U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-18-2015, 05:14 PM
 
38,326 posts, read 15,359,817 times
Reputation: 16902

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
There was this case in Montana and proves you can't just shoot a petty criminal on your property..
As I said above, what you can specifically do, is highly dependent upon the state that you live in.

For example, two dead thugs in Memphis, no charges will be brought against homeowner. They stupidly decided upon a home invasion of a senior citizen who was prepared. I note that Liam Nelson wasn't there to protect him.



http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/12/se...-now-two-dead/

Last edited by WaldoKitty; 01-18-2015 at 05:23 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2015, 05:42 PM
 
2,852 posts, read 2,852,285 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba View Post
No, its your inability to comprehend that the 1st Amendment does not grant you right to shout fire in a crowded theater no more than the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to put a $100 Handgun vending machine on the grounds of an elementary school.

All of these things CAN AND WILL BE restricted to degrees of reasonableness.

The Supreme Court is regularly called on to rule on issues that involve proportionality. Idealogues don't even understand that proportionality exists. To them, everything is absolutism. The Supreme Court agrees with me, not you. When even Justice Scalia clearly articulates circumstances in which gun rights can be curtailed, your position of "no regulations, ever" is on the thinnest possible ice.

Since you are playing 'expert', though, answer me this.
Did the decisions in Heller and McDonald open the door to manufacture new fully automatic weapons?
Can you file a Form 1 with the BATF right now for an M16 and they will approve it on '2nd Amendment' grounds?

Normally I don't argue with ideologues who subsust on 'theories' rather than reality but safe to say, your position is incorrect. The 2nd Amendment guarantees many things. It does not guarantee that firearms cannot be regulated. They just can't be infringed and even then, some of them CAN INDEED be infringed.
Because shouting FIRE in a theater poses a direct hazard to the people involved. Same thing as pulling out your gun and firing blanks would lead to people thinking harm is about to happen. A handgun machine does not allow for discrimination for those who should not be allowed to possess a firearm.

We aren't talking about those situations. We are talking about the possession and carry of firearms for self protection. Where do you think I said it was unfettered littering the sidewalks with ammo. YOUR inability to understand that not everything goes to "ad absurdum" arguments, and even then most of your side (anti-gun) has been proven wrong time and time again (blood in the streets, machine guns everywhere, AWBs work, etc). The degree of "reasonableness" is differing for you because you fail to give the 2A the same credit as the 1A, if you did then people would need their mouths sewn shut so they couldn't yell at all.

Reasonable restrictions involve an instant BG check to ensure the person is not a banned person (which is someone who has been proven to not be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights such as voting etc), it is not a car blanche ability to enact NY-style restrictions or bans on firearms commonly used.

Heller and McDonald absolutely opened the door, but that door just leads to a very long hallway. In fact your BATF stupidly opened themselves up to Form 1-ing a Machine Gun through their own idiocy and ruling which they themselves have no clue about (current lawsuit, btw there were several hundred APPROVED Form 1 MGs before they realized the mistake). There is nothing uncommon about tooling and ability to make a MG and the only reason they are not more common is the illegally passed Hughes Amendment (which I'm sure your OK with because as long as it is anti-gun being Illegal it's OK!)

Can you explain how 18 month waits, 100+ dollars a year fees, inability to actually USE your gun is not an infringement? Which other amendment would exact the same restriction in your opinion?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,244 posts, read 3,404,534 times
Reputation: 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
As I said above, what you can specifically do, is highly dependent upon the state that you live in.

For example, two dead thugs in Memphis, no charges will be brought against homeowner. They stupidly decided upon a home invasion of a senior citizen who was prepared. I note that Liam Nelson wasn't there to protect him.



Second Homeowner in Memphis Warns Burglars to Stay Away
Not much information there, but it looks like it was a burglary in progress, the owner gave a verbal warning, and then the guys moved toward him. The aggressive move toward him is the key there. In that case he's within his self-defense rights. Had they put their hands up or run away, then it might be a different situation. If you confront a burglar with a gun and he flees, you shouldn't shoot him in the back.

All states allow you to protect yourself or other people. A few states allow you to protect property. Burglars who lunge at you are not really what I was talking about, those are usually justified. It's simple trespassers that you can't just shoot.

Ie: this
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...lty-of-murder/

Guy got convicted of murder because he shot a girl who was on his porch. If someone is unarmed and not burglarizing you, you cannot shoot them. Even if they are burglarizing you, if unarmed and does not try to attack you it's probably not a good idea to shoot.

Last edited by redguard57; 01-18-2015 at 06:48 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 06:30 PM
 
2,181 posts, read 2,039,233 times
Reputation: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
Not much information there, but it looks like it was a burglary in progress, the owner gave a verbal warning, and then the guys moved toward him. The aggressive move toward him is the key there. In that case he's within his self-defense rights. Had they put their hands up or run away, then it might be a different situation. If you confront a burglar with a gun and he flees, you shouldn't shoot him in the back.

All states allow you to protect yourself or other people. A few states allow you to protect property. Burglars who lunge at you are not really what I was talking about, those are usually justified. It's simple trespassers that you can't just shoot.
If all my years of paintball have taught me one thing, it's that someone who runs away from you isn't necessarily retreating. He could just be flanking you. You got the drop on him so he runs out of the building, runs around the outside and comes in the back door or a window and pops you, continues his burglary. I might not shoot him in the back as he's running out, but I would be extremely paranoid and find a corner to hide in until the cops came.

Not saying that's likely the case with a typical armed robbery thug, but to be honest if I happened upon a couple dudes in my house and they were armed, I would shoot them on sight.

Last edited by tofur; 01-18-2015 at 06:41 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 06:37 PM
 
2,181 posts, read 2,039,233 times
Reputation: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
Not much information there, but it looks like it was a burglary in progress, the owner gave a verbal warning, and then the guys moved toward him. The aggressive move toward him is the key there. In that case he's within his self-defense rights. Had they put their hands up or run away, then it might be a different situation. If you confront a burglar with a gun and he flees, you shouldn't shoot him in the back.

All states allow you to protect yourself or other people. A few states allow you to protect property. Burglars who lunge at you are not really what I was talking about, those are usually justified. It's simple trespassers that you can't just shoot.

Ie: this
Homeowner Who Shot And Killed A Girl On His Porch Found Guilty Of Murder | ThinkProgress

Guy got convicted of murder because he shot a girl who was on his porch. If someone is unarmed and not burglarizing you, you cannot shoot them. Even if they are burglarizing you, if unarmed and does not try to attack you it's probably not be a good idea to shoot.
It depends on what state you live in. Here in FL we have a good castle doctrine, and we are protected from civil lawsuits from the perps families as well. This means you can shoot anyone who enters your house unwelcomed, without retreating or giving warning.

The key part of Florida Statue:

"A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle."

"A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 06:40 PM
 
7,696 posts, read 5,424,227 times
Reputation: 14415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy View Post
I like him and his movies, but doesn't he sound a bit hypocritical considering the amount of gun usage and carnage in his movies? And what's that got to do with what happened in Paris, certainly a case could be made that lack of guns made things worse.

Liam Neeson on Charlie Hebdo, gun control in US | GulfNews.com

Let him leave his money here and go back to Ireland where we know that only criminals have guns
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,244 posts, read 3,404,534 times
Reputation: 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofur View Post
If all my years of paintball have taught me one thing, it's that someone who runs away from you isn't necessarily retreating. He could just be flanking you. You got the drop on him so he runs out of the building, runs around the outside and comes in the back door or a window and pops you, continues his burglary. I might not shoot him in the back as he's running out, but I would be extremely paranoid and find a corner to hide in until the cops came.

Not saying that's likely the case with a typical armed robbery thug, but to be honest if I happened upon a couple dudes in my house and they were armed, I would shoot them on sight.
The key there is armed. In almost any case, an armed person (or carrying something that looks like a weapon) on your property is definitely a threat.

But how likely is that crazy scenario where burglars go to war with you?

Quote:
An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007. *A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries. *Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was present and violence occurred. *Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%. *Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of all households violently burglarized while someone was home faced an offender armed with a firearm.
I think that 3.7 million number counts commercial burglaries, but I'll use that as the base number. So there are 3.7 million burglaries, of which only 1 million occurred while someone was home. There are 117 million households in the U.S., so the chance of anything being stolen from your yard, driveway or home any given year is about 1 in 59.

1 million are present during those burglaries, about 27% or less than 1/3rd as likely. So you're looking at about a 1 in 180 chance now. Only in 7% of all burglaries is anyone injured, so now you're looking at about a 1 in 1200 chance.

65% of victims in violent burglaries know the offender. In all likelihood anyone who knows you who would like to burglarize your house is almost surely involved with drugs. Now your chances are about 1 in 3000 if you don't know anyone that's likely to invade your home, and you most likely don't unless you do drugs.

For reference, how many times have you caught a fly ball or homerun ball while attending a major league baseball game? The odds of that are about 1 in 550. YMMV based on the particular situation where you live. My odds are higher since burglaries happen at a high rate in my town, although home invasions are extremely rare.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,244 posts, read 3,404,534 times
Reputation: 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofur View Post
It depends on what state you live in. Here in FL we have a good castle doctrine, and we are protected from civil lawsuits from the perps families as well. This means you can shoot anyone who enters your house unwelcomed, without retreating or giving warning.

The key part of Florida Statue:

"A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle."

"A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence."
Even in Florida, that case I linked would still be murder since the victim was not trying to forcibly enter, the owner just opened the door and fired because he felt threatened by a knock on the door at 2 am. An unlocked door might throw a monkey-wrench into things too. It depends on the local jurisdiction and judge's and juries interpretations, although that Florida castle doctrine looks more sweeping than most. I live in Oregon and we also have pretty strong castle doctrine laws and no requirement to retreat, but our juries are not so forgiving of people who shoot first and ask questions later.

I know for me personally, I could not live with myself if I shot a person who was not seriously threatening me, even if that person was not a particularly upstanding citizen. I would feel really, really bad if I shot a person who was drunk and mistakenly entered my home, like this:
Texas Homeowner Shoots, Kills Drunken Man During Break-In. I'd like to think I would not shoot first in that situation, although my windows are all double paned and locked, and my doors are always locked, so someone would have to get pretty aggressive to get in while I'm at home.

I think some of these castle doctrine are too broad - they can become death sentences for people who make mistakes. Shooting an unarmed person should be wrong.

Last edited by redguard57; 01-18-2015 at 07:50 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 07:44 PM
 
741 posts, read 682,766 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
Because shouting FIRE in a theater poses a direct hazard to the people involved. Same thing as pulling out your gun and firing blanks would lead to people thinking harm is about to happen. A handgun machine does not allow for discrimination for those who should not be allowed to possess a firearm.

We aren't talking about those situations. We are talking about the possession and carry of firearms for self protection. Where do you think I said it was unfettered littering the sidewalks with ammo. YOUR inability to understand that not everything goes to "ad absurdum" arguments, and even then most of your side (anti-gun) has been proven wrong time and time again (blood in the streets, machine guns everywhere, AWBs work, etc). The degree of "reasonableness" is differing for you because you fail to give the 2A the same credit as the 1A, if you did then people would need their mouths sewn shut so they couldn't yell at all.

Reasonable restrictions involve an instant BG check to ensure the person is not a banned person (which is someone who has been proven to not be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights such as voting etc), it is not a car blanche ability to enact NY-style restrictions or bans on firearms commonly used.

Heller and McDonald absolutely opened the door, but that door just leads to a very long hallway. In fact your BATF stupidly opened themselves up to Form 1-ing a Machine Gun through their own idiocy and ruling which they themselves have no clue about (current lawsuit, btw there were several hundred APPROVED Form 1 MGs before they realized the mistake). There is nothing uncommon about tooling and ability to make a MG and the only reason they are not more common is the illegally passed Hughes Amendment (which I'm sure your OK with because as long as it is anti-gun being Illegal it's OK!)

Can you explain how 18 month waits, 100+ dollars a year fees, inability to actually USE your gun is not an infringement? Which other amendment would exact the same restriction in your opinion?
Dear god, that post was literally 100% gibber and tangents with no substantive 'point'.
So, your position is that the almost 30 year old Hughes Amendment is 'illegal'?
LOL. OK. Just understand that bureaucratic SNAFU's at the BATF aside, there is a reason why you cannot manufacture a new machine gun today and simply say NEENER NEENER SECOND AMENDMENT NEENER NEENER! Further, there is no credible movement to undo this law, Supreme Court will never, ever grant Cert.

Reducing the debate to absurdity is the idea that the 2nd Amendment precludes any regulation. THAT is absurd, that has no basis in law, that has no basis in contemporary rulings, etc. You're on the kook fringe.

And PS, Einstein. Meditate long and hard on calling someone "anti gun" who is conversant in things like "Form 1's". Just because someone doesn't support gun rights anarchy doesn't mean they are "anti gun". I would wager any sum of money my USPSA A Card (and my own Form 4) has put more lead down range in any given two years in the mid 00's than you have in the entirety of your life.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2015, 08:09 PM
 
2,852 posts, read 2,852,285 times
Reputation: 1172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba View Post
Dear god, that post was literally 100% gibber and tangents with no substantive 'point'.
So, your position is that the almost 30 year old Hughes Amendment is 'illegal'?
LOL. OK. Just understand that bureaucratic SNAFU's at the BATF aside, there is a reason why you cannot manufacture a new machine gun today and simply say NEENER NEENER SECOND AMENDMENT NEENER NEENER! Further, there is no credible movement to undo this law, Supreme Court will never, ever grant Cert.

Reducing the debate to absurdity is the idea that the 2nd Amendment precludes any regulation. THAT is absurd, that has no basis in law, that has no basis in contemporary rulings, etc. You're on the kook fringe.

And PS, Einstein. Meditate long and hard on calling someone "anti gun" who is conversant in things like "Form 1's". Just because someone doesn't support gun rights anarchy doesn't mean they are "anti gun". I would wager any sum of money my USPSA A Card (and my own Form 4) has put more lead down range in any given two years in the mid 00's than you have in the entirety of your life.
Who said anything about precluding ANY regulation? My point was that NY-style regulations are definitely not in line with constitutional guarantees. In fact I go so far to use instant BG checks as a reasonable discussion point, hardly "precludes any regulation".

If you are a gun enthusiast and coherent in the legal discussions regarding the constitutional issues regarding the second amendment then you know these are the same arguments that are being upheld by lower courts (when they actually go into the historical analysis and not just give 'intermediate scrutiny' as a basis while using the 'rational basis' guidelines).

I see you have no problems bashing the "gun movement" though, carry on and hold that USPSA card high knowing that other people are fighting the good fight in the courts on your behalf and speaking on the behalf of gun owners instead of belittling them. I'm sure you will interpret and make up the words to set yourself up for a snarky comeback.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top