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.
Yeah, never stated you wouldn't. Shout, show shove shoot is fine in combat situations. But unless your a police officer in a uniform. Just shoot then ask questions later or your most likely going to end up dead.
I'm seriously hoping I never end up in a situation where I'd have to use a gun on someone.
Around where I live, you're allowed to shoot someone intruding on your home, or if your life or the life of another is in danger, as long as you don't shoot them in the back. That's why I like NM...
If I could tell when someone was about to commit a serious crime, I'd be Superman instead of a civilian.
Just because you're carrying a loaded gun doesn't mean you have to use it EVERY time you go out..
[mod]Please discuss the topic, not each other.
What is the use of carrying lethal force in a public place, with the goal of "preventing crime", if you don't intend to use it's lethal potential against people who have not yet committed a crime? And, if not 'serial killer', what do you call a person who goes out in public with the intent to shoot and klll multiple people who have not committed any crime?
In short, I'm looking for an explanation of exactly how you, packing heat, will make America a place that is safer for the general public, and significantly reduce the number of crimes that take place or the number of people with criminal intent.
Or, do you believe that America can only rise to an optimum level of civilization by having every single American carrying a loaded firearm at all times, both at home and out in public?
Moderator cut: Please discuss the topic, not each other.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-01-2010 at 06:35 PM..
Given that the US has one of the highest crime rates in the world, it's becoming necesarry for us to protect ourselves and each other. Those who have been victims of a crime quickly learn the harsh reality that not only are our municipalities grossly understaffed, they serve mostly in a reactionary capacity. Add on top of that, US laws are set up to specifically protect the criminal and exploit the victims.
I fail to see how this became a gun rights thread. Maybe it's me.
Nope, in fact was surprised it took that long for someone to comment. Anyway, it's because many people love heated, "juicy" topics like gun control over "boring" ones like the broader and more complex issue of crime prevention/control.
Why? Because it's more "entertaining," given how more emotionally charged it is, and our society is very much about instant gratification.
Not to mention how easy it is to just pick a side and stick to it ALL the time with little if any objectivity (the liberals vs conservatives thing is another obvious example) vs considering each issue on its own merits, carefully considering the evidence, and formulating a viewpoint based on that instead of basing it on being on a "side" like some silly rabid fan of a sports team.
And THAT is because it takes less effort and less thinking........two things that many people absolutely hate nowdays.
Be afraid.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-01-2010 at 06:39 PM..
Reason: Deleted quoted text
What I think Moderator cut: member name was trying to say is the law does not nessicarily support self defense, what it does is create hesitation in your actions due to fear of prosecution for defending one's self. Some people have gone bankrupt trying to defend themselves in court after they defended themselves in the street.
The fuzzy lines are not if someone breaks into your house of car jacks you (at least in castle states) but what about when a couple of thugs approach your daughter in a threatening manner but they dont nessicarily have a weapon out, you could draw a gun but using leathal force in this situation would be sketchy and it would only take them a split second to draw a knife and stab her in which case you could shoot but so what she is already stabbed.
It should come down to charachter credibility but it does not, if your a thug and dress like a thug and act like a thug and have had run ins with the law and you get gunned down by an engineer in the parking lot of an affluent shopping venue, then it should be to bad so sad just another degenerate gotten rid of but thats not how prosecuteres view it, they see it as an opprotunity to boost their carrer. It does not take a rocket scientist to pick out a thug or a gang member and if they make the slightest threatning move it should be leagal to just get rid of them, if you take reasonable effort to move to avoid them and they modify there course to intecept you that should be all it takes especially if there are a group of them.
This nation will have a wake up call, I am eagerly waiting for arizona to cut off LA's power and water, cali has not had to deal with any consequences to their irresponsibility, sorry a bit off topic .... but not entirely.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-01-2010 at 06:41 PM..
Unless, you can prove that you were attacked. And in some states, your response has to be equal to.
The thing of it is, the intervention before it reaches the level that it does. Not, I have a gun aka I got mine *********rs. A good portion of our "criminals" have extensive records as juveniles and in some cases they do not.
In one county over a guy was arrested for strangulation of his girlfriend. He had tried to leave the house and she was trying to get him to stay. The door on the drivers side was open and she had placed herself between him and the door and was talking to him. Well, he backed out quickly which caught her and drug her for a good 20 feet. At which point, she got up and ran inside and he followed.
Now, there was great discussion on how she should have learned and it was her fault. Until you start pulling his name up and you find the guy has a record going back a good 10 years of the same crap. 6 times in the last 3 years for the same thing. He isn't some poverty stricken dude. I would lay money that his father did the same thing to his significant others or that he watched that in action at home. He may have been on the receiving end. Small amounts of violence effect children in ways that are extremely harmful.
So, the first question is why the hell is this guy out on the streets? Well, because you don't have very strong laws and sentences for domestic violence. Anger managment classes do not work. It is far more important for people to jump up and down over texting while driving or sexting.
2. Once this guy is off the streets, you have to make decisions on rehabilitation. Not just "we got something in there" but there is something that is being used that has shown substantial progress with positive outcomes. We have this push and pull in society where parts of the population believe that time is just that. "Your lucky we let you live and feed you". Then they throw a fit with the outcomes or the recidivism rate.
Let's pretend that this guy, as a child, had an open case with DCFS as a child and there was substantiated physical abuse. The case plan adopted required parenting classes. Both parents completed parenting classes and the case was closed. Parents complied and all that jazz. X amount of time passes and the abuse continues uninterrupted. Go back and look at all of the cases where there have been open and closed cases where a kid has died or another case was opened and abuse was substantiated. If you have a high rate of failure, then the program ain't working. It is time to reexamine the program itself or all of its components to figure out what is going wrong and how effective it is. Same with any program (prisons, etc.) And is there a point where court intervention negatively impacts people?
3. All of that gets thrown out the window if you have early releases from prison due to economics or you have a privatised prison. In fact, privatised prisons actually cost taxpayers more and there is something bad wrong with any facility that attempts to make a profit on the number of people who are there.
It ain't about whether or not you own a gun or can carry one or keep one in your car whilst at work.
I would be very surprised if the number of people in a castle law state who actually exercise the benefits of that law, is more than about ten a year. I doubt that would be worth the effort of moving. In general, the Castle Doctrine is just a lot of puff, that makes the gun nuts feel good and give them something to swagger about, as if they needed any more. It is highly restictive in its scope to a narrow set of circumstances. In almost every instance, a person in a state without the castle law would have, in actual practice in the courtroom, the same rights of self defense.
The only real difference is that you don't have to back away from the intruder, and you don't have to announce your intent to use deadly force.
If, in the extremely unlikely (less than your power-ball chances) event you get to exercise your castle doctrine, and you are indicted for a crime, you will have to come up with your own bail money, and prove in court, at your own expense, that the castle doctrine applies to your circumstance and that what you did met all the legal requirements of Castle Doctrine defense. Is the pleasure of killing another person worth it? A bit of advice: Don't shoot him in the back.
I'd say it's more than 10 a year in Houston alone...
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 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.
If I could tell when someone was about to commit a serious crime, I'd be Superman instead of a civilian.
