A LITTLE GUN HISTORY!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 04:04 PM) [snapback]496347[/snapback]</div>

You should move to Michigan, good ol' Granholm actually signed a bill repealing the "duty to retreat". While I agree one should use judgment and err on the side of caution I'm sorry but I feel no duty to retreat from my home when someone has broken in. Another simple rule: Don't break into someones home and you will not die (atleast by the hands of said homeowner).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 03:04 PM) [snapback]496347[/snapback]</div>

You live in a country where there are millions of homosexuals, and they're not going away...doesn't it make more sense to at least educate our children about them?

That's YOUR logic. How's it sound now?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]496352[/snapback]</div>

What's wrong with homsexuals or educating our children about them? Don't think that everyone toting guns are pals with good ol' boy G.W. For some at least our stance on guns and gun control does not dictate our other beliefs. I tend to follow most liberal values including gay marriage, but it differs when it comes to guns.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dareniott @ Aug 15 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]496363[/snapback]</div>

Oh, absolutely nothing, in my perverted, left-coast, knee-jerk liberal, bisexual opinion...

I guess I do think that most gun advocates tend to not be super comfortable with matters of human sexuality, though (at least, based upon what I've read here). Sorry to make that assumption and group you in with them.

I suspected that the poster, whom I quoted, might not share your feelings...which is why I asked.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]496352[/snapback]</div>

I have no problem with educating my kids about alternative lifestyles. After all, they are a part of life. No sense sticking my head in the sand and acting as if homosexuality didn't exist.

 

Well, that sure took the wind out of my sails.

I stand corrected.

Thanks for setting me straight...I mean, thanks for correcting me...
[laughing]

 

Pinto Girl,

I think you have me pegged wrong. I am a libertarian, not a conservative. I believe that individuals should be allowed complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the same freedom of others.

Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.

Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.

As JFK once said, "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

 

Double post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 01:04 PM) [snapback]496347[/snapback]</div>

Whenever one chooses to use deadly force, and kills someone in self defense, it is their burden to prove in court that they had no other alternatives. This is what I learned in my Handgun Safety class. At least this is how it's done in Washington and Oregon. So it is always a last resort, never a first resort.

That being said, anyone who breaks into my home while I am home will be shot first and asked questions later. That includes police, homeland security, anyone. It is not legal in any instance to break into a home unless there is a warrant out for someones arrest. And since I am an honest citizen with no criminal record (as a gun owner you do have to go through an FBI criminal background check) I know that will never happen to me.

 

Two summers ago, I was building a dry-stack stone wall in front of my house.

My neighbor's friend instigated an argument with me, about the wall encroaching on my neighbor's property line.

I argued back.

It escalated.

We began shouting.

My neighbor's friend picked up *a garden hose* and yelled "I believe you to be a threat to my personal safety, and I'm going to defend myself!" and --clutching the on-off nozzle-- aimed it directly at me (the hose was on).

I laughed heartily.

-----

To the pro gun advocates here, is this what you envision when we're called upon to defend ourselves?

I mean, is this how it's supposed to go?

Are we supposed to yell something like that, declaring our potential target a danger...then are we free to take aim and fire at will?

I wasn't aware of this protocol, is all...and I'm curious where it might have come from and if he was from a state which allows the carriage of firearms.

 

In Ohio, There must be immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death in order to use deadly force. Protecting property alone does not allow for the use of deadly force. Generally, three conditions must be met before deadly force can be used.

1. Defendant Is Not At Fault

Tirst, the defendant must prove that he was not at fault for creating the situation. The defendant cannot be the first aggressor or initiator. If you escalate a confrontation by throwing the first punch, attacking, or drawing your handgun, you are the aggressor.

2. Reasonable and Honest Belief of Danger

the defendant must prove that, at the time, he had a real belief that he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm and that his use of deadly force was the only way to escape that danger. Bear in mind that deadly force may only be used to protect against serious bodily harm or death. The key word is serious.

3. Duty to Retreat

A person must retreat or avoid danger by leaving or voicing his intention to leave and ending his participation in the confrontation. If the person retreats and the other continues to fight, the person who left the confrontation may be later justified in using deadly force when he can prove all three conditions of self-defense existed, even if he was honestly mistaken about the existence of immediate danger.

As I said, this is the law in Ohio, but it varies from state to state. Florida has what is called the "Castle Doctrine" which removes the duty to retreat if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. Florida's law also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. More and more states are enacting similar legislation, including Ohio, where a similar measure is currently being debated in our legislature.

 

Woah. Thank you.

This stuff *really* scares me...the more I learn, the more scared I become.

Guns in the hands of the public is bad jazz.

Those three steps sound great in theory, but...wow...proving that I actually stepped backwards before turning someone into a cheese grater...?

How do I do that without a witness or security tape or whatever? It's these issues that don't make me feel *any* safer.

You know that, in the real world, all of this calm logic and procedure will be pushed aside by the flow of adrenaline.

Besides, if I'm the victim --even if I forgot to do all of what the law specifies-- shouldn't I be able to kill someone in my own defense, anyway? I mean, gosh, I'm being attacked without provocation, and I forget to yell whatever it is first before shooting to kill, and now I'm in trouble...???

That doesn't make sense. If I hadn't been attacked in the first place, I wouldn't have to defend myself...right? Therefore, I should be in the clear...right...?

That's what I don't get. All of this assumes we can reliably determine whether someone followed the rules or not, and that someone is *clearly* the aggressor and the other person is *clearly* the victim. That one person is "in the wrong" and the other person has "the right" to shoot them. What if even something this basic isn't possible to determine?

We've still got dead or wounded people on our hands, don't we? You can assign whatever rationale you'd like to why someone was killed --try to legalize it and formalize it as you wish-- but the bottom line is, they're still dead or wounded. And that's not going to change, no matter how we decide to place the blame. So, if the shooter was right in shooting, great. If not? What would you propose?

There are so many unique situations that I simply don't see how anyone can prove these rules were followed, beyond "it's my word against theirs."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 08:58 PM) [snapback]496567[/snapback]</div>

You said previously that you prefer to leave you fate up to that of positive energy and good feelings. What you need to realize is that I, and I surmise most of the CCW posters here, do not want to shoot someone. I don't want to hurt anyone, I mind my own business, do nto get into fights, but if it ever happens I will defend myself if necessary. I think you are afraid that the people with guns legally are crazy and want to kill people, no, those are the criminals. Like I said I do not want to kill anyone, but you can be damn sure that if someone breaks into my house I would consider them a direct threat to my kids and they will be shot dead, directly!



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wiiprii @ Aug 15 2007)</div>

Well said!! Police or any other law enforcement agency must anounce themselve (not likely to be barging in to my home either). So I agree, I hear someone in my home and they are dead. I am not about to try and jump out a window nor will I wait for them to come near my family.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wiiprii @ Aug 15 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]496391[/snapback]</div>

You haven't been paying much attention, have you, to how systematically and thoroughly our civil rights have been dismantled since Jan 2001. Your first sentence quoted above WAS true a few years ago; it's no longer true. And your closing sentence: "I know that will never happen to me" is word for word a sentence repeated throughout history by poor trusting innocents who never knew until too late how lethal was the government's two by four that eventually smacked them, destroying their livelihoods, their homes, their families, their lives. I cannot fathom the mentality that puts such complete faith in the benevolence and competence of a government to do right by its citizens, expecially one as demonstrably criminal as the present one. Wow.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 08:58 PM) [snapback]496567[/snapback]</div>

Guns in the hands of criminals are scary, which is exactly why allowing law-abiding citizens to own and carry them is so vitally important.

Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, Kleck writes:

"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon."

I agree and so do many state legislatures which are adopting the Castle Doctrine. "Duty to Retreat" can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution. Florida takes it a step further and applies the law anywhere.

Opponents of this Castle Doctrine law have referred to it as a "shoot first" law, implying that it allows people to "shoot first, ask questions later" any time they are frightened. However, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense.

However, you raise a very valid point that the laws can be confusing. In Florida in 2006, Norman Borden was walking his dogs when three gang members in a Jeep tried to run him down. He pulled a gun and shot five times through the windshield, then moved to the side of the vehicle and fired nine more rounds. He thought the shooting was self-defense, but a prosecutor put him on trial in the deaths. The case highlighted the confusion surrounding the laws, which have been adopted in at least 14 states. In July 2007, Borden was acquitted by a jury, to the relief of the prosecutor who wondered how he would have behaved in the same situation. The laws have perplexed judges and prosecutors, and, in some cases, forced attorneys to change the way they review evidence.

It just goes as proof of the old adage that most people would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

 

There's definitely a fallacy in the "protection against criminals" argument.

Home burglary statistics http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm work out to a bit less than 1 percent of the population per year (it varies by year). So that means that if I lived in my house for 50 years, I have less than a 50% chance of ever being burgled. Now there are things I can do to lower my chances, such as install alarms, better windows & doors, locks, lights, etc.

Now lets assume that I do get burgled, and I'm actually home when it happens (probably a MUCH lower statistic, since most burglars are looking for an empty target). So I've got to go over, unlock, and load my properly stored firearm before the burglar hears or sees me. Then I shout out that I have called the police. Don't know what the statistic is, but if I were a burglar, I'd be leaving. Or, I don't shout out, but I confront the burglar, who might also be armed. There's the chance that he could hear me coming, and shoot me before I shoot him, even if his intent on coming was not murder. So I'm thinking (not scientific data) that there's maybe a 5% chance of me ever successfully using a firearm to defend my home, and maybe a 2-3% chance of the firearm not working, or the burglar beating me to the shot.

Now, I wonder what the chance is that in the 20 years that my son lives in the house, he or one of his friends figures out where I keep my keys, ammo, etc., and decides to have a little fun. Whatever the figure, it's too high for me.

Chances are excellent that I will go through my entire life without more than a picked pocket or broken window. And if I lose property because I am not armed, no big deal. I refuse to live my life in fear of the miniscule chance that some criminal will seek to harm me physically.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 14 2007, 07:00 PM) [snapback]495788[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely, reading is good for us all, and I do a bit of it -- including things written by people I don't agree with, however I'll reiterate that I'm not going to read Dr. Lott's book to find out if you have a point or not. If you do, you can support it.


Actually I did indeed follow the link you posted -- where I found that Dr. Lott's conclusions aren't exactly universally accepted. I also found it strange that of 35 listed papers authored or co-authored by the good Dr. of economics, on three appeared to be obviously papers about economics. BTW, what I found when I googled is lots of links to people talking about this one study, not "plenty of Dr. Lott's studies".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wiiprii @ Aug 15 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]496391[/snapback]</div>

Anytime you are charged with a crime in America it is up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of that crime. You are presumed innocent until then. So first the state has to show all the elements of manslaughter/homicide and that you did have another alternative other than homicide as a means of self-defense. Then and only then do you have to present evidence refuting the homicide and that you had no other alternative but to kill that person as a means of self-defense. BTW your defense and presentation of evidence only has to raise reasonable doubt in a jury's mind. I think your definition meant all the things I said above and is the short hand version but I just wanted to make that clear. I'm sure someone will speak up and correct me if I'm wrong.

Wildkow

p.s. also the state does retain the right to break into your home to protect others, such as from a fire that may threaten others in the home or a neighbor's life or property. That’s one reason why trip-guns are not legal.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 15 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]496640[/snapback]</div>

Thanks Mark that's a great example of why we need to retain our right to own guns.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ Aug 15 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]496682[/snapback]</div>

You can take your chances, I'll take my glock. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/24/home.invasion.ap/index.html

s**t happens! Yeah maybe it is few and far between but I would rather not take my chances or rely on statistics and then watch my wife and 2 kids be killed and burned in my own home.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 16 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]496762[/snapback]</div>

OMG!!! This thing you Americans have with your guns. Everywhere else in the world, most people do not own guns, do not see the need to own guns and definitely do not want to own a gun.

As Tyrin said, the chances of a burglary is very low, and I would assume that most burglars would not be carrying a firearm - but there seems to be this constant drone that "I need to protect my home and family", and then you get very beligerant when you think someone is telling you to give them up. From some casual reading, the ad-hoc killing, where someone got angry, had a gun nearby, and just settled their anger by using it, is a common cause of death in the US, but a lot less elsewhere. Everytime there is some school yard massacre, it is beacuse somebody got angry with whatever and felt that a gun would solve the problem.

Please note, I am not against people who belong to gun clubs, who hunt, who need to control vermin (and I mean the four legged type here ). All these people will generally look after their firearms and will ensure that they are properly secure. But to have a gun in the house just because you want to show the world that you are "exercising your right"? All that says to me is stupid. ....and dangerous!