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".

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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. :lol:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?"




....

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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, 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?

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

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.

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.

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

Well said and done.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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*

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.

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."

ask someone who's had their liberty and dignity taken if they would rather have died.

are you sure you got that right? because i've always heard that it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ano_Zapata.jpg

General Emiliano Zapata Salazar, leading figure in the Mexican Revolution.

Aliases:

• "El Tigre del Sur"- Tiger of the South
• "El Tigre"- The Tiger
• "El Tigrillo"- Little Tiger
• "El Caudillo del Sur"- Caudillo of the South
• "El Atila del Sur"- The Atilla of the South

Es mejor morir a pie que vivir arrodillado (Translation: It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.)

I wasn't going to say anything... the irony of using said quote backward was too much.

Are we talking about someone who has had their wallet stolen, because that's just being a little overly dramatic, don't you think?

Otherwise, the city i live in is full of refugees from war torn areas, especially somalia. These are people who have definitely had their liberty and dignity taken from them, and not in some sort of "romantic justification for carrying a gun" kind of way. These are people who've actually experienced civil war, as opposed to merely fantasizing about civil war because they want an excuse to use their guns righteously. Some of them probably would rather be dead, since suicidal depression is often a symptom of ptsd, but, judging by the rather lively community that many of them have helped create, i imagine that they are rather happy that they are still alive, despite having been robbed of liberty and dignity back home.

is there a problem in texas? sorry, i haven't played with guns in over 35 years, and i find the use of them to supposedly protect ones home and hearth somewhat, shall i say, silly? i guess it depends upon the neighborhood in which one chooses to live...

I mean no offense good sir, but this is the most inane thing I have ever read on this board.

It was more inane than empty platitudes about things that are worse than death?

If you feel that death is absolutely the worst thing that can befall you, then I offer my condolences.


By the way, in the intervening minutes since my last post I held several "unscientific polls" in graveyards and morgues. I can report that when I voiced the opinion I put forth in post #76, I heard absolutely no objections. So it seems that the constituency you wish so ferverently to avoid joining does not espouse your views after all.

In the best of all possible worlds... my guns would be motorcycle parts. :)

the ones i used to use probably are...and, here we are...

M14s got sold off at hardware stores... ;)

M16s (pre A1s) are still be used by the USAF! (saw them in '06)

...

I like the gun hobby because they're cheaper than golf.

And they might be useful in case of a home invasion.

Or zombie attack.

Actually, i don't think that death is the worst thing that can befall a person. There are a lot more important things that i'd be willing to die for than temporary loss of dignity and liberty. Honestly, i think that there are many instances where choosing death over temporary loss of liberty and dignity is the irresponsible choice.

I don't think that being stripped of liberty and dignity is necessarily and absolutely worse than death, which is what i meant when i responded to your post claiming otherwise. Really, i find the notion laughable, especially in the context of this thread, where essentially you're saying that you'd rather die than suffer the loss of liberty and dignity associated with getting mugged. I mean, you're entitled to your own opinion, but excuse me if i think you're being a little bit of a drama queen over here. What's next? You'd rather die than get shitty customer service?
"'Tis better to die while covered by warranty than be denied by best buy's shitty quality assurance plan."

They wouldn't object if you had asked them whether you could make love to their corpses either. So lube up, i guess.


You'd need a lot of bullets.

unless you live in the governers mansion with state police on 24 hour guard duty, your neighborhood (wherever that may be) is not sacrosanct and you very well could experience violent crime. IF you do, would you be prepared?

as for a 'problem in texas', in case you haven't been paying attention, there are problems everywhere.

just shoot em in the head. :thumbsup:

Awesome, I thought you'd never ask...

Oh, I'm starting to think guns are too phallic to be trusted by gentlemen like you.

(hides his Anaconda)

You know, killing is definitely wrong, and I don't think anyone here is arguing against that notion. Sure, it's absolutely necessary to protect your own life or the life of another, but that doesn't make it right- it makes it legally acceptable.

I don't think anyone here truly "wants" to kill someone just for taking a laptop. I think the heart of the matter is that when confronting someone in your home, it's near impossible to leave any margin for error. It's not like when several police officers come across a suspect, ordering them to put down their weapon, with real training to help with the reality of the confrontation. In the home, you're not going to stand there like a lump yelling "put your hands in the air"- one movement you don't like, and it's history.

We (most of us) are not professionals in capturing and securing an individual, let alone one who may or may not be armed. Our only recourse is to use our best judgment to err on the side of personal safety, and not on the side of the scumbag who is trying to steal your property and likely will kill you, instead, if given even a second's hesitation.

My major point here is this: both "sides" are fighting over whether or not someone's life is worth a television set or a DVD player. I don't think it's as simple as "what's mine is mine", I think it's really more about the inability to take chances when someone has penetrated the safety of your home. They already intend to steal things, there's no way of knowing what else they had in mind, or what they're capable of when confronted. We need only look as far and as simple as nature to see exactly what happens when you corner an animal. The only responsible and sane course of action is to do what you need to do to ensure your safety and the safety of your loved ones. If that means pulling the trigger because they're in your house and there's no way of knowing what they want, then you pull the trigger.

Its like Darwin intended it

-Will

You can play the coulda-woulda-shoulda game all you want, but that only equates to a pile of dead bodies. AND HOW:

Meh. I've been in a quite a few situations where shooting someone at 10 feet with an assault rifle would have been 100% legit and yet I didn't... I know how that shit-your-pants fear makes me act. It makes me deathly tired after the encounter... gives me this horrible shit-mouth taste... and often makes me resort to telling bad jokes on the ride back.

Logic is: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

We can all pretty much argue that restraint can get you killed in these bullshit "defending my possessions" scenarios... but it doesn't take a genius to see that going the opposite way is far worse.

A lot of factors go into a righteous shoot. There are huge tomes on this mess.

Location of attack. Time of attack. Weight disparity. Weapons present. Proper target identification. Race. Gender. Retreat factors. Etc.

Somebody breaks into my house with a gun... they better have a note for their family. A firearm represents an immediate lethal threat to my person regardless of how they are brandishing it or what their intended crime is at the time.

Somebody breaks into my house with a crowbar... no such threat. Hopefully they can hear the slide racking on the Mossberg before I get downstairs to clown their ass with some disparaging remarks like a hopped-up crackhead.

I just did some quick checking and it seems that the number of crimes and violent crimes in Florida in the first half of 2007 is higher than it was during the same time period in 2006. State officials have stated that the trend cannot be analyzed accurately until population and demographic data are released for the state and yearly crime statistics are released. State attorneys also commented that gangs have become more prevalent over the past year; it's worth noting that a huge portion of perpetrators and victims of acquaintance murders, robberies, and "child" murders (includes people up to age 24) are gang members, so we'll have to wait and see how the trend changed, if at all. There's also the slowdown of the economy to consider as a factor in property crime and robbery.

Overall, it looks like this new law in Florida may not have caused a decrease in violent crime, but it certainly hasn't caused the blood in the streets that anti-gun groups warned about. I suspect that the trend of increasing crime rate from last year that prompted this law will continue pretty much unchanged when population growth is factored in.
These laws very simple give people the right to defend themselves in public as they would in their home. I would probably err on the side of just giving the guy what he wants, but at the first sign of "Oh shit, I might die," he's on the ground while I call the police and make an attempt to perform first aid until medics arrive.
I also would not kill to defend property. Burglary is a crime against property and robbery is a crime against a person. If I caught someone running off with my TV (aside from the comedy factor of seeing a normal-sized human carry that thing,) I would call the police and file a report, and probably look around the neighborhood for a guy crushed under a 200 pound TV. It's only when a criminal displays will and intent to kill unjustly that I would consider preemptively using lethal force to defend myself. I also think I'd be more likely to use lethal force in defense of others around me.
Again, these laws only permit people to defend themselves when they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. It removes the duty to retreat if it isn't reasonable or possible to do so safely.
I know you were being facetious, but I want to mention that you'll probably wish you were dead if you bought a service plan from Best Buy and actually tried to get the product serviced.

I know someone who used to be a supervisor at one of their service call centers back when they handled such things in house. According to him, if a best buy salesperson claims something is covered by the service plan you should just assume that it isn't- because the salespeople are either liars or idiots when it comes to the service plans.