Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?

Page 7 of 15 [ 233 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

07 Mar 2012, 8:19 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

People will always shoot for stupid reasons, but if they do they should go to jail rather than be freed because they "defended themselves" by shooting the suspicious Latino delivering pizza in the house next door.

I agree with your particular example.

However, here's on one my side:

I'm out for a walk in the woods. Usually it's pretty empty but sometimes I see other people. A man walking by turns out to be violent and attacks me (unlikely, but it's happened to people). Under the shoot first law, he is dead, I am safe. If I must attempt to get away or defend myself non-lethally, there is a pretty good chance that I end up beaten and bleeding in the middle of woods (which can lead to death depending on how far along the trail I am).

So without this law, my options are shoot him and go to jail for murder (for defending myself. After all, dead men tell no tales so I must be lying...) or risk ending up injured or possibly dead.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Mar 2012, 8:36 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Shooting the pizza man is about like shooting Santa Claus. Not much sympathy can be expected from any jury in the pizza eating world.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

07 Mar 2012, 9:05 pm

Quote:

Whether it's legal or not people are going to shoot each other for stupid reasons anyway.

I don't really see the issue with letting me defend myself.

What's funny is that all sorts of crime has been dropping across the US for 15+ years. Including in places with strong gun laws. Americans are safer today than they've been in many years and criminologists aren't entirely sure why. It's likely related to the fact that we lock criminals up for a long time but there are probably many factors.

But the perception people have is that they are less safe. Maybe it's tv. Maybe internet news. Maybe 9/11 + the financial crisis.

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

07 Mar 2012, 11:56 pm

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Whether it's legal or not people are going to shoot each other for stupid reasons anyway.

I don't really see the issue with letting me defend myself.

Maybe it's the fact that a higher percentage of children born since the 70's are growing up wanted.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Mar 2012, 12:33 am

simon_says wrote:

You know what else is funny? Gun ownership is up, way up, and right to carry laws have never been stronger. I'm on my mobile so I don't have the patience to dig up the stats, but I believe that though crime is down across the board including in some anti-gun areas, it's even further down in places with far more widespread ownership and carry. I'm not arguing that the guns caused the crime drop, but I'm sure as hell pointing out that record gun sales coincided with record low crime rates.

To address another poster's point, raw statistics do not tell the full tale when it comes to defensive gun use as the vast majority of incidents do not result in shots fired and go unreported. Again hobbled by my mobile, I can't link the studies right now, but statistical analysis has been done on the issue and IIRC the lowball figure is around 100,000 DGUs per year, not too shabby.

_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 1:52 am

Dox47 wrote:

simon_says wrote:

I read that gun ownership is way down as a % of the population. There are fewer hunters today and less interest on the part of kids. But gun sales are up. It's largely the same gun owners who are buying more and more guns. Just as both you and Raptor appear to own many guns. Anyway, some kind of gun consolidation has happened for those stats to make sense.

Teasing out the story hidden in those stats would take more interest than I have in the subject.

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

08 Mar 2012, 6:22 am

Um, I haven't responded to this thread in a while.

I guess I just find this whole typic very mystifying.

I mean, from what I have read there are at least 33% of US citizens who hold guns? Is this true?

If this case, then perhaps I am the crazy one, for not keeping a gun on me at all times.

I just don't get it. I am not pro-gun-regulation because I haven't seen any hard statistics so far that say gun-regulation actually decreases crime.

My bigger question is what is the fascination with violence in my country?

Anyway, I am an idiot. Take no notice of me.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2012, 10:16 am

simon_says wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

simon_says wrote:

In 2009 guns and ammo were in higher demand than the industry could support.
MANY new gun owners have been created since then. By your logic and that of a few others here the streets should be running red with blood.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 12:26 pm

There was a sales spike in 2009, probably driven by the financial crisis and possibly the crazed apocalyptic rhetoric of the NRA about what Obama was going to do. They are still saying crazy things about what he would do in a second term. They seem to exist to scare people into buying more guns.

But I havent found a survey showing gun ownership at an all time high. Ive found one where it's down 20 points per household since 1980 and a Gallup survey that has it down 7 since 1993 or so. It's true that there are fewer hunters today so if the surveys are accurate it's possible to imagine that a narrowing pool of rifle owners is masking a growth in handgun owners. But you'd still have more guns in fewer hands.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,196
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm

simon_says wrote:

The thing I was hearing from people was adding a component to ammunition to give it an expiration date, which in turn caused people apparently to run out and buy a lot of it.

_________________
“Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within. I use the word "love" here not merely in the personal sense but as a state of being, or a state of grace - not in the infantile American sense of being made happy but in the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth.” - James Baldwin

Catarina
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 25 Feb 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 42
Location: Northern Europe

08 Mar 2012, 12:48 pm

I do not have all the stats. But this is why "shoot when threatened" laws are just scary. Putting the shooter in jail won't get the mother her child back.

http://news.yahoo.com/family-florida-bo ... 37742.html

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,196
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

08 Mar 2012, 1:06 pm

Catarina wrote:

I read that story this morning, guy's an absolute nut and its a tragic loss. Sadder still, these types of people lack common sense regardless of how the laws go.

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

08 Mar 2012, 1:40 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Catarina wrote:

I read that story this morning, guy's an absolute nut and its a tragic loss. Sadder still, these types of people lack common sense regardless of how the laws go.

But the law encourages people to be active gunslingers when there are other options.

Quote:

Miami's police chief made a prediction shortly before the law took effect:

"Whether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house,'' Chief John Timoney told the New York Times, "you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used.''

Four years later, Billy Kuch got drunk, so drunk that at 5 a.m. one day he stumbled to the door of the wrong house in a look-alike neighborhood and tried to open it, twice.

Before the "stand your ground" law, homeowner Gregory Stewart would have been expected to hunker down in his Land O'Lakes residence, dead-bolt secure, and call police.

With the law in place, he could use deadly force anywhere he had a right to be, provided he felt threatened with death or great bodily harm. He had no duty to retreat from danger.

Stewart left his wife inside with their baby and stepped outside, gun in hand.

Kuch put his hands up and asked for a light.

"Please don't make me shoot you," Stewart said.

Kuch, then 23, says he might have stumbled. Stewart, then 32, told police the unarmed man took three steps forward.

The bullet ripped into Kuch's chest, nicked his heart, shot through his liver, in and out of his stomach, through his spleen, then out his back. He felt like his body was on fire.

Stewart, when questioned by deputies, began to cry. "I could have given him a light," he said.

The days ticked by, Kuch in a coma as his parents waited for word of a trial. And waited. After two months, the Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's Office decided the shooting was justified and dropped the aggravated battery charge.

Kuch's parents couldn't believe it.

"We're not against gun ownership," said Bill Kuch, 57 and retired from IBM. "But we're against this law that provides someone the right to kill you without prosecution."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... 128317.ece

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Mar 2012, 2:22 pm

If my neighbors were to patrol the streets with loaded guns, I would never leave the house again (even though I share their skin color).

But I've given up on this argument. Sensible gun control laws are never going to happen in the USA. The government might as well try to take people's Bibles or Big Macs away. If US citizens agree that the right to bear arms is worth the lives of approx. 10,000 people per year -- I'm not counting the suicides, because that is a perfectly valid use of firearms imho -- who am I to say otherwise. I'm just glad that I live in a country where the likelihood of being shot in the streets is near zero.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 2:25 pm

I'm a bit late coming to this discussion, but the way I see it, if the person had the ability, opportunity, and intent to harm and/or kill you and you had no means of escape, the use of lethal force is perfectly justified. When any one of those elements are missing, using force tends to work against you. Also, punishing someone for protecting themselves makes no sense from a moral or philosphical perspective, especially when law enforcement may take an eternity to reach you.

More importantly, if you aren't comfortable with the thought of owning any kind of weapon, don't own one and don't deprive responsible individuals of their civil right to protect their lives and dignity.

The end.

CoMF
Deinonychus

Joined: 7 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 328

08 Mar 2012, 2:28 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:

Sensible gun control laws are never going to happen in the USA..

Define "sensible." Then introduce me to two people who share identical and coherent definitions of it.

Of course, that whole "slippery slope" thing rears it head at some point as well.

Page 7 of 15 [ 233 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15 Next

Jump to:

Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong? Post Reply New Topic

Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?