[goin-god]

QUOTE (ass reamer @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 12:15)

I've always thought the Second Amendment should be discarded altogether as the societal circumstances that existed at the time of its' writing simply do not apply to to today's world.

This is exactly how I feel about the subject.

QUOTE

So if some yuppy f*ck comes storming into my cushy suburban house with a gun, and the new law prohibits guns, what the f*ck do I do?

You call the cops, that's why they are for.

QUOTE

I believe there is such a thing as "self defense" and I fully believe in it. If someone threatens me with a gun/knife/weapon, I should be able to shoot the motherf*cker dead, and not have to worry about the consequences.

I too believe in self defence, but you are talking about murder right there. Hence why most civilians shouldn't be allowed to use firearms unless they have proper training to use them.
That's how i'ts done in my country. And we have very little problems with gun violence. (Crime is another problem.)

QUOTE

I'm one to believe that America does have a breaking point. People outnumber the government easily 10-1. I can believe America could fall into Anarchy, and when it does I wanted to be armed.

What the f*ck? That's the most retarded thing I could have expected to hear as an argument against this law.

[RomansMoobs]

QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:05)

QUOTE (ass reamer @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 12:15) I've always thought the Second Amendment should be discarded altogether as the societal circumstances that existed at the time of its' writing simply do not apply to to today's world. This is exactly how I feel about the subject. QUOTE So if some yuppy f*ck comes storming into my cushy suburban house with a gun, and the new law prohibits guns, what the f*ck do I do? You call the cops, that's why they are for. QUOTE I believe there is such a thing as "self defense" and I fully believe in it. If someone threatens me with a gun/knife/weapon, I should be able to shoot the motherf*cker dead, and not have to worry about the consequences. I too believe in self defence, but you are talking about murder right there. Hence why most civilians shouldn't be allowed to use firearms unless they have proper training to use them. That's how i'ts done in my country. And we have very little problems with gun violence. (Crime is another problem.) QUOTE I'm one to believe that America does have a breaking point. People outnumber the government easily 10-1. I can believe America could fall into Anarchy, and when it does I wanted to be armed. What the f*ck? That's the most retarded thing I could have expected to hear as an argument against this law.

"Call the cops, it's what they're there for".

Last time I checked it took cops how long to respond to a call? Yeah no thanks. Like a Grand Theft Auto commercial said, he could kill me, f*ck my wife, and take a sh*t before the cops arrived.

"I too believe in self defence, but you are talking about murder right there. Hence why most civilians shouldn't be allowed to use firearms unless they have proper training to use them.
That's how i'ts done in my country. And we have very little problems with gun violence. (Crime is another problem.)"

Re-read my post. It might make you sound like less of a jackass. Look up what a concealed carry is, and how to obtain one. It's not an easy process, not by a long shot. Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry.

As for the breaking point, I mean riots due to conflicting opinions in the government. It's bound to happen. Look at the Occupy movement, albeit peaceful now. But the Government is pulling some shady sh*t against them. There's only so many rights they're going to be able to take away from us. They infringe more and more every time a new "Patriot Act" type of bill is passed.

This post has been edited by RomansMoobs on Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:21

[ass reamer]

QUOTE (RomansMoobs @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 11:39)

So if some yuppy f*ck comes storming into my cushy suburban house with a gun, and the new law prohibits guns, what the f*ck do I do? Give him what he wants? I believe there is such a thing as "self defense" and I fully believe in it. If someone threatens me with a gun/knife/weapon, I should be able to shoot the motherf*cker dead, and not have to worry about the consequences.

First of, why would a yuppie, a young, upper-middle to upper-class person be breaking into your house? I don't think you understand the meaning of that term. If they are breaking in, however, they're probably just after some wine coolers and/or sweaters they can drape over their shoulders. Just give them what they want.

Unfortunately for you, the legal system has time and time again declared that you don't have the right to murder someone simply because they break into your home. Add to that that you're 2.7 times more likely to die a murder victim simply by having a gun in your home and the whole "personal safety" aspect to gun ownership starts to make a whole lot less sense.

[goin-god]

QUOTE (RomansMoobs @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 13:18)

Re-read my post. It might make you sound like less of a jackass. Look up what a concealed carry is, and how to obtain one. It's not an easy process, not by a long shot. Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry.

Now you are insulting me? The fact that it isn't an easy process dosn't mean you will have proper training to use it correctly.

QUOTE

Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry.

Okay, that's f*cked up. I tend to believe in what ass reamer just said. Sounds less idiotic. How would you prove you didn't execute the guy? You can't.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:28)

QUOTE Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry. Okay, that's f*cked up. I tend to believe in what ass reamer just said. Sounds less idiotic. How would you prove you didn't execute the guy? You can't.

Well in that case, it's pretty much your word against hi-

Oh.

[RomansMoobs]

QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:28)

QUOTE (RomansMoobs @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 13:18) Re-read my post. It might make you sound like less of a jackass. Look up what a concealed carry is, and how to obtain one. It's not an easy process, not by a long shot. Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry. Now you are insulting me? The fact that it isn't an easy process dosn't mean you will have proper training to use it correctly. QUOTE Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry. Okay, that's f*cked up. I tend to believe in what ass reamer just said. Sounds less idiotic. How would you prove you didn't execute the guy? You can't.

You even said yourself you're not from America, and now you're trying to tell me what the laws are? Try again.

You don't need to prove anything other than he had a weapon pointed at you. You defended yourself. As long as you're not the one waving the gun around or threatening it. You'd be fine from the dick of the law.

Smoke a bowl, have a nice day.

[goin-god]

QUOTE (RomansMoobs @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 13:36)

QUOTE (goin-god @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:28) QUOTE (RomansMoobs @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 13:18) Re-read my post. It might make you sound like less of a jackass. Look up what a concealed carry is, and how to obtain one. It's not an easy process, not by a long shot. Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry. Now you are insulting me? The fact that it isn't an easy process dosn't mean you will have proper training to use it correctly. QUOTE Also, if someone points a gun or weapon at you first, and you kill them, you most likely won't go to jail if your gun is registered and you're allowed to carry it, hence a concealed carry. Okay, that's f*cked up. I tend to believe in what ass reamer just said. Sounds less idiotic. How would you prove you didn't execute the guy? You can't. You even said yourself you're not from America, and now you're trying to tell me what the laws are? Try again.

I know I'm not American. That dosn't mean I can't argue about the laws you guys seem to have.

QUOTE

You don't need to prove anything other than he had a weapon pointed at you.

And how would you do that? You killed him. He could have the gun in his pocket. He could have been unarmed and you just kill him and put a gun on him.
It dosn't make any sense.

If the American law is trully like that, I'm afraid it's not right.

edit:

QUOTE (Wikipedia)

In the United States, the defense of self-defense allows a person to use reasonable force in his or her own defense or the defense of others.

Dosn't say much about guns, but that already sounds different from what you are saying.

This post has been edited by goin-god on Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:48

[ass reamer]

Just because someone is pointing a knife at you doesn't give you the right to kill them. Your response to a trespasser has to be proportionate to the threat. If a guy breaks in with a bat/knife/crowbar/twig and you blow his head off with a shotgun, you're likely going to be looking at manslaughter charges. Oh, and they have to be directly threatening you. Say you hear somebody breaking in and you're able to sneak up behind them and shoot them in the back of the head; you're going to be charged in that situation as well. Under the law you have to make every reasonable attempt to flee the scene before homicide is justifiable. So, if you're trapped in your bedroom, there's no way to get and out, and there's a guy in the doorway with a gun, then in that situation you could argue justifiable homicide and win.

In all instances the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the homicide was absolutely unavoidable in order for the defendant to protect their own safety. A task much easier said than done.

edit: This is true for my state (Virginia) and most other states in the country. Some states have far more lax laws, i.e. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

[RomansMoobs]

QUOTE (ass reamer @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 16:49)

Just because someone is pointing a knife at you doesn't give you the right to kill them. Your response to a trespasser has to be proportionate to the threat. If a guy breaks in with a bat/knife/crowbar/twig and you blow his head off with a shotgun, you're likely going to be looking at manslaughter charges. Oh, and they have to be directly threatening you. Say you hear somebody breaking in and you're able to sneak up behind them and shoot them in the back of the head; you're going to be charged in that situation as well. Under the law you have to make every reasonable attempt to flee the scene before homicide is justifiable. So, if you're trapped in your bedroom, there's no way to get and out, and there's a guy in the doorway with a gun, then in that situation you could argue justifiable homicide and win. In all instances the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the homicide was absolutely unavoidable in order for the defendant to protect their own safety. A task much easier said than done. edit: This is true for my state (Virginia) and most other states in the country. Some states have far more lax laws, i.e. Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

So a cop doesn't have justifiable force when someone points a gun at them? Or a knife? I've seen video of a cop blowing someone away because they had a crow bar and was about to swing it at them. The cop got away without any charges. That's what I'm talking about. Not, "I'm just going to shoot this guy because he looks like he has a gun in his pocket". That's ignorant and totally twisting my words. If someone is in your house, without your permission, with any type of weapon and could potentially use it in a threatening manner, you absolutely have the right to shoot that person in the face.


Now if they're not facing you, or don't have a weapon, then you can't. Simple as that.

You also seem to forget that the person breaking in could be bigger, faster, and stronger than you. Even f*cked up on some sort of drug. If anything, they'll see the gun and they'll run away.


Edit: My state has the "Castle Law" which allows you to use deadly force (within reason) in your home and your vehicle.

This post has been edited by RomansMoobs on Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 17:02

[Pat]

QUOTE (ass reamer @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 11:24)

Unfortunately for you, the legal system has time and time again declared that you don't have the right to murder someone simply because they break into your home.

See, that's where you're wrong.

QUOTE

Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another".

Self defense is not murder. Anyone who ever tries to imply that it is, will instantly lose all respect I might have once held for them.

Edit:

QUOTE (ass reamer)

Under the law you have to make every reasonable attempt to flee the scene before homicide is justifiable

Again wrong.

QUOTE

States with a Castle Law No duty to retreat if in the home.     * Alaska - Alaska Statute 11.81.335(b) provides that an individual has no duty to retreat before using deadly force if they are in their home, their workplace, protecting a child or protecting a family member. The 27th Alaska Legislature is currently considering H.B. 80 "An Act relating to self defense in any place where a person has a right to be." which would essentially eliminate the duty to retreat for any place a person is legally, making Alaska a "stand your ground" state. However, an identical measure, H.B. 381, failed to pass the 26th Alaska Legislature.     * California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that unlawful, forcible entry into one's residence by someone not a member of the household creates the presumption that the resident held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury should he or she use deadly force against the intruder. This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197.[17] CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'” The court held that because the defendant had constructed a gun-firing trap, the doctrine did not apply because mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion.[18]     * Colorado "...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." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.     * Connecticut     * Florida     * Georgia (a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; [...] has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force;)     * Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")     * Illinois (Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.)     * Iowa (No duty to retreat from home or place of business in defense of self or a "third party".)     * Kansas (§ 21-5223. A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.)     * Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[19]     * Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the common law castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)     * Massachusetts     * Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense in one's place of abode [20]) This isn't as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld.[21]     * Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")     * Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)     * Nevada     * New Jersey ("Statutes" link in sidebar, see New Jersey Statutes 2C:3-4, retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc. EXCEPT not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor)     * North Carolina (Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)     * North Dakota     * Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[22] Section 2901.09)     * Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).")     * Pennsylvania     * Rhode Island     * South Carolina     * Utah     * West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22)     * Wisconsin (Assembly Bill 69, signed December 7, 2011)     * Wyoming

That's 29 states that quite clearly do not require that you retreat if you are in your own home. Keep in mind this list does not include somewhere around half of the 14 Stand Your Ground law states, which do not require that you retreat regardless of location.

QUOTE (ass reamer)

This is true for my state (Virginia) and most other states in the country

I'm fairly certain that "less than half" is pretty f*cking far from "most." I could be wrong though.

This post has been edited by Pat on Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 17:33

[RomansMoobs]

QUOTE (Pat @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 17:20)

QUOTE (ass reamer @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 11:24) Unfortunately for you, the legal system has time and time again declared that you don't have the right to murder someone simply because they break into your home. See, that's where you're wrong. QUOTE Typically deadly force is considered justified, and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another". Self defense is not murder. Anyone who ever tries to imply that it is, will instantly lose all respect I might have once held for them. Edit: QUOTE (ass reamer) Under the law you have to make every reasonable attempt to flee the scene before homicide is justifiable Again wrong.

This man knows his law

[OchyGTA]

My issue with all this is that a few of you seem to think you have the right to kill becasue you have "the right to bear arms". When I hear someone say "if someone comes on my property, I have the right to kill them" I can't help but disagree. You never have the right to take a life and I think it displays a very immature and narrow-minded attitude. I think gun law should be layed out like so: You have the right to use a gun in self defence if it is neccesary and the extent of force shall vary dependant on the circumstances.
I think they have laws allowing you to kill someone in Florida; that whole Stand Your Ground thing. In my opinion, this promotes the wrong attitude and if anything, encourages people to take a life when it's uneccesary e.g. Trayvon Martin case. I am not sure how you test for self-defence in the US but over here in the UK, it's an objective test meaning that force is judged on the basis of a reasonable, sober man. I think that should discourage an attitude of shoot first, ask questions later.

With regards to gun laws, it's foolish to say they aren't important as Chunkyman implied and I would agree that there should be a compulsory gun saftey/training lesson for first purchases. I'm quite surprised that schools in the US don't educate students on gun safety either as it seems that they are just as big a part of life as driving.

[EscoLehGo]

I'm feeling an eagerness for people to unload firearms into other people's faces given the right opportunity, have any of you ever shot someone or witnessed someone being shot before?

[Chunkyman]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 20 2012, 09:22)

Chunkyman- if your assertion is correct that firearm restrictions are ineffective at preventing crime, then it stands to reason that nations where firearm proliferation amongst the population is similar to that of the US, firearm crime would be equally high even if restrictions were in place- and that simply isn't the case. Around 42% of US households own a firearm, compared with 29% in Canada, 10% in Germany and around 80% (!) in Switzerland (all of which have strict licensing restrictions but have legalised concealed or open carry to varying degrees). According to your logic, you would see firearm crime rates per capita of approximately 70% of that of the US in Canada, around 24% in Germany and 190% in Switzerland. But in reality- Firearm death rate per 100,000 per annum. United States- 10.27 (55% of which are suicides) Switzerland- 6.4 (85% of which are suicides) Canada- 4.78 (85% of which are suicides) Germany- 1.57 (70% of which are suicides) Another interesting example is Sweden. There are an estimated 2.8 million privately owned firearms in Sweden, of which only around 2.1 million are legally owned. Sweden has a population of 9.38 million. That means there are 30 firearms, either legal or illegal, for every 100 citizens. In 2010, there were 18 firearm-related murders, meaning that 0.000064% of firearms in Sweden were used to commit murders. A reasonable estimate for the US would be around 350 million privately owned firearms (that's the 200 million or so legally owned ones, and a conservative 150 million illegal ones). There were 9,369 firearm-related murders in 2010 in the US, meaning that 0.00268% of firearms were used to commit murders. That means that every firearm in the US is forty-two times more likely to be involved in a murder than one in Sweden. So, what are the differences? I can think of only two- culture and legal restrictions, and they feed into each other. I understand that there are other differences which cannot be eradicated- poverty levels, levels of other violent criminal activity et cetera but I struggle to see how these could account for a difference of 4,200% in these figures.

A completely broken educational system along with severe drug prohibition are the primary culprits in the high US homicide rates. The vast majority of gun crimes aren't committed by hunters or firearm enthusiasts, they're committed by people that are drug dealers/criminals killing other drug dealers/criminals. The source of violence in the United States are people being left retarded by a terrible educational system, and the War on Drugs creating a black market characterized by gangs murdering each other to profit on the lucrative drug trade.

Targeting guns as the problem of violence in the United States is like targeting spoons as the problem of obesity in the United States.

[ass reamer]

I'm familiar with the Castle doctrine, though admittedly I didn't realize the majority of states endorsed it. Still, not all of the various state's Castle laws allow for lethal force in the instance of burglary or theft, meaning that you can't just up and shoot anyone breaking in for any reason.

No, self defense is not murder. Depending on the case, the line between justifiable homicide and manslaughter is certainly a fine one, however. Self defense is a tricky line to toe in virtually all instances, Castle doctrine or not.