- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.
Opponents call them shoot first laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.
Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.
The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.
Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: Patriarch
Let us pretend, however, that the jury exists entirely of airport security guards, and that they all share a morbid fear of nail clippers.
but they DO exist!
Written by: Patriarch
Thus, when Firetom asks whether it is "legal" to own a tank, I assume that he is asking whether your average citizen like myself with sufficient funds could simply purchase or manufacture one. It is as if he asked me whether it was legal to own a tiger or smoke pot.
no, funnily enough i know that normal citzens CAN own tanks in Australia, but their weapons systems need to be inoperative and unrepairable. last year Australias biggest private collector of military vehicles sold his collection to whoever wanted to buy them. however this doesnt mean you could register it to drive it
Written by: Stout
Yes, the mini gun, I didn't actually notice the not available to civilians until I scrolled back up to the top of the page, but I did toss a couple in my shopping cart just for fun.
but those mini guns would run out of ammunition in about 10 seconds if you were to try to use them like in The Predator
WOOOOOOOOO!
Let us pretend, however, that the jury exists entirely of airport security guards, and that they all share a morbid fear of nail clippers.
but they DO exist!Written by: Patriarch
Thus, when Firetom asks whether it is "legal" to own a tank, I assume that he is asking whether your average citizen like myself with sufficient funds could simply purchase or manufacture one. It is as if he asked me whether it was legal to own a tiger or smoke pot.
no, funnily enough i know that normal citzens CAN own tanks in Australia, but their weapons systems need to be inoperative and unrepairable. last year Australias biggest private collector of military vehicles sold his collection to whoever wanted to buy them. however this doesnt mean you could register it to drive it
Written by: Stout
Yes, the mini gun, I didn't actually notice the not available to civilians until I scrolled back up to the top of the page, but I did toss a couple in my shopping cart just for fun.
but those mini guns would run out of ammunition in about 10 seconds if you were to try to use them like in The Predator WOOOOOOOOO!
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:Now Patriarch I do gratefully note your explanations.
Hence if I am sitting in a wheelchair (due to broken legs for exmple) just returning from my local arms dealer for the repair of my (legally owned semi-automatic) AK 47 (the only weapon at my disposal) and am approached by a Chuck Norris look alike with nail clippers (a potentially deadly weapon as classified by the Federal Aviation Authority) and the slogan "I'm gonna cut off your tesicles" (expression to inflict great bodily harm) I can legally gun him down. Wouldn't you agree?
Besides I do hold memory of a documentary about the LA Gun Club members training on the shooting range (following the "Rodney King Riots") shooting with heavy machine guns - unfortunately the report didn't include details whether or not it was owned legally)...
But I assume from the arguments provided, that (if I couldn't own a WWII tank legally) at least I could own a fully operationable automatic machine gun (like the Gatling Gun for example, manufactured BEFORE 1986) and use it to defend my home. No?
Find me confused a little bit concerning your general argumentation, as I thought the law we're discussing here was to take away much of my burden to find the appropriate response... In the distressing event of becoming target of a criminal act, I simply cannot weigh all options. For say a rapid attack takes place - I have to measure size and weight, ability of my opponent and the way he is armed... ???
However, in which way does that comply with the event of a angry neighbour stepping off ones veranda after an argument - getting legally shot in the back? Unarmed in shorts, a man known (and maybe disliked) for many years already. No martial arts master, just a neighbour with a beer belly.
Or am I just not getting your point, huh?
Hence if I am sitting in a wheelchair (due to broken legs for exmple) just returning from my local arms dealer for the repair of my (legally owned semi-automatic) AK 47 (the only weapon at my disposal) and am approached by a Chuck Norris look alike with nail clippers (a potentially deadly weapon as classified by the Federal Aviation Authority) and the slogan "I'm gonna cut off your tesicles" (expression to inflict great bodily harm) I can legally gun him down. Wouldn't you agree?
Besides I do hold memory of a documentary about the LA Gun Club members training on the shooting range (following the "Rodney King Riots") shooting with heavy machine guns - unfortunately the report didn't include details whether or not it was owned legally)...
But I assume from the arguments provided, that (if I couldn't own a WWII tank legally) at least I could own a fully operationable automatic machine gun (like the Gatling Gun for example, manufactured BEFORE 1986) and use it to defend my home. No?
Find me confused a little bit concerning your general argumentation, as I thought the law we're discussing here was to take away much of my burden to find the appropriate response... In the distressing event of becoming target of a criminal act, I simply cannot weigh all options. For say a rapid attack takes place - I have to measure size and weight, ability of my opponent and the way he is armed... ???
However, in which way does that comply with the event of a angry neighbour stepping off ones veranda after an argument - getting legally shot in the back? Unarmed in shorts, a man known (and maybe disliked) for many years already. No martial arts master, just a neighbour with a beer belly.
Or am I just not getting your point, huh?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:i dont think you're getting the point Patriarch is trying to spell out for you Tom.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Patriarch917
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
![Patriarch917]()
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
SILVER Member since Oct 2005
I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: FireTom
Now Patriarch I do gratefully note your explanations.
Hence if I am sitting in a wheelchair (due to broken legs for exmple) just returning from my local arms dealer for the repair of my (legally owned semi-automatic) AK 47 (the only weapon at my disposal) and am approached by a Chuck Norris look alike with nail clippers (a potentially deadly weapon as classified by the Federal Aviation Authority) and the slogan "I'm gonna cut off your tesicles" (expression to inflict great bodily harm) I can legally gun him down. Wouldn't you agree?
While nothing in the law is ever certain, I would say that you could make a good case to a jury that you acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Written by: FireTom
Find me confused a little bit concerning your general argumentation, as I thought the law we're discussing here was to take away much of my burden to find the appropriate response... In the distressing event of becoming target of a criminal act, I simply cannot weigh all options. For say a rapid attack takes place - I have to measure size and weight, ability of my opponent and the way he is armed... ???
The law broadens the choices you are allowed to make in how to respond to an attack. Thus, we are less harsh on you in your choice of response. The burden on you is certainly less under the new law.
Written by: FireTom
However, in which way does that comply with the event of a angry neighbour stepping off ones veranda after an argument - getting legally shot in the back? Unarmed in shorts, a man known (and maybe disliked) for many years already. No martial arts master, just a neighbour with a beer belly.
We already had this discussion:
Written by: Patriarch917
Written by: FireTom
Well thanks Patriarch for the insight, nonetheless:
a) what about the cases (Taxidriver, Prostitute, Neighbour) the NYT mentioned and the lawsuits thereafter?
Lets start with the Taxidriver case. Apparently, the Uncle of Mr. Morningstar thinks that the taxidriver should have tried to call someone on the radio, ran away, or shot his nephew in the knee. This is understandable. I would probably wish the same for my nephew.
Had the Times found the Uncle of the Taxidriver, no doubt that Uncle would have said that his nephew the taxidriver was quite justified in shooting a drunk man coming at him with a knife. After all, a stun gun had failed to discourage him, and the taxidriver did fire two warning shots at the mans feet.
This is the reason why we do not allow peoples uncles to serve on a jury. Instead, this matter was heard by a jury of peers, not relatives. I doubt it is difficult for the Times to find a relative of a drunk knifeman who had been shot willing to speculate on what the shooter should have done in response to the attack. However, the taxidriver is not (and should not) have his behavior judged by the relatives of the man who attacked him.
The point of the story, of course, was to emphasize that the law no longer required the taxi driver to prove that he had attempted to flee the conflict. The law now allows him to choose either to run from the drunk with the knife, or to fight back.
If a person feels it is morally wrong to fight back, preferring instead to flee or to turn the other cheek, the law allows you to do this. There is no requirement that you use force to defend yourself. Similarly, if you see a drunk with a knife about to attack a third party, you can choose to run away and call the police rather than intervene.
This is a hard choice to make, especially because it must almost always be a split second decision made under the most stressful of circumstances. The people of Florida, Colorado, and many other states have chosen not to charge people with murder who kill attackers in self defense, even if it turns out they had other options (as long as they reasonably believe that lesser force would have been inadequate, and they are in imminent danger of being killed or getting seriously hurt).
Assuming the Florida law resembles the Colorado law, it seems that the jury found that the taxidriver reasonably believed that he was in danger of being killed or seriously injured (probably because the guy was coming at him brandishing a knife), and that a lesser degree of force wouldnt have worked (the stun gun and the warning shots hadnt.) Since, according to the U.S. constitution, no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, what the jury decided must be accepted as true for the purposes of the law.
It is easy to disagree with a jury as to a fact. The uncle of Mr. Morningstar certainly does. However, disagreeing over a fact is not a criticism of the law. Rather, it suggests that a bad jury was chosen. We try to be very careful with juries, by giving the judge, the prosecution, and the defense the ability to throw out any juror they want during the jury selection process. Furthermore, we require that the jury vote be unanimous (a single dissenter will create a hung jury.) No doubt, even with all this, bad results will occasionally be reached. This, however, is not a criticism of the law itself. A perfectly good law in the hands of a bad judge and jury can have terrible results.
The case of the prostitute was described simply as Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. This is hardly enough information to allow us to comment as to whether this should be considered first or second degree murder, manslaughter, or self-defense.
The case of the Neighbor (Mr. Rosenbloom) is my favorite one. Mr. Rosenbloom was shot, but survived. He told the Times his version of the story, portraying himself as an innocent victim. His story is different from that told by Mr. Allen, who the Times was unable to reach.
Again, we do not have a criticism of the law. Rather, we have two persons claiming contradictory sets of facts. I have no doubt that each of them presented their own version of the story in court, and the jury had to decide which testimony was more credible and best supported by the evidence. The jury apparently decided not to believe Mr. Rosenblooms version, and Mr. Rosenbloom doesnt like it. If he wants to whine to a reporter about it, thats fine with me. However, this in no way shows the law to be badly written.
You left the shot in the back while sitting in the car incident off the list, which is wise. It came from an anti-gun special interest group. If we are going to rely on them to accurately describe the affect of the law on society, we would also have to rely on the NRA to balance it. Ive no doubt that the NRA site has some great examples of how these laws have allowed little old ladies to defend themselves against horrible attacks.
I bet the NRA also have horror stories about how little old ladies walking around in their homes were attacked by rapists and managed to kill them, only to be convicted of murder because there was an open window that they could have tried to escape from before reaching for their rolling pins (remember, these are not gun laws but would apply even to your bare hands... which means that the title of the thread is completely inaccurate
). No doubt, such stories played a significant part in convincing people to change these laws.
Now Patriarch I do gratefully note your explanations.
Hence if I am sitting in a wheelchair (due to broken legs for exmple) just returning from my local arms dealer for the repair of my (legally owned semi-automatic) AK 47 (the only weapon at my disposal) and am approached by a Chuck Norris look alike with nail clippers (a potentially deadly weapon as classified by the Federal Aviation Authority) and the slogan "I'm gonna cut off your tesicles" (expression to inflict great bodily harm) I can legally gun him down. Wouldn't you agree?
While nothing in the law is ever certain, I would say that you could make a good case to a jury that you acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Written by: FireTom
Find me confused a little bit concerning your general argumentation, as I thought the law we're discussing here was to take away much of my burden to find the appropriate response... In the distressing event of becoming target of a criminal act, I simply cannot weigh all options. For say a rapid attack takes place - I have to measure size and weight, ability of my opponent and the way he is armed... ???
The law broadens the choices you are allowed to make in how to respond to an attack. Thus, we are less harsh on you in your choice of response. The burden on you is certainly less under the new law.
Written by: FireTom
However, in which way does that comply with the event of a angry neighbour stepping off ones veranda after an argument - getting legally shot in the back? Unarmed in shorts, a man known (and maybe disliked) for many years already. No martial arts master, just a neighbour with a beer belly.
We already had this discussion:
Written by: Patriarch917
Written by: FireTom
Well thanks Patriarch for the insight, nonetheless:
a) what about the cases (Taxidriver, Prostitute, Neighbour) the NYT mentioned and the lawsuits thereafter?
Lets start with the Taxidriver case. Apparently, the Uncle of Mr. Morningstar thinks that the taxidriver should have tried to call someone on the radio, ran away, or shot his nephew in the knee. This is understandable. I would probably wish the same for my nephew.
Had the Times found the Uncle of the Taxidriver, no doubt that Uncle would have said that his nephew the taxidriver was quite justified in shooting a drunk man coming at him with a knife. After all, a stun gun had failed to discourage him, and the taxidriver did fire two warning shots at the mans feet.
This is the reason why we do not allow peoples uncles to serve on a jury. Instead, this matter was heard by a jury of peers, not relatives. I doubt it is difficult for the Times to find a relative of a drunk knifeman who had been shot willing to speculate on what the shooter should have done in response to the attack. However, the taxidriver is not (and should not) have his behavior judged by the relatives of the man who attacked him.
The point of the story, of course, was to emphasize that the law no longer required the taxi driver to prove that he had attempted to flee the conflict. The law now allows him to choose either to run from the drunk with the knife, or to fight back.
If a person feels it is morally wrong to fight back, preferring instead to flee or to turn the other cheek, the law allows you to do this. There is no requirement that you use force to defend yourself. Similarly, if you see a drunk with a knife about to attack a third party, you can choose to run away and call the police rather than intervene.
This is a hard choice to make, especially because it must almost always be a split second decision made under the most stressful of circumstances. The people of Florida, Colorado, and many other states have chosen not to charge people with murder who kill attackers in self defense, even if it turns out they had other options (as long as they reasonably believe that lesser force would have been inadequate, and they are in imminent danger of being killed or getting seriously hurt).
Assuming the Florida law resembles the Colorado law, it seems that the jury found that the taxidriver reasonably believed that he was in danger of being killed or seriously injured (probably because the guy was coming at him brandishing a knife), and that a lesser degree of force wouldnt have worked (the stun gun and the warning shots hadnt.) Since, according to the U.S. constitution, no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, what the jury decided must be accepted as true for the purposes of the law.
It is easy to disagree with a jury as to a fact. The uncle of Mr. Morningstar certainly does. However, disagreeing over a fact is not a criticism of the law. Rather, it suggests that a bad jury was chosen. We try to be very careful with juries, by giving the judge, the prosecution, and the defense the ability to throw out any juror they want during the jury selection process. Furthermore, we require that the jury vote be unanimous (a single dissenter will create a hung jury.) No doubt, even with all this, bad results will occasionally be reached. This, however, is not a criticism of the law itself. A perfectly good law in the hands of a bad judge and jury can have terrible results.
The case of the prostitute was described simply as Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. This is hardly enough information to allow us to comment as to whether this should be considered first or second degree murder, manslaughter, or self-defense.
The case of the Neighbor (Mr. Rosenbloom) is my favorite one. Mr. Rosenbloom was shot, but survived. He told the Times his version of the story, portraying himself as an innocent victim. His story is different from that told by Mr. Allen, who the Times was unable to reach.
Again, we do not have a criticism of the law. Rather, we have two persons claiming contradictory sets of facts. I have no doubt that each of them presented their own version of the story in court, and the jury had to decide which testimony was more credible and best supported by the evidence. The jury apparently decided not to believe Mr. Rosenblooms version, and Mr. Rosenbloom doesnt like it. If he wants to whine to a reporter about it, thats fine with me. However, this in no way shows the law to be badly written.
You left the shot in the back while sitting in the car incident off the list, which is wise. It came from an anti-gun special interest group. If we are going to rely on them to accurately describe the affect of the law on society, we would also have to rely on the NRA to balance it. Ive no doubt that the NRA site has some great examples of how these laws have allowed little old ladies to defend themselves against horrible attacks.
I bet the NRA also have horror stories about how little old ladies walking around in their homes were attacked by rapists and managed to kill them, only to be convicted of murder because there was an open window that they could have tried to escape from before reaching for their rolling pins (remember, these are not gun laws but would apply even to your bare hands... which means that the title of the thread is completely inaccurate
). No doubt, such stories played a significant part in convincing people to change these laws.Delete
Posted:Thanks for your wise response Patriarch, I understand that you believe in the legal system of your country and that the laws are good.
I can't follow up on this
Legally gunning down people in the front yard is just a replacement for a "good and solid rope and an high tree".
I can't follow up on this
Legally gunning down people in the front yard is just a replacement for a "good and solid rope and an high tree".
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:I'm still missing the part of the law that issues "a license to murder" or gives the right to perform executions at will. Most likely because it doesn't exist.
This is all about using force to DEFEND oneself, not about putting a few rounds into whomever you like or don't like. Granted, I probably could shoot my neighbour in my front yard, pull a knife out of my pocket and put it in his lifeless hand then claim I was defending myself, but that would be an abuse of the law, not using it in the spirit in which it was written.
This is all about using force to DEFEND oneself, not about putting a few rounds into whomever you like or don't like. Granted, I probably could shoot my neighbour in my front yard, pull a knife out of my pocket and put it in his lifeless hand then claim I was defending myself, but that would be an abuse of the law, not using it in the spirit in which it was written.
Delete
Posted:
stout, this law "broadens the choices you are allowed to make in how to respond to an attack. Thus, we are less harsh on you in your choice of response. The burden on you is certainly less under the new law."
Now some consider the previous laws to already be commonly exploited by criminals to escape prosecution, therfore if the new law will give them even more chances for abuse.
... or would you want to call the title of this thread "tacky"?
stout, this law "broadens the choices you are allowed to make in how to respond to an attack. Thus, we are less harsh on you in your choice of response. The burden on you is certainly less under the new law."Now some consider the previous laws to already be commonly exploited by criminals to escape prosecution, therfore if the new law will give them even more chances for abuse.
... or would you want to call the title of this thread "tacky"?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:So it's the chances for abuse then....I'll agree the new laws appear to offer more opportunity for it.
See, I have a "license to murder" and I'm going to take it in one hand, and my fly rod in the other and ( hopefully ) perform some executions on the local population of tasty rainbow trout.
Unless the bass are biting that is.
See, I have a "license to murder" and I'm going to take it in one hand, and my fly rod in the other and ( hopefully ) perform some executions on the local population of tasty rainbow trout.
Unless the bass are biting that is.
Delete
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted: Written by: stout
So it's the chances for abuse then....I'll agree the new laws appear to offer more opportunity for it.
See, I have a "license to murder" and I'm going to take it in one hand, and my fly rod in the other and ( hopefully ) perform some executions on the local population of tasty rainbow trout.
Unless the bass are biting that is.
smooooooooooth.
i think you're getting a little pedantic about this FireTom. yes I beleive the US gun laws are dangerous, but i do see the logic of this new lew when used correctly. of course criminals will apply the law as best tehy can to get themselves out of trouble, but that happens regardless. no one ever said all laws were perfect man!
So it's the chances for abuse then....I'll agree the new laws appear to offer more opportunity for it.
See, I have a "license to murder" and I'm going to take it in one hand, and my fly rod in the other and ( hopefully ) perform some executions on the local population of tasty rainbow trout.
Unless the bass are biting that is.
smooooooooooth.i think you're getting a little pedantic about this FireTom. yes I beleive the US gun laws are dangerous, but i do see the logic of this new lew when used correctly. of course criminals will apply the law as best tehy can to get themselves out of trouble, but that happens regardless. no one ever said all laws were perfect man!
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
![Rouge Dragon]()
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
Posted:Some articles I found today:
Bid to give blind texans the right to hunt
followed by:
free gun with every house offer
Bid to give blind texans the right to hunt
followed by:
free gun with every house offer
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:hey that's cool
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:lol..........
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:does this meen if i move florida i can shoot all those annoying johovers whitnesses and sales people that come knocking on your door 
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
![Rouge Dragon]()
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003
Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction
Total posts: 13215
Posted:People were unhappy the Virginia Tech thread was turning into a gun laws thread...so is this the gun laws thread?
anyways:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21741054-5001021,00.html
anyways:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21741054-5001021,00.html
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Posted: Written by: article
A BABY boy too young to walk or talk has been issued a firearms permit for his very own 12-gauge shotgun.
And 10-month-old Howard David Ludwig already has the gun.
Howard, known by his family as Bubba, was issued the firearm owner's identification card by the US state of Illinois after his father, Howard Senior, paid the $6 fee and filled out the application, not expecting to actually get one.
Mr Ludwig, 30, a newspaper columnist from Chicago, applied for the card after his own father bought Bubba a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun as a gift.
The card lists the baby's height as 68.6cm, weight at 9kg and has a scribble where the signature should be.
Mr Ludwig wrote about his son getting his gun licence in his column.
With some exceptions, the cards are required of any Illinois residents purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition within the state. There are no age restrictions on the cards, an official said.
A BABY boy too young to walk or talk has been issued a firearms permit for his very own 12-gauge shotgun.
And 10-month-old Howard David Ludwig already has the gun.
Howard, known by his family as Bubba, was issued the firearm owner's identification card by the US state of Illinois after his father, Howard Senior, paid the $6 fee and filled out the application, not expecting to actually get one.
Mr Ludwig, 30, a newspaper columnist from Chicago, applied for the card after his own father bought Bubba a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun as a gift.
The card lists the baby's height as 68.6cm, weight at 9kg and has a scribble where the signature should be.
Mr Ludwig wrote about his son getting his gun licence in his column.
With some exceptions, the cards are required of any Illinois residents purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition within the state. There are no age restrictions on the cards, an official said.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Hmm, Im not really sure where i stand with this law but i'll share a story with you. It is pretty long but bear with me. It does hold some relevance to this and may make you think about it.
When i was 15 me and another of my friends had a falling out with one of our very good mates. I won't go into to many details as thats another story itself. Suffice to say afterwards me and my friend both worried that he might try to exact some sort of revenge...(Yes the falling out was that bad and the neighbourhood i grew up in wasn't exactly the your friendly suburb. Shootings and stabbings weren't exactly uncommon in the area).
Well anyways he ends up sending his 32 year old uncle who just got out of jail after me. One day after soccer (we both played on varsity team so things were ackward) practice his uncle and one of his older friends come up to me and start pushing me around. I'm was a skinny 15yo and they were two big full grown men so not a hell of alot i could do considering they had me conrnered against a van. Well they bashed me up pretty good and told me that if i go near his nephew again he would kill me.
That same day they went to my other friends house who was involved(this is where story starts pertaining to home safety). Now i grew up in Alabama where you there is no tresspassing laws. My friend had 3 seperate no tresspasing signs leading to his house but that did not stop the two guys. My friend not knowing who they were went out to see what they wanted. At the time it was only him and his mom home and she had just had several knee surgeries and could not get out of bed. Well the two guys started beating up my friend who was also only 15 at the time. Now all his mom could do was watch from the window and scream as they were beating her son cause she had extensive knee surgery and there was no way she could move. Afterwards they delivered the same threat to him that they did me. "Go near my nephew again and ill kill you".
Now your probly thinking why weren't the police called? Well as i said his mom was in stuck in bed cause of the surgeries and the phone was 3 rooms away. When they got to me nobody saw it as it was in a corner of the carpark. My friends mom did end up laying charges on them though for assault and tresspasing. When we appeared in court to mine and my friends surprise it turns out the guys were ex firefighters and knew the judge...Well by the end of the hearing the judge was yelling at me and my friend that we were little hoodlums for starting trouble. The older guys denied beating us up of course and the judge believed em as it had been a month since charges were laid and there werent many visible signs left which were accounted to soccer training etc... What ticks me off though is they never even denied the tresspasing yet it seems like the judge just totally forgot about it. They were never charged and me and my friend were sentenced to go to anger management classes.
I know the story goes abit off topic abit but i believe it does pertain to this. When a mother is forced to watch her 15 year old son get beat up by two big older men at her own house and fearing for his life but helpless to do anything it makes you wonder in my opinion. Obviously there's idiots out there who shouldn't own guns but i also believe they have a time and place. I don't know what would of happened if his mom had a gun. I would guess she would of just tried scaring em off. Though there is always the possibility she would of shot them as we all know mothers protective instincts can overwhelm them sometimses. I still dont know where i stand on this but ever since that incident i can understand why people could fear for their homes safety, especially if they experienced something similar to what me and my friend did.
By the way this is my first post and i look forward to getting to know you all=)
When i was 15 me and another of my friends had a falling out with one of our very good mates. I won't go into to many details as thats another story itself. Suffice to say afterwards me and my friend both worried that he might try to exact some sort of revenge...(Yes the falling out was that bad and the neighbourhood i grew up in wasn't exactly the your friendly suburb. Shootings and stabbings weren't exactly uncommon in the area).
Well anyways he ends up sending his 32 year old uncle who just got out of jail after me. One day after soccer (we both played on varsity team so things were ackward) practice his uncle and one of his older friends come up to me and start pushing me around. I'm was a skinny 15yo and they were two big full grown men so not a hell of alot i could do considering they had me conrnered against a van. Well they bashed me up pretty good and told me that if i go near his nephew again he would kill me.
That same day they went to my other friends house who was involved(this is where story starts pertaining to home safety). Now i grew up in Alabama where you there is no tresspassing laws. My friend had 3 seperate no tresspasing signs leading to his house but that did not stop the two guys. My friend not knowing who they were went out to see what they wanted. At the time it was only him and his mom home and she had just had several knee surgeries and could not get out of bed. Well the two guys started beating up my friend who was also only 15 at the time. Now all his mom could do was watch from the window and scream as they were beating her son cause she had extensive knee surgery and there was no way she could move. Afterwards they delivered the same threat to him that they did me. "Go near my nephew again and ill kill you".
Now your probly thinking why weren't the police called? Well as i said his mom was in stuck in bed cause of the surgeries and the phone was 3 rooms away. When they got to me nobody saw it as it was in a corner of the carpark. My friends mom did end up laying charges on them though for assault and tresspasing. When we appeared in court to mine and my friends surprise it turns out the guys were ex firefighters and knew the judge...Well by the end of the hearing the judge was yelling at me and my friend that we were little hoodlums for starting trouble. The older guys denied beating us up of course and the judge believed em as it had been a month since charges were laid and there werent many visible signs left which were accounted to soccer training etc... What ticks me off though is they never even denied the tresspasing yet it seems like the judge just totally forgot about it. They were never charged and me and my friend were sentenced to go to anger management classes.
I know the story goes abit off topic abit but i believe it does pertain to this. When a mother is forced to watch her 15 year old son get beat up by two big older men at her own house and fearing for his life but helpless to do anything it makes you wonder in my opinion. Obviously there's idiots out there who shouldn't own guns but i also believe they have a time and place. I don't know what would of happened if his mom had a gun. I would guess she would of just tried scaring em off. Though there is always the possibility she would of shot them as we all know mothers protective instincts can overwhelm them sometimses. I still dont know where i stand on this but ever since that incident i can understand why people could fear for their homes safety, especially if they experienced something similar to what me and my friend did.
By the way this is my first post and i look forward to getting to know you all=)
Point of Flash
Delete
Posted:Welcome to the chaos flashpoint!
What was wrong with keeping the VT thread going? If we're going to discuss guns I think that thread has some of the best posts on the board, but that's just me.
As for the article Rouge, it really doesn't mean anything. First off it was probably a fluke in the system since the child is a Jr. and regardless, transfering a shotgun into the boys name is perfectly legal according to IL state law. It's illegal to sell a gun to anyone under 18, and they cannot possess it without parental supervision and only for specific legal activities such as hunting. There are no age requirements on a FOID card, and why should there be? He can't buy it, and he can't possess it except in certain circumstances, big whoop he's got a card
The brady campaign are some of the craziest anti-gun conspiracy nutjobs out there and they give IL an A- grade
What was wrong with keeping the VT thread going? If we're going to discuss guns I think that thread has some of the best posts on the board, but that's just me.
As for the article Rouge, it really doesn't mean anything. First off it was probably a fluke in the system since the child is a Jr. and regardless, transfering a shotgun into the boys name is perfectly legal according to IL state law. It's illegal to sell a gun to anyone under 18, and they cannot possess it without parental supervision and only for specific legal activities such as hunting. There are no age requirements on a FOID card, and why should there be? He can't buy it, and he can't possess it except in certain circumstances, big whoop he's got a card
The brady campaign are some of the craziest anti-gun conspiracy nutjobs out there and they give IL an A- grade
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Posted:You don't get the point, Lurch: big whoop he owns a shotgun... legally. 
Reminds me of that Guns'n'Roses song "Civil War", where the voice goes: "Some men you just can't reach"...
"What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men." *
Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before
Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before
My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars
D'you wear a black armband
When they shot the man
Who said "Peace could last forever"
And in my first memories
They shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So I never fell for Vietnam
We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom
When it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin'
For their promised land
And
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more
My hands are tied
For all I've seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
'Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars
"We practice selective annihilation of mayors
And government officials
For example to create a vacuum
Then we fill that vacuum
As popular war advances
Peace is closer" **
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
And I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
I don't need one more war
I don't need one more war
Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway
Reminds me of that Guns'n'Roses song "Civil War", where the voice goes: "Some men you just can't reach"..."What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men." *
Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before
Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before
My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars
D'you wear a black armband
When they shot the man
Who said "Peace could last forever"
And in my first memories
They shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So I never fell for Vietnam
We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom
When it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin'
For their promised land
And
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more
My hands are tied
For all I've seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
'Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars
"We practice selective annihilation of mayors
And government officials
For example to create a vacuum
Then we fill that vacuum
As popular war advances
Peace is closer" **
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
And I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
I don't need one more war
I don't need one more war
Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Fire Tom, you took the words right out of my mouth. You don't get the point, Lurch
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
DeletePosted: Written by: FireTom
therefore IMO the US become a VERY VERY scary place to be.
It has been a place for paranoia and it certainly will not improve.
I live in Florida, that lovely state that started this whole thing, and let me tell you something. I AM RELIEVED. I feel safer now than I ever have. I am comforted to know that people I pass on the street have lethal weapons and are allowed to use them if I'm getting mugged.
The assumption most non-USA folks seem to be making is that having weapons somehow makes a person "dangerous" and more prone to crime. It is as if the simple act of owning two pounds of steel in a certain shape turns a decent law abiding citizen into a homicidal maniac... Where the hell is this coming from? Look, if I wanted to hurt or kill some one I do not need a gun. I have poi, sharp sticks, rocks or fists to fall back on if needed (or a kitchen knife, or a car, or...). The gun is only a tool for a person's intent, and it is that intent that differentiates a safe, friendly person (with a gun in her purse) from a skulking murdering fiend (with a gun in her purse).
Anyway, to drag my post back on topic, I feel safe not only because there are good, decent folks around who have weapons, but they are also legally able to help me if I'm being attacked. Prior to this law, if I were being mugged by someone with a knife or a gun, anyone who tried to fight off my attacker for me would be arrested for assault and battery (with a weapon if applicable). People WERE NOT ALLOWED TO HELP EACH OTHER. Now if I am being attacked, not only can I defend myself without worrying about consequences, but other people can help me too.
I've seen this law in action believe it or not. There was a lady walking down the street less than a block from my home who was attacked by someone with a knife. A group of friends saw this happening and stepped in to help. They gave him one hell of a boot party until the police eventually (thirty five minutes later) arrived to arrest the attacker. They would also have been justified (by this law) to have stabbed the man (meeting his force with force) but all things considered a good stern kicking by six football players settled everything nicely. The police asked them all a few questions (and me as well since I saw it happen) and just loaded the attacker into their car and left.
And that's why I feel safe. I can protect myself, others can protect me, and I can protect others. There's a whole web of opportunities for community trust and protection going on here...
What it really boils down to though is a simple question. Who is responsible for insuring your safety? For a lot of people around the world, the answer is "the police" or "the government". Sure that's a great answer for some, but that is not the American answer (or at least not the Floridian answer). One of the original ideals of our country was self determination. We are responsible for our everyday lives and safety, and the police are there for the crimes. If I am in a house that is being broken into, it is my responsibility to make sure I am still alive when the police show up. They can arrest the criminal, investigate to see if he has robbed other homes and such, but they CANNOT protect me from injury or death when they are not around. That is my job and I am expected to act as a reasonable adult.
The government and our police can "protect us from criminals" by prosecuting offenders and investigating crimes. But since they aren't everywhere, we have laws that allow everyone to take care of themselves and their neighbors.
therefore IMO the US become a VERY VERY scary place to be.
It has been a place for paranoia and it certainly will not improve.
I live in Florida, that lovely state that started this whole thing, and let me tell you something. I AM RELIEVED. I feel safer now than I ever have. I am comforted to know that people I pass on the street have lethal weapons and are allowed to use them if I'm getting mugged.
The assumption most non-USA folks seem to be making is that having weapons somehow makes a person "dangerous" and more prone to crime. It is as if the simple act of owning two pounds of steel in a certain shape turns a decent law abiding citizen into a homicidal maniac... Where the hell is this coming from? Look, if I wanted to hurt or kill some one I do not need a gun. I have poi, sharp sticks, rocks or fists to fall back on if needed (or a kitchen knife, or a car, or...). The gun is only a tool for a person's intent, and it is that intent that differentiates a safe, friendly person (with a gun in her purse) from a skulking murdering fiend (with a gun in her purse).
Anyway, to drag my post back on topic, I feel safe not only because there are good, decent folks around who have weapons, but they are also legally able to help me if I'm being attacked. Prior to this law, if I were being mugged by someone with a knife or a gun, anyone who tried to fight off my attacker for me would be arrested for assault and battery (with a weapon if applicable). People WERE NOT ALLOWED TO HELP EACH OTHER. Now if I am being attacked, not only can I defend myself without worrying about consequences, but other people can help me too.
I've seen this law in action believe it or not. There was a lady walking down the street less than a block from my home who was attacked by someone with a knife. A group of friends saw this happening and stepped in to help. They gave him one hell of a boot party until the police eventually (thirty five minutes later) arrived to arrest the attacker. They would also have been justified (by this law) to have stabbed the man (meeting his force with force) but all things considered a good stern kicking by six football players settled everything nicely. The police asked them all a few questions (and me as well since I saw it happen) and just loaded the attacker into their car and left.
And that's why I feel safe. I can protect myself, others can protect me, and I can protect others. There's a whole web of opportunities for community trust and protection going on here...
What it really boils down to though is a simple question. Who is responsible for insuring your safety? For a lot of people around the world, the answer is "the police" or "the government". Sure that's a great answer for some, but that is not the American answer (or at least not the Floridian answer). One of the original ideals of our country was self determination. We are responsible for our everyday lives and safety, and the police are there for the crimes. If I am in a house that is being broken into, it is my responsibility to make sure I am still alive when the police show up. They can arrest the criminal, investigate to see if he has robbed other homes and such, but they CANNOT protect me from injury or death when they are not around. That is my job and I am expected to act as a reasonable adult.
The government and our police can "protect us from criminals" by prosecuting offenders and investigating crimes. But since they aren't everywhere, we have laws that allow everyone to take care of themselves and their neighbors.
Delete
Posted: Written by: theCaitiff
What it really boils down to though is a simple question. Who is responsible for insuring your safety? For a lot of people around the world, the answer is "the police" or "the government". Sure that's a great answer for some, but that is not the American answer (or at least not the Floridian answer). One of the original ideals of our country was self determination. We are responsible for our everyday lives and safety, and the police are there for the crimes. If I am in a house that is being broken into, it is my responsibility to make sure I am still alive when the police show up. They can arrest the criminal, investigate to see if he has robbed other homes and such, but they CANNOT protect me from injury or death when they are not around. That is my job and I am expected to act as a reasonable adult.
The government and our police can "protect us from criminals" by prosecuting offenders and investigating crimes. But since they aren't everywhere, we have laws that allow everyone to take care of themselves and their neighbors.
very well said
What it really boils down to though is a simple question. Who is responsible for insuring your safety? For a lot of people around the world, the answer is "the police" or "the government". Sure that's a great answer for some, but that is not the American answer (or at least not the Floridian answer). One of the original ideals of our country was self determination. We are responsible for our everyday lives and safety, and the police are there for the crimes. If I am in a house that is being broken into, it is my responsibility to make sure I am still alive when the police show up. They can arrest the criminal, investigate to see if he has robbed other homes and such, but they CANNOT protect me from injury or death when they are not around. That is my job and I am expected to act as a reasonable adult.
The government and our police can "protect us from criminals" by prosecuting offenders and investigating crimes. But since they aren't everywhere, we have laws that allow everyone to take care of themselves and their neighbors.
very well said Delete
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:good move
(the would be graduates all received their degrees)
the article presents a loophole and what an interesting grandpa.
the cops don't take care of you, the maintain order. that is a difference too. Yes, there have been times when I was happy to have them, but there were other times when they were just interested in not having to fill out extra paper work
they walk a fine line with me
(the would be graduates all received their degrees)
the article presents a loophole and what an interesting grandpa.
the cops don't take care of you, the maintain order. that is a difference too. Yes, there have been times when I was happy to have them, but there were other times when they were just interested in not having to fill out extra paper work
they walk a fine line with me
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:This is preposterous... and neglecting that there is a world outside the US, which (on average) seems to do fine without ppl carrying or possessing guns.
You take the law in your own hands? Well we know where that leads to. "Lynch justice" comes to my mind.
But hey, you seem to do just good. So there is nothing more to add from my side (and that of others) but occasionally pointing out the sick minded and ill stricken anecdotes the US is providing the world with. I personally am the last one who wants to force ppl into a lifestyle they themselves seem to be just happy with.
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
Best of luck
You take the law in your own hands? Well we know where that leads to. "Lynch justice" comes to my mind.
But hey, you seem to do just good.
So there is nothing more to add from my side (and that of others) but occasionally pointing out the sick minded and ill stricken anecdotes the US is providing the world with. I personally am the last one who wants to force ppl into a lifestyle they themselves seem to be just happy with. What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
Best of luck
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:how is someone carrying a joke too far neglectful of the world?
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Okay maybe I'm not getting it. What exactly is your problem with a child being the legal owner of anything? He could own a car too, doesn't mean he could drive it.
Caitiff said it well, *I* am responsible for my own safety, I wouldn't want someone else to put their life at risk for me. I do it all the time for other people, I know what it entails. That's just not who I am, I refuse to be a sheep.
As we've gone over before in the VT thread, it's not about "taking the law into your own hands" it's survival. If someone puts me in a 'you or me' type of situation, you better believe I'm going to do everything I can to ensure I'll be the one walking away from it.
What does someone having a gun have to do with the rest of the world? You guys are constantly saying "get the clue, do what the rest of the world is doing and don't push your ways on us!" well that's more than just a bit hypocritical, and we're not pushing our ways on you. I really don't care if you guys want to depend on your government to do everything for you, but this is our country, and our way of doing things, whats your big problem with it? I'm guessing you're the type thats all for taking a kids toy away when he gets on a plane because his action figure has a 1/2" long plastic knife
Caitiff said it well, *I* am responsible for my own safety, I wouldn't want someone else to put their life at risk for me. I do it all the time for other people, I know what it entails. That's just not who I am, I refuse to be a sheep.
As we've gone over before in the VT thread, it's not about "taking the law into your own hands" it's survival. If someone puts me in a 'you or me' type of situation, you better believe I'm going to do everything I can to ensure I'll be the one walking away from it.
What does someone having a gun have to do with the rest of the world? You guys are constantly saying "get the clue, do what the rest of the world is doing and don't push your ways on us!" well that's more than just a bit hypocritical, and we're not pushing our ways on you. I really don't care if you guys want to depend on your government to do everything for you, but this is our country, and our way of doing things, whats your big problem with it? I'm guessing you're the type thats all for taking a kids toy away when he gets on a plane because his action figure has a 1/2" long plastic knife
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
![faith enfire]()
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006
wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Total posts: 3556
Posted:i think they see it as how loose our gun laws are and how any one can get a gun.
now they all must be afraid, very afraid
now take in a deep breath and out
how I see this is a joke. The father did it because he thought there was no way it would go through. It got approved probably because someone thought it was funny and no kid is supposed to buy a gun, so no worries. The grandfather is a little odd buying the kid the gun, but maybe he is older and while ideally he would like to go out with his grandson, probably won't.
This is not a regular occurence, babies do not run the street with weapons.
The fact that he was a columnist only goes to show that this was done out of curiosity. With the attention it has gotten you can be sure that something will change, not because it's scarey to us, but because the rest of the world is agasp.
I put this in the same category as credit card companies sometimes accidentally giving pets cards.
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1179352631)
now they all must be afraid, very afraid
now take in a deep breath and out
how I see this is a joke. The father did it because he thought there was no way it would go through. It got approved probably because someone thought it was funny and no kid is supposed to buy a gun, so no worries. The grandfather is a little odd buying the kid the gun, but maybe he is older and while ideally he would like to go out with his grandson, probably won't.
This is not a regular occurence, babies do not run the street with weapons.
The fact that he was a columnist only goes to show that this was done out of curiosity. With the attention it has gotten you can be sure that something will change, not because it's scarey to us, but because the rest of the world is agasp.
I put this in the same category as credit card companies sometimes accidentally giving pets cards.
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1179352631)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Posted:Faith, it's certainly harder for a cat to swipe a credit card than for a child (which this baby will certainly be) to pull the trigger.
Anyone is free to see this as a joke - unfortunately reality is telling the best (and worst) "jokes".
The hypocrisy here IMO is on the US side as it abuses it's power and infringes on other ppl and nations, regarding their values to be superior and above those of other nations. To me it seems that the US has a government which is clearly able to get their citizens into trouble (with their policies), but out of it - not to speak of "protecting" them.
Written by: newamericancentury.org
American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
Even though I agree with the latter, my prayers go out the former will never happen...
Anyone is free to see this as a joke - unfortunately reality is telling the best (and worst) "jokes".
The hypocrisy here IMO is on the US side as it abuses it's power and infringes on other ppl and nations, regarding their values to be superior and above those of other nations. To me it seems that the US has a government which is clearly able to get their citizens into trouble (with their policies), but out of it
- not to speak of "protecting" them. Written by: newamericancentury.org
American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
Even though I agree with the latter, my prayers go out the former will never happen...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:What I dont get is why people living in such a litigious country such as the USA, dont just sue the pants of gun manufactures, gun shop owners, ammunition suppliers etc for all the damage guns cause. Like, they sue Mac Donalds for eating too many burgers.
Written by:
What does someone having a gun have to do with the rest of the world?
I think its the way Americans see guns solving the worlds problems. You only need to look at what happened in Vietnam and Iraq to see that more, bigger, better guns dont work.
I think America needs to move on from survival mode to a more enlightened mode. Otherwise, you just keep living in your past; the wild wild west and all that. You cant keep pretending you are pioneers any longer. Time to grow up as a nation, and face you responsibilities, without having to have to hold a gun as s security blanket.
As for for taking a kids toy away when he gets on a plane because his action figure has a 1/2" long plastic knife. You can thank GW Bush for that one, and welcoming in the era he referres to as the new normal.
Why shouldnt child be the legal owner of a gun?
Good grief, do you really have to ask?
Written by:
He can barely walk or talk, but 11-month-old "Bubba" Ludwig is already a fully paid up member of America's firearms fraternity, with a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun and a gun permit to his name.
Great system, hey?
EDITED_BY: Stone (1179379696)
Written by:
What does someone having a gun have to do with the rest of the world?
I think its the way Americans see guns solving the worlds problems. You only need to look at what happened in Vietnam and Iraq to see that more, bigger, better guns dont work.
I think America needs to move on from survival mode to a more enlightened mode. Otherwise, you just keep living in your past; the wild wild west and all that. You cant keep pretending you are pioneers any longer. Time to grow up as a nation, and face you responsibilities, without having to have to hold a gun as s security blanket.
As for for taking a kids toy away when he gets on a plane because his action figure has a 1/2" long plastic knife. You can thank GW Bush for that one, and welcoming in the era he referres to as the new normal.
Why shouldnt child be the legal owner of a gun?
Good grief, do you really have to ask?
Written by:
He can barely walk or talk, but 11-month-old "Bubba" Ludwig is already a fully paid up member of America's firearms fraternity, with a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun and a gun permit to his name.
Great system, hey?
EDITED_BY: Stone (1179379696)
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
DeletePosted: Written by: Stone
Why shouldnt child be the legal owner of a gun?
Good grief, do you really have to ask?
I once knew a young boy who loved to collect snakes. He kept and raised every sort of snake he could find near our neighborhood in Florida. He even set traps in a citrus grove to catch rats. The grove owner paid him for every rodent he killed, but of course his real intention was to feed his prized collection.
Once a noted herpetologist (don't ask me who, the kid read about him in some magazine, I've never really cared for reptiles) came to speak at the local zoo so the young boy boxed up some of his favorite pets and was eager to show an "expert" how well he could take care of them. This boy went to the zoo and got a chance to meet the expert. They got along great and the expert was impressed with some of the specimens the boy had collected. It all went wrong however when the boy showed off his prize pets, a mated pair of coral snakes.
The expert flipped out and called child services on the kids parents, claiming criminal negligence. They came out to inspect the house and found not only the coral snakes but also pygmy rattlers and water moccasins along with all the non-venomous snakes. When animal control showed up, three workers were bitten (one by a rattler) when they tried to get rid of the snakes.
Why am I talking about a kid who kept poisonous snakes when you're talking about a kid with a gun? Because it is essentially the same. That kid grew up learning all the proper ways to handle a dangerous/deadly creature and had never suffered a single bite. Other "professionals" (the animal control folks) didn't have that knowledge and could have been killed. The same applies to gun ownership. Some people here in America grew up with guns and know how to handle them safely. I first shot a pistol at age six, and a rifle immediately after.
If the parents are willing to take responsibility to teach the child the proper way to handle, care for, and use a fire arm he will probably be MORE responsible than people who initiate themselves later in life.
Why shouldnt child be the legal owner of a gun?
Good grief, do you really have to ask?
I once knew a young boy who loved to collect snakes. He kept and raised every sort of snake he could find near our neighborhood in Florida. He even set traps in a citrus grove to catch rats. The grove owner paid him for every rodent he killed, but of course his real intention was to feed his prized collection.
Once a noted herpetologist (don't ask me who, the kid read about him in some magazine, I've never really cared for reptiles) came to speak at the local zoo so the young boy boxed up some of his favorite pets and was eager to show an "expert" how well he could take care of them. This boy went to the zoo and got a chance to meet the expert. They got along great and the expert was impressed with some of the specimens the boy had collected. It all went wrong however when the boy showed off his prize pets, a mated pair of coral snakes.
The expert flipped out and called child services on the kids parents, claiming criminal negligence. They came out to inspect the house and found not only the coral snakes but also pygmy rattlers and water moccasins along with all the non-venomous snakes. When animal control showed up, three workers were bitten (one by a rattler) when they tried to get rid of the snakes.
Why am I talking about a kid who kept poisonous snakes when you're talking about a kid with a gun? Because it is essentially the same. That kid grew up learning all the proper ways to handle a dangerous/deadly creature and had never suffered a single bite. Other "professionals" (the animal control folks) didn't have that knowledge and could have been killed. The same applies to gun ownership. Some people here in America grew up with guns and know how to handle them safely. I first shot a pistol at age six, and a rifle immediately after.
If the parents are willing to take responsibility to teach the child the proper way to handle, care for, and use a fire arm he will probably be MORE responsible than people who initiate themselves later in life.
Delete
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.