A hometown example of the necessity of gun rights

[Gunny]

Gunny, it would only be an example if it actually happened and was not an example you created or exists in a Special Ops manual.

I could say an example of a home invasion is three men, unarmed and drunk, crawling through a window and being too timid to fight.

But it is not true because an example of a home invasion is a case study of any one that happened. You don't even know, nor will say, how many have happened since 2000. Not bercause it is up to me to say, but because you know that the statistics are so small that your argument is weakened for the need to be armed.

I am not tapdancing, you are avoiding facts.

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. I described a basic tactic any 4th grader could comprehend.

How many times do I need to point out that home invasions are an arbitrary parameter set by you for the purpose of making a dishonest argument?

Or how many times do I need to point out that it is YOU making the accusation with NO facts to back it up. It is not encumbent on me to prove your argument.

IF the statistics were so small, YOU in fact, would have already produced them. What you DO already know is that there are no readily available statistics to support your arbitrary parameter that is the basis of your misleading argument.

As previously stated, if you want to make a REAL argument, YOU produce some facts to back up what amounts to nothing more than your opinion on a topic you have proven throughout this thread you don't know a damned thing about.

Kind of hard for me to avoid facts you haven't presented.

And yeah, you're tapdancing all over the place.

 

[Gunny]

And the scenario never happened so you cannot site it as an example.

Besides having no knowledge on the topic you've been running your mouth about, you're intellectually dishonest trying to play word games, and you aren't even good at that.

I can in fact call a scenario an example. It not only is an example of a basic tactic, it is an example of your ignorance.

 

[Gunny]

No, but the people posting in this thread seemed (according to their own words) to be waiting for someone to break in so they can kill them. They seem hell bent on it.

Who does? Name one member who has stated such. Just another bullshit accusation on your part.

When you ever have to take a life, nomrod, THEN you come back and talk your ignorant bullshit to me. You walk around through life with your head in the sand pretending there are no bad guys because you can't see them, in some nothing-to-do-with-reality Utopian dreamworld.

I hope for your family's sake nothing bad ever happens to you/them because they damned-sure won't be able to count on your sorry ass to defend them.

 

[Ninja]

Hellbent on murdering:

December 27, 2007
Gun-packing man, 65, fights off 5 thugs
WKMG LOCAL 6 NEWS

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida man who collects cash for parking at a church fought off five armed men who had ambushed him and demanded cash.

The 65-year-old victim, who did not want to be identified, said he was collecting cash in the Parramore area before an Orlando Magic basketball game when someone put a gun to his head.

He noticed that that he was surrounded by four other men as well.

The man said he pretended to reach into his jacket for cash but instead pulled out his hidden gun and opened fire.

The men fled during the shooting and it was not known if any of them were hit by bullets.

The victim said he had a permit for the concealed weapon.

He said he has been a victim of crime before.

"A couple of years ago, eight teens attacked me with a pipe trying to rob me," the man said.

Anyone with information concerning the crime is urged to call Crimeline at 800-423-TIPS.

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071227/BREAKINGNEWS/71227025/1086

Anyone have "witty" platitude from their Kung Fu master?

 

[Lookout]

I stated that if I kill someone, even in self defense, then yes I should go to jail. Barring a scenario inwhich Jason or MIchael Myers are unstoppable, there is always an alternative to killing.

I guess you missed that part of the thread.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I stated that if I kill someone, even in self defense, then yes I should go to jail.

Why should killing in self-defense be treated as murder?

Barring a scenario inwhich Jason or MIchael Myers are unstoppable, there is always an alternative to killing.

Show this to be true.

 

[doniston]

I didnt ask you about committing murder, I asked you about killing someone in the act of self-defense where the only way to stop the attacker was to kill him.

You said:


I ask again:
If you kill someone in the act of self-defense, should you go to jail?

I think he answered that with his first quote.

 

[Bern80]

I think he answered that with his first quote.

No he didn't. He is assuming he would know before takeing action that he would not need to use a firearm. There is no possible way to know that. that is why we don't charge people for murder even if there is a chance that they didn't need to use a gun to defend themselves.

 

[Taomon]

Why should killing in self-defense be treated as murder?


Show this to be true.

If you break someone's arms, they cannot continue raping someone. If you break their back, they cannot do much of anything. If you break their kneecaps, they will not have much fight left in them.

Those things (elbows, knees, back) are more accessible than say the neck or skull. I am guessing that if you have a gun and someone is raping your wife, you can shoot him in the ass, shoot him in the foot, shoot him in the knee. All of which will stop the rape from happening and allow you ample time to subdue that person.

Do you see how killing is not really the only option?

 

[Taomon]

If you break someone's arms, they cannot continue raping someone. If you break their back, they cannot do much of anything. If you break their kneecaps, they will not have much fight left in them.

Those things (elbows, knees, back) are more accessible than say the neck or skull. I am guessing that if you have a gun and someone is raping your wife, you can shoot him in the ass, shoot him in the foot, shoot him in the knee. All of which will stop the rape from happening and allow you ample time to subdue that person.

Do you see how killing is not really the only option?

I believe that the law in all states shows that if you have a choice between killing and maiming in self defense, one should not commit murder. And that is what it would be.

But I stand by what I said. If I kill, even in self defense, I committed murder and should go to jail.

 

[Taomon]

Who does? Name one member who has stated such. Just another bullshit accusation on your part.

When you ever have to take a life, nomrod, THEN you come back and talk your ignorant bullshit to me. You walk around through life with your head in the sand pretending there are no bad guys because you can't see them, in some nothing-to-do-with-reality Utopian dreamworld.

I hope for your family's sake nothing bad ever happens to you/them because they damned-sure won't be able to count on your sorry ass to defend them.

Gunny, you are the most blood thirsty person on this board (according to your machismo laced posts).

 

[Taomon]

Besides having no knowledge on the topic you've been running your mouth about, you're intellectually dishonest trying to play word games, and you aren't even good at that.

I can in fact call a scenario an example. It not only is an example of a basic tactic, it is an example of your ignorance.

So you admit that you made up the scenario and it has never been used in a home invasion. Good, now everyone knows that you are twisting the argument because you know that you are wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you break someone's arms, they cannot continue raping someone. If you break their back, they cannot do much of anything. If you break their kneecaps, they will not have much fight left in them.

You're not, in any way, showing that, in EVEY case, there is ALWAYS an alterlative to killing.

One really has to wonder -- if you're right, why do policemen carry guns?
And, if a policeman kills someone, should they go to jail, too?

And, of course, you're sidestepping the question:
Why, in a case where you MUST kill someone to stop them from raping your wife, should you go to jail.

 

[mattskramer]

You're not, in any way, showing that, in EVEY case, there is ALWAYS an alterlative to killing.

One really has to wonder -- if you're right, why do policemen carry guns?
And, if a policeman kills someone, should they go to jail, too?

And, of course, you're sidestepping the question:
Why, in a case where you MUST kill someone to stop them from raping your wife, should you go to jail.

Hey you two – M14 and Taomon – can’t we agree that it is a judgment call? There is something in police practice called “unnecessary roughness”. We can come up with scenarios in which deadly force would be considered foolish and we can come up with scenarios where shooting someone might be necessary. (You would hope that the gun shot would stop someone but it might also end up killing him. I don’t think that you should be punished if your actions to stop a dangerous intruder results in his death.)

Let’s bring back the foreign student who got lost one night and approached a stranger’s house. Was it really necessary for the home-owner to blow the young unarmed confused young man away when the kid had not even entered the home? I doubt it. Yet, if an aggressive, big, strong, fast, weapon-carrying man breaks into my home and attempts to steal stuff, I think that I’d be justified in shooting him and asking questions later.

Ultimately, the courts will decide if my actions were appropriate given the situation. It is just another example of situational ethics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We can come up with scenarios in which deadly force would be considered foolish and we can come up with scenarios where shooting someone might be necessary.

If there is a threat to your life or that of someone else, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or that someome else. Period.

It may very well be that you might be able to stop them with less than deadly force, but the right to use deadly force remains.

 

[Steerpike]

If there is a threat to your life or that of someone else, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or that someome else. Period.

It may very well be that you might be able to stop them with less than deadly force, but the right to use deadly force remains.

That's not necessarily good advice. The law varies from State to State, and every person should check into the law in the particular State in which they live. In many States, if there is a possibility of protecting yourself with less than deadly force, the right to use deadly force disappears. Also, in many States there is a duty to retreat in many instances (though typically not in a home, although some States may have gone that far) and if you ignore a duty to retreat, claiming self-defense may not protect you from a criminal charge.

Just check into the law in the State where you live. It is important to know what you can and cannot do.

 

[mattskramer]

If there is a threat to your life or that of someone else, you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or that someome else. Period.

It may very well be that you might be able to stop them with less than deadly force, but the right to use deadly force remains.

If a skinny unarmed 12-year-old kid walks onto my yard in the middle of the day and approaches my door, and I supposedly feel that my life is being threatened by him, I have a right to use deadly force against him. Thanks for that information. Wait until the neighborhood kids wander onto my yard again.

 

[Steerpike]

If a skinny unarmed 12-year-old kid walks onto my yard in the middle of the day and approaches my door, and I supposedly feel that my life is being threatened by him, I have a right to use deadly force against him. Thanks for that information. Wait until the neighborhood kids wander onto my yard again.

Any subjective feeling of threat that you have would have to be objectively reasonable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a skinny unarmed 12-year-old kid walks onto my yard in the middle of the day and approaches my door, and I supposedly feel that my life is being threatened by him, I have a right to use deadly force against him. Thanks for that information.

I didnt give you that information, you produced a strawman.

Your strawman doesnt, in any way, do anything to minimize my position - a simple perception of danger doesn't constitute an actionable threat.

 

[mattskramer]

I didnt give you that information, you produced a strawman.

Your strawman doesnt, in any way, do anything to minimize my position - a simple perception of danger doesn't constitute an actionable threat.

It is not a straw man. It is an example that you probably will never acknowledge. What is a threat to one’s life and what is not a threat? Doesn’t that constitute some subjective judgment? Suppose the 12-year-old tosses a rock through my window and climbs into my house. Under those circumstances, is there a threat to my life? What if the kid was just a little bit older, stronger, and more menacing? Where do you draw the line?

I think that most people here would see that I am talking about a grey area.