A new ACW..

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

If the founding father's quoted previously in this thread were brought forward in time to see the carnage of the breakup of Yugoslavia, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, the slaughter in Sarajevo etc

Interesting that you cite Yugoslavia where a strong, anti-democratic police state only managed to keep the lid on dissent at the point of a gun.

[2ndACR]

If the founding father would come forward and have seen that, they would have been even more resolved to make sure the people were armed with the EXACT same weapons the military used in their day and age.

That above "ethnic cleansing etc" is exactly why people need to be armed with military style weapons. So they can fight back semi effectively against rogue authority. But disarmed sheep are exactly that, disarmed sheep, and there are big bad wolves in this world.

[mgarnett]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I would meet any sign of violence with deadly force. Only an idiot is going to swing on me when they know I am packing a gun. I refuse to see the difference between "minor" assault and "major" assault. Most intentional deaths in the US start out with "minor" which then raises to "major" as the victim fights back. Assault is assault and will be met with the utmost of violence I can produce, which is deadly force.

Minor and major aren't my definitions, they're usually enacted in some sort of criminal code or case law applicable to each country or state. So for example, slapping somebody in the face or pushing them in the back or punching a few times in chest could, depending on the definition of assault in each country, be considered a minor assault. I don't mean minor in that they don't have a real effect on the victim, only the way the law categorizes them. In AU, these are referred to as common assaults and I think this is the type of category that's missing from some figures.

Whereas giving somebody a black eye would be considered more serious. Assaults that cause even more serious or even permanent injury are categorized as even more serious.

So there are different offences depending on how serious the assault is. I would think this is similar in most countries, but please correct me if I'm wrong. So I'm not saying minor or major from the victims perspective, but from the legal or "offense" perspective.

I am not a cop who has been trained to "ramp" the violence up as the bad guy ignores the obvious. I am a trained Infantryman who is trained to meet everything with maximum force level, I start at shoot to kill and it is up to the bad guy to rapidly ramp down his attitude before he dies. It worked quite well in Iraq, I watched air force cops try to use force escalation with the detainees or day workers that got tossed off the base, if we got called in, say at the front gate, we went in and stuck the barrel of a M4 in the guys face, he usually got real calm real fast, in the prison, when the riots got too bad and they decided that deadly force was needed, we came in and the 4-8 hour riot ended when the first 3-4 bad guys got shot with live ammo.

But like stated a few pages ago, in the US, you cannot tell the difference between innocent versus criminal from criminal versus criminal. Most of the gun shootings and deaths are criminal on criminal, gang banger versus gang banger, those cases I say, pass out the ammo and let them have at each other. Rent a football stadium, make it bullet proof, at the 50 yard line, pile a bunch of guns and ammo, take the cities gangs and place each side at the 20 yard line and let them have at each other. Then shoot the winners.

Couldn't agree more, it's easy for a court to say "well he wasn't armed, he was only going to punch you, so you had no right to shoot him". In the moment, you're only think of one thing, self preservation. Interestingly, as you know, police officers here carry guns, but the interesting part is, a police officer is not allowed to "shoot to main or injure" but instead he MUST shoot to kill. The thinking behind this is, if something is so serious that you need to shoot your gun to prevent something really bad happening and you are only shooting to injure, then it mustn't have been bad enough to shoot your gun in the first place. Hence, shoot to kill.

[Qwixt]

So you can't fight back effectively without military style weapons, and by weapons I assume you mean guns not grenades, mortars...? The terrorists have military weapons, and they are getting their butts kicked. I really don't think it matters when talking about facing off against tanks, helicopters, and such things. I think you need more than just military guns in those cases. You need backing, and anti-tank and anti-air weapons.

[mgarnett]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

But since most of the "civilized" world thinks guns are evil, kids seek them out to play with the denied things. I took my kids and their friends shooting all the time from about 8 and up.

I'm not sure I agree with this, I consider the lunatics who go to schools with a gun and shoot innocent children as evil, not the gun he/she is carrying. From what I've read, I think this is the way most people who've responded in this thread so far think.

So it comes down to this, how can we reduce, or even prevent, the number of times that a lunatic can grab a gun and shoot people. This is the million dollar question for which there is no easy answer.

[Missouri_Rebel]

Here is where I sign off. While I am very much of a proponent of the Second Amendment I understand it comes with great responsibilities. I demand that others do also and can understand the ire when a free people seem to not be able to handle the freedoms they have, i.e. using a weapon to slay innocent people.

I also do not treat such responsibilities callously. Even though I have been around guns my whole life and may or may not have a pistol on or near me, I have never been in a situation where I have had to pull it and I lived for a time in St. Louis city full of mother beaters and father rapers. I hope I go my whole life without the need to do so and I actually fully expect not to. Brandishing a gun around here is very dangerous because no one likes to have a weapon pulled on them and doing so for some silly reason would put a target on your back for retaliation from friends and family of the threatened. I'm not talking about a real need for it, I'm talking about treating the lethal weapon as some sort of leveraging device. I've seen it happen before. A guy got all mouthy years ago and pulled a gun on a neighbor. The other guys family came over and dragged him out of his house and nearly beat him to death with only the pleas of his wife to stop them. Plus, pulling a gun when you are not prepared to pull the trigger is the fastest way to be shot.

You see, I think people that would so easily pull a gun to be worse than the biggest anti gun person there is. The one has a legitimate concern that there are people that aren't worthy of their freedoms a gun and the other is the bane of all responsible gun owners. I'm from the country and I am certainly not afraid to fight. I'm actually rather good at it. But I fight the good fight and have only done so in defense. Sure I have had a problem with just walking away sometimes, but that is just my m.o. for better or for worse. Never during those altercations was the thought of deadly force entered into my mind, and they all didn't end so good. And that to me is the way a free person with such wonderful, and powerful Rights ought to be.

Cut the bravado. Be prepared. Use sound judgement. Think of the consequences. Live free.

Peace,
mo reb

[Missouri_Rebel]

All of you are responding to the story wrong as that is not what happened. The womans door was pried open with a crowbar. Once he entered their home he chased one of the 9 year old twins up the stairs where the mom and the twins retreated first to the locked bedroom and then into the locked bathroom. The criminal broke through those two doors and entered the final fall back area of a crawlspace in part of the attic. When the perp opened that door the woman opened fire. She hit him 5 times and he was still able to leave and get partially away in his SUV. The drugs he was on and the smaller caliber pistol ensured that he was still going despite the fact that he was shot several times in the face and neck.

Had there been multiple assailants, something more and more common, (google mob smash and grabs) she would have been in real trouble. Had the drugs he was on allowed him to keep coming there is no telling what he would have done to all of them. That is why people don't need the govt. dictating how many shots are available to a owner and why I am firmly against regulating it. There is a need for higher capacity magazines for self defense. As far as a locked away, trigger locked and no ammo gun? Sheesh. Why bother? I prefer a shotgun by the bed at night and a .45 under the pillow, fully loaded and one in the chamber.

Just to clarify the situation.

[2ndACR]

Oh, I am very responsible, I have had need to draw my pistol in defense. 4 nice little gang bang punks, I drew when one popped off with a "bust a cap in him". Granted 2 of the 4 had little .32 which they did not have in their hands, 1 of the 4 pissed his pants. 3 of the 4 had warrants out, 1 for rape, one for assault and burglary, and don't remember the 3rd one.

Over the years, I have learned that criminals are the ultimate cowards, gang bangers are the worse. They prey on the easy, and avoid/run from anything with teeth. No gang banger goes 1 versus 1. They go 1 versus how ever many they are. I never said I would "slay innocent people", but a thug is no innocent. I have been in more than my share of fist fights, but those were way back in the early 80's and while active duty, since the 90's, you are more apt to face a deadly weapon of some sort. The last time some dumb redneck decided to try his luck about 1 am outside a 7-11, I just announced that I was armed and he needed to go sleep it off. That stopped it right there. Mainly due to his friends. I have a concealed carry, I put that permit to use. I have gotten too old to bust knuckles with every tom dick and harry, my hands hurt and I don't heal like I used to when a youngster.

But I will meet any threat with force, up to and including deadly force. There is no such thing as a fair fight. Not outside a boxing ring maybe.

Now to Qwixt, terrorists are no more than armed thugs, they are not soldiers. I have been in fire fights with the thugs and we did not have armor, artillery or even air support. It was just 20 of us versus how ever many of them there was. And they still lost more than us. We had no KIA, but they did. I will leave that there. I have faith and belief that I never have to fear the US military, because 90% of them will refuse the order anyway. But notice that the US has never had to face a Serbia, Bosnia, Rwanda situation. And we never will due to the fact that we can fight back effectively.

[Missouri_Rebel]

Stand down soldier. I wasn't speaking of you.

[2ndACR]

My bad, read that way.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel


Just to clarify the situation.

warspite1

[:D]

[goodwoodrw]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?
[quote]ORIGINAL: BASB

Titan,
yes I am married and I have two teen aged kids, I feel very fortunate I live where I do, and raised my kids in a pretty safe environment. I'm happy with the way my government has legislated strongly against the ownership of firearms.
Just a side note, I'm not inexperienced when it comes to firearms, I once was a firearms instructor in my states prison service. As I've got older I have grown more intolerant to the use of firearms.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

<snip> how can we reduce, or even prevent, the number of times that a lunatic can grab a gun and shoot people. This is the million dollar <snip>

Perhaps this is too narrow a focus. Could we re-state this and say, "How do we stop those bent on killing, from killing?"

The "weapon" of choice of mass killing over the globe, seems to be explosives. Almost everyday we see explosives used somewhere in the area between North Africa and Pakistan, to kill multiple people. And McVeigh showed the would be's that it can be done in USA.

Perhaps we shouldn't focus on a particular weapon, but on the problem of killers (those who want to commit mass murder).

If we take away one weapon type, do you really think killers will become non-killers?

==
Also, I did some arithmetic. If the USA government(s) (feds or states together) tried to "buy" 150m weapons from us at $1,000 USD each, that would be 150b USD, which is about a quarter of the latest defense budget. From a practical perspective, I don't see that happening.

(I wish our leaders could debate this issue with as much incite and reliance on evidence - as we can - I'm still impressed !)

[wodin]

Another shooting..if this keeps happening I'm afraid the pro Gun lobby are going to have an even tougher battle. Just like here when a man went crazy and shot a few people and afterwards everyone ha dot hand in their guns.

[barkman44]

try this scenario,a man opens your front door,enters with both hands in the air and declares he's not there to hurt anyone
"I just want that big screen tv i'm not going to hurt you is that tv worth injuring me or killing me.
I'm unarmed and don't pose a threat to you so i'll just help myself and be on my way""Oh by the way you should lock your door!"
scary is'nt it

ORIGINAL: mgarnett

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

I hear what you saying....but just This Week....a mother/wife hid in a closet with her small children while a man broke in, opened the door of a closet they were hiding in and she shot him more than once. She was on the phone with her husband, and he was on the phone with the police. What would have happened if she did not have the gun.....rape, murder or maybe robbery only if she and kids were lucky. Guess who got to the closet first....not the police. That GUN saved her life and life of her children. Tell me, are you married with children?

I think you're probably right, being armed appears to have saved her more grief, but remember, you need to consider both sides. It's correct, there could have been more robbery, murder etc., but there could also have been....nothing. He could have opened the door, saw them, and hot footed it out of there and nobody gets killed. Not everybody who breaks into a house is going to kill people they find inside.

I'm not saying this is what I think would have happened, I'm just playing devils advocate.

Also, I think this is a good example of consequence, I've read some of the statistics people have found during the course of this discussion showing the frequency of violent crime in the UK is greater than that in the US. There is a footnote to the stats that I have read though, the US figures do not include minor assaults (whereas the UK ones do) and whilst you might be more likely (I don't know if this is the case if you include minor assaults in the US figures) to be a victim of violence in the UK, you are much more likely to be killed in the US. The US has, by far higher, rates of intentional death (I can't recall what exact phrase the stats use).

Cheers

Mark

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

try this scenario,a man opens your front door,enters with both hands in the air and declares he's not there to hurt anyone
"I just want that big screen tv i'm not going to hurt you is that tv worth injuring me or killing me.
I'm unarmed and don't pose a threat to you so i'll just help myself and be on my way""Oh by the way you should lock your door!"
scary is'nt it

Laws in the US vary by state, but many states have in place what is referred to as "the castle doctrine".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doc ... _positions

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] 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".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.

Florida's (my state of residence) version goes further:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 6.013.html

(1)&#8195;A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)&#8195;The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)&#8195;The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)&#8195;A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)&#8195;A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)&#8195;As used in this section, the term:
(a)&#8195;“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)&#8195;“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)&#8195;“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

The burglar in your example "unlawfully entered the premises" as they did it without permission.
(Granted it was not "forced"; perhaps a loophole for a jury to decide).

If the homeowner steps in front if the TV to prevent its theft, and the burglar pushes (forces) him out of the way with the intent of conducting an unlawful act (stealing he TV ); the the homeowner is probably (IMHO) entitled to use deadly force.

In all likelihood, a homeowner who was tried in this case for shooting the burglar would have the sympathy of the jury and a conviction would be difficult. Many prosecutors would hesitate to try this case as it would garner them a lot of negative publicity. Many/most local prosecutors in the US are elected positions, so bad publicity with the electorate is often a consideration they face when deciding to prosecute or not.

[Chijohnaok2]

If I recall, Texas goes even further.

It's my understanding that the use of deadly force is allowed to prevent burglary if on your premises, or on the premises of a neighbor.

There was a case a couple years ago where a 60somethig year old man used a firearm (a rifle I believe) to shoot several burglars who had broken into and were robbing his neighbor. In this case, the old man had 911 on the line, and announced what was going to do. I think that he gunshots were clearly audible in the background of the recording.

Also, if I recall, the burglars were career criminals with a long list of criminal activity.

[parusski]

Those who say the second amendment is about "hunting" show their ignorance of our bill of rights.

George Mason, father of the American Bill of Rights:
1. "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
2. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

Patrick Henry:
1. "The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
2. "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

And of course from the man himself--GEORGE WASHINGTON:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

Okay you people who say the founders did not intend that everyone have a gun, how the hell do you get around the above quotes???

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

I would meet any sign of violence with deadly force. Only an idiot is going to swing on me when they know I am packing a gun. I refuse to see the difference between "minor" assault and "major" assault. Most intentional deaths in the US start out with "minor" which then raises to "major" as the victim fights back. Assault is assault and will be met with the utmost of violence I can produce, which is deadly force.

The idea of proportional force is idiocy. One can never even know if the attacker wants to hit him once or beat him to death. Not to mention stuff like getting knocked down and dying from hitting pavement with head.

Or stuff like the basic right to not be assaulted.

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

Oh yeah, those greedy people and their 3 jobs. How dare them! I can see them now coming home after spending 12 or more hours at work and away from their family with their smiles and cheers of jubilation. I bet they skip up the driveway just thinking about their next long day.

If only the government would come in and give their jobs to someone less deserving. Maybe an Executive Order is needed.

More like if only people who occupy multiple work places would stop complaining that some other people don't work. And would stop painting all people who don't have jobs as ones who don't want to work when they are creating more unemployment.

Also, having a job has nothing to do with deserving it. Unless one considers doing some work before in the same field as more "deserving" than doing some other kind of work before.

[barkman44]

I agree that guy would have relinguished his health if he walked into my house in that manner.
but there are states with retreat laws also which my hypothetical guest would have resided in
.

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

try this scenario,a man opens your front door,enters with both hands in the air and declares he's not there to hurt anyone
"I just want that big screen tv i'm not going to hurt you is that tv worth injuring me or killing me.
I'm unarmed and don't pose a threat to you so i'll just help myself and be on my way""Oh by the way you should lock your door!"
scary is'nt it

Laws in the US vary by state, but many states have in place what is referred to as "the castle doctrine".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doc ... _positions

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine that designates a person's abode (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as a car or place of work) as a place in which the person has certain protections and immunities and may in certain circumstances use force, up to and including deadly force, to defend against an intruder without becoming liable to prosecution.[1] 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".[1] The doctrine is not a defined law that can be invoked, but a set of principles which is incorporated in some form in the law of most states.

Florida's (my state of residence) version goes further:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 6.013.html

(1)&#8195;A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2)&#8195;The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b)&#8195;The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3)&#8195;A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4)&#8195;A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5)&#8195;As used in this section, the term:
(a)&#8195;“Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b)&#8195;“Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c)&#8195;“Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

The burglar in your example "unlawfully entered the premises" as they did it without permission.
(Granted it was not "forced"; perhaps a loophole for a jury to decide).

If the homeowner steps in front if the TV to prevent its theft, and the burglar pushes (forces) him out of the way with the intent of conducting an unlawful act (stealing he TV ); the the homeowner is probably (IMHO) entitled to use deadly force.

In all likelihood, a homeowner who was tried in this case for shooting the burglar would have the sympathy of the jury and a conviction would be difficult. Many prosecutors would hesitate to try this case as it would garner them a lot of negative publicity. Many/most local prosecutors in the US are elected positions, so bad publicity with the electorate is often a consideration they face when deciding to prosecute or not.