For starters, I'm not that against guns... I mean, I can see both sides, I can appreciate guns as machines though I don't know too much about them and I wouldn't say no to owning one.
But ack, Americans actually scare me with their knowledge about guns: Go on YouTube and you see them arguing for days about little bits, and of course, some people actually seem to be sexually aroused by their weaponry (the same kinds of people who'd wear sunglasses indoors and drive a Hummer/SUV: Over-compensators), do less-freakish Americans feel the same way?
I'm not trying to be inciteful but I have to say I notice a difference between the UK and the US when it comes to weapons, I almost get the feeling that Americans kind of devalue life itself when they get in long-arse arguments about killing power and such: Why is this something to feel prideful over?
Fair enough you have your Second Amendment rights to buy the armoury of a small nation, but does that privilege naturally lead to such attitudes? I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones, though that may just be an urban legend... I guess the best way to describe how I perceive trigger-happy Yanks would be to ask Americans to watch The Eagle has Landed and keep a close eye on the American Colonel
For starters, I'm not that against guns... I mean, I can see both sides, I can appreciate guns as machines though I don't know too much about them and I wouldn't say no to owning one.
But ack, Americans actually scare me with their knowledge about guns: Go on YouTube and you see them arguing for days about little bits, and of course, some people actually seem to be sexually aroused by their weaponry (the same kinds of people who'd wear sunglasses indoors and drive a Hummer/SUV: Over-compensators), do less-freakish Americans feel the same way?
I'm not trying to be inciteful but I have to say I notice a difference between the UK and the US when it comes to weapons, I almost get the feeling that Americans kind of devalue life itself when they get in long-arse arguments about killing power and such: Why is this something to feel prideful over?
Fair enough you have your Second Amendment rights to buy the armoury of a small nation, but does that privilege naturally lead to such attitudes? I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones, though that may just be an urban legend... I guess the best way to describe how I perceive trigger-happy Yanks would be to ask Americans to watch The Eagle has Landed and keep a close eye on the American Colonel
Hippy rant over.
I can only speak for myself, and not generalize about other people. I actually use my weapons for hunting, and I enjoy target practice. Like you mentioned before you even asked the question, I like taking apart and putting firearms back together. I like reading about different cartridges and projects people with more money, time, focus than I have done.
I've never heard any sort of thing like a bounty for dead burglars, and I have never heard of anyone being sexually aroused by a weapon of any sort. I do not have the right in the United States to purchase the armory of a small nation, assuming I can afford that, and arguments about stopping power and terminal ballistics are interesting academically and have applications to hunting, law enforcement, and emergency medicine. One of the reasons that people buy in to such wacky conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Assassination, to give an example, is because they have no idea how firearms and projectiles actually work.
You've broached this question in a manner that is neutral, but you've pretty much used weasel words throughout. Do you really want to know what you're asking or have you already made up your mind?
Hopefully people will view the topic as being a genuinely curious question from someone who finds it difficult to comprehend the attitude of others... Though I may have not done too good a job of disguising my views on the subject...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:I can only speak for myself, and not generalize about other people. I actually use my weapons for hunting, and I enjoy target practice. Like you mentioned before you even asked the question, I like taking apart and putting firearms back together. I like reading about different cartridges and projects people with more money, time, focus than I have done.
I've never heard any sort of thing like a bounty for dead burglars, and I have never heard of anyone being sexually aroused by a weapon of any sort. I do not have the right in the United States to purchase the armory of a small nation, assuming I can afford that, and arguments about stopping power and terminal ballistics are interesting academically and have applications to hunting, law enforcement, and emergency medicine. One of the reasons that people buy in to such wacky conspiracy theories about the Kennedy Assassination, to give an example, is because they have no idea how firearms and projectiles actually work.
You've broached this question in a manner that is neutral, but you've pretty much used weasel words throughout. Do you really want to know what you're asking or have you already made up your mind?
That's an interesting way to look at it... I guess what I've put across is that I can only feel blind bemusement toward the types of gun-owners who I'd describe as "aroused", though do understand I meant that to be people who really are far *too* into it... For example, I posted a video of some guy visiting Blackwatch to view the AA-12, when he starts talking about it being a miniature grenade launcher with ranges shotguns could never before reach, he *really* does come across as a little too obsessive to be a healthy, balanced man. I was hoping to see if there were gun owners out there who also feel that way about certain enthusiasts.
As for what you've described... whilst I'm not exactly in favour of hunting I'd never turn down a chance to use a weapon on a firing range or learn to take it apart... It is interesting, but as I said, I hear things.
Henners91 wrote:Hopefully people will view the topic as being a genuinely curious question from someone who finds it difficult to comprehend the attitude of others... Though I may have not done too good a job of disguising my views on the subject...
Then I don't know, not all Americans are the same. I don't "love" my guns. In fact, I haven't been shooting in six months now, as I've found I'd rather spend money on my miniatures hobby these days.
To me its fun hobby, and I haven't thought often about the reasons I enjoy it. If I had to generalize, I'd say that people who enjoy it probably were introduced to the shooting sports growing up or via friends. Those who don't, didn't.
For my shot guns and rifles they are for hunting, which i enjoy just like any other hobby (plus venison is the gak!)
Skeet shooting and competitive shooting with pistols is fun. Just like any other hobby i dont think it should be shunned, just cause guns are "dangerous".
I also have a pistol in my nightstand for protection.
As a Texan i have never heard of this bounty for dead criminals. But if someone breaks into your house and they are on your property uninvited, you have every right to put a bullet in them. I think you have to be able to prove they had malicious intent tho.
For me, it really is the history behind a gun that is the best thing. I live in a tourist town and hunting is not allowed except for the more western part of my state which is almost two or three hours away.
I personally own a mosin-nagant that was issued during the second world war, fixed back up by the russian government and put into surplus for WW3. My dad owns a thompson machine gun(semi-auto as we can't afford the automatic license) and an M1 Garand that belonged to my grandfather. Although we also have a couple of lower caliber weapons for target shooting at the local gun range and handguns for the same reason. We keep them locked up in a gun safe except for the nagant which doesn't fit. We did take the bolt and bayonet from the nagant and put them in the safe though.
I would have to be the opposite of shivanangel though, our shotgun is for protection. Mainly because it can deter and kill a burgler, while an alarm may temporarily scare a crook, the well known sound of a shotgun being cocked will send him running.
Like it or not, most history has revolved around guns and other weaponry. So even a person who enjoys collecting swords may also be in the same boat as a gun collector.
As to the new guns coming out, they are really cool. America was forged by war; Revolutionary, 1812, Spanish-American, Texas War of Independence, and the Civil War to name a few. I would reckon that may predispose most americans to liking guns.
Shuma, his flag shows that he's most likely in the UK, they have no second ammendment there. And by his op, he's obviously looking for perspective and insight from those that do.
I personally own a mosin-nagant that was issued during the second world war, fixed back up by the russian government and put into surplus for WW3. My dad owns a thompson machine gun(semi-auto as we can't afford the automatic license) and an M1 Garand that belonged to my grandfather.
You dont have to have a license to own an automatic weapon IIRC, thats just an urban legend. You do however have to pay i think 200 dollars for an extensive background check from some organization as well as get a written request signed by the chief of police for your county. All in all it takes about 2-3 months.
It varies by state. Some states it is illegal, period. If it is legal, you have to sign some forms with the ATF, and pay your money, and there is another set of forms to fill out if you want to transfer it.
There is also something to do with date of manufacture, I'm not sure what all that involves.
There is also a curios and collectibles license that is very restrictive on date of manufacture.
I believe its a class 3 license and that extra 200 for an automatic really isn't worth it. I know that there's a license you can get to act as a dealer for weapons which will reduce the price of the weapons themselves by around $300.
My mosin-nagant required a curio/collectible license because of its age so I had to have a gun store order it for me. I think that's on any weapon over 50 years old.
JohnHwangDD wrote:@OP, you're a liberal kid. We get it.
Not all political liberals are against gun ownership.
They're pretty fukken big on telling other people what to do, with a huge fukken "holier than thou" attitude while they do so...
Yes and I'm sure being called nazi socialists all the time makes them reeeaaaallly receptive to the critisism of dudes with painted shirt asians for avatars. I don't think the persecution complex or the rhetoric is really helping the thread DD.
JohnHwangDD wrote:@OP, you're a liberal kid. We get it.
Not all political liberals are against gun ownership.
Name 2.
Two?
Name one!
Well, it depends on your definition of politically liberal. I support universal healthcare and more environmental regulation. Does that make me a liberal? I don't think so, but some would disagree. I don't think labels really can define most people's political beliefs, if they have a mind of their own, at least.
Yeah, that was, I edited it to sam jackson (which isn't a lie). Willis is kind of a nutty anti tax "republican" that rather dislikes the republican right but hates that 50% of his money gets taken out in taxes. A lot. Dude despises that stuff.
Respectfully, get real. You can't sight one of the pre-eminent party members of evil Republicans from a century ago as a liberal supporting the 2nd Amendment.
Wtrong party
Wrong time
He's kinda like really really dead.
If thats the best you have then my case is proven.
Frazzled wrote:Respectfully, get real. You can't sight one of the pre-eminent party members of evil Republicans from a century ago as a liberal supporting the 2nd Amendment.
Wtrong party
Wrong time
He's kinda like really really dead.
If thats the best you have then my case is proven.
Samuel L Jackson.
My friend Will owns a chinese military ak47 (kind of a hunk of junk) and is quite liberal. Several other guns too.
One of my roomates from last semester was a liberal and owned several weapons for hunting.
One of my co workers from when I was selling TVs was a liberal and owned an automatic.
My friend Bill is a liberal (I think) and owns a pistol.
I think you're full of gak here fraz. You need more friends or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:How crazy would you have to be to be a burglar in Texas? You take your life in your hands every time!
Amazingly enough that doesn't exactly lower texas' crime.
Frazzled wrote:Respectfully, get real. You can't sight one of the pre-eminent party members of evil Republicans from a century ago as a liberal supporting the 2nd Amendment.
Wtrong party
Wrong time
He's kinda like really really dead.
If thats the best you have then my case is proven.
Samuel L Jackson.
Again pics or it didn't happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:How crazy would you have to be to be a burglar in Texas? You take your life in your hands every time!
Amazingly enough that doesn't exactly lower texas' crime.
Conservation isn't liberal, Ted Nugent believes in conservation (as do I). Enviromentalism is definitely liberal though.
Whoopi Goldberg is a liberal who owns firearms. Bruce Willis is conservative.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. Wrapped in a Republican sheet. He was a big government advocate.
As to the original topic of the thread. It's not a "love thing" it's something to have as an emergency resource. gak hits the fan, guns are what you need. If people want to debate the stats of bullets let them, it's practically the same as two Mini's gamers going on about the stats different models.
I wont judge the OP, YouTube is the last place to find any real pictrue of people. It's a rant factory. And since you (I am guessing here) were probably never around guns, the supposed fascination is a hard thing for you to comprehend. I don't fault that at all.
As to guns, I have 54 and I only want more.
As for Class III, it is a federal liscense. Every state falls under it's jurisdiction, and some states don't allow them at all (CA, NJ, CT and NY I believe) The liscense just allows you to legally purchase Class III weapons. Affording them is the hard part. When an MP5A5 costs $30,000, there are better uses for the cash.
The C&R list is updated every year and includes almost all WWII and older firearms. Anything older than 1898 is considered an antique and no paprerwrok is needed for them to be bought.
Frazzled wrote:Respectfully, get real. You can't sight one of the pre-eminent party members of evil Republicans from a century ago as a liberal supporting the 2nd Amendment.
Wtrong party
Wrong time
He's kinda like really really dead.
If thats the best you have then my case is proven.
The Black Panthers-teorrists don't count.
Grace Slick-who? proof?
Phil Spector- hahaha? He's literally nothing but a rubber band, now an unemployed rubber band
Viet Cong-Americans thank you very much (and again, combat units don't count)
Your absence of real people again proves my point.
The Black Panthers-teorrists don't count.
Grace Slick-who? proof?
Phil Spector- hahaha? He's literally nothing but a rubber band, now an unemployed rubber band
Viet Cong-Americans thank you very much (and again, combat units don't count)
Your absence of real people again proves my point.
I updated my list with a few people I know in real life.
Frazzled wrote:
The Black Panthers-teorrists don't count.
Grace Slick-who? proof?
Phil Spector- hahaha? He's literally nothing but a rubber band, now an unemployed rubber band
Viet Cong-Americans thank you very much (and again, combat units don't count)
Your absence of real people again proves my point.
Well, Fraz, whats your definition of a liberal then?
I dunno if you'd call them "liberals" or not (the word seems to change meaning a lot), but there are plenty of union guys, etc. who own guns and vote straight Dem. Don't act like all gun owners are conservatives.
To the OP: I think the picture is more complicated than you paint it.
Like with anything, there are Americans who are overly obsessive about guns.
However, many/most American gun owners see them as a tool for hunting, target shooting, etc., no more and no less.
Note that there are ALSO many Americans who are mystified by firearms. And I've usually found you can't even talk to them about the subject. To them guns are BAD-KILL-BOOM-SHOOT-MURDER-sticks and it's really difficult to get them past that to even hear your point of view.
And segueing back into my first point, I don't think it's only liberals who feel that way. IMO it's not as much of a liberal/conservative split on gun ownership as a city/country split. And while there are some political biases involved in there, it's NOT clearcut. There are certainly urban/suburban Republicans who would not want "one of those...things" in their house.
Ted Nugent-he’s a screaming Republican (and a raving nutjob but that’s a side issue). In light of this lapse I have to question pretty much everything else you’ve noted on this topic. Now I am sure there really might be some avowed known liberals who demonstrably support the 2nd Amendment, but these examples prove my point.
Politics
Nugent's views translate to his politics. During a concert in 2007, while Barack Obama was campaigning for president, Nugent said to the audience "Obama, he’s a piece of gak. I told him to suck on my machine gun."[31] In the same interview, he said regarding Hillary Clinton ,"I was in NY and I said hey Hillary—you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch." In an interview with Royal Flush Magazine, Nugent was asked about his views of U.S. President Barack Obama, and he responded: "I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up."
According to an interview in The Independent he "considers homosexuality morally wrong" and is an outspoken supporter of the Republican Party and the United States military. As a reward for entertaining U.S. troops in Iraq in 2004, he visited Saddam Hussein's war room. "It was a glorious moment. It looked like something out of Star Wars. I saw his gold toilet. I gak in his bidet."[32] Nugent also said: "Our failure has been not to Nagasaki them."[32]
At an Anaheim, California concert on August 21, 2007, Nugent's description of trips to New York and Chicago, and the conversations he purported to have with the senators are in keeping with his trademark views, as Nugent went on to describe similar incidents and invitations to "suck on his machine gun" with other prominent Democrats, such as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.[33][34]
Despite giving previous support for Republican candidates,[35] he thought John McCain "to be catering to a growing segment of soulless Americans who care less what they can do for their country, but whine louder and louder about what their country must do for them. That is both un-American and pathetic."[21]
http://www.answers.com/topic/ted-nugent#Politics Whoopi Goldberg is a liberal who owns firearms.
-owns firearms doesn’t mean you support them an d don’t want to take them from everyone else. There’s plenty of limousine liberals who have them but don’t want others to have them. Again I need proof she even owns guns.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. Wrapped in a Republican sheet. He was a big government advocate.
-And a Republican
-And that’s 100 years ago. Really. This is all you got? I thought this would be difficult.
Guns are kind of ingrained into the American way of life (well, for those of us who value the 2nd Amendment) just as tea time is ingrained into the British way of life.
I would not use youtube as a reliable source of Americans feelings towards guns. Youtube is the place to put videos if you just want 5-15 minutes of fame (or infamy) so of course most of the dumb rednecks you see over-emphasize their love for guns.
I guess it's just me but I see nothing wrong with arguing ballistics or shooting technique. It's useful information to some people, just as 2 nerds arguing over what unit works best against a certain opponent is useful. It's good to sometimes get another point of view on ballistics when it comes to hunting. You might think the round you use is better but not everyone will agree with you and maybe the other person will convince you to try the round he/she uses or you might convince them that the one you use is better resulting in better hunting results for either party.
I guess I don't understand the entire "only aristocrats can hunt" policy in GB. I know I'm exaggerating for effect but from what I know it's near impossible for average citizens to hunt.
We don't need to bash the op for his reasons for believing what he does. But dude/dudette, seriously don't use Youtube as a source of info on gun feelings (at least avoid the Blooper vids). If you must judge based on youtube at least watch any of the hundreds of Charleton Heston videos or even check out the NRA website.
Frazzled wrote:Ted Nugent-he’s a screaming Republican (and a raving nutjob but that’s a side issue). In light of this lapse I have to question pretty much everything else you’ve noted on this topic. Now I am sure there really might be some avowed known liberals who demonstrably support the 2nd Amendment, but these examples prove my point.
Politics
Nugent's views translate to his politics. During a concert in 2007, while Barack Obama was campaigning for president, Nugent said to the audience "Obama, he’s a piece of gak. I told him to suck on my machine gun."[31] In the same interview, he said regarding Hillary Clinton ,"I was in NY and I said hey Hillary—you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch." In an interview with Royal Flush Magazine, Nugent was asked about his views of U.S. President Barack Obama, and he responded: "I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up."
According to an interview in The Independent he "considers homosexuality morally wrong" and is an outspoken supporter of the Republican Party and the United States military. As a reward for entertaining U.S. troops in Iraq in 2004, he visited Saddam Hussein's war room. "It was a glorious moment. It looked like something out of Star Wars. I saw his gold toilet. I gak in his bidet."[32] Nugent also said: "Our failure has been not to Nagasaki them."[32]
At an Anaheim, California concert on August 21, 2007, Nugent's description of trips to New York and Chicago, and the conversations he purported to have with the senators are in keeping with his trademark views, as Nugent went on to describe similar incidents and invitations to "suck on his machine gun" with other prominent Democrats, such as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.[33][34]
Despite giving previous support for Republican candidates,[35] he thought John McCain "to be catering to a growing segment of soulless Americans who care less what they can do for their country, but whine louder and louder about what their country must do for them. That is both un-American and pathetic."[21]
http://www.answers.com/topic/ted-nugent#Politics Whoopi Goldberg is a liberal who owns firearms.
-owns firearms doesn’t mean you support them an d don’t want to take them from everyone else. There’s plenty of limousine liberals who have them but don’t want others to have them. Again I need proof she even owns guns.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. Wrapped in a Republican sheet. He was a big government advocate.
-And a Republican
-And that’s 100 years ago. Really. This is all you got? I thought this would be difficult.
If this Nugent excerpt wasn't so large I'd sig it. I agree with those statements 100%.
halonachos wrote:Careful, those conservative robots are also conservative mods, albeit he is the only texan who would execute the people fighting in the alamo.
They might surrender. Just think of it as pre-emptive morale stabilization. (besides that place is reserved for Frazzled's Zombieolympics II: This Time Its Personal)
halonachos wrote:Careful, those conservative robots are also conservative mods, albeit he is the only texan who would execute the people fighting in the alamo.
Who's afraid of frazz? I've got the answer to him....
halonachos wrote:Careful, those conservative robots are also conservative mods, albeit he is the only texan who would execute the people fighting in the alamo.
Who's afraid of frazz? I've got the answer to him....
I suspect that Frazz's definition of liberal includes a clause which amounts to: Does not support 2nd amendment rights. What this means for everyone else in this thread is that he's arguing from a tautology; something which cannot really be broken on the internet.
Gun politics, in terms of political action, fall pretty cleanly along Republican/Democrat lines. However, the are Republicans from major metropolitan areas that favor gun control, just as there are Democrats from suburban and rural areas who favor strong 2nd amendment rights. Let us not forget Rudy Giuliani, Richard Nixon, Chris Carney, John Murtha, or Tim Holden.
The issue is even less clear when considering the divide between liberals and conservatives; primarily because there is no clear definition of liberal, or conservative when dealing with American politics. The terms certainly bear no heed with respect to even their general, apolitical meanings. They're essentially brands for politicians, and those who wish to self-identify at this point.
And, for anyone that wants to repost significant evidence of Democrats supporting 2nd amendment rights for Fraz to see.
Source wrote:
Today in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the failed 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cited numerous studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urged Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws.
NRA would like to thank Congressman Ross for his leadership on this effort. We will continue to work with Members of Congress from both parties on this important issue.
JohnHwangDD wrote:@OP, you're a liberal kid. We get it.
Not all political liberals are against gun ownership.
And I'm not, honestly, I would like the idea of owning a gun to deter intruders... It's when we start asking about "arms races" and kid safety that deters me from coming out as "pro-guns".
Grignard wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:@OP, you're a liberal kid. We get it.
Not all political liberals are against gun ownership.
And I'm not, honestly, I would like the idea of owning a gun to deter intruders... It's when we start asking about "arms races" and kid safety that deters me from coming out as "pro-guns".
Yes, I've noted all of the responses (up to your post) have been Americans so far: This is a culture clash as far as I can tell.
Grignard wrote:Well, it depends on your definition of politically liberal. I support universal healthcare and more environmental regulation. Does that make me a liberal? I don't think so, but some would disagree. I don't think labels really can define most people's political beliefs, if they have a mind of their own, at least.
I agree with this, it stems from American political definitions which are rather simpler than what we have here in the UK: If you call me a Liberal, implying a Libertarian, without me having any knowledge of American political terminology I'd probably be quite offended: I'd class myself as being liberal in a sense (in the sense that I respect personal freedoms to a degree) but I'm also firmly left of centre which makes any proper comparison to a libertarian a little nauseating!
Perhaps "Liberal" is just a nice word to use for slander against non-conservatives (an ironic distinction to make given my country's choice of government...)?
Frazzled wrote:You still didn't name one.
Me to a point?
I'd really like a definition of "Liberal"
I'm assuming you're referring to the reds-under-the-bed-evil-nazi-islamic-atheistic-socialistic-communist-fascist-obama-lovers?
Alpharius wrote:Why do Americans *really* love guns?
Why the hell not?
That... That is spectacular.
I own guns because I enjoy shooting them. I actually don't care for hunting, because I'm actually rather gnarled out by gutting a large animal. I've done it, but I'm really okay with paying other people to chop up the meat that I eat, thanks.
Anyway, firearms are just pretty much awesome and serve a variety of purposes. Nothing sexual about it, as the trolling in the OP suggested. I have a tremendous mule.
Henners91 wrote:
Grignard wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:@OP, you're a liberal kid. We get it.
Not all political liberals are against gun ownership.
And I'm not, honestly, I would like the idea of owning a gun to deter intruders... It's when we start asking about "arms races" and kid safety that deters me from coming out as "pro-guns".
Firearms owned by a competent citizen aren't a danger to their children. For example, when not in use mine are in a safe. If that for some reason didn't happen, I guarantee that if you ask my children what to do if they see a gun they would say not touch it and tell an adult.
Mine are all in a safe at most times. The one exception being my .45 which is either on the stand next to my bed or on my person when I'm away from the house.
I have no children and the only children that do come over are my cousins but they aren't allowed in my room so I'm not worried about gun safety.
Aria is 7 and Tyler is 10 and both have already shot rifles and know gun safety so I wouldn't worry about them anyway. They are the youngest kids to ever come over so I'm confident nothing will happen so long as they stay out of my room.
Fateweaver wrote:Mine are all in a safe at most times. The one exception being my .45 which is either on the stand next to my bed or on my person when I'm away from the house.
I have no children and the only children that do come over are my cousins but they aren't allowed in my room so I'm not worried about gun safety.
Aria is 7 and Tyler is 10 and both have already shot rifles and know gun safety so I wouldn't worry about them anyway. They are the youngest kids to ever come over so I'm confident nothing will happen so long as they stay out of my room.
I have no children and no children regularly visit. If I do have kids, I'll get a gun safe. I personally do not feel the need where I live now to have a loaded gun in the house, but I'm fine with people who do, as long as they take the responsibility that comes with that.
The clip and the gun are in the same vicinity but I know that neither one can load it and chamber a round without me showing them how.
In an emergency I can have it loaded in around 2-3 seconds, even in the dark so I don't feel the need to keep it loaded all the time.
My shotgun stays loaded but it's in the safe at all times so nothing bad to happen there.
In my family it's tradition that my Uncle would take any of the youngsters in the family hunting on their 6th bday and teach them to shoot. At 6 you aren't going to shoot anything more powerful than a .22 rifle without dislocating your shoulder but it's a good start to gun safety and training.
agnosto wrote:Granted this information is a bit dated (2008); however you'll note that Texas isn't even close to the highest gun ownership in the nation.
I think you see a pretty strong bias for gun ownership in the more rural states without larger urban/suburban populations. Moreso than a pure red/blue split.
Yes, that's my general conclusion as well. Much of that has to do with the desire for greater arms control in urban areas, on the part of both the state and residents.
I think it's because we simply have the right to do whatever the feth we want with guns in some places barring physical violence. This leads to people exercising that right as much as humanly possible as we are one of the few places in the world where that happens.
Giggles,
Mr. Self Destruct
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I think it's because we simply have the right to do whatever the feth we want with guns in some places barring physical violence. This leads to people exercising that right as much as humanly possible as we are one of the few places in the world where that happens.
Giggles,
Mr. Self Destruct
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I think it's because we simply have the right to do whatever the feth we want with guns in some places barring physical violence. This leads to people exercising that right as much as humanly possible as we are one of the few places in the world where that happens.
Giggles,
Mr. Self Destruct
Yeah, but most of the other places are third-world gak-holes, so...
Mr. Self Destruct wrote:I think it's because we simply have the right to do whatever the feth we want with guns in some places barring physical violence. This leads to people exercising that right as much as humanly possible as we are one of the few places in the world where that happens.
Giggles,
Mr. Self Destruct
Yeah, but most of the other places are third-world gak-holes, so...
Thats not true. There are countries in Europe that have looser gun laws than some US states.
Many of my friends, fellow students, and teachers own guns. Many of them are also avid hunters.
I can't understand however why they feel the need to buy a G36, even for self defense. A double barrel shotgun is fine enough for that.
I don't hunt as I lack the patience to do all the tracking to follow a deer through the woods after I've shot it.
For starters, I'm not that against guns... I mean, I can see both sides, I can appreciate guns as machines though I don't know too much about them and I wouldn't say no to owning one.
But ack, Americans actually scare me with their knowledge about guns: Go on YouTube and you see them arguing for days about little bits, and of course, some people actually seem to be sexually aroused by their weaponry (the same kinds of people who'd wear sunglasses indoors and drive a Hummer/SUV: Over-compensators), do less-freakish Americans feel the same way?
I'm not trying to be inciteful but I have to say I notice a difference between the UK and the US when it comes to weapons, I almost get the feeling that Americans kind of devalue life itself when they get in long-arse arguments about killing power and such: Why is this something to feel prideful over?
Fair enough you have your Second Amendment rights to buy the armoury of a small nation, but does that privilege naturally lead to such attitudes? I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones, though that may just be an urban legend... I guess the best way to describe how I perceive trigger-happy Yanks would be to ask Americans to watch The Eagle has Landed and keep a close eye on the American Colonel
Hippy rant over.
I have a gun. I love my gun, not sexually, but I'd rather shoot you than give it up. It's just how I was raised. That's just my life style.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I own a .22 rifle and enjoy shooting guns.
Many of my friends, fellow students, and teachers own guns. Many of them are also avid hunters.
I can't understand however why they feel the need to buy a G36, even for self defense. A double barrel shotgun is fine enough for that.
I don't hunt as I lack the patience to do all the tracking to follow a deer through the woods after I've shot it.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I own a .22 rifle and enjoy shooting guns.
Many of my friends, fellow students, and teachers own guns. Many of them are also avid hunters.
I can't understand however why they feel the need to buy a G36, even for self defense. A double barrel shotgun is fine enough for that.
I don't hunt as I lack the patience to do all the tracking to follow a deer through the woods after I've shot it.
Hit it in the right spot it won't run far.
I also lack the patience to wait for it to get in my crosshairs. Besides I can just hit one when driving anyway.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I own a .22 rifle and enjoy shooting guns.
Many of my friends, fellow students, and teachers own guns. Many of them are also avid hunters.
I can't understand however why they feel the need to buy a G36, even for self defense. A double barrel shotgun is fine enough for that.
I don't hunt as I lack the patience to do all the tracking to follow a deer through the woods after I've shot it.
Hit it in the right spot it won't run far.
I also lack the patience to wait for it to get in my crosshairs. Besides I can just hit one when driving anyway.
You're taking the thrill out of the hunt. The beauty in death man.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I own a .22 rifle and enjoy shooting guns.
Many of my friends, fellow students, and teachers own guns. Many of them are also avid hunters.
I can't understand however why they feel the need to buy a G36, even for self defense. A double barrel shotgun is fine enough for that.
I don't hunt as I lack the patience to do all the tracking to follow a deer through the woods after I've shot it.
Hit it in the right spot it won't run far.
I also lack the patience to wait for it to get in my crosshairs. Besides I can just hit one when driving anyway.
You're taking the thrill out of the hunt. The beauty in death man.
There is too a thrill! I had to cross three lanes last time to hit one!
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I own a .22 rifle and enjoy shooting guns.
Many of my friends, fellow students, and teachers own guns. Many of them are also avid hunters.
I can't understand however why they feel the need to buy a G36, even for self defense. A double barrel shotgun is fine enough for that.
I don't hunt as I lack the patience to do all the tracking to follow a deer through the woods after I've shot it.
Hit it in the right spot it won't run far.
I also lack the patience to wait for it to get in my crosshairs. Besides I can just hit one when driving anyway.
You're taking the thrill out of the hunt. The beauty in death man.
There is too a thrill! I had to cross three lanes last time to hit one!
I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones
The fact that you weren't able to dismiss that offhand is indicative of a very poor grasp on reality, no matter what side of the pond.
You dont have to have a license to own an automatic weapon IIRC, thats just an urban legend. You do however have to pay i think 200 dollars for an extensive background check from some organization as well as get a written request signed by the chief of police for your county. All in all it takes about 2-3 months
Mostly correct. You actually have to have a stamp. An actual stamp. It's a $200 stamp, so instead of 42cents, it actually says $200 on it. You also have to have paperwork, and notify the Feds every time you change address.
It's a bit ridiculous.
So, anyway, I don't want do derail the possibility of more of these bewb pictures getting posted, because no matter how fake they are, fake bewbs fool my happy receptors every time, but...
Why guns?
Many reasons...
1) There is actually legal precedent in the US (and were a precedent based system, unlike the UK), that says the police have no legal responsibility to protect American citizens from harm. If you're in danger and the cops can't get there in time, they're not liable. To set that precedent, and also to deny the right to own weapons for defense is, in my eyes, immoral. "We're not required to protect you, and you're not allowed."
2) There's no practical use to banning them, and it's basically impossible. There are millions of guns in the US. There's no way to go get them all. Even if they did get rid of them all, how well does banning things really work in the end anyway? War on drugs? Why bother?
3) I think that government should constantly be practicing solving problems without taking people's freedom's away. It's odd to be questioned by a Brit about our crazy 2nd Amendment, when the Brits don't even have a 1st. There's no right to free speech in the UK... Europe is full of countries that solve social problems by stripping people's rights, taking their money, and controlling their lives. This is not progress, nor is it wisdom. Being former monarchies, the European nations don't have a real instinct for individual liberties, the way we do in the US. It's this spirit of individualism that led to the American ascension, and its the loss of this spirit, and the leftward slide of America back towards Europe, that is causing our current decline.
I personally own about two dozen guns. I enjoy shooting them, but I don't find them sexually arousing. I enjoy the process of training with them, it's physically and mentally demanding, and improving your skills is rewarding. I like knowing that I have the means to defend my home against an intruder, and when the lunatics running the world eventually collapse our society, I'll have plenty of weapons to hold of the zombie hordes.
The 2nd Amendment makes it clear. People muddle the Amendment by misunderstanding that the comma was changed from a semi-colon decades ago.
The first and last part are two separate ideas, not one separated by punctuation.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment as originally written had a semicolon in front of "the". It never said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia." The part about militia and the part of right to bear arms were two separate ideas in the same sentence.
So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.
Fateweaver wrote:It's first and foremost our Constitutional Right.
Not the first, given that it isn't protected by the First Amendment, but maybe the foremost; depending on your priorities.
Fateweaver wrote:
The 2nd Amendment makes it clear. People muddle the Amendment by misunderstanding that the comma was changed from a semi-colon decades ago.
The version passed in 1791, the one held in the national archives, contains a comma.
Fateweaver wrote:
The first and last part are two separate ideas, not one separated by punctuation.
Semicolons are also used to separate independent clauses which are linked by a conjunction. An independent clause is not necessarily a self-contained idea.
Fateweaver wrote:
So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.
So you only have a gun because your government permits it?
Fateweaver wrote:So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.
If the constitution spelled out that you could have a pretty pink dress... would you just cause it says that you could?
Do you see the fail logic behind this?
I don't get your point. You trying to say I only own something because the government says I can?
I don't believe in owning a gun illegally so I don't buy them that way. I buy my guns from dealers and shows. I need to prove I can have one.
Dude, seriously. Back the feth off. Now you are just trolling.
There you go with the troll thing again... seriously... expand your vocab.
I am simply pointing out that what you are saying is a pretty weak base point for an argument.
If you are going to argue a point, then maybe you should take a example from the following:
I own and use around 20 firearms. This number various from month to month cause I am constantly buying, selling, and trading in search for the next firearm to grace my collection.
Shooting around these parts is more a way of life and has been for longer then anyone can remember. Growing up, kids trek alongside dads and dogs deep into the mountains and Forrest's spending time together and bonding as they track and hunt various wild game. Its almost a rite of passage when a young lad shoots and kills his first white tail deer. Myself, I still have the deer Hide in the form of a nice wall hanging rug from my first deer.
Rifles and shotguns are bought and passed on from one generation to the next. I have a side by side shotgun that has been in my family for over 100 years. Though these days it spends more time hanging over my gas fireplace then out in the woods hunting fowl.
Myself, I view most older firearms almost as a fan views a fine work of art. Back in the old days each firearm was hand crafted and all the fine detail work was engraved by hand. Even with modern standards, I feel that the craftsmanship of the older style firearms is just as good if not better in some areas then the mass produced machined rifles of today. Because of this, I take great pride in buying older beat up weapons and restoring them to a more youthful appearance. I look at it is honoring and old, trusty friend.
I can see where people who have never been exposed to this way of life can have a hard time trying to grasp why us Americans have such a love for guns. All you have to base this view off of is what you see on TV, and Militia happy nutjobs like Fateweaver. All I ask is that you try to keep a more open mind.
Fateweaver wrote:So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.
If the constitution spelled out that you could have a pretty pink dress... would you just cause it says that you could?
Do you see the fail logic behind this?
I don't get your point. You trying to say I only own something because the government says I can?
I don't believe in owning a gun illegally so I don't buy them that way. I buy my guns from dealers and shows. I need to prove I can have one.
Dude, seriously. Back the feth off. Now you are just trolling.
There you go with the troll thing again... seriously... expand your vocab.
I am simply pointing out that what you are saying is a pretty weak base point for an argument.
If you are going to argue a point, then maybe you should take a example from the following:
I own and use around 20 firearms. This number various from month to month cause I am constantly buying, selling, and trading in search for the next firearm to grace my collection.
Shooting around these parts is more a way of life and has been for longer then anyone can remember. Growing up, kids trek alongside dads and dogs deep into the mountains and Forrest's spending time together and bonding as they track and hunt various wild game. Its almost a rite of passage when a young lad shoots and kills his first white tail deer. Myself, I still have the deer Hide in the form of a nice wall hanging rug from my first deer.
Rifles and shotguns are bought and passed on from one generation to the next. I have a side by side shotgun that has been in my family for over 100 years. Though these days it spends more time hanging over my gas fireplace then out in the woods hunting fowl.
Myself, I view most older firearms almost as a fan views a fine work of art. Back in the old days each firearm was hand crafted and all the fine detail work was engraved by hand. Even with modern standards, I feel that the craftsmanship of the older style firearms is just as good if not better in some areas then the mass produced machined rifles of today. Because of this, I take great pride in buying older beat up weapons and restoring them to a more youthful appearance. I look at it is honoring and old, trusty friend.
I can see where people who have never been exposed to this way of life can have a hard time trying to grasp why us Americans have such a love for guns. All you have to base this view off of is what you see on TV, and Militia happy nutjobs like Fateweaver. All I ask is that you try to keep a more open mind.
END RANT
I could have copy/pasted that and a certain troll would still attack me. That is why he is on ignore. My ignore list is going to get larger than the dakka user base because apparently I NEVER know what I'm saying.
Again, this is derailing the thread and I refuse a vacation again. I'm done with you.
Fateweaver wrote:It's first and foremost our Constitutional Right.
The 2nd Amendment makes it clear. People muddle the Amendment by misunderstanding that the comma was changed from a semi-colon decades ago.
The first and last part are two separate ideas, not one separated by punctuation.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The 2nd Amendment as originally written had a semicolon in front of "the". It never said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia." The part about militia and the part of right to bear arms were two separate ideas in the same sentence.
So, my constitution says I can have a gun. So, I have them.
Two points:
First, your view mimics the DC v Heller ruling which was groundbreaking in that it is not the traditional way the Constitution had been read prior.
You really should include the full text of the 2nd amendment when you quote it, it's really quite short: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If there were two separate ideas here then there would be two separate amendments. There's only one because the two are at the very least complimentary. The amendment has historically been read to be one sentence, you know, the way it was actually written.
Second, it's tenuous to say a right is granted by the second amendment. Read it again: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It's more of a limitation on governmental power (originally federal then expanded to cover the states with the 14th amendment). This is an important distinction. Many countries have constitutions which explicitly grant rights (that is, they actually say "people have a right to x"). The US Constitution explicitly limits governmental power rather than granting an absolute right to its citizens (the "shall not be infringed" part). It's really quite interesting as a constitution in that it presupposes a "right of the people" which exists outside of itself, though never actually defines what the right is, but rather how the government may act in relation to it.
Fateweaver wrote:
I could have copy/pasted that and a certain troll would still attack me. That is why he is on ignore. My ignore list is going to get larger than the dakka user base because apparently I NEVER know what I'm saying.
Again, this is derailing the thread and I refuse a vacation again. I'm done with you.
Dude, Get over yourself already.
And you didn't copy paste that... instead of thinking your arguement through and responding in a logical and well though out manner, you posted hasty four letter words and tried to pull out the victem card... again.
Riddle me this:
Which is more likely the truth... that all those people on your "soon to be huge" ignore list are just all out to get you and came together to conspire against you for no reason at all... or that by the way you carry yourself and are acting, that YOU are causeing the problems here on the forums.
Fateweaver wrote:Either way I defend it veraciously against people wanting to take my guns away.
Anti-gun people make it sound as if you need to be a part of a militia to own a gun, when that's not true at all.
Read my sig. The government requiring me to get permission from them to own a gun is infringement.
I'm actually pretty pro-gun even though I generally consider myself a liberal. You don't need to be part of a militia to own a gun, however the government can regulate gun use outside of state run militia's with more ease (this is a condensed answer, it's really quite complicated).
You may call it infringement, but you are, historically at least, just plain wrong. That's a little strong I guess, maybe it's just best to say that the vast majority of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, and those who were drafting the Constitution, seem to disagree with your viewpoint. Until the 14th amendment states were free to limit gun ownership how they chose; it wasn't quite the enshrined right we Americans worship today.
Even stranger, if you were to be a true textualist then the 2nd amendment would cover all arms, not just guns. While I wouldn't mind owning a tank, I don't want my neighbor to have a fully armed one. The 2nd amendment never specifies guns, just arms.
I won't even begin to bring up the commerce clause (or hell, even the necessary and proper clause. I'm on vacation til June 1st and really don't want to be thinking of the law.
You may call it infringement, but you are, historically at least, just plain wrong.
No question, the government has empowered itself to "infringe" on gun rights for some time. The NFA of 1934 is just one example of them deciding they could violate the Constitution.
But, just because they did it, and have been doing it, that doesn't mean they're right.
Take note of how they did it. It's the same stamp I mentioned earlier. They knew it wasn't legal to ban the sale of guns, so they decided that certain guns needed a special tax stamp to be sold, and then they just wouldn't actually sell any of the stamps.
It's the same thing they did to ban pot, actually.
So, if your arguments were as ironclad as your tone suggests, then why did the government feel the need to play such tricks to legislate gun control?
They played similar tricks with "interstate commerce" and other such BS in order to do something they knew damn well they weren't empowered to do.
So, in my estimation, that throws out the "lawmakers and judges" you list as people who were aware that the 2nd didn't do what it does.
And since they were deliberately circumventing the rule, we know that the founding fathers also intended it to do what it does. It should be obvious, given that these were men who won their freedom on the backs of an armed civilian population, and they understood the importance of the government fearing its citizens, rather than vice versa.
I even heard that Texas was offering a bounty for DEAD burglars rather than living ones
The fact that you weren't able to dismiss that offhand is indicative of a very poor grasp on reality, no matter what side of the pond.
You dont have to have a license to own an automatic weapon IIRC, thats just an urban legend. You do however have to pay i think 200 dollars for an extensive background check from some organization as well as get a written request signed by the chief of police for your county. All in all it takes about 2-3 months
Mostly correct. You actually have to have a stamp. An actual stamp. It's a $200 stamp, so instead of 42cents, it actually says $200 on it. You also have to have paperwork, and notify the Feds every time you change address.
It's a bit ridiculous.
So, anyway, I don't want do derail the possibility of more of these bewb pictures getting posted, because no matter how fake they are, fake bewbs fool my happy receptors every time, but...
Why guns?
Many reasons...
1) There is actually legal precedent in the US (and were a precedent based system, unlike the UK), that says the police have no legal responsibility to protect American citizens from harm. If you're in danger and the cops can't get there in time, they're not liable. To set that precedent, and also to deny the right to own weapons for defense is, in my eyes, immoral. "We're not required to protect you, and you're not allowed."
2) There's no practical use to banning them, and it's basically impossible. There are millions of guns in the US. There's no way to go get them all. Even if they did get rid of them all, how well does banning things really work in the end anyway? War on drugs? Why bother?
3) I think that government should constantly be practicing solving problems without taking people's freedom's away. It's odd to be questioned by a Brit about our crazy 2nd Amendment, when the Brits don't even have a 1st. There's no right to free speech in the UK... Europe is full of countries that solve social problems by stripping people's rights, taking their money, and controlling their lives. This is not progress, nor is it wisdom. Being former monarchies, the European nations don't have a real instinct for individual liberties, the way we do in the US. It's this spirit of individualism that led to the American ascension, and its the loss of this spirit, and the leftward slide of America back towards Europe, that is causing our current decline.
I personally own about two dozen guns. I enjoy shooting them, but I don't find them sexually arousing. I enjoy the process of training with them, it's physically and mentally demanding, and improving your skills is rewarding. I like knowing that I have the means to defend my home against an intruder, and when the lunatics running the world eventually collapse our society, I'll have plenty of weapons to hold of the zombie hordes.
That's all, back to the bewbs.
On Point 3, there's the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the EU Bill of Human Rights: The latter is a piece of legislation that is actually elevated above our own, all legislation passed in the EU automatically supersedes UK law. Whilst I'd agree that the US has a better democratic system, I would argue that waaay fewer Europeans object to a "bigger" state that provides larger public services (and expects us to pay).
Owning an Abrams is impossible atm. Any Abrams that isn't in active service is getting retro-fitted in Alabama.
A couple of years ago I saw a T34/85 for sale. $64,000. The hardest part about owing something like that is maintenance.
As for the founders concerning modern weapons. Since they had no concept of what a tank was (unless they liked DaVinci), it's hard to say what they would have said (besides HOLY gak! What is that!?)
Stormrider wrote:Owning an Abrams is impossible atm. Any Abrams that isn't in active service is getting retro-fitted in Alabama.
A couple of years ago I saw a T34/85 for sale. $64,000. The hardest part about owing something like that is maintenance.
As for the founders concerning modern weapons. Since they had no concept of what a tank was (unless they liked DaVinci), it's hard to say what they would have said (besides HOLY gak! What is that!?)
I don't believe the issue has anything to do with military weapons. Tanks, nuclear weapons, fighter jets, etc. aren't weapons, they're weapons systems. Such things require a crew of (often) highly skilled and trained individuals to operate. As mentioned, people see the tactical advantages of tanks and mechanized war, but they're not seeing the fact that they take multiple crew to operate, not to mention the logistical support of mechanics, engineers, technicians, etc. Tanks are known, apparently, for breaking down. Does anyone here who is in the military know how many non combat personel it requires to keep even a infantryman with a rifle going? Let alone a tank?
That is why it is silly to draw analogies between private ownership of arms and private ownership of weapon systems. In other words, the government has no need to say I can't own a nuclear weapon because no individual has the ability to construct or deploy one.
Grignard wrote: Does anyone here who is in the military know how many non combat personel it requires to keep even a infantryman with a rifle going? Let alone a tank?
This is one of the few times that I can't draw upon my military experiences to answer a question. Mainly because Cav Scouts are designed and trained from day 1 to be 100% self sufficient. We are our own cooks, clerks, supply, armourers ect ect ect.
However, my own two cents, is that while im not sure how many people it takes to "support" line troops.. I feel that they are currently over strength and need to be thinned out.
Grignard wrote: Does anyone here who is in the military know how many non combat personel it requires to keep even a infantryman with a rifle going? Let alone a tank?
I'm not in the military, but there are only ~400,000 combat personnel in our military, which is ~1.5 million. The ratio is therefore ~2:1, but that doesn't include the many civilian contractors who handle food and similar services. In practice the ratio is closer to 5:1.
I enjoy target shooting. I missed going to the range from when I was in the Army and have recently purchased an LWRC M6A2 and have been hitting the range on a regular basis. I find it gratifying to be able to pull down a target with accurately placed shot groups. Like a dart player with the ability to peg the bullseye at will or the basketball player who sinks three pointers with a whim, it's a skill, and people enjoy putting thier skills to use. I enjoy putting my skill to use at 2800 feet per second
I've been invited to go on a hog hunt (Feral hogs are a real problem here in Texas) and I'm looking foward to that.
Home defense is another matter entirely and I really don't feel like opening that can of worms. I'll leave my reasons for enjoying firearms at the recreational level.
I also enjoy target practice, but I also have my fire arms to protect my family. Because realistically you can't always expect that the police will get to you in time. We all have seen evidence of horrible violent crimes being committed, home invasions and maniacs high on drugs. These atrocities are not just limited to the United States. At least in my country we have the right to protect our selves with a fire arm if God forbid that it might ever become necessary.
.
'
M66 wrote:I also enjoy target practice, but I also have my fire arms to protect my family. Because realistically you can't always expect that the police will get to you in time. We all have seen evidence of horrible violent crimes being committed, home invasions and maniacs high on drugs. These atrocities are not just limited to the United States. At least in my country we have the right to protect our selves with a fire arm if God forbid that it might ever become necessary.
.
'
The one time my sister came to me because drunkards seemed to be outside... I just grabbed a fire poker
M66 wrote:I also enjoy target practice, but I also have my fire arms to protect my family. Because realistically you can't always expect that the police will get to you in time. We all have seen evidence of horrible violent crimes being committed, home invasions and maniacs high on drugs. These atrocities are not just limited to the United States. At least in my country we have the right to protect our selves with a fire arm if God forbid that it might ever become necessary.
.
'
And irrational generalisations like that give America as a whole a bad name
You see this is why Alpharius has quickley become my favorite MOD on this site, he keeps things in perspective. How can you not just love such beutiful things as guns.
@ Monster Rain: Squig_herder was refering to the paranoia that seems rampant in all of our justifications about home defence. People with this mind set don't realize that this is justified in our culture and they would rather that we give police MORE power and make them deal with it. They look out their windows or go outside and see the police on the street everyday and it makes them feel safe and that is good enough for them.
I have a question for all of those who see me as the redneck that I surley am. How much do the police in your city get paid per year? I remeber talking to a cop one night, we were chatting about things and somehow we got on the topic of what I do for a living. I was pretty proud to tell him that even in this city basically right out of colledge I make $30,000 a year (which is about what most people twice my age make around here) he smiled and told me how he make $120,000 + fully paid benefits last year and that was only because they cut his overtime, and when I asked he said he didn't do any moonlighting as a security guard or anything like that. Grated he had several good reasons to justify making that much (5 years MP at fort Benning for one) but how many officers do you think a dying city like Buffalo New York can support at that pay rate? This is why we own guns my friends because in the end it's cheaper then paying for more police.
ComputerGeek01 wrote:You see this is why Alpharius has quickley become my favorite MOD on this site, he keeps things in perspective. How can you not just love such beutiful things as guns.
@ Monster Rain: Squig_herder was refering to the paranoia that seems rampant in all of our justifications about home defence. People with this mind set don't realize that this is justified in our culture and they would rather that we give police MORE power and make them deal with it. They look out their windows or go outside and see the police on the street everyday and it makes them feel safe and that is good enough for them.
In my town, emergency services take a while to get to you. When I had to call an ambulance for a family member it was about a 20 minute wait... Depending where the one cop on patrol on any given night is, it could take even longer. One might need to take matters into one's own hands in the meantime. People with the mindset you are referring to lack perspective.
From what I know of a lot of policemen here... they love being able to exercise power over their fellow citizens... Though ofc there are some sentimental types.
Fateweaver wrote:Wow. A cop fresh from the academy around here gets paid around $16/hour or $30k/year.
I could go work construction as a sign holder (the dudes that hold the "Slow/Stop" signs up) making the same.
I'd like to think cops aren't in it for the pay in this county as the pay is gakky for the crap you gotta deal with.
"When seconds count the police are just minutes away." That's a motto I live by.
In Nashville I looked in to it and you can start at 45k with a college degree. I have better things to do with my degree than get shot at by gang bangers though.
I imagine a few get into it because they're idealists who want to do something right, and a majority who get into it because they get a weapon and can tell people what to do.
I have bad experiences with with law enforcement so I have some unfair bias, but I run into a lot of them at the range, and they're pretty cool, so I can deal with them. I just don't care for authority in general though.
ComputerGeek01 wrote:You see this is why Alpharius has quickley become my favorite MOD on this site, he keeps things in perspective. How can you not just love such beutiful things as guns.
@ Monster Rain: Squig_herder was refering to the paranoia that seems rampant in all of our justifications about home defence. People with this mind set don't realize that this is justified in our culture and they would rather that we give police MORE power and make them deal with it. They look out their windows or go outside and see the police on the street everyday and it makes them feel safe and that is good enough for them.
I have a question for all of those who see me as the redneck that I surley am. How much do the police in your city get paid per year? I remeber talking to a cop one night, we were chatting about things and somehow we got on the topic of what I do for a living. I was pretty proud to tell him that even in this city basically right out of colledge I make $30,000 a year (which is about what most people twice my age make around here) he smiled and told me how he make $120,000 + fully paid benefits last year and that was only because they cut his overtime, and when I asked he said he didn't do any moonlighting as a security guard or anything like that. Grated he had several good reasons to justify making that much (5 years MP at fort Benning for one) but how many officers do you think a dying city like Buffalo New York can support at that pay rate? This is why we own guns my friends because in the end it's cheaper then paying for more police.
Buffalo is a special case. Being a son to an officer that worked Internal Affairs I can tell you Buffalo is not the norm. It is grossly corrupt. To levels you wouldn't believe. But thats not the norm for most of the US.
My views on Americans and guns is that we have them because we can. Simple as that. Their just tools. Tools that can be easily misused but still tools.
I enjoy shooting guns because its fun, not because I think Ill ever need them. All this crap about home defense is just that, crap. Say you like guns because you like guns. Theres nothing wrong with that. But all this baloney about militas and defending your rights is what gives Americans a bad name.
Oh and without a doubt people get sexually aroused by guns. Just because you don't doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Plus have you seen some of the porn out there?
ComputerGeek01 wrote:You see this is why Alpharius has quickley become my favorite MOD on this site, he keeps things in perspective. How can you not just love such beutiful things as guns.
@ Monster Rain: Squig_herder was refering to the paranoia that seems rampant in all of our justifications about home defence. People with this mind set don't realize that this is justified in our culture and they would rather that we give police MORE power and make them deal with it. They look out their windows or go outside and see the police on the street everyday and it makes them feel safe and that is good enough for them.
I have a question for all of those who see me as the redneck that I surley am. How much do the police in your city get paid per year? I remeber talking to a cop one night, we were chatting about things and somehow we got on the topic of what I do for a living. I was pretty proud to tell him that even in this city basically right out of colledge I make $30,000 a year (which is about what most people twice my age make around here) he smiled and told me how he make $120,000 + fully paid benefits last year and that was only because they cut his overtime, and when I asked he said he didn't do any moonlighting as a security guard or anything like that. Grated he had several good reasons to justify making that much (5 years MP at fort Benning for one) but how many officers do you think a dying city like Buffalo New York can support at that pay rate? This is why we own guns my friends because in the end it's cheaper then paying for more police.
Buffalo is a special case. Being a son to an officer that worked Internal Affairs I can tell you Buffalo is not the norm. It is grossly corrupt. To levels you wouldn't believe. But thats not the norm for most of the US.
My views on Americans and guns is that we have them because we can. Simple as that. Their just tools. Tools that can be easily misused but still tools.
I enjoy shooting guns because its fun, not because I think Ill ever need them. All this crap about home defense is just that, crap. Say you like guns because you like guns. Theres nothing wrong with that.
Why can't it be both? You can't like guns and want to have them around to defend your home?
So you'd trust the police to protect your ass if you didn't have guns in your home.
Not everyone that has a gun for home defense likes guns. Some people do have them for home defense, some have them only for hunting and some only have them for competition. Some have them for any 2 of the above or all 3.
You call home defense crap. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is crap. See what I did there?
I use my rifle (30-30) for hunting (upon joint-owned land, w/ a permit, during the season), and for a little bit of target practice. Killing people is bad. The end.
I'd just like to quote (from memory, I hope this is correct...) Gary Paulson (from his book "The Haymeadow")
"All a gun is, is a better way to throw a rock. You are still the one throwing rocks."
I'm a weak guy, I'd feel safe with a gun in my house... But I wouldn't want to be like this guy:
Watch from 2:00 if you want to leap straight to what I'm talking about... just try and deny that this guy clearly has a stiffy over something designed to kill...
I feel it's people like him that make me stereotype you guys as I did in my OP.
Henners91 wrote:I'm a weak guy, I'd feel safe with a gun in my house... But I wouldn't want to be like this guy:
Watch from 2:00 if you want to leap straight to what I'm talking about... just try and deny that this guy clearly has a stiffy over something designed to kill...
I feel it's people like him that make me stereotype you guys as I did in my OP.
Oh, and Blackwater themselves.
Or is it Xee or something now? I forget...
I want that shotgun. I would sell my left and/or right testicle for it, and 1,000 rounds.
I feel it's people like him that make me stereotype you guys as I did in my OP.
Ok, now consider this:
I could go find a video of a black dude beating somebody up and robbing him.
If you saw that, would you feel ok saying "hey, black people, are you all basically violent criminals?"
No. That's racist. And American, Canadian and British society busily ingrains its citizens with an almost compulsive, Clockwork Orange sort of contempt for racism.
So just ask yourself, why do you feel ok about generalizing one video of one guy to all gun owners, and in fact, based on your post title, all Americans?
I'd argue that it's because the people who spend their time clubbing "diversity" into all of our skulls aren't actually interested in "diversity" so much as in "giving the appearance of protecting their pet voting blocks."
Henners91 wrote:I'm a weak guy, I'd feel safe with a gun in my house... But I wouldn't want to be like this guy:
Watch from 2:00 if you want to leap straight to what I'm talking about... just try and deny that this guy clearly has a stiffy over something designed to kill...
I feel it's people like him that make me stereotype you guys as I did in my OP.
Oh, and Blackwater themselves.
Or is it Xee or something now? I forget...
So- at 2:00 he's talking about the Frag 12 mini grenade.
Are you aware that the Frag 12 is British? designed by Experimental Cartridge Company- and tested by the UK Ministry of Defense back in 94.
Fateweaver wrote:So you'd trust the police to protect your ass if you didn't have guns in your home.
Not everyone that has a gun for home defense likes guns. Some people do have them for home defense, some have them only for hunting and some only have them for competition. Some have them for any 2 of the above or all 3.
You call home defense crap. You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is crap. See what I did there?
I bet he doesn't even know which end is which. LOL.
As to the video. So the guy seems overly excited about a new ballistic round for a full auto shotgun. So what? I've seen people literally orgasm on the spot when reading a new 40k codex for the first time. Are they weird for it? (Umm, okay, perhaps in that case they are).
He wanted to hype that gun up. You don't hype up a product by talking about it like you just don't care.
I feel it's people like him that make me stereotype you guys as I did in my OP.
Ok, now consider this:
I could go find a video of a black dude beating somebody up and robbing him.
If you saw that, would you feel ok saying "hey, black people, are you all basically violent criminals?"
No. That's racist. And American, Canadian and British society busily ingrains its citizens with an almost compulsive, Clockwork Orange sort of contempt for racism.
So just ask yourself, why do you feel ok about generalizing one video of one guy to all gun owners, and in fact, based on your post title, all Americans?
I'd argue that it's because the people who spend their time clubbing "diversity" into all of our skulls aren't actually interested in "diversity" so much as in "giving the appearance of protecting their pet voting blocks."
+1
I had thought to say something along these lines earlier, but couldn't articulate it. Spot on!
ComputerGeek01 wrote:You see this is why Alpharius has quickley become my favorite MOD on this site, he keeps things in perspective. How can you not just love such beutiful things as guns.
@ Monster Rain: Squig_herder was refering to the paranoia that seems rampant in all of our justifications about home defence. People with this mind set don't realize that this is justified in our culture and they would rather that we give police MORE power and make them deal with it. They look out their windows or go outside and see the police on the street everyday and it makes them feel safe and that is good enough for them.
I have a question for all of those who see me as the redneck that I surley am. How much do the police in your city get paid per year? I remeber talking to a cop one night, we were chatting about things and somehow we got on the topic of what I do for a living. I was pretty proud to tell him that even in this city basically right out of colledge I make $30,000 a year (which is about what most people twice my age make around here) he smiled and told me how he make $120,000 + fully paid benefits last year and that was only because they cut his overtime, and when I asked he said he didn't do any moonlighting as a security guard or anything like that. Grated he had several good reasons to justify making that much (5 years MP at fort Benning for one) but how many officers do you think a dying city like Buffalo New York can support at that pay rate? This is why we own guns my friends because in the end it's cheaper then paying for more police.
Buffalo is a special case. Being a son to an officer that worked Internal Affairs I can tell you Buffalo is not the norm. It is grossly corrupt. To levels you wouldn't believe. But thats not the norm for most of the US.
My views on Americans and guns is that we have them because we can. Simple as that. Their just tools. Tools that can be easily misused but still tools.
I enjoy shooting guns because its fun, not because I think Ill ever need them. All this crap about home defense is just that, crap. Say you like guns because you like guns. Theres nothing wrong with that. But all this baloney about militas and defending your rights is what gives Americans a bad name.
Oh and without a doubt people get sexually aroused by guns. Just because you don't doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Plus have you seen some of the porn out there?
Has your house ever been broken into?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I will say if someone breaks into my house while I am here, and they are lucid, I will give them a chance to surrender and be turned over to the cops. If they are raving lunatics on methamphetamines or crack, goodbye.
If they are raving lunatics on methamphetamines or crack, goodbye.
No question, if you have to shoot somebody to save your own life, you do it. However, one of the things they taught me at a handgun self-defense course, was that if you shoot somebody, no matter how justified the shooting was, you just spent $250,000. That's the typical cost of the legal bills in order to get through the process of being exhonerated of blame. Even if you're totally innocent, you get none of that back.
You REALLY don't want to shoot somebody.
Americans love guns because they make you more attractive! DUH!
Actually, they do. In this case, the 1911 in his lap is obscuring part of his groin, which is making the picture marginally less nauseating.
Its a Ruger .22 pistol, looks kinda like a nambu
Ahhhhh, beat me to the gun nerdery. It does look like a Ruger, yes.
No question, if you have to shoot somebody to save your own life, you do it. However, one of the things they taught me at a handgun self-defense course, was that if you shoot somebody, no matter how justified the shooting was, you just spent $250,000.
It depends on where you bury them. Oh wait... er never mind, nothing to see here...
I have a personal love of shotguns. You can shoot damn near anything out of a shotgun, I mean it. If it fits in the barrel, you can make it go boom. Flechette rounds, rubber slugs or shot, flares, flashbangs, grenades, breaching rounds, beanbags, flames, my uncle even shot some jacks (remember those?) and a steak knife (not together) out using a homemade primer round. Not terribly accurate, but fun to watch.
Henners91 wrote:I'm a weak guy, I'd feel safe with a gun in my house... But I wouldn't want to be like this guy:
Watch from 2:00 if you want to leap straight to what I'm talking about... just try and deny that this guy clearly has a stiffy over something designed to kill...
I feel it's people like him that make me stereotype you guys as I did in my OP.
Oh, and Blackwater themselves.
Or is it Xee or something now? I forget...
So- at 2:00 he's talking about the Frag 12 mini grenade.
Are you aware that the Frag 12 is British? designed by Experimental Cartridge Company- and tested by the UK Ministry of Defense back in 94.
So- do we want to do the stereotype thing?
And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...
Phryxis wrote:
I feel it's people like him that make me stereotype you guys as I did in my OP.
Ok, now consider this:
I could go find a video of a black dude beating somebody up and robbing him.
If you saw that, would you feel ok saying "hey, black people, are you all basically violent criminals?"
No. That's racist. And American, Canadian and British society busily ingrains its citizens with an almost compulsive, Clockwork Orange sort of contempt for racism.
So just ask yourself, why do you feel ok about generalizing one video of one guy to all gun owners, and in fact, based on your post title, all Americans?
I'd argue that it's because the people who spend their time clubbing "diversity" into all of our skulls aren't actually interested in "diversity" so much as in "giving the appearance of protecting their pet voting blocks."
's a fair enough point but I'd hasten to add that Americans aren't a repressed lower-class minority
Positive racial politics simply exists in order to allay our guilt that blacks are still unfortunately trapped in the lower echelons of western society... But before I cause some storm I'd happily move that conversation to PMs.
And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...
I got laid once from a British chick because of my rifle. She never held one before, but being the good American host I am, I showed her the way. God bless whoever came up with the idea of international summer camps
Do you guys really think there are these anonymous bogeymen out there all "doped up on crack or meth?" Or are your views about drugs and society completely from DARE?
Anyways, someone asked me if my house was ever broke into and yes it was. Granted I wasn't home but it did happen. It was when I was back in high school. Turns out it was some stupid kid from my school that thought I had a lot of pot at my house or something. After he broke in and didnt find anything like that, he stole i think like 4 or 5 playstation 1 games. Eventually he got arrested and I got my stuff back.
Now at the time my dad probably had 4 or 5 handguns in the house and maybe a dozen shotguns and rifles. If we were home I guess my dad could have killed this 17 year old kid "all hopped up on dangerous substances" just so we could be safe. Im glad he never even had the chance,but I dont see that as justified.
And obviously I know that this is just a specific example related to my life, but mistakes do happen when defending your home with guns. Now you might say "not gonna happen to me I took safety courses etc." Yeah odds are it wont. Odds are your house wont get broken into when your home either.
We all get our values from our parents, especially with stuff like guns, so maybe we should cool down on the angry rhetoric. My parents dont believe in sleeping next to a loaded gun just in case someone has the possibility of breaking in their home. Consequently, neither do I. I just lock my doors. Does wonders.
And how many of you middle class white males that make up the majority of 40k players really live in such rough neighborhoods? I mean I did in college and I never even needed a gun then.
And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...
I got laid once from a British chick because of my rifle. She never held one before, but being the good American host I am, I showed her the way. God bless whoever came up with the idea of international summer camps
Armaments are Britain's biggest export. We actually SELL Americans a lot of weapons! It's seems churlish to complain about it, really.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henners91 wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...
I got laid once from a British chick because of my rifle. She never held one before, but being the good American host I am, I showed her the way. God bless whoever came up with the idea of international summer camps
Is rifle in this case a metaphor?
Wish I could've gone to camp :<
Why? Do you want to shag an American bloke that owns a gun?
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
And how many of you middle class white males
To be fair, most of us are likely WASPs, might be why there seems to be such a conservative slant on this forum when it comes to anything remotely political, most middle class white males be Republicans!
Albatross wrote:Armaments are Britain's biggest export. We actually SELL Americans a lot of weapons! It's seems churlish to complain about it, really.
Depends what view you take, realistically we're in an import/export deficit so exporting arms is fabaroo, but if you're not too keen on the King of Jordan getting a bunch of Challenger tanks or just wish that the UK could make like Sweden and never bother anyone... it's quite morally worrying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:Why? Do you want to shag an American bloke that owns a gun?
Meh, not like I get any action here... might as well give up on the English women and go one step down on the "list of feminine looking things" and pick American men? I'm just insinuating how ugleh our women can be...
DutchKillsRambo wrote:Do you guys really think there are these anonymous bogeymen out there all "doped up on crack or meth?" Or are your views about drugs and society completely from DARE?
Anyways, someone asked me if my house was ever broke into and yes it was. Granted I wasn't home but it did happen. It was when I was back in high school. Turns out it was some stupid kid from my school that thought I had a lot of pot at my house or something. After he broke in and didnt find anything like that, he stole i think like 4 or 5 playstation 1 games. Eventually he got arrested and I got my stuff back.
Now at the time my dad probably had 4 or 5 handguns in the house and maybe a dozen shotguns and rifles. If we were home I guess my dad could have killed this 17 year old kid "all hopped up on dangerous substances" just so we could be safe. Im glad he never even had the chance,but I dont see that as justified.
And obviously I know that this is just a specific example related to my life, but mistakes do happen when defending your home with guns. Now you might say "not gonna happen to me I took safety courses etc." Yeah odds are it wont. Odds are your house wont get broken into when your home either.
We all get our values from our parents, especially with stuff like guns, so maybe we should cool down on the angry rhetoric. My parents dont believe in sleeping next to a loaded gun just in case someone has the possibility of breaking in their home. Consequently, neither do I. I just lock my doors. Does wonders.
And how many of you middle class white males that make up the majority of 40k players really live in such rough neighborhoods? I mean I did in college and I never even needed a gun then.
That is a good point whether I agree with it or not. For instance, when I lived alone I would occasionally have a loaded firearm next to my bed. Now that I have a roomate and a fiance, I don't feel that I've had enough training or conditioning to use a firearm for defense safely in the middle of the night with other people in the house. In other words, I made a decision based on my own abilities and how much risk I had of someone actually doing something violent ( which I feel to be very small). Don't get me wrong, I'm going to fight if someone tries to invade my home, but I feel that is a very small risk. Other people my choose differently, and I respect that decision.
I could link newspaper articles ( one just occured recently ) where people have defended their home with a firearm, successfully, against armed intruders, and you or someone else could show me instances of accidental shootings by people using a firearm in defense. In other words, both are anecdotal. I have no doubt that accidental shootings occur more frequently than shootings in defense, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't consider using a firearm for defense, rather it is an example of how important firearms safety and education is.
In your case, I agree that it would probably be terrible if the individual in that instance had been killed. Of course, with a petty criminal like that, if someone had interrupted him, armed or not, he probably would have been running away as fast as he could. This is why that unlike many gun rights advocates, I am not a supporter of castle doctrine. I do not believe you should have carte blanche to shoot someone in your house just because they're trespassing. Just because there is a duty to retreat doesn't mean you're going to jail because you shoot an armed intruder who is, for instance, heading for your children's bedroom. Just like in the instance you mentioned, I believe that in all likelyhood the most sane option if you encountered someone like that would be to retreat ( assuming he didn't bail as soon as he heard you) and phone the police.
so maybe we should cool down on the angry rhetoric.
Then this right after.
And how many of you middle class white males
I love it.
That wasn't a bash or anything. Im a middle class white male. I mean I dont have the statistics but I would imagine that most wargamers out there would fall into this category. We are nerds after all.
Also realized my last post made me seem like some silly super liberal person that takes the criminals side. Im not. I just dont personally believe in keeping guns for home protection so I dont personally do it.
Grignard wrote: Just because there is a duty to retreat doesn't mean you're going to jail because you shoot an armed intruder who is, for instance, heading for your children's bedroom. Just like in the instance you mentioned, I believe that in all likelyhood the most sane option if you encountered someone like that would be to retreat ( assuming he didn't bail as soon as he heard you) and phone the police.
What is this bolderdash? Duty to retreat is an outmoded, damnyankee concept. Youmay have a duty to retreat. I have none.
Florida recognizes no need to retreat. We hold to the Stand Your Ground law, and the Castle law. Although I do not own a gun, I'm glad that any burglar knows that if he's killed while burgling it is legally his fault for trespassing.
Grignard wrote: Just because there is a duty to retreat doesn't mean you're going to jail because you shoot an armed intruder who is, for instance, heading for your children's bedroom. Just like in the instance you mentioned, I believe that in all likelyhood the most sane option if you encountered someone like that would be to retreat ( assuming he didn't bail as soon as he heard you) and phone the police.
What is this bolderdash? Duty to retreat is an outmoded, damnyankee concept. Youmay have a duty to retreat. I have none.
I just don't feel there should be an inalienable right to shoot someone just because they're on your property. What happens if I want to kill someone and do so by inviting them onto my property then shooting them. In that case the burden of proving they weren't on your property to do ill rests on the shoulders of a dead man.
Like I said, a duty to retreat does not, or should not at least, mean you have to run if an armed ( or unarmed for that matter) intruder is trying to harm, or you have reasonable cause to believe they are trying to harm, you or your family.
Personally I can't see shooting some petty criminal who is stealing my microwave. Just call the police, or if you really don't want to lose that microwave, bust him upside the head with a two by four or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote:Florida recognizes no need to retreat. We hold to the Stand Your Ground law, and the Castle law. Although I do not own a gun, I'm glad that any burglar knows that if he's killed while burgling it is legally his fault for trespassing.
An unarmed intruder is automatically deserving of death? That is a lot different than someone who enters your house with a knife to do robbery or harm.
I think my position has been stated. The retreat rule was a joke used by prosecutors that puts people's lives in jeopardy. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
An unarmed intruder is automatically deserving of death? That is a lot different than someone who enters your house with a knife to do robbery or harm.
In many states, the entrance into a residence in the commission of a crime meets the legal standard for self defense. in some states, that standard is statutorily written, or legally interpreted, as meaning self defense up to lethal defense. The legal presumption is for the GG.
Oh, I'm not killing any intruders- but I do think if I was a robber in a state where the residents of houses were legally able to kill me, I'd be much more hesitant about robbing. I think of it as a deterrent.
Frazzled wrote:I think my position has been stated. The retreat rule was a joke used by prosecutors that puts people's lives in jeopardy. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
An unarmed intruder is automatically deserving of death? That is a lot different than someone who enters your house with a knife to do robbery or harm.
In many states, the entrance into a residence in the commission of a crime meets the legal standard for self defense. in some states, that standard is statutorily written, or legally interpreted, as meaning self defense up to lethal defense. The legal presumption is for the GG.
I'm not saying that isn't the law, for that matter, it could be the law where I live, but regardless I disagree with that. If you can use lethal force on someone who enters your property while committing a crime, then that means you could kill anyone, because if you and the guy you shoot are the only witnesses, who is to say if he was there by your permission or not?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote:Oh, I'm not killing any intruders- but I do think if I was a robber in a state where the residents of houses were legally able to kill me, I'd be much more hesitant about robbing. I think of it as a deterrent.
You're assuming it would be a deterrent. If someone is a "doped up methhead" or whatever, then their drug need is going to make such fears irrelevant anyhow.
Mistress of minis wrote:
So- at 2:00 he's talking about the Frag 12 mini grenade.
Are you aware that the Frag 12 is British? designed by Experimental Cartridge Company- and tested by the UK Ministry of Defense back in 94.
So- do we want to do the stereotype thing?
And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...
So, you find one guy, that hosts a show called 'Future Weapons'(on Discovery Channel), and you pull a youtube clip of him. You're assuming he's drooling/getting aroused over a finger sized grenade. He is hosting a show- he's supposed to show some enthusiasm for the subject. He is also a former Navy SEAL with 10 years of operational experience. So, from my standpoint- if some technology comes along that would allow my freinds/comrades carry out thier job more safely- hell yes Im going to be enthusiastic about it. I have freinds serving in the middle east- and anything that increases their odds of coming home safely is a good thing in my book.
And your 'logic' of "I havent seen an example of a British person drooling over it..." is ridiculous. You dont know all British people, and your idea of the average American seems flawed/misinformed as well.
Since you're basing it on the people here on Dakka- bear in mind this is a WARgame based forum- which kind of comes with an inherent belief that blowing up imaginary opponents with guns is cool.
Mistress of minis wrote:
So- at 2:00 he's talking about the Frag 12 mini grenade.
Are you aware that the Frag 12 is British? designed by Experimental Cartridge Company- and tested by the UK Ministry of Defense back in 94.
So- do we want to do the stereotype thing?
And? I'm not exactly keen on our arms exports but I haven't (though please do link me an example) seen an example of a British person drooling over it...
So, you find one guy, that hosts a show called 'Future Weapons'(on Discovery Channel), and you pull a youtube clip of him. You're assuming he's drooling/getting aroused over a finger sized grenade. He is hosting a show- he's supposed to show some enthusiasm for the subject. He is also a former Navy SEAL with 10 years of operational experience. So, from my standpoint- if some technology comes along that would allow my freinds/comrades carry out thier job more safely- hell yes Im going to be enthusiastic about it. I have freinds serving in the middle east- and anything that increases their odds of coming home safely is a good thing in my book.
And your 'logic' of "I havent seen an example of a British person drooling over it..." is ridiculous. You dont know all British people, and your idea of the average American seems flawed/misinformed as well.
Since you're basing it on the people here on Dakka- bear in mind this is a WARgame based forum- which kind of comes with an inherent belief that blowing up imaginary opponents with guns is cool.
Yah Henners, I think you're cherry picking a little bit.
Gitzbitah wrote:Oh, I'm not killing any intruders- but I do think if I was a robber in a state where the residents of houses were legally able to kill me, I'd be much more hesitant about robbing. I think of it as a deterrent.
You're assuming it would be a deterrent. If someone is a "doped up methhead" or whatever, then their drug need is going to make such fears irrelevant anyhow.
I'll grant that a strung out methhead probably is not worried about losing his life. I suppose I'm operating under the assumption that most robberies are not perpetrated by such drug addicts, and that the more rational individuals out there would be dissuaded from robbing a house if they knew they could lose their life in the attempt.
I don't believe that it will stop robberies entirely, but I do imagine it raises the bar of what sort of individuals will attempt robbery. Thus, it reduces the pool of people willing to rob. This should lead to a resulting drop in that crime. Consequently, it would also mean that the people that do attempt to break into houses and steal things are more likely to be malicious, and thus are more deserving of whatever happens to them.
Gitzbitah wrote:Oh, I'm not killing any intruders- but I do think if I was a robber in a state where the residents of houses were legally able to kill me, I'd be much more hesitant about robbing. I think of it as a deterrent.
You're assuming it would be a deterrent. If someone is a "doped up methhead" or whatever, then their drug need is going to make such fears irrelevant anyhow.
I'll grant that a strung out methhead probably is not worried about losing his life. I suppose I'm operating under the assumption that most robberies are not perpetrated by such drug addicts, and that the more rational individuals out there would be dissuaded from robbing a house if they knew they could lose their life in the attempt.
I don't believe that it will stop robberies entirely, but I do imagine it raises the bar of what sort of individuals will attempt robbery. Thus, it reduces the pool of people willing to rob. This should lead to a resulting drop in that crime. Consequently, it would also mean that the people that do attempt to break into houses and steal things are more likely to be malicious, and thus are more deserving of whatever happens to them.
I'm sorry on that one. Even if such a law deters crime, I can't morally stand behind that. While using lethal force against someone who is harming you or your loved ones is an expected and even righteous response, I do not think a petty criminal should be shot out of hand, without question.
Henners91 wrote:How about just using an empty gun?
Thats a horrible idea, if you're going to threaten someone with a gun, you'd better be ready to use it, because regardless of the actual status, if someone believes you're pointing a loaded gun at them, you've just upped the confrontation level. They're going to be more likely to hurt you if they can.
I support human rights for those that deserve them. I don't believe criminals currently engaged in criminal activity have any rights. They voluntarily surrendered them the moment they broke the contract we have to behave like decent, law-abiding citizens. They can have them back once they're not a threat- but I think that a criminal is a threat until the police have them in handcuffs.
edit- The problems with an empty gun have already been enumerated by Frazzled and Grignard. I need to be quicker on the draw.
Frazzled wrote:So what are you going to use? Harsh language?
With most petty criminals I think that might just work. How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?
The same thing with a fire. Use a fire extinguisher if the fire is small, but if there is a blazing inferno, get out and call the fire department. If you can't get out, then fight it with an extinguisher until you can get out, then call the fire department.
Frazzled wrote:So what are you going to use? Harsh language?
With most petty criminals I think that might just work. How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?
The same thing with a fire. Use a fire extinguisher if the fire is small, but if there is a blazing inferno, get out and call the fire department. If you can't get out, then fight it with an extinguisher until you can get out, then call the fire department.
You're asusming someone can get out. What about kids or old people left in the house? What about the valiant weiner brigade, defending the house against human intruders? (yes I view the life of one weiner dog more than all the criminals of the world put together).
And you're also assuming someone defending their house is not already doing those things. SOP is call the police and get to a defensible location. Getting out is an option if available.
But I am using a fire extinguisher. One BG-small fire. Many BG's call in these guys, and yes I mean those exact guys, even though they're pretty old now :
I grew up with the mind set of "the weapon is for the women". What this means is say that I'm are being robbed, my job as the male of the house is to confront the robber and my girls is to call the police. If I'm getting pumbled or stabbed then she has the weapon and I'm standing between them and her.
This is kind of like the one up rule, if someone is attacking you with a stick you are justified in using a knife. Also this plays on the law that you are able to shoot someone without consequence to protect another person from harm.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that by my count this affords the perpatraitor three warnings which is by far more then you are required to give.
Frazzled wrote:So what are you going to use? Harsh language?
With most petty criminals I think that might just work. How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?
The same thing with a fire. Use a fire extinguisher if the fire is small, but if there is a blazing inferno, get out and call the fire department. If you can't get out, then fight it with an extinguisher until you can get out, then call the fire department.
You're asusming someone can get out. What about kids or old people left in the house? What about the valiant weiner brigade, defending the house against human intruders? (yes I view the life of one weiner dog more than all the criminals of the world put together).
And you're also assuming someone defending their house is not already doing those things. SOP is call the police and get to a defensible location. Getting out is an option if available.
But I am using a fire extinguisher. One BG-small fire. Many BG's call in these guys, and yes I mean those exact guys, even though they're pretty old now :
But what you're describing is not the same. I think any "reasonable man" would accept that you acted in a non criminal manner if you could not get out and you used force. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged in court. The burden would be on the law anyhow to prove you did something wrong. I don't think castle doctrine laws are needed.
ComputerGeek01 wrote:I grew up with the mind set of "the weapon is for the women". What this means is say that I'm are being robbed, my job as the male of the house is to confront the robber and my girls is to call the police. If I'm getting pumbled or stabbed then she has the weapon and I'm standing between them and her.
This is kind of like the one up rule, if someone is attacking you with a stick you are justified in using a knife. Also this plays on the law that you are able to shoot someone without consequence to protect another person from harm.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that by my count this affords the perpatraitor three warnings which is by far more then you are required to give.
in Texas you are required to follow this procedure, and strictly:
-fire three warning shots into center mass, then warn them that you'll shoot them again if they don't stop.
-repeat. reload as needed. Keep the dog from peeing on them while they are down, unless the dog really has to go.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grignard wrote:
But what you're describing is not the same. I think any "reasonable man" would accept that you acted in a non criminal manner if you could not get out and you used force. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged in court. The burden would be on the law anyhow to prove you did something wrong. I don't think castle doctrine laws are needed.
Whata resonable man would accept is open to interpretation and a trial.
Castle laws are needed to protect GGs from horrific legal defense costs, and are most definitely needed.
States have responded to aggregious cases of prosecutor misconduct or other horrible circumstances in the past by enacting these laws, and precisely setting what the standards are.
in Texas you are required to follow this procedure, and strictly:
-fire three warning shots into center mass, then warn them that you'll shoot them again if they don't stop.
-repeat. reload as needed. Keep the dog from peeing on them while they are down, unless the dog really has to go.
You forget the part where Cheney must also approve the gun for human target consumption:
Grignard wrote:
But what you're describing is not the same. I think any "reasonable man" would accept that you acted in a non criminal manner if you could not get out and you used force. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged in court. The burden would be on the law anyhow to prove you did something wrong. I don't think castle doctrine laws are needed.
Whata resonable man would accept is open to interpretation and a trial.
Castle laws are needed to protect GGs from horrific legal defense costs, and are most definitely needed.
States have responded to aggregious cases of prosecutor misconduct or other horrible circumstances in the past by enacting these laws, and precisely setting what the standards are.
That is a problem with the legal system that probably needs to be addressed by, among other things, making it so that lawyers entering the profession have more incentive to go work for the public defender. You shouldn't have to pay for a legal defense in this country, or that is the way I"ve always understood it.
It used to not bother me, but having sit and thought about it, it disturbs me that it would be morally and legally defensible to kill a petty criminal. If someone is threatening or even damaging property with great sentimental value is one thing, but that is a human life that is completely irreplaceable.
Frazzled wrote:As noted we clearly disagree. I view them as utterly replaceable.
I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?
Frazzled wrote:As noted we clearly disagree. I view them as utterly replaceable.
I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?
They are entering someone's home to cause harm. They know or can reasonably expect someone to be there which means serious intent there. They are creating the situation of their own demise, in effect committing suicide by homeowner.
So my concern for their wawa position is not there.
I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?
It really comes down to who you believe deserves the benefit of the doubt. One party has entered someone else's home. They've broken the law, and no one can reasonably guess as to what they may be doing, but we do know it will be harmful to the homeowner, even if it is just stealing a microwave. The other thing is, they know that it can end like this and knowingly take that risk. If you jump the fence into a yard with a beware of dog sign, then you're probably going to get bit.
The other side is the homeowner, who doesn't know if the person creeping around in the kitchen is making a sandwich, or getting ready to rape his wife or her husband and kill his or her family.
Personally, I am quite content to let dozens, or hundreds of teenagers who don't really deserve death die if it means that one family doesn't have to suffer the rape or murder that could have been stopped with decisive lethal action. If you could be sure that the intruder was unarmed and no threat to you, then you shouldn't shoot them. Until you know though, you need to stop them from causing you harm as quickly and efficiently as possible. I can't really think of any way to assure a homeowner that an intruder is unarmed and harmless unless they're fully restrained or dead.
Frazzled wrote:As noted we clearly disagree. I view them as utterly replaceable.
I'm not talking about murderers and rapists. I'm talking about someone who could be a teenager, growing up on the wrong side of the tracks, who made a bad decision. Whatever scenario you like. They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?
They are entering someone's home to cause harm. They know or can reasonably expect someone to be there which means serious intent there. They are creating the situation of their own demise, in effect committing suicide by homeowner.
So my concern for their wawa position is not there.
No, you don't know they're entering a home to cause harm. If you wake up in the middle of the night and see someone you don't know approaching, then thats pretty darn threatening, and you'd be justified in using force. But that is a lot different than sneaking up on some teenager rummaging through your garage in the middle of the daytime, and the law needs a means to investigate. The law should investigate when someone was killed with violence, do you agree?
I don't know what their wawa position is. People sometimes make bad decisions, and sometimes those decisions violate other people's rights. It is pretty well established that poverty is associated wtih criminality. A criminal still has basic human rights though. I don't think any rational person would have a problem with someone using lethal force to defend themselves, or if they use it out of fear. That is unfortunate that someone had to do that, but I believe people have a right to protect themselves from aggression as fundamental as the right to speak freely or the right to bear arms. This does not mean that people should take the role of judge, jury, and executioner. I would even understand going after someone who did reprehensible, cruel crimes, but this isn't what we're talking about.
I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
Then you've made the correct decision. If someone doesn't stand down once you pull a weapon on them, you have to follow through. If you're willing to fire on someone who is threatening you or yours, then you can justify carrying a weapon.
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.
So what is the answer. Do you feel you should be able to kill anyone not invited on your property for any reason?
If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.
So what is the answer. Do you feel you should be able to kill anyone not invited on your property for any reason?
If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?
You just changed the argument from house to property. That's a big damn difference.
Wait why would I sneak up on them? I'm not Rambo. I secure the location of any relatives and canines and have the wife call the police. If its a home invasion you're already shooting. Neither of those conform to your scenario.
Absolutely. An uninvited guest is an intruder. If your home has been compromised, then you don't know how many of them there are. Just because you can't see a weapon, doesn't mean he's unarmed. If you're armed, and need to search the house, then you can't leave him behind you unless he's totally secured- a state that you can't bring him to without lowering the guard that you need against his possible allies. Furthermore, warning him to get down on the ground will also broadcast your presence to everyone in the house. Admittedly, shooting them will too, but it leaves you without one threat to worry about. You can safely turn your back on that area of your house.
Always err on the side of caution rather than risk your family.
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.
So what is the answer. Do you feel you should be able to kill anyone not invited on your property for any reason?
If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?
You just changed the argument from house to property. That's a big damn difference.
Wait why would I sneak up on them? I'm not Rambo. I secure the location of any relatives and canines and have the wife call the police. If its a home invasion you're already shooting. Neither of those conform to your scenario.
No, I'm assuming your CD collection is in your house. Someone has broken in your house ( you can't know if they know you're home or not, lets assume) and is rummaging through your CD collection. Replace CD collection with jewelry box or other property in your house. You would clearly hear them invading your house assuming they aren't a ninja or something, and you retrieve your weapon to confront them. Because they're busy stealing your stuff you get the jump on them, and they don't know you're there. THey don't have a weapon in hand. Should you or should you not have the right to shoot them. I dont think this is an unreasonable scenario.
Ok, I your scenario they are messing with a radio/CD collection correct?
Depending on location, they are ignoring the dog or dogs barking and or biting the living *(&(^ out of them? If so, that’s crazy and they are crazy. If not that means they have already left the house or are cowering in a corner (after all once TBone unleashes 8lb of wizzened wienie whup ass and the Shanker flanks him and takes out his hamstring, there’s no need for me). If they’ve left that’s a police matter. If they are in a corner then they can stay there until the police come.
So er, whats the issue? Are they actively fighting with the canine home defense force?
Frazzled wrote:Ok, I your scenario they are messing with a radio/CD collection correct?
Depending on location, they are ignoring the dog or dogs barking and or biting the living *(&(^ out of them? If so, that’s crazy and they are crazy. If not that means they have already left the house or are cowering in a corner (after all once TBone unleashes 8lb of wizzened wienie whup ass and the Shanker flanks him and takes out his hamstring, there’s no need for me). If they’ve left that’s a police matter. If they are in a corner then they can stay there until the police come.
So er, whats the issue? Are they actively fighting with the canine home defense force?
I'm not exactly asking specifically what you would actually do, but what you think you should have a *right* to do.
How about this. Someone without the dogs and what not gets the jump on someone who has invaded their home. Should you have the right to shoot them in the back without question?
I think you answered the question by your statement. "invaded their home."
Giving a warning gives the BG, well a warning , and creates the "bad tie" scenario of whodraws first. The GG has absolutely no knowledge whether the BG is armed or not, so the presumption has to be that they are armed. The GG is not police. They have not been trained and have no duty whatsoever to the BG.
So whether or not they yell "freeze" is up to the GG and the situation. But its a specific fact pattern each time, like mine was, so you can't say what the GG should do. But they DO have a right to protect themselves.
Frazzled wrote:I think you answered the question by your statement. "invaded their home."
Giving a warning gives the BG, well a warning , and creates the "bad tie" scenario of whodraws first. The GG has absolutely no knowledge whether the BG is armed or not, so the presumption has to be that they are armed. The GG is not police. They have not been trained and have no duty whatsoever to the BG.
So whether or not they yell "freeze" is up to the GG and the situation. But its a specific fact pattern each time, like mine was, so you can't say what the GG should do. But they DO have a right to protect themselves.
I'm using invading their home to mean entered without permission. In the scenario you would clearly draw first even if the "BG" has a weapon in his pocket unless you had really slow reaction times.
I'm not asking about protecting oneself. The scenario would end up with the police being called and saying " We have this kid with a .45 inch hole in the back of his skull, but the homeowner says he wasn't invited in and therefore shot him in the back, case closed, no harm, no foul". Should you have the right to shoot someone in the back for the simple reason that they are inside your home without permission? Keep in mind that if those are the only two people involved then you're just taking the owners word that he wasn't invited.
No thats potentially a bad draw. You've not said if the GG has drawn. You have said the BG's back is to him, so the GG has no clue what the BG has.
You can't do a blanket statement.
-The GG has the absolute right to defend himself and others.
-In many states the presumption is for the GG, because of cases that came occurred previously-mostly out fo the northeast, where the retreat rule evolved.
-Everything else is a fact pattern unique to that situation.
Frazzled wrote:No thats potentially a bad draw. You've not said if the GG has drawn. You have said the BG's back is to him, so the GG has no clue what the BG has.
You can't do a blanket statement.
-The GG has the absolute right to defend himself and others.
-In many states the presumption is for the GG, because of cases that came occurred previously-mostly out fo the northeast, where the retreat rule evolved.
-Everything else is a fact pattern unique to that situation.
But what I'm asking is that does someone who clearly has the upper hand with a weapon have the right to shoot someone in the back for no other reason than they entered the house uninvited. I'm not talking about a situation where you don't know what this individual is doing.
The scenario is you've caught some little punk that has broken into your house rummaging in your crap. Do you have the inalienable right to use force that is likely to take his life. I don't see why I can't propose that scenario. I don't think it would be unreasonable.
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.
Guns are reasonably widespread in more rural areas, we do have shootings in houses... most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.
I keep on getting this image in my head of me deciding to visit Frazzle IRL... unannounced... but due to jet lag turning up at night instead of during the day... "YEEEE HAWWWW!" I'll hear and *bam* :-/
I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....
Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.
There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0
Grignard, these hypothetical home invaders are not innocent- no matter how harmless you want to portray them, they are criminals that have violated your personal privacy and property. In their choice to do so, they have made themselves a threat until proven otherwise to the home and its occupants. If the homeowner feels that they are threatened, they should have an unequivocal right to do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat. Guns make it faster and less personally risky for a homeowner to do so.
They may have excuses for their behavior in the eyes of the justice system, but a man in his house does not have the justice system's perspective or burden of proof. Nor does he have several years to determine if the intruder is actually guilty.
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.
Guns are reasonably widespread in more rural areas, we do have shootings in houses... most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.
I keep on getting this image in my head of me deciding to visit Frazzle IRL... unannounced... but due to jet lag turning up at night instead of during the day... "YEEEE HAWWWW!" I'll hear and *bam* :-/
That is different henners. Chasing someone down the road past your property is completely different than shooting someone on your property, armed or no.
I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....
Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.
There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0
Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?
I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....
Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.
There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0
Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?
I'm not a legal scholar, does having the presumption in his favor mean he can shoot the guy in the back?
And it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of law and what is right or wrong, I think.
I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....
Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.
There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0
Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?
I'm not a legal scholar, does having the presumption in his favor mean he can shoot the guy in the back?
And it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of law and what is right or wrong, I think.
What I am saying is.
If you're asking a legal question then its highly likely the GG can shoot the BG. Unless its california or the Northeast of course, then they'd make a statue for the BG.
If you're asking is it morally ok to do so then I'm saying thats a question of faith.
Gitzbitah wrote:Grignard, these hypothetical home invaders are not innocent- no matter how harmless you want to portray them, they are criminals that have violated your personal privacy and property. In their choice to do so, they have made themselves a threat until proven otherwise to the home and its occupants. If the homeowner feels that they are threatened, they should have an unequivocal right to do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat. Guns make it faster and less personally risky for a homeowner to do so.
They may have excuses for their behavior in the eyes of the justice system, but a man in his house does not have the justice system's perspective or burden of proof. Nor does he have several years to determine if the intruder is actually guilty.
So you can execute them?
Grignard wrote:
Henners91 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Henners91 wrote:I don't think breaking into a house should be a death sentence... The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one... I'd hope to just scare them off or make them complicit rather than resort to taking a life...
You're British. You couldn't use one anyway. I however am a Texan, granted by God and the US$ a plethora of options.
Guns are reasonably widespread in more rural areas, we do have shootings in houses... most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.
I keep on getting this image in my head of me deciding to visit Frazzle IRL... unannounced... but due to jet lag turning up at night instead of during the day... "YEEEE HAWWWW!" I'll hear and *bam* :-/
That is different henners. Chasing someone down the road past your property is completely different than shooting someone on your property, armed or no.
Of course, I was just using it as an example to illustrate that Brits unfortunately do know their way around guns. It was right that he was jailed.
I don't mean to get on your case Fraz, but I'm not sure why what I've asked is ambiguous. If the "reasonable man" would conclude that he clearly has the upper hand, lets say there is illumination, the man has his back turned and is occupied with his hands, and it is clearly visible that he does not have a weapon in his hand, and the owner's gun is out and in his hand, or add whatever qualifying conditions you want....
Do you think a property owner has a *right* to shoot someone in the back for the sole reason that the owner claims they were not on his property with his permission? Not a right to defend himself, not a right to bear arms, but a right to use lethal force justified by the sole reason that the target is on his property w/o permission.
There are only two possibilities here, yes or no. 1 or 0
Ok lets be absolutely clear. In the jurisdictions I am referring the GG has the presumption in his favor. In some jurisdictions that presumption is nearly absolute. If you're asking -is it right? Thats a matter between you and your faith isn't it?
I'm not a legal scholar, does having the presumption in his favor mean he can shoot the guy in the back?
And it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of law and what is right or wrong, I think.
What I am saying is.
If you're asking a legal question then its highly likely the GG can shoot the BG. Unless its california or the Northeast of course, then they'd make a statue for the BG.
If you're asking is it morally ok to do so then I'm saying thats a question of faith.
I'm asking should it legally be your right, not what the law actually says.
I am all for the Texas standard for self defense.
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used.
Thats limited by (here we're talking property but person would come into play as well)
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
62 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.
SD of person:
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force
was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is
presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used
Gitzbitah wrote: If the homeowner feels that they are threatened, they should have an unequivocal right to do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat.
So you can execute them?
I tweaked your quote of me to what I feel was the relevant passage for this rebuttal.
Oh, definitely not. Execution is done to someone who has no ability to defend themselves. You can't execute someone who is an immediate threat to you. I think you could shoot them without any warning if you thought they were armed or were threatening one of your family. You definitely could NOT have them kneel on the floor, put your gun behind their head and pull the trigger. That would be murder, whatever their offense was.
I'm all for deadly force being applied against criminals actually doing their crime if they are or may be a threat to you and yours. If you've captured them, then you basically have to turn them over to the police. You're out of danger at that point, and get bonus points for ending the scenario non-fatally.
"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."
If someone is in my house, I wont go: "Gee, I'm sorry you had a gak childhood and are now committing crime to exist, I understand why you are stealing my stuff" bs! I will give them one chance to surrender and lay on the floor. If they decide that they will test my trigger finger it's too late for them.
My house was broken into 3 times in a 5 week span in October and November last year. The perpetrators were both meth addicts and one of them is still on the loose. They had weapons with them too, a prybar, a pellet psitol and a hunting slingshot. I don't care if they are outgunned, they broke the law, they pay the price for breaking in to my house. I live in SW Missouri so I know about real problems with meth, we're the capital of the country for it.
Frazzled wrote:I am all for the Texas standard for self defense.
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;
and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a
Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating
traffic at the time the force was used.
Ok, that is what I was getting at. I have a serious problem with A, because it is the shooters word against a (probable) dead man. My understanding from reading that is according to that, you automatically have a right to use deadly force as soon as you can make a case for him *attempting* to enter your property. That even includes your car???? How does a dead man make a case that he wasn't trying to enter your car? So if someone is standing next to your car with a hammer, you can shoot him?? Without question?
So if the intruder becomes a viable target as soon as you say he was attempting to enter your property can you shoot a fleeing man, *on your property* in the back?
I think this is morally reprehensible and can only put our right to bear arms at risk. I think you should have to have probable cause of believing you are at risk of harm, or someone in the household. Forced entry alone shouldn't be enough
Yes its harder for the BG to defend hiumself after he's caught committing a crime and then compounds the stupidity. If only he hadn't tried to commit that crime he'd still be alive.
Everything else is morality on your part. I view it as the height of immorality to subject an innocent man to bankruptcy and the terror of a jail cell when he's the innocent person minding his own business.
The BG had a choice. The GG didn't.
Oh and as an aside, the law has jack to do with firearms. It says self defense. I can go Shawn of the Dead on the guy with a cricket bat in self defense.
I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.
As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.
The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.
Frazzled wrote:Yes its harder for the BG to defend hiumself after he's caught committing a crime and then compounds the stupidity. If only he hadn't tried to commit that crime he'd still be alive.
Everything else is morality on your part. I view it as the height of immorality to subject an innocent man to bankruptcy and the terror of a jail cell when he's the innocent person minding his own business.
The BG had a choice. The GG didn't.
Oh and as an aside, the law has jack to do with firearms. It says self defense. I can go Shawn of the Dead on the guy with a cricket bat in self defense.
The problem is that I'm not worried as much about actual criminals than the fact that it would be very easy for the shooter to manufacture the appearance of forced entry to commit cold blooded murder.
Also, I just don't agree that you can just freely administer death to someone just because they entered your property. Some petty criminal is more likely to need their behaviour corrected than to need a death sentence. Its wrong, wrong, wrong, from both a secular and judeo-christian standpoint. Hell, virtually any moral standpoint, and the laws of society should reflect such basic things as the sanctity of human life.
How long are our firearms rights going to last when teenagers making dumbass mistakes start showing up dead on suburban lawns. You think they'll last long???
The bad guy knows the risks of breaking into someone house. Its illegal and punishment (in whatever form) can come from it. In Texas i dont know many people who dont know you can be shot for breaking into someones house.
Saying the bad guy is a victim and deserves justice is ridiculous.
Grignard wrote:
That even includes your car???? How does a dead man make a case that he wasn't trying to enter your car? So if someone is standing next to your car with a hammer, you can shoot him?? Without question?
If you think this is bad, you should see what we're permitted to do if you're caught trying to steal a horse. Imust admit, I've not heard of fire ants employed in that manner before.
Grignard wrote:
That even includes your car???? How does a dead man make a case that he wasn't trying to enter your car? So if someone is standing next to your car with a hammer, you can shoot him?? Without question?
If you think this is bad, you should see what we're permitted to do if you're caught trying to steal a horse. Imust admit, I've not heard of fire ants employed in that manner before.
The use of fire ants, no matter how heinous the crime should not be allowed....
Gitzbitah wrote:I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.
As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.
The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.
I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It isn't worth a human life. Keeping the criminal from escaping justice is the police's problem, not yours.
What if you miss or over penetrate taking a shot at some dumbass running a way and hit a kid in the head?
Public safety and basic human dignity and rights take precedence over property rights in my mind. I would think in any moral person's mind.
Gitzbitah wrote:I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.
As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.
The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.
I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It isn't worth a human life. Keeping the criminal from escaping justice is the police's problem, not yours.
What if you miss or over penetrate taking a shot at some dumbass running a way and hit a kid in the head?
Public safety and basic human dignity and rights take precedence over property rights in my mind. I would think in any moral person's mind.
Shooting the running criminal???
They make dirt bikes and baseball bats for a reason....
I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It is worth a human life.
ShivanAngel wrote:The bad guy knows the risks of breaking into someone house. Its illegal and punishment (in whatever form) can come from it. In Texas i dont know many people who dont know you can be shot for breaking into someones house.
Saying the bad guy is a victim and deserves justice is ridiculous.
That isn't what I'm saying. He still has human rights though. It is simply wrong to shoot a man for petty reasons such as property, and it opens all sorts of doors that are going to end up costing us our gun rights. It is as simple as that.
Gitzbitah wrote:I think 'occupied' would be the key word in section A. If you're in your car, and someone tries to break in, you may shoot to kill. If you are not in the car, call the cops.
As far as shooting them in the back as they flee the scene, it looks you would only legally be able to do so if they had tried to take someone, or something from you or your home, work or vehicle.
I'm no lawyer, but I'd imagine you'd be shooting to stop them from escaping justice at this point. I have no problem with this either. People should answer for the crimes they commit, even if someone has to slow them down with a bullet to stop them. I should add that in that situation, I would hope that the GG would aim for the legs. Legally though, the criminal is still fair game, as they have not been brought to justice.
The rationale for that is simply that an individual desperate enough to commit a crime like this once will do so again unless they are stopped. Stopping them in this case will prevent them from future crimes, which is admittedly a much flimsier excuse than stopping an active crime with deadly force. The reason there isn't a distinction between deadly and non-lethal force is that guns are extremely lethal weapons. Even shooting someone in the leg as they try to flee with your TV is capable of killing them. It looks like the lawmakers wisely covered well meaning but inaccurate citizens with this clause.
I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It isn't worth a human life. Keeping the criminal from escaping justice is the police's problem, not yours.
What if you miss or over penetrate taking a shot at some dumbass running a way and hit a kid in the head?
Public safety and basic human dignity and rights take precedence over property rights in my mind. I would think in any moral person's mind.
Shooting the running criminal???
They make dirt bikes and baseball bats for a reason....
False question. You can't generally shoot a fleeing criminal. Thats missing the part about fear of imminent bodily harm.
I'm sorry but screw that. If someone is running away with some petty possesion of the "GG" then call the law and give them a description. It is worth a human life.
ShivanAngel wrote:The bad guy knows the risks of breaking into someone house. Its illegal and punishment (in whatever form) can come from it. In Texas i dont know many people who dont know you can be shot for breaking into someones house.
Saying the bad guy is a victim and deserves justice is ridiculous.
That isn't what I'm saying. He still has human rights though. It is simply wrong to shoot a man for petty reasons such as property, and it opens all sorts of doors that are going to end up costing us our gun rights. It is as simple as that.
Human beings are human beings.
The problem is this.
Scenario 1#
Bad guy is unarmed and rummaging through your things. You approach him with weapon of choice and he gives up until the police arrive.
Scenario 2#
Bad guy is armed and rummaging through your things. You approach him with a weapon and he shoots in the direction he hears you yelling from, killing you.
Personally im not going to take the chance of determining between scenario one and two. The term shoot first, ask questions later came about for a reason.
You're statement lacks legal grounds. Capital murder generally requires malice aforethought.
At worst we're talking manslaughter. Usually if someone is shot while breaking into a car they are no billed, especially if it is parked near a residence.
Again the view is, the criminal had the ultimate responsibility for his action. If it were not for the criminal there would be no action. The GG would still be snoring in bed.
You're statement lacks legal grounds. Capital murder generally requires malice aforethought.
At worst we're talking manslaughter. Usually if someone is shot while breaking into a car they are no billed, especially if it is parked near a residence.
Again the view is, the criminal had the ultimate responsibility for his action. If it were not for the criminal there would be no action. The GG would still be snoring in bed.
You could very easily invite someone you didn't like into your house, murder them, then break out a window. Just make sure you break the window from the outside in, so that it looks as if there was forced entry. Wait, don't worry about it because there won't be anything more than a cursory investigation, because after all, they were on your property, so it was your right to end their life.
You're statement lacks legal grounds. Capital murder generally requires malice aforethought.
At worst we're talking manslaughter. Usually if someone is shot while breaking into a car they are no billed, especially if it is parked near a residence.
Again the view is, the criminal had the ultimate responsibility for his action. If it were not for the criminal there would be no action. The GG would still be snoring in bed.
You could very easily invite someone you didn't like into your house, murder them, then break out a window. Just make sure you break the window from the outside in, so that it looks as if there was forced entry. Wait, don't worry about it because there won't be anything more than a cursory investigation, because after all, they were on your property, so it was your right to end their life.
A. Thats blindingly not correct.
B. I like your thinking.
I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.
We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission
Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.
Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.
Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.
Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.
Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.
Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.
We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission
Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.
Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.
Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.
Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.
Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.
Heres the biggest issue....
YOU DONT KNOW, if the person that broke into your house has malicious intent to harm you or your family, OR they just want your stereo....
If you assume the latter you risk them ending your unique human life when you were just a victim.
Id rather be safe and assume anyone who entered my property without permission has malicious intent and ask questions later.
Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.
We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission
Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.
Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.
Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.
Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.
Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.
Heres the biggest issue....
YOU DONT KNOW, if the person that broke into your house has malicious intent to harm you or your family, OR they just want your stereo....
If you assume the latter you risk them ending your unique human life when you were just a victim.
Id rather be safe and assume anyone who entered my property without permission has malicious intent and ask questions later.
Oh come on, in the scenario I described you have them at gunpoint, completely with their pants down, so to speak. What can they do? If they go for something in their pocket, great, pull the trigger, but do you really think it is ok if that person bails, to shoot them in the back? Or even to shoot them in the back when there not even aware of your presence?? How can someone beat you on the draw if you're holding the gun on them? Are people really that slow??
Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.
We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission
Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.
Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.
Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.
Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.
Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.
Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.
We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission
Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.
Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.
Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.
Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.
Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.
Heres the biggest issue....
YOU DONT KNOW, if the person that broke into your house has malicious intent to harm you or your family, OR they just want your stereo....
If you assume the latter you risk them ending your unique human life when you were just a victim.
Id rather be safe and assume anyone who entered my property without permission has malicious intent and ask questions later.
Oh come on, in the scenario I described you have them at gunpoint, completely with their pants down, so to speak. What can they do? If they go for something in their pocket, great, pull the trigger, but do you really think it is ok if that person bails, to shoot them in the back? Or even to shoot them in the back when there not even aware of your presence?? How can someone beat you on the draw if you're holding the gun on them? Are people really that slow??
If they are fleeing and you shoot them as they run down your driveway then yeah, id have an issue with that.
If you catch them in the act, and they dont realize your there... Im not going to risk something going wrong...
Grignard wrote:I'm sorry Fraz, but this is typical red state crap. This is the reason centrists like myself are leaving the party in droves, because of the poisonous radicalism and doublethink that is being foisted on us by a very well funded propaganda engine.
We're against abortion, because its murder. Hey, lets make it so you can end a unique human life for the sole purpose of being on your property w/o permission
Lets cut government spending by reducing funding for drug rehabilitation and schools, because its ok because we can shoot all the criminals that result.
Lets make laws to protect people from religious persecution. Lets also make laws that persecute those who choose to express themselves in art using contraversial subjects.
Lets lower taxes on the wealthy. There are a lot more poor people so we'll get more money by raising theirs.
Lets talk about family values, but ignore that people have absolutely no *civic* values any more.
Its madness, a nightmare, and something that is going to cost this country dear in the coming years.
Well that officially went off topic. I'm out.
I think you're bailing because deep down inside you know that law is wrong. I get the impression that you're someone who has respect for human life and compassion, but you've been poisoned by the same political crap that I was, and you don't want to confront it.
Well, that is an impasse then. I'm sorry for the fact that I"m passionate about that and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Its a moral issue where it is a question of whether human life is more important than property rights. I believe that life takes precedence, and that to harm someone over something like a TV or jewelry is morally wrong, and that our laws should reflect the value that I think most Americans place on human life. Being a drug addict or a petty criminal does not make you life unworthy of life.
Remember though, even Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber killed people for reasons other than material posessions. Where does that leave us?
Stormrider wrote:"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six."
If someone is in my house, I wont go: "Gee, I'm sorry you had a gak childhood and are now committing crime to exist, I understand why you are stealing my stuff" bs! I will give them one chance to surrender and lay on the floor. If they decide that they will test my trigger finger it's too late for them.
My house was broken into 3 times in a 5 week span in October and November last year. The perpetrators were both meth addicts and one of them is still on the loose. They had weapons with them too, a prybar, a pellet psitol and a hunting slingshot. I don't care if they are outgunned, they broke the law, they pay the price for breaking in to my house. I live in SW Missouri so I know about real problems with meth, we're the capital of the country for it.
Well, that is an impasse then. I'm sorry for the fact that I"m passionate about that and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Its a moral issue where it is a question of whether human life is more important than property rights. I believe that life takes precedence, and that to harm someone over something like a TV or jewelry is morally wrong, and that our laws should reflect the value that I think most Americans place on human life. Being a drug addict or a petty criminal does not make you life unworthy of life.
Remember though, even Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber killed people for reasons other than material posessions. Where does that leave us?
You're using the best case scenario argument to push your agenda and it doesn't work.
-If you're a criminal and you break into a house you are going in there with extreme bad intent. That puts me in danger of life and limb.
-If you're stealing my car at night (note thats the law) you are creating an extreme at risk situation. That puts me in danger of life and limb due to those circumstances.
-If you're carjacking my vehicle or I believe someone else is bing the victim of a felony and I need to use force to stop it, the criminal has again put me in danger of life and limb, this time to another.
-Nothing says what you're going on about, chasing someone down the street for stealing a tootsie roll. I have to fear for my person or others, and that fear muist rise
to the level of fear of death or grievous harm. Even then my use of force is limited to the events noted.
In all these instances the criminal has put me in fear of life and limb. I am FULLY in right, morally and legally to protect myself.
The law is quite specific, and unlike most law equisite in its subtlety. Every permitted instance has its base in unusual or dangerous circumstances. I will admit you're not looking at the entire law-its a bit longer and I may be noting items that aren't apparent. but in essence
*Either direct self defense (fear of imminent harm) or defense of another.
*If not above then "SD" permitted only in defined circumstances.
*Lethal SD is additionally limited to a standard of fear of death or serious harm.
(the reality of no billing is more broad than these limits I will admit though and people are routinely no billed with substantially greater leeway than these limits).
I think I should proffer for additional information, that, due to personal circumstance, any BG viewed in this is deemed a potential murderer with capacities nearly as good as I, and not a thief. My resulting views are less, er ambiguous.
Grignard wrote: How can someone beat you on the draw if you're holding the gun on them? Are people really that slow??
Yes.
It has happened before and very well could happen again. Trying to find some links for you, but since I cant remember the names/cases google is being a pain in my arse.
Well, that is an impasse then. I'm sorry for the fact that I"m passionate about that and we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Its a moral issue where it is a question of whether human life is more important than property rights. I believe that life takes precedence, and that to harm someone over something like a TV or jewelry is morally wrong, and that our laws should reflect the value that I think most Americans place on human life. Being a drug addict or a petty criminal does not make you life unworthy of life.
Remember though, even Osama Bin Laden and the Unabomber killed people for reasons other than material posessions. Where does that leave us?
You're using the best case scenario argument to push your agenda and it doesn't work.
-If you're a criminal and you break into a house you are going in there with extreme bad intent. That puts me in danger of life and limb.
-If you're stealing my car at night (note thats the law) you are creating an extreme at risk situation. That puts me in danger of life and limb due to those circumstances.
-If you're carjacking my vehicle or I believe someone else is bing the victim of a felony and I need to use force to stop it, the criminal has again put me in danger of life and limb, this time to another.
-Nothing says what you're going on about, chasing someone down the street for stealing a tootsie roll. I have to fear for my person or others, and that fear muist rise
to the level of fear of death or grievous harm. Even then my use of force is limited to the events noted.
In all these instances the criminal has put me in fear of life and limb. I am FULLY in right, morally and legally to protect myself.
The law is quite specific, and unlike most law equisite in its subtlety. Every permitted instance has its base in unusual or dangerous circumstances. I will admit you're not looking at the entire law-its a bit longer and I may be noting items that aren't apparent. but in essence
*Either direct self defense (fear of imminent harm) or defense of another.
*If not above then "SD" permitted only in defined circumstances.
*Lethal SD is additionally limited to a standard of fear of death or serious harm.
(the reality of no billing is more broad than these limits I will admit though and people are routinely no billed with substantially greater leeway than these limits).
I think I should proffer for additional information, that, due to personal circumstance, any BG viewed in this is deemed a potential murderer with capacities nearly as good as I, and not a thief. My resulting views are less, er ambiguous.
I don't have an "agenda" Fraz. I want to live in a society that includes a government that trusts me to own and use a firearm, including for self defense if I am responsible enough to do so. I think laws like this are more of a threat to those rights than they are a threat to criminals. I've never looked at petty criminals as life undeserving of life, and I think that while a society that respects my personal rights is important, it is also important to have a compassionate society.
I'll look at the entire law later, but I'm uncomfortable with the very idea. What is going to happen when the bodies, from people doing some harmless mischeif such as rolling yards, start piling up. I'll tell you what. Some liberal nut job is going to make a literal federal case out of it, and before you know it, single shot rifles and shotguns will be what you get.
I don't think we need these laws as any rational person would be leaning toward the GG to start with, so they'd probably have to do something really heinous, like torturing some guy, to get in trouble for shooting someone in their home. I do not, however, believe you should lie in wait for someone to shoot them if you know they're trying to break in. Just leave your house and call the law. If you can't do so, then shoot the guy.
How about calling the police, getting out of harms way, and using the gun if he tries to pursue?
Actually, pragmatically speaking, you're exactly right. As I said earlier, you REALLY don't want to shoot somebody. It just isn't the best way to get out of trouble.
That said, I fully understand the mentality people have on the morality side of things. On a moral level, I have no problem at all with killing people for burglary, car theft, etc. etc. If you knowingly take something that isn't yours, knowingly violate somebody's personal property or space, you can go ahead and die for all I care. I just don't think we need to tolerate that sort of activity at all.
HOWEVER...
People don't exist in a vaccuum. If some guy decides to break into my house, and he's got two kids, what happens when he's killed? Now they've got no dad, they grow up wrong, now we've got two people breaking into houses. It's just not helping anybody.
So I understand the outrage people have to burglary. But practically speaking, it's just not a useful solution to kill people for burglary.
They should certainly be punished, and punished hard, but death?
I somewhat agree with Frazzled here... We have no shortage whatsoever of people. If we downsized the population to only people who haven't commited B&E, we'd still have plenty of people.
That said, while I have minimal concern for the feelings of a criminal, I still don't think we need to be vindictive. We need to be practical. I don't want people breaking into my house, and I don't think killing people for B&E is really all that practical.
It really comes down to who you believe deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I actually think this is VERY important. I think our legal system is far too muddy on proven guilt. We treat everyone as being kinda guilty, but we don't really care. It's wrong. My mentality on crime and punishment is that if you KNOW the person broke the law, you drop the hammer on him, otherwise you don't. If you're driving around in a car that's not yours, and the ignition is popped, you stole that car. There's no other option.
The other side is the homeowner, who doesn't know if the person creeping around in the kitchen is making a sandwich, or getting ready to rape his wife or her husband and kill his or her family.
This is an important point. You get a lot of preposterous suggestions from people. Why not use an empty gun? Why not shoot to wound? You had better verify that they're armed, and aiming it at you!
Yeah, no. You don't "shoot to wound." You point your gun at the person and pull the trigger, and keep doing it until they fall down. They don't have a health bar floating over their head. Your crosshairs don't flash when you hit them. It's dark, you're confused, there's loud guns going off near your head, if you're not trained to deal with the situation you're going to be completely overwhelmed, if you are trained you're still only going to be marginally aware of what's going on.
The point made earlier that pointing a gun at them "raises the bar" actually puts me off using one...
And it should. Guns are NO JOKE AT ALL. I've taken handgun defense courses. If at least some of the people in those classes don't realize that they probably shouldn't ever carry a gun, then the instructor isn't doing their job.
If you sneak up on a intruder rummaging through your CD collection with no visible weapon and you have a weapon should you have the right to shoot them in the back?
In my opinion, yes, you should. The reason I say that is not because I think it's the RIGHT thing to do, but because I think it's unacceptable to require the homeowner to have poise and composure in a scary situation. At that point you're essentially criminalizing somebody getting scared and reacting in fear to somebody committing a crime against them. None of this had to happen if the intruder obeyed the law.
So, I'm not saying that it should be encouraged that homeowners shoot everyone on sight, but I am saying that I don't see how they can be held criminally responsible, either.
I hear your concern here Grignard, but I don't think you can pull a happy ending out of this thing. In the end, I'd rather the law protected the homeowners rights first and foremost.
most notable of late was a farmer getting imprisoned for shooting a burglar as he fled down the road.
FWIW, there was a case recently in my home state (Colorado) where a homeowner shot a burglar in the back as he attempted to climb his fence and escape his yard. The homeowner was acquitted.
But, as I said in a previous post, I'm sure the homeowner lost their entire life savings getting that acquittal.
I'll look at the entire law later, but I'm uncomfortable with the very idea. What is going to happen when the bodies, from people doing some harmless mischeif such as rolling yards, start piling up. I'll tell you what. Some liberal nut job is going to make a literal federal case out of it, and before you know it, single shot rifles and shotguns will be what you get.
1. These laws have been on the books for decades with only slight modifications. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
2. You're confusing gun rights with the right to self defense. This is the right to self defense. I could use a spring loaded rocket propelled weiner dog or my left pinky.
3. These laws are similar in many jurisidictions. Again, I don't have clue what you're getting at.
I'll look at the entire law later, but I'm uncomfortable with the very idea. What is going to happen when the bodies, from people doing some harmless mischeif such as rolling yards, start piling up. I'll tell you what. Some liberal nut job is going to make a literal federal case out of it, and before you know it, single shot rifles and shotguns will be what you get.
1. These laws have been on the books for decades with only slight modifications. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
2. You're confusing gun rights with the right to self defense. This is the right to self defense. I could use a spring loaded rocket propelled weiner dog or my left pinky.
3. These laws are similar in many jurisidictions. Again, I don't have clue what you're getting at.
I know the law refers to self defense, not gun rights, but you know as well as I do what people are looking at. You know it is effecively a gun rights issue and will reflect upon that, regardless of what the law says. Don't look at this from a legalistic standpoint, look at what people *think*.
I think phryxis has some good points. The fact is I while I could definitely shoot someone who was approaching me in my house at night, I would not shoot someone in my home who had their back to me when I could tell they had no weapon in hand. What I'm getting at though is that this needs to be left up to the courts. I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.
Most reported deaths are afforded at least cursory investigations.
I think that, by and large, you and Frazzled agree. The divergence seems to be entirely the result of his addenda to the law as described. In general, lethal self-defense is only justified in instances of imminent bodily harm. This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree. You're taking issue with his moral position with respect to the law, rather than the law itself. Or so it seems to me.
dogma wrote:Most reported deaths are afforded at least cursory investigations.
I think that, by and large, you and Frazzled agree. The divergence seems to be entirely the result of his addenda to the law as described. In general, lethal self-defense is only justified in instances of imminent bodily harm. This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree. You're taking issue with his moral position with respect to the law, rather than the law itself. Or so it seems to me.
Maybe, i'm not sure. Like I said earlier, I need to read the law when I get a chance, but I don't really like the concept that forced entry is justification ( legally or morally) for potentially lethal force. I need to find out what limits someone from staging a scene with what seems to me like a very liberal interpretation of what constitutes imminent danger.
It seems like it says that someone standing next to your occupied car with a hammer could be construed as someone trying to break in your car, and it would be a dead man's word against the shooter.
I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.
Not true. We actually have a very wide spectrum of standards from state to state. Some states (Texas, Colorado, I think Florida) pretty much allow open season on anybody on your property. Other states (New Hampshire I think, probably California), require you to basically be cornered and under physical duress before you can defend yourself.
I could comment on how disgusting I find the latter statutes, but I'm sure everyone can imagine.
This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree.
It could, and in many states it is, but in others it's specifically not. It's confusing, for sure, but it is, at least, an area that state laws tend to address fairly specifically.
I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.
Not true. We actually have a very wide spectrum of standards from state to state. Some states (Texas, Colorado, I think Florida) pretty much allow open season on anybody on your property. Other states (New Hampshire I think, probably California), require you to basically be cornered and under physical duress before you can defend yourself.
I could comment on how disgusting I find the latter statutes, but I'm sure everyone can imagine.
This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree.
It could, and in many states it is, but in others it's specifically not. It's confusing, for sure, but it is, at least, an area that state laws tend to address fairly specifically.
I actually don't know of any states that would allow that. I've said that before but its ebing intentionally restated.
Again the presumption on actually entering a home in Texas is the BG is coming with mal intent. Because he knows there are or could be people at home, but is taking the risk, then he's setting up a potentially lethal confrontation, or is there to potentially meet the other circumstances for self defense. Whether or not the BG just has a strange addiction to Flock of Seagulls LPs or is there to literally rape and pillage are irrelevant under the law and morality. The Law doesn't know that. The GG doesn't know that. As you noted-its night time and there's a shape in a dark room. Your kids are upstairs and you don't have time to think just react and react fast.
I doubt any state would prosecute someone for shooting someone in their home, even if it was in the back, but it probably needs to be investigated.
Not true. We actually have a very wide spectrum of standards from state to state. Some states (Texas, Colorado, I think Florida) pretty much allow open season on anybody on your property. Other states (New Hampshire I think, probably California), require you to basically be cornered and under physical duress before you can defend yourself.
I could comment on how disgusting I find the latter statutes, but I'm sure everyone can imagine.
This means that killing someone who is fleeing the scene could be considered either manslaughter, or murder in second degree.
It could, and in many states it is, but in others it's specifically not. It's confusing, for sure, but it is, at least, an area that state laws tend to address fairly specifically.
I actually don't know of any states that would allow that. I've said that before but its ebing intentionally restated.
Again the presumption on actually entering a home in Texas is the BG is coming with mal intent. Because he knows there are or could be people at home, but is taking the risk, then he's setting up a potentially lethal confrontation, or is there to potentially meet the other circumstances for self defense. Whether or not the BG just has a strange addiction to Flock of Seagulls LPs or is there to literally rape and pillage are irrelevant under the law and morality. The Law doesn't know that. The GG doesn't know that. As you noted-its night time and there's a shape in a dark room. Your kids are upstairs and you don't have time to think just react and react fast.
Jeez fraz this is getting back to something I'm not talking about. My personal opinion is that if you are put in a situation with a stranger invading your house at night you have no idea what that person is up to and you would be justified in shooting them, though you should probably try to get them to leave the house without violence. That isn't the scenario I presented originally.
The fact is I while I could definitely shoot someone who was approaching me in my house at night, I would not shoot someone in my home who had their back to me when I could tell they had no weapon in hand.
Frazzled wrote:Dude its the scenario you JUST presented.
The fact is I while I could definitely shoot someone who was approaching me in my house at night, I would not shoot someone in my home who had their back to me when I could tell they had no weapon in hand.
When. Its the same thing. Stranger in the house which utterly surprises the GG.
You're running this strange view that people are just going to shoot each other willy nilly and drag them into the house or something. They will shoot each other willy nilly, but not that way.
When. Its the same thing. Stranger in the house which utterly surprises the GG.
You're running this strange view that people are just going to shoot each other willy nilly and drag them into the house or something. They will shoot each other willy nilly, but not that way.
I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.
I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.
Right, you SHOULDN'T. Absolutely, should not.
However, I don't support the idea that the legal system should start trying to figure out who was facing which when when this or that happened, etc. etc.
If somebody is in your house illegally, and you shoot them to death, you're not guilty, done. In fact, I think they should even have a provision that if this happens, and you're found not guilty, your legal costs should be covered.
Whether you SHOULD have shot them or not, that's between you and the higher power of your choosing.
Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.
What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.
Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.
Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.
What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.
Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.
Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.
Frazzled wrote:Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.
Frazzled wrote:Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.
I like the finger grip. the forearm grip is set a little too close for my taste but thats just me. Oh wait you were talking about the snake. Mmm. looks like a new pair of boots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShivanAngel wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.
What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.
Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.
Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.
Don't assume the intent to confront. Assume heard a noise.
Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.
What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.
Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.
Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.
Then why not get out of the house and call the police?
Grignard wrote:I guess I'm not seeing it the same. The way I was thinking the GG was sneaking up on the BG, with the GG being suprised only because the BG is in his house where obviously he's not supposed to be. I just don't think you should shoot in the back. If he goes for a pocket when you have him at gunpoint well, then I guess you're justified in busting a full clip of 9mm on him.
What do you mean surprised ONLY because the BG is in the house. Think about that statement.
Imagine walking into the den and there's a rattlesnake in the middle of the floor (true story). It will scare the out of you. Now imagine that that rattlesnake might have a gun and want to you before it kills you. Then you're in a little more proper mindset.
Agreed, my point is its not worth the risk to your life to attempt to confront the BG to see if he is armed or not.
Then why not get out of the house and call the police?
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ex poste facto and thus bankrupting the GG with attorney fees? Lovely system you have there.
My understanding is that you'd be assigned a public defender.
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
ok leave the house with my entire family
Walk out of bedroom
Oh hey badguy, dont mind me, keep ripping me off...
Go into kids rooms
Wake up sweetie we have to leave the house so the robber can take our gak cause its morally reprehensible to shoot him
Hey neighbors can we use your phone to call the cops
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ex poste facto and thus bankrupting the GG with attorney fees? Lovely system you have there.
My understanding is that you'd be assigned a public defender.
Your understanding is misplaced. 'if you cannot afford an attorney' is the key phrase. Public defenders are crap and plea bargain your case not defend it. you're going to pay the bucks.
Sure let me leave the house, ditch the wife and kids, and pray the lunatic doesnt kill them....
Not to mention the fact that more then likely your not getting your things back.
You'd leave the house with your family, just like you would a fire. Again, I'd probably shoot the guy too, but I don't think that there should be a *right* to use lethal force with the sole qualification of forced entry. The authorities need to determine if it was justified or not.
ok leave the house with my entire family
Walk out of bedroom
Oh hey badguy, dont mind me, keep ripping me off...
Go into kids rooms
Wake up sweetie we have to leave the house so the robber can take our gak cause its morally reprehensible to shoot him
Hey neighbors can we use your phone to call the cops
.....
Much easier to shoot him.
Likely as soon as he realized he was caught he'd bail. If he's violent enough to try something, then you shoot him.
I think you should be able to say that you *tried* to retreat though.
big on telling other people what to do, with a huge fukken "holier than thou" attitude while they do so...
END RANT 
