The "Stand Your Ground" Law....

[Unrepresented]

They'll sneak them across the borders. If the criminal want to kill people, they'll find a way.

Only the ones they snuck out of here first.

But I suspect most do not.

Your "safety society" would be best served by insuring children are created by those capable of raising them to be "safety" citizens. Address the root cause. Not something that feels good to those of the LCD.

a) insure and ensure are different words.

b) Access to guns are[/b] the root cause of gun related homicide. See my similar thoughts on death ray related homicides twenty years from now.

less snarky b) You've read enough of my posts to know I support addressing root socioeconomic aspects in addition.

 

[BawanaRik]

That doesn't un-kill the man shot, or the 10,000+ other Americans murdered annually with guns.

And fortunately it doesn't kill all those still alive because they were able to defend their lives and those of their loved one due to being armed.

And 10,000 +? I don't see that as accurate. We're never going to catch every rain drop. Things happen.


[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[Munjibunga]

Just stop letting people who aren't cops ****ing have guns. Cops already have a hard enough time figuring out when they should use it and they're trained for this...

I'm good with that.

 

[experimental bassist]

I fear politicians far more than I fear criminals.

 

[Munjibunga]

As a society we're not using the weapons we have safely. We need to determine a way to decrease access to them by people who will harm innocent citizens. The likelihood is that barriers to preventing those who shouldn't have them may impact accessibility to others. In exchange for a safety society I would hope most would feel that is a reasonable step to take.

Hmmm. We agree again? An 18-year-old family member (in high school) recently showed me his new prized possession - an AR-15. Why did he buy it? Because he's 18 and he can. I had to contain my disappointment that he felt he had a need for such a thing. I mean, a high-school student with his very own assault weapon?

 

[Unrepresented]

That statement and tactic has been disproved many times. As it is well documented that the areas with the highest levels of gun crime are in areas with the strictest firearm regulations. Access to law abiding citizens is NOT an issue. It is a RIGHT.

Like most of Europe? Stricter laws much lower gun crime.

Nope. If it in any way prevents or hinders my ability to defend my wife and boy from any threat that has faced a civilian in any country short of a tank or missile it is NOT a reasonable request. That need was so basic a right and need it was enshrined at the beginning. I, and you, have the right to arm ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic, that would endanger our lives or liberty. We live in an artificially safe fishbowl at the moment compared to the rest of the world, even with the threat of the occasional crazy with a gun, but that may not, and probably will not ALWAYS be the case. The winds of fortune for countries change very quickly and I will always make sure I have a fighting chance for my loved ones. So should you. I may have wasted a few grand on weapons that I may never need, but that is better than wishing I could give my right arm for one when I find I really need it.

Your individualistic desire when multiplied by 300 million makes you and your family less safe. Your strategy works well when in limited numbers but the greater the number who adhere to it the less safe you are see: every daily newspaper headline for examples.

Check out some reading on "Game Theory" to see this expressed more succinctly.

 

[Downunderwonder]

That statement and tactic has been disproved many times. As it is well documented that the areas with the highest levels of gun crime are in areas with the strictest firearm regulations. Access to law abiding citizens is NOT an issue. It is a RIGHT.

Maybe in the US, but put an ocean in the way, and severely limit the supply, and gun crime virtually evaporates.

Imagine if todays crims only had easy access to flintlock pistolas. Fastforward a hundred years after todays calibres were "vintagized" and new pistols brought under similar control to what other countries have. It wouldn't be perfect but it would be a helluva lot safer for everyone.

 

[BawanaRik]

Hmmm. We agree again? An 18-year-old family member (in high school) recently showed me his new prized possession - an AR-15. Why did he buy it? Because he's 18 and he can. I had to contain my disappointment that he felt he had a need for such a thing. I mean, a high-school student with his very own assault weapon?

Didn't you have the real thing, an M-16 at about the same age?

 

[BawanaRik]

Like most of Europe? Stricter laws much lower gun crime.

Your individualistic desire when multiplied by 300 million makes you and your family less safe. Your strategy works well when in limited numbers but the greater the number who adhere to it the less safe you are see: every daily newspaper headline for examples.

Check out some reading on "Game Theory" to see this expressed more succinctly.

I can't help but think of the Swiss. They require every adult male to be trained and in possession of an Assault rifle.

They seem ok with it. Here's a fun vid.

 

[Schlyder]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

Invalid Link Removed

http://www.worldpublicunion.org/201...n-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-crime-rates.html

you were saying??

 

[Unrepresented]

And fortunately it doesn't kill all those still alive because they were able to defend their lives and those of their loved one due to being armed.

And 10,000 +? I don't see that as accurate. We're never going to catch every rain drop. Things happen.


[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

It was 11K and change according to wikipedia as of 2010.

I fear politicians far more than I fear criminals.

I don't get to vote for my criminals.

Hmmm. We agree again? An 18-year-old family member (in high school) recently showed me his new prized possession - an AR-15. Why did he buy it? Because he's 18 and he can. I had to contain my disappointment that he felt he had a need for such a thing. I mean, a high-school student with his very own assault weapon?

I like to think that I make an elliptical orbit around reasonability. Sometimes I am moving closer, sometimes further, but always moving; just like a shark.:|

 

[Munjibunga]

Wrong, or at least incomplete. Straw purchases (purchasing firearms with the intent to give them to someone else who cannot have them, etc) is actually illegal. Most guns in bad peoples hands are either straw purchases, stolen from someone who legally acquired them or in the hands of someone who is mentally unstable.

Please look at crime stats for places with strict gun laws versus places without. You will be shocked to see your idea here isn't actually supported by the facts.

Maybe you should check the stats. For instance, deaths by firearms in the US are 4,000 percent higher than those in the UK, per capita. You may want to check the stats for Japan, too.

 

[Solarmist]

Nope. If it in any way prevents or hinders my ability to defend my wife and boy from any threat that has faced a civilian in any country short of a tank or missile it is NOT a reasonable request. That need was so basic a right and need it was enshrined at the beginning. I, and you, have the right to arm ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic, that would endanger our lives or liberty. We live in an artificially safe fishbowl at the moment compared to the rest of the world, even with the threat of the occasional crazy with a gun, but that may not, and probably will not ALWAYS be the case. The winds of fortune for countries change very quickly and I will always make sure I have a fighting chance for my loved ones. So should you. I may have wasted a few grand on weapons that I may never need, but that is better than wishing I could give my right arm for one when I find I really need it.

QFT - Excellent Post.

America would be a whole lot worse place if criminals were the only ones with guns, and they wouldn't have to worry about home owners or store owners being armed.

 

[Unrepresented]

Wrong, or at least incomplete. Straw purchases (purchasing firearms with the intent to give them to someone else who cannot have them, etc) is actually illegal. Most guns in bad peoples hands are either straw purchases, stolen from someone who legally acquired them or in the hands of someone who is mentally unstable.

Please look at crime stats for places with strict gun laws versus places without. You will be shocked to see your idea here isn't actually supported by the facts.

Yes. Those guns started their lives legally-- that was my point. Black market weapons aren't being imported, there is easy access to them because of our antiquated gun laws.

 

[Munjibunga]

Didn't you have the real thing, an M-16 at about the same age?

No, it was an M-14, and I was highly trained in using it for its intended purpose - killing human beings. Here's a picture of me receiving the Leatherneck Medal from the Colonel for shooting the highest score at the rifle range. I was also trained in automatic rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, and hand grenades - not things I want civilians to have lying around, given the purpose for which they were designed. I don't own any guns now.

BTW, I was also a pistol expert.

 

[BawanaRik]

It was 11K and change according to wikipedia as of 2010.

I don't get to vote for my criminals.

I like to think that I make an elliptical orbit around reasonability. Sometimes I am moving closer, sometimes further, but always moving; just like a shark.:|

.gov had a much lower figure than 11K.

But as you mentioned when we were speaking about those innocent men being jailed for crimes that never happened, we have laws that ensure none of these murders happen in the first place.

That should be fine.

As far as not getting to vote for your criminals I can't see how that matters? Could you, perhaps, help me out with that? Maybe clarify the statement.

Thanks

 

[Schlyder]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

http://americangunfacts.com/

"..In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate 3x that of the 9 European nations with the highest gun ownership rate."

 

[burk48237]

BTL:

I support 100% anyone's right to challenge any law that they do not see fit at any time for any reason but, having said that, I can not support someone doing that with factually incorrect statements.

1. It did not work for Zimmerman. His SYG application was denied.

2. That 71 YO LEO's SYG application lasted all of about 10 seconds in front of that judge before his trial was set.

3. The self defense laws have ALWAYS been based on a reasonable fear of harm. You have ALWAYS been able to shoot someone that has placed you in reasonable fear.

4. SYG removes the "duty to retreat" or the requirement to "run away! run away!" if you will.

5. That is pretty much all SYG does from a criminal standpoint, the rest is protection from civil action for the most part.

It is not a license to kill
It is not permission to "bait and wait" or "bait and bang"

And no. That guy is not going to walk. He is going to get spanked as hard as you can spank a 71 year old.

Absolutely nailed it. A few things to add. This shooting like EVERY mass shooting in the US since 1960 occurred in a gun free zone or criminal empowerment zone as I like to call them.

Second, the shooter was an ex-cop and vast majority of states in the US do not require carry permits or at least with the same level of scrutiny for ex LE. The reality is it is assumed that someone in LE has made a lot of enemies over their career and therefore is exempted from many of the permit requirements. They are also exempted from many gun free zone laws. So much for us being safer if "only the cops have the guns".

Third, there are about 350 to 400 million guns in circulation in this country. Remember a hundred year old gun with any level of maintenance is just as deadly as a new AR (anyone remember the Tommy gun), guns have a tremendous shelf life, and the bad guys are well armed. Street gangs in this country were doing their own importing of unregistered AK-47s as far back as the Clinton gun ban. For the most part all most gun laws accomplish is limiting the right of law abiding citizens. And the cities and states with the most relaxed carry and ownership laws in this country have seen a faster decline of gun crime (it's actually falling all over the country) than the places with much stricter restrictions.

Fourth, Gun crime around the world can be attributed to all kinds of things. Most European countries had far lower violent crime rates before gun control. And some of the countries with the most lax gun control have very little gun crime like Switzerland. Mexico City and Bogota Columbia have some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, anyone want to compare their murder rates to Houston or Atlanta (places with very lose carry and ownership laws) ? In the states, Houston has a very similar population with Chicago, and similar gang problem, and yet Chicago with much more restrictive gun laws had three times the gun murders last year.

 

[Webtroll]

Just stop letting people who aren't cops ****ing have guns. Cops already have a hard enough time figuring out when they should use it and they're trained for this...

Yeah, if you are in trouble in a remote location or a victim of a home invasion just ask the trouble to wait while you call the cops. How about "****ing" that?

 

[BawanaRik]

No, it was an M-14, and I was highly trained in using it for its intended purpose - killing human beings. Here's a picture of me receiving the Leatherneck Medal from the Colonel for shooting the highest score at the rifle range. I was also trained in automatic rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, and hand grenades - not things I want civilians to have lying around, given the purpose for which they were designed. I don't own any guns now.

That is impressive.

I think a weapon can also be used to protect life.

While I like to keep things simple I think training should be part of many privileges. Driving, sq****ing, etc etc. And I feel that privileges should be earned.

The world is becoming a more compact concentrated place now.