Shoot first law: What could possibly go wrong?
CrazyCatLord wrote:
I also don't see that traditional victim groups would be more at risk in Germany, seeing that we have lower numbers of violent crime and sexual assault than the USA. It appears that guns aren't such a great equalizer after all. They can empower both victims and criminals, and the latter are far more likely to (a) carry a gun, and (b) pull a gun on someone else. It is in the nature of assault crimes, armed robbery, home invasions etc. that the perpetrator pulls his gun before the victim does. So if anything, a greater availability of guns makes these situations far more dangerous and deadly for the victims, especially for armed victims who unsuccessfully try to fight back.
Different country, different culture. We DO have a crime problem in the US. We DO have human predators in the US. Do you suppose all this will just magically go away if we melt down our guns?
I've also seen a video (see below) where a traffic cop threatens to shoot a man in the head after he informs the officer that he's legally carrying a gun. This shows that even a situation as harmless as a cop issuing a speeding ticket is likely to escalate in a bloodbath if guns are involved. I wouldn't want to live in a place where I have to be afraid of the police simply because they have a reason to be afraid of civilians.
You’d think I would have experienced this phenomenon first hand since I’ve been pulled over and informed the officer that I had a loaded weapon on board. They’ve either nodded their understanding of the situation (not that it is a situation) or just shrugged. The last time I didn’t even bother to tell them.
In addition to that, I’m a volunteer range safety officer (RSO) at the shooting range here. We have LE agencies from this county, the state, and even federal come to train and conduct drills on our facilities sometimes. I’ve interfaced with several of them while I was wearing a pistol and at most all I’ve gotten from any of them, if anything, is s casual “which model is your Glock?” or “how do you like that holster?”.
An isolated case here and there of a cop (who was probably a nut anyway) doesn’t mean that it’s standard practice to go off like that on a citizen with a gun.
That’s because, like in the US, schools are gun free zones. Officially making an area a gun free zone is un-officially making it a free fire zone for any would be gunman to operate un-opposed.
Sure, the cops show up after it’s all over and draw lines around the fallen bodies and go look for the guy after he’s gone. Usually they find him but that doesn't bring back his victims. That or they hang out a safe distance away all dressed up in their SWAT costumes and “assess the situation” until the shooter conveniently runs out of ammo or shoots himself. THEN of course they charge in and rough up the survivors.
Really great protection there..............
Guns have already been invented and are woven deeply into our society so they can’t very well be de-invented. Banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. As far as guns in the hands of citizens preventing violent crime it happens all the time in the US, probably even in Deutschland once in a while….
I can find you volumes of cases where armed citizens have successfully thwarted attacks in this country.
Now come back with something else, no matter how weak, just to have it shredded by us.
Oodain wrote:
So all those Swiss Army reservists are criminals is what you’re saying?
Whatever………
Tadzio
It is unfortunate that you also construe so many things you fail to understand as necessitating your interpretation of the existence of a present insult , as so many faulty interpretations of "imminent danger" start with such a singular presumptive error in judgement.
Whatever......
In your case you don’t state something and reference, it you pretty much just reference it and expect us to go find out what you are trying to say. Just spit it out because I don’t have the inclination to interpret meaning out of all that gibberish.
"Castle Domain" has officially contracted "Dirty Harry-itis", as least on Wikipedia for now (March 03, 2012):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
The Ngram Viewer reveals the doctrine as having the characteristics of an attempted pseudo-"WMD" exploitational fad, again corrupting history:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... moothing=3
"Castle Domain" notably mentioned in 1892 to 1926, then absent from 1927 to 1965, then from 1965 to 1985 fluctuations, with jerky explosions into 2008 (a 22-fold increase from 1965 to the present).
"Castle Domain" used to mean restrictions on unwarranted police entry:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... s+beard%22
"The Albany law journal: a monthly record of the law and the lawyers, Volume 45" (1892), page 408.
Then it, the Supreme Court clarified the then labeled "Castle" doctrine:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... an+said%22
"The central law journal, Volume 48" (1899), page 8, case at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=550
While remaining the "Castle" doctrine, the law was stretched for bananas, to more nullify "the doctrine of retreat":
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +Banana%22
The Bananas still not subject to Feminism's exceptions:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c ... +as+BWS%22
(she can't defend the castle--or herself in her own home (no castle for any hers!! !))
Then, somehow, (maybe like wheel-chair ramps for porker Hog's Breath cafe's exceptions to ADA for stars), back to total Dirty Harry Land in the USA at wikki.
Tadzio
I also don't see that traditional victim groups would be more at risk in Germany, seeing that we have lower numbers of violent crime and sexual assault than the USA. It appears that guns aren't such a great equalizer after all. They can empower both victims and criminals, and the latter are far more likely to (a) carry a gun, and (b) pull a gun on someone else. It is in the nature of assault crimes, armed robbery, home invasions etc. that the perpetrator pulls his gun before the victim does. So if anything, a greater availability of guns makes these situations far more dangerous and deadly for the victims, especially for armed victims who unsuccessfully try to fight back.
Different country, different culture. We DO have a crime problem in the US. We DO have human predators in the US. Do you suppose all this will just magically go away if we melt down our guns?
I've also seen a video (see below) where a traffic cop threatens to shoot a man in the head after he informs the officer that he's legally carrying a gun. This shows that even a situation as harmless as a cop issuing a speeding ticket is likely to escalate in a bloodbath if guns are involved. I wouldn't want to live in a place where I have to be afraid of the police simply because they have a reason to be afraid of civilians.
You’d think I would have experienced this phenomenon first hand since I’ve been pulled over and informed the officer that I had a loaded weapon on board. They’ve either nodded their understanding of the situation (not that it is a situation) or just shrugged. The last time I didn’t even bother to tell them.
In addition to that, I’m a volunteer range safety officer (RSO) at the shooting range here. We have LE agencies from this county, the state, and even federal come to train and conduct drills on our facilities sometimes. I’ve interfaced with several of them while I was wearing a pistol and at most all I’ve gotten from any of them, if anything, is s casual “which model is your Glock?” or “how do you like that holster?”.
An isolated case here and there of a cop (who was probably a nut anyway) doesn’t mean that it’s standard practice to go off like that on a citizen with a gun.
That’s because, like in the US, schools are gun free zones. Officially making an area a gun free zone is un-officially making it a free fire zone for any would be gunman to operate un-opposed.
Sure, the cops show up after it’s all over and draw lines around the fallen bodies and go look for the guy after he’s gone. Usually they find him but that doesn't bring back his victims. That or they hang out a safe distance away all dressed up in their SWAT costumes and “assess the situation” until the shooter conveniently runs out of ammo or shoots himself. THEN of course they charge in and rough up the survivors.
Really great protection there..............
Guns have already been invented and are woven deeply into our society so they can’t very well be de-invented. Banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. As far as guns in the hands of citizens preventing violent crime it happens all the time in the US, probably even in Deutschland once in a while….
I can find you volumes of cases where armed citizens have successfully thwarted attacks in this country.
Now come back with something else, no matter how weak, just to have it shredded by us.
Oodain wrote:
So all those Swiss Army reservists are criminals is what you’re saying?
Whatever………
Tadzio
It is unfortunate that you also construe so many things you fail to understand as necessitating your interpretation of the existence of a present insult , as so many faulty interpretations of "imminent danger" start with such a singular presumptive error in judgement.
Whatever......
In your case you don’t state something and reference, it you pretty much just reference it and expect us to go find out what you are trying to say. Just spit it out because I don’t have the inclination to interpret meaning out of all that gibberish.
Hi Raptor,
Many showings of the 2011 movie "Beautiful Boy" have very recently been canceled. Rhetorically, I wonder why?
Raptor said: "My state has had the same castle doctrine policy for a few years now and last time I checked the streets weren't running red with blood.
About the only places where the streets even come close to running red with blood are the states and cities that forbid it's citizens from defending themselves. Go figure.............."
Where can I find the records verifying your reports of "streets......running red with blood" levels? Which year were your State's "Castle Doctrine Policy" instituted, or officially recognized in your State Courts? What did your State do with the "Doctrine of Retreat"? How do citizen armed defenders recognize other actively engaged citizen armed defenders against the "criminal citizen/otherwise armed and dangerous"?
Which is your gibberish, and which is your balderdash? Do you know what Occult Hemophilia is to Dracula?
Tadzio
I also don't see that traditional victim groups would be more at risk in Germany, seeing that we have lower numbers of violent crime and sexual assault than the USA. It appears that guns aren't such a great equalizer after all. They can empower both victims and criminals, and the latter are far more likely to (a) carry a gun, and (b) pull a gun on someone else. It is in the nature of assault crimes, armed robbery, home invasions etc. that the perpetrator pulls his gun before the victim does. So if anything, a greater availability of guns makes these situations far more dangerous and deadly for the victims, especially for armed victims who unsuccessfully try to fight back.
Different country, different culture. We DO have a crime problem in the US. We DO have human predators in the US. Do you suppose all this will just magically go away if we melt down our guns?
Considering that it's a bit of a challenge to rob a liquor store with a knife or a club, it stands to reason that taking guns out of the equation prevents a great number of crimes. Less poverty and a greater level of social equality (which is the main cultural difference between the USA and Germany) would help as well.
That’s because, like in the US, schools are gun free zones. Officially making an area a gun free zone is un-officially making it a free fire zone for any would be gunman to operate un-opposed.
Sure, the cops show up after it’s all over and draw lines around the fallen bodies and go look for the guy after he’s gone. Usually they find him but that doesn't bring back his victims. That or they hang out a safe distance away all dressed up in their SWAT costumes and “assess the situation” until the shooter conveniently runs out of ammo or shoots himself. THEN of course they charge in and rough up the survivors.
Really great protection there..............
Guns have already been invented and are woven deeply into our society so they can’t very well be de-invented. Banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. As far as guns in the hands of citizens preventing violent crime it happens all the time in the US, probably even in Deutschland once in a while….
I can find you volumes of cases where armed citizens have successfully thwarted attacks in this country.
Now come back with something else, no matter how weak, just to have it shredded by us.
After learning that our school shootings were caused by legal gun ownership, your solution to the problem is even more civilian gun ownership? Arm the teachers so that they can have a shoot-out with the students? Yeah, you totally shredded my argument
We didn't de-invent guns either, we simply tightly regulated gun ownership. And for some reason, there isn't much in terms of a black market. People don't have to fear for their lives in a widely gun-free society, and as a result they don't feel the need to own a gun themselves. Without sufficient demand, gun smuggling and illegal weapon sales simply aren't worth the risk, which means that wannabe-criminals also have a hard time obtaining guns.
Btw, you could use the same argument in defense of human trafficking. Like you said, banning creates an instant black market and all the issues that come with a black market. I guess it should be legalized then.
It's seems the U.S is still dominated by the "Wild Bill Doctrine" that consists of "If anyone has a gun, everyone else having one means they can shoot the threat" completely neglecting such things as bystanders caught in the crossfire, misses, bullets going through a target and confusion.
Can't we agree on a few things:
- Felons should not be allowed to obtain guns legally.
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a psychological evaluation.
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to demonstrate a need to own one.
- In order to purchase a firearm, you have to have a clean rap-sheet.
Furthermore:
- No civilian should be permitted to own fully automatic weapons such as assault rifles.
- No civilian should be permitted to own more firearms than he or she can give grounds for owning. For instance, if you are a sport shooter with pistols, hunt deer and hunt various birds, I can see why you need a couple of handguns, a rifle and a shotgun, I can't see why you need to own 10 of each. Are these zombies you are firing at?
I'm as much of a fan of the constitution as anyone else, but if you insist on the right to bear arms, it should be a musket from 1776, not a Glock with an extended clip and expanding bullets.
That is isolation.
"Self defense" would be an adequately stated need, as would hunting, sport shooting and similar reasons. I'd settle for "Have to have undergone training in the use and maintenance of a firearm" instead of the demonstrating need.
On the crimes issue, any violent crime should disqualify you, as you've already demonstrated an ability to inflict violence on another person, enabling you to do that more effectively next time is a dodgy policy.
No civilian should be allowed to own an automatic weapon ever, there is no need that can be claimed which justifies putting weapons of such power in the hands of a civilian. Semi-auto with a 30 round magazine is fine with me, but no automatic weapons. The only thing that would make me inclined to change my mind was if there was a much stricter gun control law dealing with automatic weapons, including them having to be locked up when not in use, a singled contract between the owner and the authorities that gave them permission to search the owners house when they desire to and a very strict limit on the amount of ammunition that could be kept for such weapons.
What is really needed is for the "John Wayne wannabees" to realize that nobody needs to own more than 5 guns at a time. What is it that needs to be compensated for that requires having an arsenal in your house? Firearms are dangerous weapons and its better to limit their availability, not because the owners themselves may do something destructive, but because a criminal or 10 robbing a house with 30+ guns and several thousand rounds of ammo that are not kept locked up is a risk to society.
There was a guy on "Doomsday Preppers" with a gun safe holding 60 guns. In each episode a person is clinging to a specific fantasy of how the world will end. It's not just "something might happen and civilization will end". It's more like, "the government will become totalitarian, and then the food trucks will stop". Sometimes it doesnt even make sense as a scenario. But they don't always have guns.
When it comes to owning large numbers of guns, I wonder what the divide is between collectors and survivalist scenario fans.
I’ll just hit on a few of these. Call it a copout or whatever but I have other things on my to-do list today.....
Tadzio wrote:
The thing about the “streets running red with blood” is an anti-gun crowd expression intended to evoke emotion. Every time some piece of gun control legislation is defeated, an existing gun law rescinded, etc… they say the streets will run red with blood. It doesn’t pan out that way and the anti-gun crowd loses credibility.
Look up the source of all this by yourself. No matter what I find you’ll label it as being from a right wing source and no matter what you find I’ll label it as a left wing source.
CrazyCatLord,
Well, I said I’d shred anything you'd come back with but you’ve robbed me of the pleasure by shredding yourself to oblivion.
You totally turn logic 180 degrees with your replies. Apparently you don’t know the part of our constitution that addresses specific rights of citizens. Oh well, you don’t live here so I wouldn’t expect it.
In THIS country gun ownership has soared in the past few years and they know why they have them. It’s going to be a long time before anyone can soften their stance. We’re not exactly an obedient people, either.
In addition to all that, you seem to believe that the best defense against a deadly threat is to cower and kindly await your fate.
This is called the sheep mindset and I’m glad that I'm not afflicted with it.
Whatever; someone else can have a go at you if they feel like wasting their time….
TM wrote:
1. You can only legally fire on a threat of death (like a deadly weapon being brandished against you) or maybe severe injury from assault; the former being easier to justify than the latter for the obvious reasons.
2. Anyone that discharges a firearm in self-defense (or anything else) is criminally and civilly responsible for the path and final destination of each and every projectile they launch, PERIOD!
I doubt it but let's address each...
It IS illegal for a felon to obtain a firearm in the United States. It was illegal for them to do whatever they did to become felons, too, but they apparently did it anyway.
Absolute NO on those two. This is a clear infringement and on top of that both are subjective no matter how they are written.
That’s at least pretty much in effect with NICS as it stands. Each transfer from a dealer has to clear this at the expense of the buyer, even if the purchase is not approved.
- No civilian should be permitted to own fully automatic weapons such as assault rifles.
Do you know what an “assault rifle” is by definition? An assault rifle has full auto capability in addition to other criteria. An AR-15 or the AK pattern carbines and rifles commonly found in any gun shop are not full auto capable and therefor not true assault rifles by definition, period.
Weapons with full auto capability have been federally regulated since 1934, further regulated in 1968, and more still in 1986. Some individual states have added further restrictions. Legislation has pretty much priced them into extinction except for those that have had them for a long time or have money to burn. The ones that end up used in crime are illegally procured or converted from semi-auto weapons.
I’ve already addressed this above since it deals with the “need to own” thing.
By that you’re saying that the constitution had a limited life and expired a few hundred years ago on ALL accounts.
As I’ve stated before in this thread; what you do by disabling citizen's rights and responsibilities to self defense is to enable the predators of society to operate with less opposition.
You are, in a sense, partnered with THEM.
Reindeer wrote:
Who stated that you can or should shoot people for trespassing? Use of deadly force requires a lot more justification than that; both in a criminal and civil sense.
Breaking into someone’s dwelling is usually considered a higher threat than just coming on to someone’s property but even then there are legal limitations.
Isolation is a personal choice aside from deadly force. If someone wants to be isolated in their own home or on their own property that is at their discretion, not yours….
Hi LiberalJustice,
Your first paragraph sounded like Heston's touting an extra commandment for the NRA, then your last sentence sounds like you hold that Moses failed and that all gun-toting people are asses.
Are you trying for the old adage of "Never try to teach a pig to sing, as it annoys the pig, and it is a waste of your time?" But, that adage is true in all languages, and is not limited to just the English Language.
As many here should remember, God did give the power of speech for a special time for Balaam's Ass, but nothing said about expanded Castle Domain firearms invented thousands of years later.
Tadzio
That was an analogy. What I meant was that it is useless to teach a donkey (AKA an ass) to speak English because it will never learn, let alone benefit from it, in the same way that it is useless to take away the Constitutional rights of the American people.
_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.
There was a guy on "Doomsday Preppers" with a gun safe holding 60 guns. In each episode a person is clinging to a specific fantasy of how the world will end. It's not just "something might happen and civilization will end". It's more like, "the government will become totalitarian, and then the food trucks will stop". Sometimes it doesnt even make sense as a scenario. But they don't always have guns.
For starters it wasn’t very wise of the "prepper" to give a quantitative figure on how many weapons he owns or his other assets. By this it looks like they found someone at the shallowest end of the gene pool that also happens to be a prepper. The prepper school of thought covers a wide spectrum.
Unless your head is buried really deep in the sand it doesn’t take much fact based imagination to see what a precarious situation civilization or even the word is in. This could even be a local issue in the aftermath of natural disaster like what we had with hurricane Katrina as just one example. There were a lot of people up sh*t creek without a paddle all the sudden in New Orleans.
I can go over and over events just in the US where there has been at least a temporary loss of services and breakdown of rule of law so this isn’t about fantasy or paranoia.
The goal of the prepper is to survive or be better prepared to survive. True, some of them go too far at the expense of living a normal life in the present but that’s just the way of human nature.
Also, the type of prepper that eagerly desires a breakdown of society isn’t the kind of person I want anywhere near me. It is apparent that they are dangerously out of touch with reality and a potential liability in the event of an actual catastrophe. However, they are just part of the world we live in and we can’t sort them out from the rest.
Am I a prepper?
To some extent, yes. I do take some steps of preparation in the potential event of suspension of services and/or temporary breakdown of rule of law.
If you keep even a small stash of “just in case” items like canned food or MRE’s, drinking water, extra batteries, a generator and fuel, candles, camp stove, etc… then you are a prepper, too.
It’s obvious that making no preparations at all for “just in case” that if or when “just in case” does come you’ll only add to the burden of relief efforts and slow overall recovery. Everyone should be a prepper to some extent or another BUT as long as we live in a FREE society it can’t really be mandated.
By comparison, we wear our seatbelts in case we are in an accident, not because we want to have one.
Same logic applies but on a different scale.
There really is no divide nor should there be. You can be both a collector and a prepper or whatever….
Like I said, both would help. Fighting poverty and social injustice prevents violent crimes that are caused by economic desperation. Whereas taking guns out of the hands of civilians prevents people from shooting their spouse in the heat of the moment over a domestic disagreement. It also prevents antisocial kids from taking their father's .45 to school and shooting their math teacher. Not all crime is caused by poverty.
I think I already explained that in relation to German school shootings.
No one except the police. Of course they're likely not around when I'm being robbed in some dark alley, but I'd rather hand over my wallet than take the chance to draw a gun on a criminal who is also pointing a gun at me. Chances are that he'll shoot first.
Btw, I've never been robbed, burglarized or assaulted in Germany. The only time I've been robbed was in the streets of Amsterdam, where I suddenly had a knife at my throat. I doubt that a gun would have done me much good in that situation. But handing my wallet over did the trick. Perhaps I'm just a spineless idealist, but I believe that most conflicts can be solved without violence. If I lose some money in the process, that is a better outcome than getting myself injured or killed, and/or injuring or killing another person.
Obtained illegaly as in stolen from someone's nightstand. With a gun in every other household, it's quite easy for criminals to obtain one.
Crooks also have less use for guns in a widely gun-free country. Someone who plans to break into a house with a potentially armed owner badly needs a gun himself. Moreover, he will be very much inclined to shoot the house owner on sight. A German burglar might as well take his chances and run when he's caught in the act. This admittedly makes it harder for people to defend their property, but they're also less likely to get shot by a scared and desperate criminal. And also less likely to shoot some misguided teenager, I might add.
When it comes to drugs, it clearly doesn't work. People aren't addicted to guns though. Gun prohibition seems to work a whole lot better than drug prohibition. And even if that wasn't the case, the fact that law enforcement is not 100% effective in preventing crime doesn't mean that we should simply give up and decriminalize everything.
I'm against drug prohibition for different reasons though. The government has no business dictating what I may ingest or otherwise inject into my body. It won't harm anyone but myself.
Good point. "Arms" is a very broad term that includes chemical, biological and nuclear arms. And you may not only own them but also bear them according to the Second Amendment. Are US citizens allowed to bear explosives when boarding a plane? Are they allowed to walk the streets with a fully virulent petri dish culture of anthrax bacilli or with a flamethrower? Is it legal to drive around with a canister of nerve gas or a small nuclear warhead on the back of of one's truck?
I somehow can't imagine that. I believe if someone were to exercise his right to bear arms in this way, he would be treated as a terrorist. The government infringes quite a bit on people's alleged right to bear deadly arms that the founding fathers would never have dreamed of. So why allow other modern weaponry? It doesn't make any sense.
Besides, where is the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment? Are gun owners a part of such a militia? Is it well regulated? Is there really any chance that the British red coats will be coming back for seconds anytime soon, and isn't the bloated US military capable of handling this hypothetical threat?
Good point. "Arms" is a very broad term that includes chemical, biological and nuclear arms. And you may not only own them but also bear them according to the Second Amendment. Are US citizens allowed to bear explosives when boarding a plane? Are they allowed to walk the streets with a fully virulent petri dish culture of anthrax bacilli or with a flamethrower? Is it legal to drive around with a canister of nerve gas or a small nuclear warhead on the back of of one's truck?
I somehow can't imagine that. I believe if someone were to exercise his right to bear arms in this way, he would be treated as a terrorist. The government infringes quite a bit on people's alleged right to bear deadly arms that the founding fathers would never have dreamed of. So why allow other modern weaponry? It doesn't make any sense.
Besides, where is the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment? Are gun owners a part of such a militia? Is it well regulated? Is there really any chance that the British red coats will be coming back for seconds anytime soon, and isn't the bloated US military capable of handling this hypothetical threat?
Yeah, there will always be an arbitrary line drawn somewhere and the arguments over where to draw that line will never end because technology advances. Even the most conservative justice on the SC, Scalia, says that the 2cd amendment is not without limits.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
something wrong |
17 Mar 2024, 8:04 pm |
Would I be wrong to do this? |
21 Feb 2024, 5:40 am |
Something Wrong With my Cat |
04 Feb 2024, 9:32 pm |
What's wrong with doing things later ? |
13 Mar 2024, 7:12 am |