Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2009, 07:51 PM
 
4,586 posts, read 5,481,531 times
Reputation: 943

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
New York Penal Code:


In specific response to your question of having to retreat into one's own home to avoid using deadly force:

People vs. Richard Aiken


Would you like some ketchup with your crow?

You forgot or conveintley forgot to add:

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or

(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law

No crow here..Try being honest. I actually read links.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2009, 07:52 PM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,636,056 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
a firearm is 3 times more likely to be used in defense than assault.
send NRA money they are the only ones between us and the gun grab that will soon happen.

And cops are 99.9% likely to show up to a bad situation AFTER a rape, robbery, murder, etc. I'll take my chances counting on ME for protection FIRST, cops second.

When seconds count, police are always minutes away....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 08:17 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,161 posts, read 15,644,849 times
Reputation: 17152
That 'duty to retreat' stuff is asinine! I'm glad I live where I do. If someone is in your home, or on your property with the intention of commiting a crime, you can use whatever means you need to to stop them. This is as it should be. The assumtion, under our law, is that someone commiting a felonious criminal act may be assumed to be dangerous. Especially if they are in your home or trying to enter your home, or vehicle, which is considered an extension of your home here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 09:26 PM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,792,794 times
Reputation: 2772
NVplumber, as opposed to being dragged through the court system trying to prove what constitutes a credible threat to strangers??? I don't blame you. Justice system is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty, but things do get turned around in some peoples minds all too often.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 10:52 PM
 
1,535 posts, read 1,635,179 times
Reputation: 385
Castle doctrine --Love it, you have the right to protect your family and property.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2009, 10:58 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
134 posts, read 318,182 times
Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
If it is a "ploy" then why it is on the official White House web site as part of Obama's Urban Policy?
Crime and Law Enforcement
  • Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Source: Urban Policy
So closing some loopholes and seeking information to solve gun crimes equals "taking your guns away?" The only ones this states they want to keep guns away from are "children and criminals." Unless you are either one of those two, you'll be fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2009, 03:27 AM
 
Location: Houston Texas
2,915 posts, read 3,520,374 times
Reputation: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
What?Well that can only be a fluke.Don't you know a firearm in the house increases the danger to a family by XXXX%?,the Brady campaign tells us so.

They were on the phone with 911,if they had just been a little more patient the government would have arrived to save them.And besides if they wouldn't have arrived in time and they would have been hurt or killed by the attacker statistcally it would have been ok because no guns allowed means in the grander scheme of things less people are likely to be hurt.So a couple people die because the government couldn't be there so what?,it is more important to be rid of the evil violent devices that a common person has no business or need to own.

Only government needs evil violent guns,wait how can a gun be evil and violent when government has them?If all guns are evil why isn't government evil when they have them?Meh no matter facts don't matter only that you feel good.

And what about the criminal?He is a human also,do we not count his life as worthful?What does it matter if it was a good guy or bad guy a life is a life.
If it comes down to a law abiding homeowner and his family surviving versus a criminal surviving, I will totally side with the homeowner every time and so will every other good person out there

Obviously you take the side of the criminal based on what you wrote
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2009, 03:31 AM
 
Location: Houston Texas
2,915 posts, read 3,520,374 times
Reputation: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
Link with any sort of creditable evidence to back up that wild claim. Everything I've seen is the exact opposite.
Obviously you only see what you want to see then, instead of the truth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2009, 04:11 AM
 
Location: DFW
40,955 posts, read 49,234,730 times
Reputation: 55010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverOne View Post
Castle doctrine --Love it, you have the right to protect your family and property.
The anti-gun people must hate that 42 of the 50 states have good gun laws to protect their citizens and are becoming more positive for the person who wants to carry or protect their homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2009, 05:33 AM
 
Location: MS
4,395 posts, read 4,916,262 times
Reputation: 1564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonman View Post
So closing some loopholes
It's not a 'loophole'. They want to stop face to face sales by non-FFL gun owners. That means when a father wants to pass a gun down to his son, it will happen in a gun shop between 10am and 6pm, Tuesday through Saturday (hours of my favorite shop). At least in the South, that happens on a milestone day like a birthday with the family in attendance. It would add extra expense on this as well because the FFL won't broker the deal for free.

As it has been stated earlier by many posters, most don't sell to strangers. We will sell via a shop on consignment or sell to someone we know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonman View Post
seeking information to solve gun crimes
This explains it better than I can. NRA-ILA :: The "Tiahrt Amendment" on Firearms Traces: Protecting Gun Owners' Privacy and Law Enforcement Safety (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=208 - broken link)

-Robert
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top