Smittyboy
Member
I only have a gun in my house because where do you store a cop?
ammo
- Thread starter pooty
- Start date
GastonJ
The Winged One
I've picked up a few things form this thread.
1) Some comments indicate that the government want to take guns away to stop people rising up against a lawful government with those same guns.
Isn't that a contradiction? Like saying I want to keep my gun to break the law overthrowing a legal government if I feel like it, but criminals can't have guns because that's illegal?
2) Guns are a deterrent against people attacking you.
If that's the case then why do people still get attacked? More of a question is why do people take on police officers who have guns? Not much of a deterrent really. By the same token I have a rock in my garden and have never been shot at therefore my rock is as good as a gun *shrug*
I was in San Francisco in the fall of 2007 and there was a shooting closeby. I don't know too much detail on it, but apparently the guy who was shot was killed by the kid behind him in a queue for the cinema because he wasn't moving fast enough. I know no more detail that that, I dare say someone may have more, but had guns no so readily been available the guy would not have been shot dead. Whether the gun was licensed or not doesn't make any difference.
This was in an area where the police were present for the whole week (for a conference) within 100 yards of where the shooting took place. The police being there and having guns was no deterrent, so how is anyone else having a gun a deterrent?
If it was a gun obtained illegally then it was stolen from someone else who made it easy for it to be stolen. (if indeed it was stolen from someone who bought it). So that comes back to them being too readily available, illegal or not.
If it was licensed then I have to ask what the hell was he doing with a gun going to the cinema? Is it really that easy to get a gun?
To my second question I can answer that. When I was in the US in 2006 I was offered the loan of a gun to go shooting. so yes very easy to obtain, license or no license.
Since it's actually nothing to do with me now I'll drop out of this thread and leave you all to it. have a good one :thumbup:
1) Some comments indicate that the government want to take guns away to stop people rising up against a lawful government with those same guns.
Isn't that a contradiction? Like saying I want to keep my gun to break the law overthrowing a legal government if I feel like it, but criminals can't have guns because that's illegal?
2) Guns are a deterrent against people attacking you.
If that's the case then why do people still get attacked? More of a question is why do people take on police officers who have guns? Not much of a deterrent really. By the same token I have a rock in my garden and have never been shot at therefore my rock is as good as a gun *shrug*
I was in San Francisco in the fall of 2007 and there was a shooting closeby. I don't know too much detail on it, but apparently the guy who was shot was killed by the kid behind him in a queue for the cinema because he wasn't moving fast enough. I know no more detail that that, I dare say someone may have more, but had guns no so readily been available the guy would not have been shot dead. Whether the gun was licensed or not doesn't make any difference.
This was in an area where the police were present for the whole week (for a conference) within 100 yards of where the shooting took place. The police being there and having guns was no deterrent, so how is anyone else having a gun a deterrent?
If it was a gun obtained illegally then it was stolen from someone else who made it easy for it to be stolen. (if indeed it was stolen from someone who bought it). So that comes back to them being too readily available, illegal or not.
If it was licensed then I have to ask what the hell was he doing with a gun going to the cinema? Is it really that easy to get a gun?
To my second question I can answer that. When I was in the US in 2006 I was offered the loan of a gun to go shooting. so yes very easy to obtain, license or no license.
Since it's actually nothing to do with me now I'll drop out of this thread and leave you all to it. have a good one :thumbup:
Fred
M em b er e d
You're asking us to comment on a situation that you cannot even describe with any level of clarity or accuracy.
Did the kid just pull and shoot, or was he threatening people first?
Was the weapon licensed?
Were the police aware of the situation (if there was one) before the shooting happened?
Before taking us to task for what happened, you need to give us an accurate description of what happened.
But, let's say I'm in that same line, and I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I'll go by Texas law since that's what I know. In California, I believe the law states that you have to bend over and butter your ass for criminals.
The moment the kid begins threatening me or another human being, I have the right to shoot him.
The moment he assaults another human being, I have the right to shoot him.
If he doesn't want to get shot by me, he should not threaten or assault another human being.
Period.
Did the kid just pull and shoot, or was he threatening people first?
Was the weapon licensed?
Were the police aware of the situation (if there was one) before the shooting happened?
Before taking us to task for what happened, you need to give us an accurate description of what happened.
But, let's say I'm in that same line, and I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I'll go by Texas law since that's what I know. In California, I believe the law states that you have to bend over and butter your ass for criminals.
The moment the kid begins threatening me or another human being, I have the right to shoot him.
The moment he assaults another human being, I have the right to shoot him.
If he doesn't want to get shot by me, he should not threaten or assault another human being.
Period.
Smittyboy
Member
Yeah, just stabbed, or beaten to death...
As for being a deterrant... If I shoot the person breaking into my house, then that deters them from doing it again...
As for being a deterrant... If I shoot the person breaking into my house, then that deters them from doing it again...
Smittyboy
Member
You said that as I was posting...
All I have to say is... GOD I LOVE TEXAS!!!
All I have to say is... GOD I LOVE TEXAS!!!
Capo79
Viking spirit
But you see, the 2nd Amendment justifies the abscense of gun control no matter how irrational the reasoning for it may be
Anywho... I'm with you. None of my business, and I enjoy a society that has 1/6 of the murder rate:thumbup:
Fred
M em b er e d
Oh yeah, and as to your first question about revolution...
Revolution is technically illegal. However, it often morally right.
A revolution against the Nazi party would have been illegal, but morally right.
The Hatian slave revolt was illegal, but morally right.
In some places in the world, (UK for instance) using lethal force to defend myself against lethal force is illegal, but morally right.
Revolution is technically illegal. However, it often morally right.
A revolution against the Nazi party would have been illegal, but morally right.
The Hatian slave revolt was illegal, but morally right.
In some places in the world, (UK for instance) using lethal force to defend myself against lethal force is illegal, but morally right.
Capo79
Viking spirit
If a guy hits you in the face and breaks your nose, you can actually shoot and kill the guy in return without risking any prosecution?
Smittyboy
Member
If you can prove you or others were in mortal danger...
GastonJ
The Winged One
I don't even know why I'm bothering with this really, I did say I wouldn't bother, but there we go.
Fred, I wrote:
"I don't know too much detail on it, but apparently the guy who was shot was killed by the kid behind him in a queue for the cinema because he wasn't moving fast enough."
I'm not asking you to pass judgement on my lack of info, I clearly pointed out that I don't have all of the info, I was across the road at the time. Just questioning why anyone would need a gun in a cinema, legal or not. Do you take a gun to bed in case the woman you happen to pick up turns slaps you while being mid way though the performance with you in bed?
You justify having a gun for potentially comiting a criminal offence yourself, but say that criminals shouldn't have guns. Doesn't the fact that you justify your gun for illegal purposes make you a criminal.
Capo79 - I know what you mean, I like a gunless society.
Smittyboy - do you realise that the dodo is extinct don't you?
Anyway, don't take life so serious, this is a forum where nothing is real and people make what comments they wish to. I'm off to sleep now, you will see no more of me on this thread.
Have a good day.
Fred, I wrote:
"I don't know too much detail on it, but apparently the guy who was shot was killed by the kid behind him in a queue for the cinema because he wasn't moving fast enough."
I'm not asking you to pass judgement on my lack of info, I clearly pointed out that I don't have all of the info, I was across the road at the time. Just questioning why anyone would need a gun in a cinema, legal or not. Do you take a gun to bed in case the woman you happen to pick up turns slaps you while being mid way though the performance with you in bed?
You justify having a gun for potentially comiting a criminal offence yourself, but say that criminals shouldn't have guns. Doesn't the fact that you justify your gun for illegal purposes make you a criminal.
Capo79 - I know what you mean, I like a gunless society.
Smittyboy - do you realise that the dodo is extinct don't you?
Anyway, don't take life so serious, this is a forum where nothing is real and people make what comments they wish to. I'm off to sleep now, you will see no more of me on this thread.
Have a good day.
Last edited:
Capo79
Viking spirit
Morality is defined by society. Hence, a revolution will be morally right only, and only when, it's supported by the majority of the people.
Revolution against the Nazi party was not morally right within the german society as long as the majority of german people supported that regime. But it was morally right for anyone else (allies), and therefore a kind of revolution actually happened in the form of counter strikes against Germany towards the end of the war.
It's allways illegal to kill another human being at any time, no matter what. But you won't be prosecuted as a common murderer if it can be proven that it was an act of self defence against attempted murder. Still, it doesn't automatically mean that it's morally right. It depends, as nothing is either black or white.
Now I'm done.
I searched the DOJ, California website and was not able to confirm the new "Ammunition Act" being in effect. If you can kindly point me to it, then I'll believe it.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Fred
M em b er e d
What illegal purposes? Gun ownership is legal in this country. Self defense is legal in this country.
To answer Capo's question, yes.
In the CCW class, we spent about 11 hours talking through various scenarios, learning what is and is not justified, and learning about appropriate responses. Before you can carry, you're required to understand the rules.
It breaks down like this. Deadly force is defined by anything that may cause death or injury. Anything that could potentially land you in the hospital is deadly force. Anything that might leave you with a permanent injury is deadly force. A blow to the head, even from a fist, can cause injury or death if applied correctly. So by the letter of the law, it is considered deadly force and deadly force can legally be used in response.
A threat of deadly force is also justification. Somebody says,"I am going to kill you." Legally, you can use deadly force to defend yourself. You do not have to wait until they actually attempt it.
I'd hate to try and prove that in court though. I would have to prove to a judge or jury that I was in fear of my life or bodily harm. And I wouldn't shoot somebody just for punching me in the face. The law often needs to be tempered with common sense.
It really depends on the situation and on personal judgment. But step 1 is always find a way to avoid a confrontation.
Are you certain 100% that is the legal justification for using deadly force in self defense?
A few months ago my wife, my 100 lb german shepherd and I went on a late evening walk. Crossing a major intersection while the green pedestrian light was on we took a few steps on to the crosswalk. Not a moment later a speedy sedan started making a right hand turn directly on to our left hand side. Shocked I told my wife to jump forward while I raised my hand waving it for the driver to stop. To my surpise the crazed driver - a middle age woman brushed me off with her hand and even honked. All of this happened while we had a green light. I was boiling at this point and appropriately showed her the bird.
The lunatic made a U-Turn catching up to us on the other side of the street and started threating me. "You don't know who I am. I can have your finger cut off..."
To make the long story short, my wife called the police reporting the lunatic and her threats. The officer informed us that we can not file any charges because no crime was committed. Simply saying I am going to have your finger cut off or "kill you" for that matter is not a sufficient threat. According to the cop if she had stated that on Friday noon using a 6" blade she will cut my finger middle finger off. That would be sufficient.
Ridiculous but I heard it straight from the horse's (pig's) mouth.
On the second thought, if you are loaded (loaded O.J.) you can get away with murder. On the other hand, if you are broke (poor O.J.) you will be placed in prison for even stealing your own alas former property. How's that for Justice. Money talks B.S. walks LOL.
Last edited:
Things like this really piss me off, the woman and the police officer too damn lazy to do his job. I am not sure of the laws in your state, but in my jurisdiction/state, that is Harassment 13A-11-8, a misdemeanor. I hate it when a fellow LEO makes others look bad!
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-11-8.htm
Last edited:
