• 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 Participate
Page: 1...1011121314...44
FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:
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 wink

Delete Topic

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Tom.....re-read my post. I'm not flip-flopping. I said IF ANYTHING you could consider my practice shooting as a way to ensure I don't hit random civilians IF I were in a situation where I needed my gun. How is that flip-flopping? I practice shooting because I enjoy it, because I like being able to be accurate, and because I believe it is an important aspect of gun safety to know how to safely shoot your weapon.

Your statements about determined criminals vs. non-lethal th


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Tom.....re-read my post. I'm not flip-flopping. I said IF ANYTHING you could consider my practice shooting as a way to ensure I don't hit random civilians IF I were in a situation where I needed my gun. How is that flip-flopping? I practice shooting because I enjoy it, because I like being able to be accurate, and because I believe it is an important aspect of gun safety to know how to safely shoot your weapon.

Your statements about determined criminals vs. non-lethal threats is actually pretty inaccurate. Yes, there are criminals who go in with the intent to use their weapon, in which case the average citizen may not have the best chances of defending themselves. But the majority of individuals who go into a crime with a loaded weapon, they typically discharge that weapon on a whim, out of fear/surprise, etc. They bring a loaded weapon knowing they may end up using it, but the decision to use it isn't planned out, it's sporadic, it's adrenaline, it's stupidity, whatever you want to call it. But you can't count on the fact that they didn't use it in the first place as "evidence" that they won't suddenly shoot you for no reason.

I'm really getting quite tired of your legislation debate. Let's go over this ONE MORE TIME. There are two types of people who own weapons. General law-abiding citizens and criminals. The first category jump through hoops, register their weapons, get background checks done on them. These are the people who generally practice appropriate gun safety. The second category obtain their weapons ILLEGALLY. They typically get them from illegal weapons dealers. It's like drugs....you don't buy cocaine over the counter at your local pharmacy, you get it from the dealer who gets it from their supplier who gets it from Columbia. Where in that chain do you see "legislature" and "tightened laws and control" fixing the problem? It's a separate legal issues (an important one obviously) but separate nonetheless.

How would you even monitor the ammunition issue anyhow? There's nothing to say that an individual wouldn't purchase their limited supply, keep it in their stock for however long, go out buy their limited supply of ammunition again after the "set" time, etc. I purchased two boxes of ammo several months ago and they're still sitting unused in my house. I also still have a box of ammo I bought over a year ago when I first purchased my gun. And I think another box or two that I bought about 6 to 9 months ago. I probably would have fit your standards for purchasing only a limited amount of ammunition over a certain amount of time, but now I have enough ammo in my possession to go on a "shooting spree." I guess I'm a danger to society now. rolleyes


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:hey I said that, oh but you said it so much better carry on...

what do you all think about the new legislation?


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

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Here's a very specific question-



An armed person has walked into a school and commenced a Cho-style massacre- visiting the school that day is a person with a concealed weapon and the permit to carry it.



Hearing shots they, rather than run away, head towards the source.



Entering the canteen they see several shot children and the attacker.



(and they see the attacker shoot a child and aim at another, so they know that this individual is defintitly the attacker.)



They immediately draw their weapon and fire several shots at the attacker, hitting him/her in the chest- the attacker is killed.



They do not fire a warning shot and they do not attempt to hit the attackers legs- they aim for the chest and fire several shots into it.



Are they justifed in doing so?



It's a yes-no question, don't say they could have gone for the legs etc, etc, cos that isn't what happens in the example- they went for the chest.



There is plenty of scope for discussion after you've given a yes/no answer.



I would ask that, for those of you here who like a focused discussion, that, in the event anyone decides to put a point of view out without first giving a yes/no answer, that you refrain from entering into discussion on this specific example with that individual, until they do give a yes/no answer.



(It's your choice of course, I can't force it, but I can (and have) requested it).



Are they justified, yes or no?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Pounce - first of all I was repeatedly saying that some people - who are working in certain (targeted) professions and undertake legal efforts - should be exempted from the rule. Please acknowledge that.



If you enjoy accuracy and to train your concentration you can easily use archery, or - as I mentioned - go for the shooting range, which should be the only place for practising shooting. If sporting reasons are the main and only objective, one can easily go for a shooting club and keep her/ his gun there. No reason to carry it in public, or take it home.



If you intend to use that gun for the (un)likely event that you have to defend yourself in your home, (for the period in which guns are still a major problem) you may do so, but under this focus it's not necessary to keep a large supply of guns/ ammo. I am even coming that far down the road.



Monitoring can happen like in Switzerland. Limited and registered supplies and when you turn in your used ammo, you receive a replacement. It's not rocket science to figure out a way to control guns and ammo. Any violation could be under penalty by law.



There are three types of gun owners currently in the US: "criminals" (and those who will become a criminal by getting caught), "law abiding citizens" and "CCWP-holders". All I am proposing is that those, who are legally permitted to carry a gun in public definitely have themselves checked regularly and randomly, whether they are (still) legally owning this permit. All I am proposing is that ppl who choose to keep a gun at home are willing to do the same. What is the problem with that? Are you a law abiding citizen or not? If yes, what is the problem? Why completely objecting regulations that definitely is aimed to make the community a safe(r) place?



However: If a determined criminal wants to get a gun, he will - the least he can do is kill a cop and take his. If a determined criminal is pointing this gun at you, chances are that you will get (grievously) injured by the time you try to reach for yours... If the self defence is merely for your possessions, that "self defence" is not self defence... and usually would (morally) not be okay. Usually you only stand a chance against someone who is not determined to kill. Sure there are other scenarios (of unwilling discharge, adrenalin, trying to get rid of witnesses) but are these the majority of cases?



I do not dismiss "self defence" as a valid situation to use deadly force and there are certainly scenarios in which a gun saved someones life. But fact of the matter is that a criminal is under a lot more stress, knowing that someone around him most likely has got a gun and shoot him. He made a choice of getting a gun and use it already. It doesn't mean that he got that gun illegally (many criminals do not have a record). By drying out the flow of legal firearms that get into the possession of criminals, law enforcement can do more about the illegal gun trade.



Why is the level of violence - involving guns - so much lower in Europe than in the US?



I do understand your angle, but there are also voices inside the US, who are concerned and actively do influence US legislation in order to tackle the problem. Even the NRA doesn't want guns in the "wrong hands". The VT shooter was a good example for "wrong hands"... why not trying to narrow the criteria?



You do have to start somewhere. "Every thousand mile road starts with the first step." And these steps have to be undertaken on all levels



- active (as in regulatory measures)

- preventive (as in educational measures)

- passive (as in improving social conditions)



We have consistently tried to point out that violence is escalating (proving that the current situation is insufficient in protecting US citizens) and that this affects the rest of the world too (for example that the US world leadership is a farce as long as their internal problems remain unsolved).



You may not acknowledge that the companies who manufacture (small) arms are (also) making their profit from violent conflicts all over the world. But it's a fact that most violent conflicts do not involve fighter planes or tanks, but (assault) rifles and handguns. For the sake of present and future generations we have to make a change at some point.



I don't say: Get rid of your gun today, but I do say: Join effort that some day we will not have to keep guns for protection. That includes to stop promote gun ownership and encourage/ educate ppl and children to participate in training programmes.



You do have an educational approach, too. Why are the two of us still stuck in the past and argument about the troubled conditions now?



In order to get guns off the street - as much as in the effort to get lethal drugs off the street - we have to offer alternatives, and foremost alternatives we do believe in. As long as you're stuck in your head with arguments to defend the status quo, you will not be able to move on and help to make a change.



[edit]Dave, you entered this discussion and I asked you a few specific questions before.... please live up to your own demands... To protect the students at VT a guardsman would have been the best alternative to any civilian running around with a gun. The schools in the US are not the safest places to be as it seems.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181770037)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:how do they identify him as the attacker?

by this information alone, I would say personally no, because they do not know for sure. If someone's life is being taken, I would want to be sure.

Not personally, I suppose



If they see him attacking, and killing children, yes.

If he aims, then, yes



We do not know if he is another CCW person who got there first.



edit:



We are making legislations to close the gap, see my link.

EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1181768925)


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Your scenario is an extreme. I will answer your question and request that you answer the questions I have directed to you (like your stance on death penalty)



My answer to the specific scenario is "yes". He is undoubtedly identified, shot a child and is aiming at another. In order to prevent human losses (effectively) he would need to get shot at. If - for whatever reason - the third person (in his judgement) was unable to eliminate the threat by other means than to shoot the attacker dead, it is justified.



Dave, what are you going for?



We are basically talking about him having been able to acquire a gun in the first place... Loopholes slowly get filled, some US citizens are concerned and do act (responsibly) - it's one step forward.



Let me give you a scenario:



A crowd of people are standing outside someones home on the road next to a car. A guy stands on his porch with a rifle in his hand, asking the people to leave. None of the people are armed with guns and they refuse to leave, yell and curse him badly. The guy fears for his life. He fires at the crowd, doesn't hit any of them, but the guy sitting inside the car. He hits him in the back. He dies.



Would you say that the guy acted out of self defence? Would you say that he should get charged with murder?



Yes/ No - there is no "maybe". Yes or no.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181770194)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:no, he should be charged with manslaughter maybe or assault. The man with the rifle was not in imminent danger. A gun was not being pointed at him, he could go back in the house and call the cops...

This is fun, next one please


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

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:That would depend Tom, most likely he would get manslaughter not murder. He did not intend to kill that man (did he intend to kill anyone? It's hard to miss when you're shooting at a crowd)

It *can* be self defense when you're outnumbered, but the man could have simply gone inside.

Let me give you a couple, these are actual cases pulled from an article about 'mouse guns'.. The article basically discusses whether having a small caliber gun is better or worse than large, but I think it still applies here, and may demonstrate that several shots will not always stop a threat.

Case 1:

Texas, a female police officer who was attacked by a violent psychopath got her service pistol away from her and shot her with it. A neighbor came to her aid with the only loaded gun he could get his hands on. A .22 rifle. He shot the assailant. No reaction. Shot him again, same thing. He had to empty the rifle into the man, some 15 rounds and the would be cop killer was still on his feet. The Good Samaritan finally turned the empty rifle in his hands, swing it like a baseball bat, and at last clubbed the offender to the ground. No charges, since he was saving a police officer. If there has only been civilians involved there probably would have been. But should there?

Case 2:

In the mid 80's a 60 something lady was charged with 2nd degree murder after she shot the vicious common-lay husband who for the second time, tried to kill her. She shot him three times with a .22LR revolver. She had been charged with murder because two of the three shots were to the side and his back. An expert witness (the guy writing the article), was able to show that the first shot had hit him while he was coming at her. She was firing as fast as she could pull the trigger, and when he realized she was shooting he instantly turned away. The second shot caught him in the lateral midline, and she had fired the third shot before she could comprehend that he had now turned, which is why the third was in his back. When she realized he had stopped attacking, she stopped shooting. Even though he had been shot three times he still ran out of the house, and across the lawn before collapsing and ultimately dieing. She is lucky he didn't spend his dieing energy beating her to death.

Case 3:

Another battered spouse, very similar story to case 2, only this time she defended herself with a .357 Magnum. It was over quickly, "Bang" "Plop" No charges ever filed.

Case 4:

Yet another, in Kentucky, a wife beating husband was shot by one blast from a 12 gauge shotgun while he was breaking his way through the door. No charges filed.

Case 5:

An ex-cop was attacked by a couple young punks, one of whom was wanted for murder and in a state of blind rage. The 40ish ex-cop had been punched in the head multiple times and was getting the worst of it when he felt a sudden new pain, then saw a knife in his attackers hand, and realized that he had been cut. This was turning from a beating into a stabbing. He pulled a .22 revolver from his pocket, and fired from the hip. Much like in Case 2, the guy with the knife saw the gun come out and turned so quickly when the shot was fired it caught him in the lower rib cage, and went up into his heart. He showed absolutely no reaction to having been shot. His turning movement flowed into a run in the opposite direction, his partner in crime jogging along after him. The ex-cop thought his shot had missed and he'd scared them away.

Shaken and dazed from the beating, the victim got into his van and decided to drive to the local police station to report the assault, instead of calling it in over the phone. Before he could get there however he was pulled over and arrested. The man who had cut him had collapsed and died, and the accomplice must have realized that he himself was now culpable for felony murder and said he and his friend were walking away when the ex-cop shot them in the back.

Case 6:

Woman in Los Angeles was carrying a .22 (illegally even, just to mix it up a bit) wink

She is attacked by a violent rapist. She presses the gun into the mans chest and pulls the trigger, he collapses instantaneously. The distract attorney refuses to press any charges for the shooting itself, and allows her to plead to a misdemeanor with no time served for illegal possession of the revolver that saved her life.

Case 7:

Last one, and a very real case.

The .45ACP is the "legendary man-stopper", but not in this case. A violent young man attempted to beat a police officer to death. The cop managed to shoot him once in the abdomen with his .40 caliber duty pistol, and the attacker had no reaction. A courageous armed citizen then shot the suspect four times in the chest with a .45 auto, and the attack continued unabated. Finally, the Samaritan shot the attacker in the head with his .45 killing him instantly. The authorities were fine with the situation, but civil rights groups were crying for charges to be filed against the shooter.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom


Your scenario is an extreme. I will answer your question and request that you answer the questions I have directed to you (like your stance on death penalty)






I don't have a stance on the death penalty.

If only for the fact that the death penalty as we know it is inextricably tied up with the US justice system, which is well known to be flawed and which has repeatedly imprisoned people who were later found to be innocent.




 Written by: FireTom




My answer to the specific scenario is "yes". He is undoubtedly identified, shot a child and is aiming at another..

...means than to shoot the attacker dead, it is justified.

Dave, what are you going for?





Some in this thread have said that killing is always wrong, or that a buddhist should never kill.

Examples like the one i put forward, establish that killing is sometimes the right thing to do.

To most people, examples like the one above show that 'killing is always wrong' is not true.

Having given an answer, if that answer is 'yes', I can then go on to further my argument that shooting in self-defense is justifiable in many cases- if the answer is 'no', I can refrain from trying to reason with the person who gave that answer, on the grounds that it would be a waste of my time.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:faith....Yeah I noticed that after I had gotten to post. My internet at my office is very wonky sometimes so I couldn't get to the second page where you had posted the same thing until after I had been able to make my post smile And thank you, I sometimes feel like a blithering idiot when I'm typing out my replies, so I'm glad I come across as coherent and even intelligent to some ubblol

OWD....yes I say they are 100% justified.

Tom:
Actually, you said nothing about "ceratin professions" being exempt from the ammo rule. I'm getting confused here, you want to apply restrictions on ammo on only certain people but the rest of the rules you put forth should be across the board? Are we picking and choosing which rules certain people should and should not have to follow?

I don't want to do archery. It's not fun for me. And I only shoot my gun at a range to begin with. But I don't keep my gun there for aformentioned reasons. (Plus it's very expensive to join a gun club.)

Why are you separating "law-abiding citizens" and "CCWs?" If anything, CCWs are FAR more law-abiding than your average gun owner. You should have seen the hoops I had to jump through to get my CCW. Not even joking, if my name wasn't printed EXACTLY the way it is on every other legal document (like whether I list my middle initial or not) then they would delay or reject my application. It is one of the most thorough background checks I've ever had in my life, and it took months before I could get my permit. And we are regularly checked. I don't automatically get my permit renewed, I have to take classes every certain amount of years, they rerun my background check, etc etc etc. The only thing new you are proposing is the drug testing. And we differ in opinions on that and I can tell you right now we'll never agree, so let's agree to disagree on that issue, shall we?

Yes actually, from my understanding of the psychology of criminal behavior, the majority of cases in which a criminal discharges his/her weapon during the commission of a crime, it is out of a spur of the moment decision (sometimes not even a decision in the case of "itchy trigger finger").

The majority of criminals who have graduated up to using a firearm during the commission of a crime do actually have a criminal record. The typical jacket you'd see on an armed robbery is petty theft, domestic disturbance, felony auto, assault and battery, breaking and entering, etc. Your "typical" criminal doesn't start out using a gun right away.

Do you honestly even read any of our (me, Lurch, faith, Stout, OWD) posts anymore? You keep arguing/attacking us that we don't believe in enforcing gun control or ensuring guns don't end up in the "wrong" hands or working towards a peaceful society (one day). BUT WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING!!!! Each and every one of us have put forth ideas and thoughts about how to improve the situation, each of us have acknowledged life's not perfect. But you HAVE been saying a domestic gun ban is the way to go right now, only now you are backtracking and saying "I'm not saying give up your guns today." You are so intent on proving us, and especially Lurch (I think you have a personal vendetta there, it's getting ridiculous watching you argue with him), wrong, to me it seems you've stopped actually listening and keeping an open mind. I agree wholeheartedly with Lurch, if you want to accuse us of not have an open mind then you definitely need to take a look in the mirror because you've built up a wall around you. I thank you now for your efforts to discuss, but it's kinda like the boy who cried wolf, I'm tired of your antics that I almost don't even want to discuss with you anymore. Especially when you throw up pictures like your past posts. Are you going for the pity vote in the hopes we'll suddenly go "OMG he's right!"?

As for your scenario, no it wasn't a justified shoot. Hello? Hey Lurch...obviously Tom didn't actually read your breakdown of what constitute a justified shoot. Perhaps you should repost it.


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:This one really gets away. Im making two posts to catch up.





Stout, I think you got it all with:



 Written by:

Under Buddhist principals, it appears that using deadly force while protecting my family would be justified as long as my mindset is geared toward using that force to preserve the lives of myself and my family, rather than having a " I'm going to blow this [ censored ] away for having the audacity for entering my property"





Though, I think this next bit is contradictory:



 Written by:

OK...I'll buy that...but I don't see any "negative" attitudes in any of OWD's posts when it comes to this topic. Buddhism allows for self defense, and I don't see the problem with wanting tools and skills to match those of a potential attacker





Id suggest it goes more like this:



 Written by:

Buddha advised everyone to abstain from killing. If everybody accepts this advice, human beings would not kill each other. In the case where a persons life is threatened, the Buddha says even then it is not advisable to kill out of self-protection. The weapon for self-protection is loving-kindness. One who practises this kindness very seldom comes across such misfortune.





I dont think killing is accepted by Christianity or Buddhism. Martyrdom is a different topic.



Killing is a horrible experience. So Id say the principal of Thou shalt no kill is the overriding factor in both Christianity and Buddhism. As far as emotions go, if we remove the emotion, we can understand that killing is killing. ie. take out murder, self-protection, war, or what ever out of killing, and at the end of the day killing is killing.



 Written by:

One of Buddha's sermons puts this very clearly with a powerful example that stresses the need to love your enemy no matter how cruelly he treats you:



Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching. Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya I ~ 28-29 Buddhism and war



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

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:second post



faith, Id say seatbelts offer protection, just like bullet proof vests. Thanks for the information on the legislation:



 Written by:

The legislation, passed by voice vote, was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, boosting its chances of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.





As far as drugs in sport goes, isnt pot sometimes used by indiscriminate sports shooters to relax while shooting?



Some interesting pro gun views from Gun Smoke, on Defensive Shootings: Ethics, Responsibilities & Legal Consequences.



Dave, your scenario could go a number of ways:



 Written by:

They immediately draw their weapon and fire several shots at the attacker, hitting him/her in the chest- the attacker is killed.





I dont do hypotheticals, so I cant answer for you. Buddhists dont believe in right and wrong, good and evil. So the answer depends on your motivation. The Buddha taught that ones present condition, whether of happiness or suffering, is the result of the accumulated force of all past actions or karma.



Im not sure what people mean by 'Righteous shoot' is law enforcement/gun community slang for a legally and morally justified shoot?



As quoted previously:

 Written by:

Quite often, so-called self-defense is disguised aggression in which ones real motive for the destruction of life is suppressed consciously or unconsciously by self-deceptive rationalization.

.

The difference between violence and self-defense lies not merely in the external circumstances, but more significantly in ones true motive. In this regard, Shakyamunis injunction to kill the will to kill reveals the profound Buddhist insight into the nature of violence. Behind the passionate emotions or seemingly sound rhetoric of self-defense is often hidden the will to kill.

.

Violence arises from a will to harm, and self-defense from a will to protect although both employ physical force as a means. So it is necessary to look inward and see ones true motive whether it is solely to preserve life or to harm life. We become capable of self-defense with the ability of self-reflection, to which one of the greatest obstacles is an authoritarian orientation that looks outside for the motive of our action in order to escape personal responsibility.


EDITED_BY: Stone (1181794998)


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

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Stone: While your intentions to 'disprove' the Buddhist "self defense" ideals may be honorable, I think they're a bit misguided. Shaolin monks for example are Chinese Buddhist are they not? Probably some of the most devout you will find. Yet they are some of the most famous martial artists in the world, surely capable of killing in self defense. They have even engaged in many historical battles to defend their homes, are they going against their teachings?

 Written by:


I dont do hypotheticals, so I cant answer for you. Buddhists dont believe in right and wrong, good and evil. So the answer depends on your motivation. The Buddha taught that ones present condition, whether of happiness or suffering, is the result of the accumulated force of all past actions or karma.

Im not sure what people mean by 'Righteous shoot' is law enforcement/gun community slang for a legally and morally justified shoot?




If you don't do hypotheticals, than please go over some of the scenarios I've posted, as they are very real cases. If motivation is a key factor in the rights to self defense, than so is it on the criminals side as well. From YOUR viewpoint, how can you tell the difference between someone intent on killing you, versus someone intent on making you think they'll kill you? I don't see much of a difference, if I have reasonable suspicion that they do not intend to harm me, then no I have no right to harm them. But if they're pointing a gun at me, or anyone else, is a threat, meant or not.

I clarified the term Righteous shoot because I got the impression you or FireTom were confused on it's meaning.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Moving fast again and I notice that you have not answered any of my questions, Dave. Neither whether you support the death penalty, nor on the scenario... (yes or no) shrug Find me a bit disappointed about the style in which you participate here.

The guy on his porch, firing at the crowd actually killed a man, who was sitting in his car. He suffered a fatal shot in his back and the jury let him walk free, because:

 Written by: Colorado Springs Gazette


(edited)
On Sept. 5, 2004, Hill got into a fight with Knotts girlfriend, Amanda Padilla, over a missing purse during a party at his house (...) Padilla admitted punching Hill before he got a rifle and ordered Padilla and her friend Alessandra Ash out of the house. The women returned with Knott and Ashs boyfriend, Anthony Padilla. The four went to Hills basement room, where he was asleep, and Amanda Padilla admitting punching him again. She also admitted using brass knuckles, opening a gash in Hills head.

Amanda Padilla, who received limited immunity in exchange for her testimony, faces a charge of second-degree assault with a deadly weapon. Anthony Padilla faces a conspiracy charge after he allegedly gave Amanda Padilla the brass knuckles.



So there has been violence involved, the homeowner got attacked and wounded.

 Written by: The Gazette

When they left Hills house, Hill got a rifle, loaded it and fired once from the porch at the car Knott was sitting in. Knott crashed the car into a house and died of a gunshot wound to the back.



Please not that they left the house already.

 Written by: The Gazette

The fact that the group was not leaving and continued to engage Mr. Hill, the foreman wrote in an e-mail to The Gazette, led us to determine that it was reasonable for Mr. Hill to believe that the group of assailants might use physical force against him. Hill, 24, was found not guilty in a Colorado Springs courtroom Dec. 14 of first-degree murder (...)

The foreman, who asked not to be identified because he feared for his familys safety, said the way the Make My Day law is written made a guilty verdict impossible. All four criteria for the use of deadly force against an intruder were met, he wrote.


Not everyone sees it that way: The legislator who helped write the Make My Day law called the jurys decision a miscarriage of justice, and in the days after the verdict there were calls to rewrite the law to require imminent danger before deadly force is justified.


Leaving the courthouse after the verdict last week, Knotts sister, Tina, who gave only her first name, said Hill got away with murder. I hope those jurors all rot in hell, Knotts mother, Sally Knott, said Friday. Others say the law worked exactly as it was supposed to. Hills family believes he was the victim and should never have been put on trial.


The verdict brought down a firestorm of criticism. Colorados Homeowners Protection Act, which allows people in their homes to defend themselves against an intruder with deadly force, was debated on national news programs. Bernie Herpin, president of the Pikes Peak Firearms Coalition, said the jury incorrectly used the Homeowners Protection Act. The Make My Day law only applies if the intruder is in the dwelling, Herpin said.

He and others said they are worried the verdict will create a backlash against the law.

They might try to weaken what is a good law, Herpin said. Its difficult to justify, in my mind, shooting someone if theyre leaving. You call the cops, get a gun and sit inside the house. If he had shot inside the house, he would not have even been on trial, Herpin said of Hill.

But the foreman warned that the media and the public should remember that they do not have all the evidence. The jury did. The foreman said those facts fit the Make My Day defense. 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 a car yelling at Hill.


In an interview after the verdict, the foreman said the law offers no clear line where an intruder must be before deadly force can be used. A legislator who helped write the law, former state Sen. Jim Brandon, criticized the jurys decision, saying the law applies to people inside a home defending themselves against intruders.


In our mind, the door is the threshold an illegal entry, Brandon said last week. With all due respect to Mr. Brandon, the foreman responded, if that is what lawmakers intended then that is what they should have written into the law.


Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman said District Attorney John Newsomes office supports the Make My Day law and respects the jurys decision. At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller, Kirkman said. 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.


Kirkman pointed out that 4th Judicial District Judge Robert Lowery twice refused to dismiss the charges under Make My Day. If the Legislature looks at changing the elements of this law, one way to change it would be to add imminent to the definition, Kirkman said. But she added: To change the law based on one case may not be the appropriate response. Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Manitou Springs, said he contacted the DAs office with an offer to carry any cleanup language changes to the law but has not received a response.

A member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Richard Decker, R-Fountain, said he hadnt heard from anyone wanting to change the law. If anything, this case strengthened that law, Decker said. This guy was outside the house. Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, said the jurors probably did the best they could, but we may have handed people a sufficiently ambiguous law. Carroll, who is also on the judiciary committee, said legislators might have to look at adding boundaries of time, proximity and imminence.

Theres a fine line, Carroll said, between self-defense and vigilantism.

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0110 or dennis.huspeni@gazette.com



 Written by: Same newspaper


COLORADOS HOMEOWNERS PROTECTION ACT

The text of Colorados Homeowners Protection Act (Colorado Revised Statute number 18-1-704.5 Use of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder) otherwise known as the Make My Day Law:

(1) The General Assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.



This is reality. I wrote an eMail to the newspaper, because I couldn't verify whether or not that law has been modified since then.

Lurch I am not going into your scenarios, because you continue to avoid quoting your sources. I'm done with this kind of fairy tale arguments. This is no vendetta, trust me, but you're wasting my time.

Pounce, yes - I have said: remove all guns from homes and civilian hands. That was my initial stance. Hence I acknowledged that this is like asking for "peace on earth, today!" Merely impossible for a few reasons - especially one: Ppl will not believe in it. I never said that certain professions should be exempted from the ammo rule. You're not reading my posts. I said: certain (high target) professions should still legally own guns (such as guardsmen and - in case of a realistic threat - maybe even people like you). This is the case in Europe. It works.

You continue to read the worst of all interpretations into my post and get caught up in details of misinterpretation. I am not separating "law abiding citizens" and "CCWP holders" as to indicate that CCWP holders are not abiding the law. You can continue to discredit me - your choice.

On the other hand - for example - Lurch is defending drug abusers' rights to acquire and own a gun and advocates that no gun owner, incl. CCPW holders should ever have to undergo drug testing and there should be no regulations other than the existing. On this side of the argument it is believed that drug abuse and gun ownership can't mix - you can't side that?

I post the pictures of children with guns, because they are what this is (all) about. They do (still) have an open mind and a future. We are what these children may become one day, so it's up to us to choose for us/ them.

I will not convince you, because you'll not be happy until I say that you are right. But I will continue to stand up against gun ownership promotion and the chanting of "guns to solve problems". Because this does promote suffering.

The gun industry is well interconnected, they are one reason why the US is stuck in this topic. You avoid touching the core issue. All laws and regulations in regards of gun ownership are circumnavigating around economic interests of the gun lobby. The more guns poured into your country, the less likely you will want to surrender it. A perpetuum mobile that is fuelled by Billions of Dollars every year and the paranoia of the American people, leads to the suffering of American (law abiding) citizens and innocent people worldwide.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:So you have a slightly different view on self defence and appropriate response, as being practised in one state of the US.

Lurch, the Chinese do have a different form of Buddhism. It's not the same as the original form. Do not lump all in one bucket, please. What "great battles" are you referring to? I can't find any...

I'm done with your style of argumentation.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom


Moving fast again and I notice that you have not answered any of my questions, Dave. Neither whether you support the death penalty, nor on the scenario... (yes or no) shrug Find me a bit disappointed about the style in which you participate here.




I said this, 5 posts back-

 Written by: onewheeldave


 Written by: FireTom


..........request that you answer the questions I have directed to you (like your stance on death penalty)






I don't have a stance on the death penalty.

If only for the fact that the death penalty as we know it is inextricably tied up with the US justice system, which is well known to be flawed and which has repeatedly imprisoned people who were later found to be innocent.





"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Hey, case six is almost my story...I didn't shoot the guy though...wonder how my life would be different

pounce: I was teasing smile I remember your thread about being ignored, I just thought it was funny...I get the computer thing though.

I think there is confusion about the certain professions having gun ownership. Okay so they can carry, but are they subject to limited ammunition. And having laws and punishment doesn't stop someone from storing, it just punishes them after.

Out of curiousity, pounce, why not drug testing? I know it doesn't stop illegal gun purchases, but it might be helpful even in getting addicts to have a drug charged to their record. If someone fails, they could come back in two years and take a hair test. In AA that's when the promises are supposed to start coming true.

Tom: you posted your own hypothetical. Yes, Lurch did not quote sources-sometimes you don't either. I think I may have asked for a source a bit back. I don't know if I got it. Just asking. But the point is that if you don't want to treat them as real, why not treat them as your hypothetical.

I may have missed it. Where did Lurch say drugs and guns mix? Then, there is a fine line. You have hardcore addicts and recreational users...

The country's economic interests do not come to mind when I chose not to have a gun. pounce and Lurch have guns to protect themselves. My friend has them to hunt. It really does seem to be a bit of paranoia to think that the government is brainwwashing us to buy guns. It's a choice for each individual to make


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

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Lol, you're not going to discuss a scenario because I didn't cite a source for you? It was pulled from an article in Combat Handguns November 2006, Self Defense & The Law, Mouse Guns in Court by Massad Ayoob, who happens to be one of the leading authorities on defensive tactics. It's not online, it's actually a printed article so good luck trying to find it, are you happy now? Is there really a point in citing an article that isn't online? You cite squat about your "scenario" when you posted it initially, and you didn't give anywhere near the full story.

I never said drugs and guns mix. In fact I specifically said that using/carrying while under the influence is illegal, and should be dealt with harshly. But the fact remains, it's not illegal to be an alcoholic, it's illegal to be under the influence and drive. Even alcoholics can sober up and drive. Recreational drug users are not the problem, why are you making such a huge deal over them? Is that all your argument has come down to?

Did you watch the videos I posted?


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:OWD - I read your post smile but can not find a yes (pro) or no (against) - "not to have a stance" is a bit easy on such a topic. The death penalty is still running in a few countries other than the US... I'm asking, because some cases of self defence - and the treatment of the person who killed someone - sometimes equal death penalty.

Lurch and Faith - where have I not quoted my sources? Please point it out to me and I will do my best to fill the gap. So far I thought I always quoted my sources. If there is no explicit link, it still would be easy to punch in the names of the people involved and Google does the rest for you.

Lurch I do understand why you are against drug testing, but you are simply against any preposition I made. Maybe that is because you think that current legislation is fair enough... This debate is getting completely pointless.

ubblol

Nope, I didn't watch your videos, because you are simply resenting, spare no constructive comment on what I am posting and I am certain that you are only satisfied if I say that you are right and I am wrong - which is completely against my belief. I have had enough by now, thanks.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Well, I don't know about you but I think that the discussion while sometimes repetitive is slowly moving in some direction. Or at least issues are being addressed and we are seeing where others stand.
I'm not going back through the thread AGAIN just to prove you wrong so you can say I have a vendetta against you.
But to get started, and this goes for all, why doesn't everyone quote where they get their pictures and videos


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Faith: You quoted me for having said that "guns are evil" - I asked you to show me where I said that. You don't. I explained myself many times. Stop trolling, please. STOP TROLLING!



Statement: I do quote my sources all the time. You can verify every story I have quoted, by either a direct link, or the names provided in the story. If you are able to dig out one example where I didn't, I will happily ask you to grant me pardon. OTHER THAN THAT: STOP TROLLING! And stop making claims you are not backing up!



Thanks for your participation and posting the link about the (existing) gun laws finally getting more enforcement. I think it's a good thing, but I believe that it's not enough.



[edit] All: I have initially had a discussion with Patriarch on the Colorado "Make my day" law. And he quoted the statute "18-1-704. Use of physical force in defence of a person". Back then I was not aware of the "18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder." - which I posted above.



Colorado use of force laws



The law is a license to murder, as proven by the verdict quoted above. At the time this thread started, Patriarch was referring to a different statute of the Colorado law, not the one in effect in this case.



I post pictures about child soldiers - nobody asks me for sources, but Lurch questions their authenticity and I have no reason to believe that the last pictures got photoshopped. Even if they were:



Let me quote Amnesty international



 Written by: Amnesty international

With new weapons that are lightweight and easy to fire, children are more easily armed, with less training than ever before. Worldwide, more than half a million children under-18 have been recruited into government armed forces, paramilitaries, civil militia and a wide variety of non-state armed groups in more than 85 countries. At any one time, more than 300,000 of these children are actively fighting as soldiers with government armed forces or armed political groups.





An estimate of 300.000 children fight in armed conflicts AT ANY GIVEN TIME - they use hand guns, assault rifles and the same arms that are on sale and get purchased by "law abiding citizens" in the US.



You buy a gun, you support the manufacturer and arms dealers, which at some point may be the same people selling guns to Africa and elsewhere.



You cease to address the gun issue in the US and continue business as usual, you promote gun ownership and a gun to be the solution to problems/ the only reasonably protection - more innocent, "law abiding citizens" and more innocent children in the US and everywhere on the planet will die.

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181856984)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Tom you need to listen, I already said that I may have been wrong about the evil thing. But you apparently were too worked up to notice.
I'm not the one posting inflammatory pictures. I said let's start with the source of the pictures and vids, and I'm waiting.
Let me know where I can find the correlation between the guns you have Amenest talking about, who really irk me BTW, and US guns
I did not cease to address the gun issue when you have already acknowledge that I posted a link about current legislation. I addressed drugs and guns in the post before. I never said that they were the only reasonable form of protection. If nothing else, this should be evidence in the fact that I no longer have one legal or not. I am not fond of them. I am more comfortable defending with words and sneakiness.
The only time that I have to cease addressing the gun issue is when certain folks make certain claims.

Well, people I'm off to go register my car. Wish my luck and have a good discussion. I'll be back in the morning


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Good luck, Faith - and I was checking all your posts, since I posted the pictures... at no point have you asked me to quote the sources.



Btw - my previous post was not exclusively addressed at you (see my [edit] note)



PS: Thanks for your participation, Faith - but please stop making claims about me having (not) said something (without proving). You may have your head up the clouds once in a while and when three people simultaneously fire at me (in an otherwise so much obvious topic) I just happen to get a little edgy, okay?



PPS: All other small little comments that have no real substantial contribution to the discussion only puts people off to even remotely follow this thread. Within a few weeks there are eleven (!) pages... I do side Dave on that one:



Please do think before you post. I will try to do my best to follow that principle myself... wink hug

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1181857360)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:faith....Well, let me start out and say that I'm going to make my statement but I don't want to get offtopic, so if anyone wants to debate it with me (I'm sure Tom will), start another thread cause I don't want to do it here. That being said, I believe there is a huge difference between drug addicts and recreational users. I believe you can use intermittently for "fun" and not have a problem, as well as know better than to handle your weapon while intoxicated. Like Lurch said, plenty of people get wasted on alcohol but have the sense to take a taxi home, should we bar them from having a gun? It's a controversial topic, I know, but I actually do support the legalization and monitoring and taxation of many substances. I think there are certainly some that are impossible to use recreationally and really have no good effects. But there are some I believe are generally harmless. MDMA (ecstasy) used to be used as a therapeutic tool before the government deemed it illegal. I actually know/knew someone who got government approval (and I'm talking recently, like 2 years ago) to test out the use of MDMA for couples' therapy. Our brains have actual receptors for opium and marijuana. What does that say to you? To me, it says we are naturally built to accept those substances into our body. I know plenty of marijuana users who are the most docile and (otherwise) law-abiding people in the world. And they know better than to use drugs and use a gun (or drive, or go to work, or whatever) at the same time. I know some people can't handle recreational use, but that's where I think the mental health system needs to come in, such as our suggestion of psychological evaluations for all gun users. If you recall my first post WAY back in the VT thread, I talked about the three types of prevention and which type tends to be the most effective. Tertiary prevention has been proven the most effective with most scenarios, but especially with drug use. It's the notion that "ok we know you're going to do it, so let's make it as safe as possible." Guess what? That's what alcohol laws are! We tried prohibition, it didn't work! So we put limits and restrictions and strict laws on the use of alcohol in certain situations (i.e. driving, age). And we've found it to be far more effective than any other approach. I think the same thing needs to be done with drugs, which is why I don't think random drug tests for gun users is appropriate because it won't differentiate between drug addicts and recreational users. While I'm a realist, I'm also an optimist. And I'd like to give a little bit of trust into human beings, such as your law-abiding citizens who are already jumping through all the hoops to get a permit and a CCW, to believe that they have the smarts to know how to be appropriate with their gun use. Your average addict isn't going to be getting a CCW anyhow, they wouldn't want to be under that scrutiny to being with.

Ok so enough of my rambling, back to topic smile


I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

**giggles**

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom


OWD - I read your post smile but can not find a yes (pro) or no (against) - "not to have a stance" is a bit easy on such a topic. The death penalty is still running in a few countries other than the US... I'm asking, because some cases of self defence - and the treatment of the person who killed someone - sometimes equal death penalty.





I can't say i support, for example, the death penalty in the US justice system, cos of the issues with its accuracy and the fact that it's often imprisoned people later shown to be innocent.

If you're wanting to call instances of justifed self-defense resulting in the death of a gun-wielding aggressor, where the defender is not charged by the justice system a variety of 'death penalty' then, as is obvious from my previous posts, i do support some of those instances.

Personally, i wouldn't call such instances 'death penalty', cos, to me, 'justified self-defence' is a sufficient description.

Even in the case of a scenario where self-defense is wrongly claimed- such as:

a unarmed mugger threatens a member of the public who draws a gun; the mugger ceases their attempt, turns and runs; the victim shoots them 3 times in the back, then, as they lay on the ground, puts a bullet into the back of their head.

When that act of claimed 'self-defence' is investigated and/or goes to court and the person is found guilty, even then that's not an example of the death penalty, it's an example of murder.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Great point Fire Tom Peace on earth, today! Merely impossible for a few reasons - especially one: People will not believe in it. Champion clap



Lurch, Im not against self defense. Not all Buddhists are against self-defense either. Im sure the Shaolin monks are highly trained and some of the most famous martial artists in the world. Im sure they are capable of killing in self defense.



 Written by:

Shaolin's Ch'an Buddhism is unlike any other Buddhist sect. Shaolin is the most well-known Ch'an school that incorporates martial training into its meditative regimen. Although martial training occupies a significant portion of our time and we enjoy it tremendously, the specific martial aspects of Shaolin are subordinate to Buddhist ideals. The "art" of our martial arts and the immediacy of combat provide the medium through which we strive to exist fully in the present - without planning for the future or reflecting upon the past. In this way, gung fu provides an ideal meditation and an excellent means for practicing Right Mindfulness.



One of the problems faced by many western historians is the supposed contraindication of Buddhist principles of non-violence coupled with Shaolin's legendary martial skills. In fact, the Shaolin practitioner is never an attacker, nor does he or she dispatch the most devastating defenses in any situation. Rather, the study of kung fu leads to better understanding of violence, and consequently how to avoid conflict.



Failing that, a Buddhist who refuses to accept an offering of violence (i.e., and attack) merely returns it to the sender. Initially, the kung fu expert may choose to parry an attack, but if an assailant is both skilled and determined to cause harm, a more definitive and concluding solution may be required, from a joint-lock hold to a knockout, to death. The more sophisticated and violent an assault, the more devastating the return of the attack to the attacker. Buddhists are not, therefore, hurting anyone; they merely refuse delivery of intended harm (shaolin.com)





The Shaolin philosophy is far removed for the self righteous, moralistic he deserved to die self defense style that you and others support and encourage ie. a self defense style that doesn't honour life.



Lurch, I scanned stories. I dont like the style, and they seem a bit second hand to make an informed opinion. Most involve police getting attacked and domestic violence.



So, have you done any research into the cause of anarchy in the wake of Katrina? Was there a cover up or something? Or are you still telling me it did not happen?



pounce, I know it was not your intent, but the point I getting is that it may be beneficial to view the gun problem in America like drug addition.



Good luck, faith


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

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Pounce - I side you on your approach on drugs. I don't want to completely separate it here, because I find it unfair to say that it's offtopic, whether drugs or not should be legalized.

Yes, there is a difference between the occasional drug user and the heavy addict. Plus there is a difference in the substances used. Hence the use of drugs is prohibited. You use illegal substances (in the eyes of the government) you're a criminal and as such you should not be legally own a gun. Why would you want to have it both ways? You don't like the fact, go change the governments approach on drugs.

In my country - if you get caught with illegal drugs - the government questions whether you are responsible enough to operate a vehicle. It doesn't matter whether or not you were operating a vehicle at the time you were intoxicated, or in the possession of those drugs. You will have your drivers license revoked and have to pass psychological/ medical tests in order to get it back. Our government doesn't like to take chances in this one, because in my country we depend on each other when being in traffic. Innocent lives are involved.

Personally I do think that it's "difficult" to make such a judgement, but on the other side the government easily comes up with scenarios and (live) examples under which I can follow this approach. I have only two choices: to either obey, or not or to find my middle way: not to operate a vehicle in the period the drugs are traceable and not to get caught with drugs. But that doesn't make me a "law abiding citizen", does it?

Offences in relation of drugs and guns are much easier to cover up than those involving a vehicle: You simply can't hide your SUV under your shirt.

You are comparing apples with water melons:

A guns design is primary for killing or causing great physical harm and a cars design is primarily for transportation - a non-lethal activity. A car can eventually be (ab)used to kill another human being - now show me what you can transport with your gun, other than ammo.

OWD - how can you not have a stance on death penalty? confused Let's take a scenario: Someone killed your family, you witnessed it, five other people did too. The person gets charged with murder and the attorney would ask for the death penalty. Would you support it? Proven he is guilty, no question about that....

No booby traps: I was quoting an example (that you can verify) and the guy got away shooting at people who left his house prior to that. They were no direct threat to his life anymore. The law (in Colorado) allowed the jury to let him walk as a free man and so far I did not find any hint that this law got changed. Therefore I have to repeat: "US laws are a license to murder"... at least in Colorado and maybe a few other states too.

All: You are avoiding to make a statement upon the fact that the arms industry supplies weapons to conflicts all over the planet. How can I take you and your participation here serious, if you turn a blind eye on aspects of this discussion, just because it's inconvenient and would much likely disarm you?

The individual right for self defence can not go beyond the well being of the entire human race. Maybe this is one thing the USofA's still have to learn...

I do not say that you can't defend or should sacrifice yourself. But if you feel that you are in need of arms in order to do so -IMHO- you have a moral obligation to change circumstances in such a way that the threat is ending (as beyond, so below).

This because by owning a gun, you are a) a potential threat to unarmed citizens around you and b) a threat to mankind, as you are in/directly supporting global suffering. If you regard it to be your duty to protect your fellow citizens, you may join the police - this is why we have it. Improve response times, for example as a primary task...

I wish to thank you all at this point, because you helped me (re-)shape my approach to gun ownership en detail. I'm no longer generally opposing it, but I believe that with great power comes great responsibility.

It's completely up to you how to deal with this responsibility and whether or not you continue to promote gun ownership, I have no part in this.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Jan 2006

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Total posts: 3556
Posted:how many times the cut of something has put a friend on his butt or in the hospital. We had something cut with sea breeze deoderant once. Smelled good, screwed us up. I guess my issue with it is that many that I know from last year, don't have a record and are heavy users. What stops them from owning a gun legally? CCW is not going to happen, I know that.

I am waiting for the correlation b/n the Amnesty quote and our gun laws.
As for internationality of it all, someplace Lurch discussed which companies were global.

You did say however in that kids are being armed and then you listed a number of gun companies-how do you know this? Where did this information come from?


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

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I suppose one difference between a skilled martial artist ( unarmed ) making a decision to use lethal force against an ( unarmed, yet skilled attacker ) is the time needed to actually make that decision during the course of the attack.

One scenario may have the defender parrying a couple of attacks therefore affording several seconds to determine the ferocity and intent of the attack ( in face of a more adept defender..an attacker might just decide to abort the attack as being a bad idea, and simply run away ) and make the decision that lethal force isn't necessary to disable this particular attacker.

With a guns , or any lethal weapons for that matter, the same decision making process may exist, however the decision needs to be made in a fraction of a second.

I'm sure we could all imagine scenarios where a defender with a gun could make a decision to merely wound an attacker, and just may have a "plan" in mind as just what they'd do when confronted with deadly force....A likely scenario....first display the weapon, second, ask " can I get away with just winging this attacker?... third shoot to kill.

One could argue that processing those thoughts in the fraction of a second that they would take to process in a high stress environment, adheres to Buddhist principals, likewise, entertaining those thoughts when mentally exploring just what one might do as a defender who may be forced to use a gun, also adheres to those same principals.

I simply refuse to believe that the majority of legal handgun owners/carriers are possessed by an attitude of actually WANTING to use things to go out and cause harm. That belief has only been reinforced by writings on this thread. ( and a whole bunch of anecdotal evidence I've collected over the years, which I won't bore you with,,,yet )

Stone, what I meant by martyr...suppose one is capable of using deadly force to confront a deadly threat, refuses to do so based on principal, and dies as a result of that refusal....that's martyrdom...no?

Hypothetically...were a pregnant woman confronted by deadly force, wouldn't she be obligated to use whatever force necessary to null that threat, seeing as how she's not only responsible for her own life, but the life of her unborn child as well. Just how would the karma accountants deal with that one ? Does she have any moral imperative to protect the ultimate innocent ?

Tom....on the surface that story you presented about the guy being shot in the car reads as outright murder, but ( much like reading a German wine label ) the details lie in what WASN'T said in the story. Along with saying that the jury had access to information that wasn't made available to the press, the story didn't state just what the people in the car were yelling....might it have been death threats ?

So the shooter's already had brass knuckles used on him...and he knows that without a doubt that his multiple assailants mean him harm, and if they were indeed threatening him with something like say....coming back to "get" him....then it might just indeed have been a righteous shoot in the face of a very real threat.

Heck...if I had someone threatening to come back at a later time and do something like throwing a molotov cocktail through my window and I'd already been attacked by that same person, I'd consider that a very real threat and would take steps to prevent the threatened action.

Are you really SURE you want to support drug testing by the government ? Even if ( for now ) it's only confined to an issue like handgun ownership ? Sounds way to patriot astish to me. What's next, drug testing to renew a drivers licence ? A positive result automatically resulting in a conviction for possession ( yikes...there's those Thailand stories again )

Faith...good point about the US guns and global conflict. I don't agree that by buying a gun "at home" contributes to the global proliferation of guns, but I will agree that maybe it makes them a little bit more affordable ( it's a mass production thing ) but if "affordability" is really of concern here, why not buy the cheaper guns, like the ubiquitous AK47 to arm your child militia, rather than aspire to something more expensive like an HK ?

Were we talking about domestically purchased guns, and their illegal importation ( smuggling ) into gun controlled countries like Canada, then it's a different story. Luckily, for unarmed guys like me, the people who buy these smuggled guns tend to use them on each other, rather than law abiding citizens. For now the only thing I have to worry about is getting caught in the crossfire between rival gangs ...( but not really, we don't have a gang problem in this city )

Realistically....What do you figure America's chances are of disarming their criminal population and therefore reducing the "need" for their law abiding population to arm themselves in kind actually is ? Very slim...IMO,,,, at least according to my inner cynic.


Delete

Page: 1...1011121314...44

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 murder suicide   ...
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..