocating blowing the head off of a mugger per se, but rather, now have the "right" or legal ok to use force to stop/prevent said crime. So if a mugger attacks a person, that person can respond but it doesn't necessarily mean shoot to kill.

And of course there will be some bad apples that make the headlines but I like thatthe "stand your ground" allows us lawful citizens to "take back the night".