Just one of many examples,woman uses handgun to deter home intruder.

[toolbox 0]

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Woman-22-fends-off-attacker-with-handgun-200921511.html

This girl protected herself with a hangun without firing a shot.

[toolbox 0]

May I politely change "armed victim" to "armed citizen."

By all means please do.

[billeisele 122]

it will be nice when Stand Your Ground is repealed, it's reasonable to expect a homeowner or a car driver or anyone under any situation to simply leave and give up their possessions, etc. to the poor, mis-understood, abused, needy criminals

no need for you to do anything, the court will take care of it with their harsh sentencing rules

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Boomerdog

Quote

"You have what is known as 'duty to retreat' when attacked inside your own home by an invader. Period. End of discussion."

Say whaaat?

There is NO duty to retreat INSIDE the home. Intruder INSIDE home does not sent merit a "freeze" command or a warning shot. Shoot on sight and without warning.

Where's this "duty to retreat" crap coming from?

It comes from the law.

Different states have different rules. You need to be familiar with the rules for your state.

"Shoot on sight" is a dangerous policy.

You need to demonstrate "intent to harm" on the part of the intruder.

Quick overview on different states and their laws:
Wiki Clicky

Your profile shows your location as Virginia.

As far as I can find, there isn't an actual "Castle Doctrine" law on the books there. It's generally accepted, and present in case law, but isn't actually codified as a law.

So any claim of it in court is not going to be certain. It will be up to the prosecutor, judge and jury.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[champu 1]

kallend

When the laws are so easily circumvented by driving across a state line, what exactly do you expect?

I expect state politicians to continue passing idiotic and misguided state laws on top of what is there and on top of anything most people will admit to wanting. I expect federal politicians to always try and include assault weapon bans and bans on magazines over 10 rounds to anything they introduce. I expect people who claim to only want background checks to be more likely to come to an Internet forum to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining than to communicate with their representatives about the matter.

kallend

We don't need more laws, we need better laws.

I agree, but I expect the former.

[Boomerdog 0]

"Castle Doctrine" applies in Virginia. "Stand Your Ground" does not. Carrying concealed requires the holder; if armed, to leave the scene as safe as possible, shooting the attacker is the last option.

[Amazon 7]

Boomerdog

"Castle Doctrine" applies in Virginia. "Stand Your Ground" does not. Carrying concealed requires the holder; if armed, to leave the scene as safe as possible, shooting the attacker is the last option.

Other states allow for a more interesting option... as long as you are the correct ethnicity.

[tkhayes 125]

And the difference between guns and cars, as has been stated thousands of times, is that when we see a problem with cars, whether it be design defects, operation, training or otherwise, we go out of our way to CHANGE things, to IMPROVE things and we actually makes CHANGES, we TAKE away rights to drive cars, we put people in jail, we limit the cars, we sue the manufacturers and the drivers, we have legal recourse.

And that is why driving is safer than ever before.

However, when the gun issue comes up, it is COMPLETELY untouchable and there is no recourse and we state that there is NOTHING that can be done, because it is just 'mental health' or 'people', or 'criminals' or whatever bullshit excuse the gun lobby comes up with today as to why things cannot be improved.

that is the difference between guns an cars. If you want to argue then try arguing apples with apples......

[kallend 1,622]

PiLFy

*********
And another great example of my continued disrespect for The Constitution, Bill of Rights, & all of those who sacrificed for me to be this way:

www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-usa-crime-houston-idUSBREA2C2AR20140313

FIFY . Apples N Oranges, but whatever gets you through the day. Maybe one day, you can have your very own matched set of multiple Felons. They'll break in one night, & you can give 'em the spiel... One of the other faculty members can post the article of what happened to you after they finished chasing you around your house.

Bursts your little bubble when an example is given that disagrees with your preconceived worldview.

Not at all. Different views on life make it a richer experience for all. It pisses me off that certain effeminate weanies hide behind the very protections that allow them to draw breath. Without those protections, those Weanies would never have survived to become such weanies...

Do you ever wonder why the USA has, on average, 3x the murder rate of other industrial western nations, and 2/3 of these are by guns?

No, I doubt such thoughts ever intrude on your fantasies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[toolbox 0]

>Other states allow for a more interesting option... as long as you are the correct ethnicity.

Not buying it.

[kallend 1,622]

billeisele

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

If Chicago actually had a murder rate comparable with some of your favorite cities, you might have a point.

However, it is actually way behind such wonderful places as Memphis, Nashville, Birmingham, Oklahoma City, NOLA, and St. Louis in murders per 100,000 population.

Maybe there's a reason for that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

tkhayes

And the difference between guns and cars, as has been stated thousands of times, is that when we see a problem with cars, whether it be design defects, operation, training or otherwise, we go out of our way to CHANGE things, to IMPROVE things and we actually makes CHANGES, we TAKE away rights to drive cars, we put people in jail, we limit the cars, we sue the manufacturers and the drivers, we have legal recourse.

And that is why driving is safer than ever before.

However, when the gun issue comes up, it is COMPLETELY untouchable and there is no recourse and we state that there is NOTHING that can be done, because it is just 'mental health' or 'people', or 'criminals' or whatever bullshit excuse the gun lobby comes up with today as to why things cannot be improved.

that is the difference between guns an cars. If you want to argue then try arguing apples with apples......

Well, first off the design issue really isn't the problem. There are gun recalls when a design is found to be defective. They don't happen very often because a gun is a pretty simple machine to design.

I'm not aware of any lawsuits against either car manufacturers or alcohol producers in a drink driving death. Yet there were a huge number of lawsuits against gun makers for the illegal use of a legally made product.

And people who demonstrate they can't properly handle a gun usually get charged with a felony, which takes away their rights to own one.

Lots of places have found that refusing to plea down a "felony gun charge" has resulted in less crime. Richmond VA is one place.

Project Exile is one of a very few times where you will see the NRA and the Brady Campaign in agreement.

The "Gun Lobby" has always been in favor of punishing those who commit crimes with guns. They were one of the early proponents of the "Three Strikes" laws. They turned out to cause more problems than they solved, but they were an attempt to reduce recidivism.

Last year, when there was a big push to increase background checks, the NRA was at the table for some of the discussion. One question that was raised was why are there very few prosecutions for attempting to purchase firearms by those who are ineligible.

In 2010, there were over 72 thousand background check denials. SIXTY TWO were referred for prosecution. 44 were actually prosecuted.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/joe-biden-we-dont-have-time-to-prosecute-everybody-who-lies-on-background-checks/

We don't need more laws, we need to effectively enforce the ones that are already on the books.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PiLFy 0]

"Do you ever wonder why the USA has, on average, 3x the murder rate of other industrial western nations, and 2/3 of these are by guns?

No, I doubt such thoughts ever intrude on your fantasies."

The USofA has many differences w/other industrialized western Nations. What makes you think the deaths by gunfire aren't a symptom of other problems? Those other problems aren't about to go away, & neither are all the illegal guns. Damned if I'll allow myself to be unarmed, & answer for the sins of others. You do what you want.

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Other states allow for a more interesting option... as long as you are the correct ethnicity.

Yea, yea, yea Zimmerman/Martin, "Stand Your Ground Law," Florida. Let's cut the bee ess and hopefully we'll both agree that Zimmerman was a bloody fool. But a jury acquitted him of murder2, they could have gotten him on voluntary manslaughter but the DA was an overreaching idiot.

Flee if you can even if armed, but don't lose sight of the perp. "Stand Your Ground" takes into account the fact that fleeing and losing sight of the attacker my increase the danger of the situation. The perp started it and if the perp now has "tables turned" and is facing the weapon, they should not forget that they (the perp) put themselves there in the first place.

[turtlespeed 212]

Boomerdog

Quote

Other states allow for a more interesting option... as long as you are the correct ethnicity.

Yea, yea, yea Zimmerman/Martin, "Stand Your Ground Law," Florida. Let's cut the bee ess and hopefully we'll both agree that Zimmerman was a bloody fool. But a jury acquitted him of murder2, they could have gotten him on voluntary manslaughter but the DA was an overreaching idiot.

Flee if you can even if armed, but don't lose sight of the perp. "Stand Your Ground" takes into account the fact that fleeing and losing sight of the attacker my increase the danger of the situation. The perp started it and if the perp now has "tables turned" and is facing the weapon, they should not forget that they (the perp) put themselves there in the first place.

That belief doesn't promote gun bans and doesn't sell news time and advertising space.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[toolbox 0]

>we TAKE away rights to drive cars

Driving is a privilege not a right. US citizens bearing arms is a right.

[tkhayes 125]

And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes.

As I said, the basis of my argument is that we CHANGE things when there is a problem, (except apparently in the case of guns). That only makes the country look ridiculous and stupid when it does not have the ability to solve a problem.

200 year old constitutional changes that need to be updated. The Constitution is far from perfect, has been amended (and unamended) 27 times,

Even your precious second amendment was just that, an amendment. An afterthought. 15 years after the new country was born. To take it as solemn gospel to never be tampered with or updated at least, especially 230+ years after the need for it, is plain silly. yes, i said silly.

[kallend 1,622]

Meanwhile, since this thread started, some 90 Americans will have been murdered by gunfire.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

tkhayes

And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes.

As I said, the basis of my argument is that we CHANGE things when there is a problem, (except apparently in the case of guns). That only makes the country look ridiculous and stupid when it does not have the ability to solve a problem.

200 year old constitutional changes that need to be updated. The Constitution is far from perfect, has been amended (and unamended) 27 times,

Even your precious second amendment was just that, an amendment. An afterthought. 15 years after the new country was born. To take it as solemn gospel to never be tampered with or updated at least, especially 230+ years after the need for it, is plain silly. yes, i said silly.

So why bother with half measures?

Instead of limitations on ownership, carry and capacity, why not just amend to counter the 2nd? I know my answer to that question, but I'm interested in yours.

--
Rob

[Cajundude 0]

kallend

Meanwhile, since this thread started, some 90 Americans will have been murdered by gunfire.

And in the time that these 90 died, probably not ONE of them a lawful gun owner doing the killing in an unjustified way, if at all.

[kallend 1,622]

Cajundude

***Meanwhile, since this thread started, some 90 Americans will have been murdered by gunfire.

And in the time that these 90 died, probably not ONE of them a lawful gun owner doing the killing in an unjustified way, if at all.

Well, Captain Obvious, murder is not generally lawful.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tkhayes 125]

no one is asking for 'full measures'. I have never advocated for a repeal of the 2nd amendment, banning guns, whatever. Seemingly when it comes up for discussion, yours is simply one of the two answers I usually end up getting;
"Why not then go all the way" or
"If you don't like it then leave"

Both of which are not real responses and therefore not worth talking about. So I will not.

How about some common sense reforms, like background checks, which are supported by the VAST majority of people in the country?. I mean after-all, this is a democracy right? We already take those 'god-given-holier-than-thou' constitution rights away from people all the time, ex-cons, felons, etc. Why not expand that program? Using the Constitution argument to its most basic definition, ANYONE, including felons, should be allowed to arm at any time.

And I do not claim to, nor have I EVER claimed to have the correct answer. There are plenty of people out there, highly educated, experienced on policy and implementation, that I would be happy to consult with to come up with something.

I do not know the correct answer, but I do know that if we do nothing that we can expect nothing to change. And I am not happy with the status quo, as are tens of millions of other Americans. And I also realize that if we do not make small changes to demonstrate improvement, you and I someday might lose the right to own a gun altogether, just because we dug in our heels, decided to be belligerent about it, and thus lost everything in the process.

Look at what pissed off mothers did for drunk driving. And if you think the country cannot make radical changes that affect everyone's freedoms at the stroke of a pen and in short order, take another look at the Patriot Act and the DHS.

[toolbox 0]

>And we are advocating some changes to that right...yes.

No we are not advocating some changes to that right,you are.
I do not like being told what I want or need,but this is often the MO of progressive liberals who feel the need to make others drink their idealogical koolaid.

[tkhayes 125]

Currently 'you' are the one forcing us 'crazy liberals' to drink your ideological koolaid. touche.

If you have the right to 'force your beliefs on others' using the Constitution, then I automatically have the rigth to try and change that. tit for tat.

Of course you probably do not understand what I just said, because you are blind to any changes to any laws....ever, unless of course, they suit your flavor of koolaid'.

[Cajundude 0]

kallend

******Meanwhile, since this thread started, some 90 Americans will have been murdered by gunfire.

And in the time that these 90 died, probably not ONE of them a lawful gun owner doing the killing in an unjustified way, if at all.

Well, Captain Obvious, murder is not generally lawful.

True, but it is sometimes justified. Murder is unlawful, protecting yourself is lawful. As I stated before, I do not care if you are carrying a toothpick or a bazooka, if you break into someones house it is your choice to face the consequences. You never hear of any lawful gun owners having shootouts on the street killing each other (I'm sure you'll dig up one crazy person somewhere and completely ignore all the criminals).