yea that`s funny:).

A wiki link about legislation with references is a valid way to quickly educate someone on the concept of a doctrine. Go fluff your mother troll. I am on an iPod, you want me to write an essay with MLA sources?

"However you don`t have the rights "over" thiefs life in the moment he entered your "sanctuary"."

i guess you won't find out, wiki link and all, but it kind of does :(

Mrford do you understand that i do not live in US and i do not consider US law above any other laws ? In consequence i am not back-concession if i don`t know your law.

And stop bossing around too. Is not like you own the absolute true.

Do you also understand that this thread contains various points of views about weapons, law, fluffcetera ? and you should just stop insulting folks around

If not ... you should not start a debat over things.

Wow dude, you said you did not know US law, and then made a incorrect statment about it. K posted a link containing the various states castle doctrine laws so you could read it and then realize your mistake.

I did not in any way say that the US is right and you are wrong, nor anything about the absolute truth.


You said

"I don`t know the law is US but i do know that the law is diffrent from state to state. However you don`t have the rights "over" thiefs life in the moment he entered your "sanctuary"."

I posted a link refuting this. That simple, back the fluff off and read my posts again before you come after ms making yourself look like an idiot.

You have anger management problems ... and most prolly mental ones too.

IF it was by me i would never give you access to a watter-pistol but in USA you do own 8 guns and applied for "tanks" or something.

that sentence up there is my own belief. i do not need wiki-laws to change my beliefs.

And stop acting like this thread is only about your law. When you post around "fluff" like that expect a lot of point of views.

I don't click wiki links, I automatically assume they are not a good source of info. Also maybe you should spend less money on guns and buy a computer, lots of iPod references in this thread. That's no longer an excuse for your lack of abilities.

You know nothing about me. Pretending to is very entertaining though so please keep it up. I never said anything about this thread being about my law. You made a statment I made a rebuttal. Your statment that was worded poorly leading me and atleast one other person to misunderstand you.

Your English is pretty terrible so that is probably contributing to this misunderstanding, so I am just going to stop responding to you. After all, I am a mentally ill angry person right? With tanks and rockets? Lol poor English or not you are entertaining.

I will be back later, you see every sunday me and my other mentally ill friends take my boat and guns out in the ocean and shoot at floating targets. I will shoot a few rounds for you.

You havnt made an on topic post in this thread in quite a while, if ever. There are plenty of evo vs laf threads for you to go troll. You will forgive me if I ignore you from now on in this one, your trolling isn't as entertainig as I had hoped.

Why do you feel the need to inform the virtual "world" about you weapons collection, shooting floating targets - fluffcetera ?


English is my 3rd language - how many do you speak ?

bonus

Very nice.

why is it that mrford has to stop insulting people? i think he should be allowed to insult people and drive them into a mad anger induced frenzy that will result in their head popping straight off of their necks. course, they wouldn't be people if that happened, because people are technically rational and are able to control their emotions.

Stick and Stones May Break My Bones,
But Words Will Never Hurt Me.

oh, btw, i have booze. :-P let the name calling begin... oh wait, y'all started without me...

this has not been brought up, but Ford has yet to specify how drunk he was when he got stabbed. IF you had a gun Ford, how fast could your drunk self pull it out, and accurate would your shot have been?

Could you of held it steady, or just start shooting in what your think was those assholes direction?

If you are drunk, your senses are not all there, if you did shoot, you could of vary easily of shoot someone innocent, or your gf. Depending on your inebriated state, they managed to knock the gun away from you, then they have the gun instead of a knife.

And I don't get why everyone has to brag about guns. What is the point of getting more and more and more powerful guns? The more powerful the gun, the far less useful it is for hunting, if you are hunting, you are hunting, not to blow the animal to bits

BTW criminals are not rational, they will shoot you before you shoot them if they have any hit that you have a gun, they are already coming at you with theirs out, while yours is in a holster.

BTW also you need to read up on American laws on meeting force with force, if someone comes at you with just firsts and you shoot and kill them, you just got yourself a lengthily jail sentence either for homicide or 2nd degree murder.

You have to have a reasonably high expectation that your life is endangered to use deathly force. You can't just shoot someone.

I believe American Society has to many guns, and our craving for more guns and much more powerful guns are going to create problems down the road. What do you do with a society so heavily armed, that it could, at a whim, take down its own military? Yes this is not practical now, but could it be in the future?

Just my 2 cents and my views are my views, sorry they are different from you, but if everyone was the same, this would would be a very boring place

I'm thinking, if everyone carried a gun of sorts, even a small bb shooting gun, Criminals would be less likely to do Criminal things, that said, you shouldn't let just anyone have a gun, zealous people abound will take to doing stupid stuff like taking the law into their own hands...

but how many people will try and rob a place if everyone in there is packing... probly will be a 0% chance to be robbed..

if a person is brave enough to enter a house, they aren't just gonna be without a weapon.. speacially in rough neighborhoods...

Background checks on everyone who wants to get a gun are a must... I believe Guns should have designated shopping areas... and not be in every Walmart.

Someone brought up the castle doctrine in regards to beating your wife etc.... I just want to point out that the castle doctrine does not apply to people who are allowed to be in the castle. For instance you cannot invite someone onto your property and then kill them because it is "your castle".

this is why in (i assume) all states you need to prove to a jury that you were justified in use of deadly force, even in cases of self defense.

like angel said, its not a counter crime, its self defense. i dont know about you but id rather not wait to see if said burglar has any intentions of causing me or my family harm. you can feel free to confront him and see if he is planning to do so, i will not. i will certainly not allow him to take my property.

to be fair i wont pretend to be billy badass. in the event of a home invasion i would likely take the burglar on by surprise (if possible and give him a split second to surrender (at gun point of course, great persausion) if i feel at any time that they arent going to do so then i will use whatever amount of force i feel is necessary to neutralize that situation. if they have a gun there will be no hesitation on my part.

Solid post. You raise some good pouts reasonably.

First off, I was not drunk, I was going to be driving so I had only consumed a few beers (3-4) in the hours I was at the club. However, this is NC concealed carry rules in regard to drinking

"Alcohol and Drugs:
It is unlawful to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol or at any time while the person has remaining in his body any alcohol or in his blood a controlled substance previously consumed. (There is an exception if the controlled substance was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts.)"

http://www.usacarry.com/...y_permit_information.html

So I knew I was going to have a beer or two, so the gun was left at home. I assure you I was more than capable of making a decision, drawing, and accurately firing.


As for more and more guns, I have already stated before. 2 specifically for defense, 3 for hunting, and he rest are just for fun. Shooting is a sport for me, just like racing cars may be to the next guy. It is a dun distraction, it is something I enjoy doing with my family and friends, and it is very relaxing. I am not a doomsday prepper. I would like my class 3 somindont have to go to a range to shoot automatics, I can take them out on my own and shoot them.

I understand that many people do not feel the same about guns as I do, but don't be ignorant and biased about them. Not everyone that owns multiple guns is a Rambo that might snapmand shoot up a school at any time. It's a sport, a passion, a hobby, to many. Nothing else.


Surely you can respect that. And since I am educated, responsible, and respectful about my gun ownership, I pose no more a threat to anyone else than if I didn't own any firearms. That is unless you have intentions of harming menkf my family.

THEY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE TO GIVE HER CANDY AND SHE SHOT (ONE OF THEM) THEM IN THE BACK

lame

they were actuality used pot(marijuana) salesmen who were just too stoned to take No for an answer.

Why own a gun? DOOM clearly showed you just need a chainsaw...

meh, i got more use out of the shotgun. but it probably has something to do with me having some kinda freaky kind of control over the mouse that let's me actually aim instead of letting them get close enough to gouge me.

Only bothered to read the first sentence but you were already thinking in black and white. His beliefs might not work well for you in the United Guns of America but it works just fine elsewhere. I have never committed a crime just like him and have also never had the desire or need to murder someone(whether or not they robbed something).

As a rebuttal to some of the early postings: Everyone's getting on NukEvil for posting that the story was false.

In ford's original post, it states: "Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news?"

I'm not commenting on the gun control/illegal immigration aspect of this, but whoever the original creator of this message was clearly was making a statement about the evils of the liberal media and how they clearly choose not to report any news that doesn't fit their narrative.

Or perhaps they don't report fiction.

Oh, and just because I'm a grammar nazi and feel the need to be a jackass, the verb form of burglary is to burgle.

Locket, I don't pretend to know what will and will not or does and does not work in other countries. I expect that it would be relatively easy to ban guns if the government has kept a relatively short leash on who could own guns for a long time. I also expect that relatively confined nations could more easily remove guns from its populace than a relatively dispersed nation. I cannot speak for the guns laws of other countries, but self-defense is universal.

It is a human right, at the very least, to defend yourself and your family from harm. Any laws that outright ban this effort, are clearly contrary to humanity itself. It is only during the commission of a crime that people have the right to defend themselves against the crime. After the crime is committed, attacking the perpetrator becomes revenge. It is only in the moment when you must decide between your life and a criminal's life that you have the right to use force sufficient to end the threat. If during that moment, you stab a burglar in the leg and that ends the threat, then your defense is done; if it kills the burglar, then that's on the burglar's own head.

Canada is dispersed and it works well there but yah I never said someone doesn't have the right to defend themself. Some things go far beyond what is needed though. But meh Ill drop this topic :P

People who think that average citizens should be able to take the time to calmly work out that the criminals where pepper-spraying him to 'reduce the level of violence' are idiots who have never been in a stressful life/death situation.

First, it is a long-standing point of common law that if something bad happens during the commission of a crime the fault is - legally and morally - on the criminal. Not on any innocent person who is forced to take action because of the criminal acts.

Second, when all the chips are on the table the stakes are too high to ponder what is exactly the right level of force to use. Even trained, professional military who - while on peacekeeping missions - are given extensive training on 'escalation of force' are given wide legal (and moral) discretion when their life is threatened <i> or they feel their life is threatened</i>. Dont judge someone with 20/20 hindsight if you were not there, being woken up by obvious criminals in your own home, in fear for your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Here in aus, it's damn hard to get a gun, unless you are a farmer, and even THEN it's bloody hard. Further, you must get a licence for each gun you own, so each weapon is induvidually registered to its owner, working or not.
However, we DO have decent home invasion laws. If someone breaks into your house, you have the LEGAL RIGHT to use WHATEVER FORCE that YOU BELIEVE NECCESSARY at the time. That means, if you hear someone breaking in, and you think your life, or that of your wife/husband/kids is in danger, then you are LEGALLY allowed to kill that motherfluffer right there. I keep a pair of pool cues, and various pointy objects all relatively easy to hand and yet innocuously stashed around the house. I also have security screens on all my windows/doors, so if someone IS coming in, they're damn determned, and they're coming to a bad end.

See, now that's a perfectly reasonable response to all this. Telling people the way it is in Australia with regard to guns, but not judging the US for allowing guns as much as we do.

Also very reasonable laws protecting the most basic human right to self-defense. It's not about just killing burglars or other criminals, it's about using the force necessary to protect yourself and your family from unlawful assault. It's about holding the individual who initiated the unlawful conduct responsible for the consequences of that conduct. People have a right to life, but once they take criminal actions against another person, that other persons equal right to life takes precedence (hence self-defense being a human right).

Let's say a bank robber decides to run out of a stand off with police guns blazing, it's not murder when those police kill him (it's suicide by cop). Given the nature of that event, an individual citizen cannot just decide to take a shot at the robber without having been approved to help the police. In most cases, once the police arrive on the scene, individual citizens must stand down and allow the police to do their jobs (most, not all cases).

An individual must be able to take reasonable actions to end a threat against their persons or their family or even just a stranger in the street if the police are absent from the scene. This is up to and including killing the offender if necessary. Here in Tennessee, the rule is that you have the right to escalate a situation one level if you are the defender. For practical purposes this means that if they're using a club, you can use a bladed weapon; if they're using a bladed weapon, you can use a gun. Of course, this is for situations when you are just out in public. When you're in your own home, then all bets are off and you can use whatever force you need to.

For the most part, police do not prevent crime. Practically speaking, their are too many people and too few police for them to be everywhere and to prevent all crime. This is why individuals have a human right to defend themselves, their family, and even strangers. Police usually respond to crimes after the fact. Don't get me wrong, if the police know that their will be a specific threat at a specific place and at a specific time, then they usually take appropriate action to prevent the crime. However, foreknowledge of criminal activity or the possibility of criminal activity is relatively rare.

Warning, wall of text.



Too idealistic? I could actually say the same about your stance. "More weapons everywhere (including in my home that I can use as means to defend my family) will mean that my family is more secure". No, statistics prove you wrong.

It's not that I see where you're comming from. If I saw someone closing in on a family/friend in a hostile manner with some type of weapon, and I had one as well, I would likely use it. If I had no weapon I would probably wish I did. I'm arguing from a more general point of view. Less guns = good. In the same way that there are situational benefits for being able to be armed, there are benefits to not being able to be armed, and these are proven by statistics to be far greater.



Yep, if you guys tried to restrict guns you would have an uphill. I would say that your nationalism would pose a bigger challenge than the practicalities though. Turning people from the second amendment is a huge one.

Branding something as a "human right" has always struck me as a weak argument, as I never realized by whose authority this is stated. It could be used to substitue the overall conscensus in some cases, but it'd be better to just write this then. And yes, you should be able to go to some lengths to protect yourself or even your assets when you're the object of a crime, but using lethal force in the case of possible loss of an asset... that's sick.



It's a perfectly good response because it agrees with your point of view? If all arguments that doesn't agree with your point of view are by default unrational, what are you doing arguing with those who think differently?

This situation is quite different from the "having been sprayed with pepper spray" one above. If you have a gun and kill someone who is shooting at you, naturally there should be very small punishment, or none at all, given that you can prove that you did no provocations and couldn't divert the situation.

Little good are likely to come from that mindset...



I'm not arguing against that, and it's well compatible with what I'm arguing (besides the human right part). Reasonable self defence is not the same as being able to do anything in any situation.

I realize those examples were not the best.



Really? If they wanted violence, why didn't they just shoot him? Clearly they had to pay costly for incapacitating rather than killing.

So, you believe that if someone steals your purse you shouldn't be punished for shooting to kill rather than say shooting the criminal in the leg? I wouldn't call someone who does that "innocent".

Your second argument is good though. This naturally needs to be taken into account when judging in such cases. But at the same time I'd argue it's good thing if people facing these kinds of situations know that they're not going to get a free card to do whatever they damn well please.



So murder is morally wrong whereas theft is not. As long as anyone pose any threat at all, it's all ok since it can be branded self defence...

In this very post I'm adressing arguments stemming from the induced stress in the situation. Would it be such a farcry for you to understand that if you surprise said burglar at gun point, you're putting that person in a similar situation? It gives an interesting example: Burglar is on your property thereby putting you in stressfull situation. You threaten burglar at gun point, likely a way more stressfull situation. Does this mean the burglar may use whatever force necessary to prevent you from killing said burglar?

What if it's a street theft, invalidating any "castle doctrine" thinking? What if it's just some guy who came up and smacked you/your friend/love, and then started walking away when you stop him waving a gun? Where do you draw the line?



If everyone would have gun, it would mean that criminals would adapt to this. They would surely pack guns as well, whereas they may not otherwise. They would, quite nedless to say this, have to be way more brutal and more organized. You're more prone to "shoot first, ask later" when you know there's a larger possibility of counter violence. And yes, this is exactly what you get... Check statistics...

I'm glad that you realize at least that guns at walmart is bad idea :)

You're telling everyone that "statistics prove you wrong" and to "check statistics", while not posting any statistics or links to any statistics yourself. That's like some conspiracy nutter yelling "The truth is OUT THERE!!! Look it up!!"

Why are you doing this?

Better yet, why is everyone still arguing about gun rights on a thread whose topic has very little to do with gun rights?

I have posted some comparisions with Norway and Sweden previously. Both are among the top in gun possesion in western Europe, at about a third of USA's. Both have way less gun homicides. Same stands for all other west European countries I've checked, as well as some other industrialized countries.

Statistics from http://www.gunpolicy.org

I'm doing it because I felt sick when I read the history, seemingly proposing a preteen murdering 2 burglars would be something positive.

http://news.yahoo.com/...d-intruder-181216213.html


See, mrford? If you had just waited about 2 months, your credibility on this thread would be waaaay above what it is now.

not this thread again... lol

I'm glad we can add another credible case to the mix though besides that of what snopes debunked.

Here we go again. We get to debate this bs all over again.

Who ever said that guns were not useful for home defense?

And it's not hard for Ford's credibility on this thread to be "waaaaay" higher. It was 0. Anything else has to be an improvement.

A lot of people. And they have some valid points.

1. The safer your guns are, the less useful they are.

If you keep your guns in a safe, either your kids know the combination or they don't have access. If you keep the ammunition separate, then you need to spend time locating it and loading your weapon. This point is exceptionally valid for "defense for mugging" cases (you can't pull out a working gun in the time it takes to get mugged), and may have some limited relevance in home defense cases (you may have enough time to put together a working gun in the time it takes to get robbed).

2. Just as a matter of statistics, the ratio of accidental to justifiable homicides is about 8:1. That is, for every 1 person who is shot (dead) legally and justifiably by a firearm, there are 8 people who are shot (dead) accidentally. (There were no statistics for non-lethal shooting when I compiled the numbers.)

This doesn't necessarily mean that you don't have the RIGHT to defend your home (with lethal force), but it calls into question the wisdom of doing so. Whether or not the OP's post is a true story or not, let's just agree there are people who train their middle-school kids well and there are some real morons who are going to leave loaded firearms where their untrained toddlers can reach them. And any law we enact has to take both groups of people into account.

3. "Home" defense will vary wildly depending on what type of home you live in.

My philosophy is simple: anyone you can unintentionally injure with a weapon should have a say in whether and how you can own it. If you live in a cabin in the middle of the woods, I don't care if you own anti-tank grenades. If you live in an apartment with 6" walls, I do care if you own a 9" knife. Nobody should carry loaded weapons in public without some kind of permit, and local communities should be able to decide as a group what kind of permits they want to allow.

e.g., For my community, a dense, urban area with mostly single-family residences, I would advocate limiting legal firearms to small-caliber rifles and/or hollow-point ammunition which reduces collateral damage. I would require periodic home inspections to ensure safety for all homes with children, and I would oppose any carry-concealed weaponry in public.

Ohio once tried to ban concealed-carry. That lasted until a group of gun advocates walked through a town with children playing outside, guns strapped to their sides in plain view. The parents called the police and the police informed the parents that they could do nothing about the situation. On this point, I must simply disagree.

As to my plans to personally own a weapon: If I ever choose to own a gun, it will be because I want to learn to shoot at a range or because I feel that I will be in dangerous situation where I will be fully prepared to use my gun to defend myself. In the first case, I would probably buy/rent storage at the range for my weapon/weapons or even just rent a weapon from the range. In the second case, I would only carry the weapon when I was prepared to use it. In all other cases, it would be safely stored (quite possibly at a gun range). I see the merit in maintaining that people have the right to defend their homes with all reasonable force, up to and including killing intruders.

I've smoked a lot of grass since then, but that is Dolphin, is it not?

ttt for the kindergarten kids

maybe if we add AI to guns like we're doing to the cars. make them smart enough to know who to shoot.

So the bullet comes out the back if they are shooting at innocents?

kinda like rigging the steering wheel to kill the driver so they don't get into anymore accidents.