Michael & Me — The movie

[Geezah]

"Michael & Me," my self-financed, independent film, recently debuted on Amazon.com.

Michael Moore argues that America possesses "too many guns." If so, why in the last 20 years — with gun ownership up — has violent crime declined in America? Liberals believe gun control reduces crime. Does it? What about the effect on urban crime when cities outlaw so-called "cheap Saturday night specials"?

How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes? I wanted to put this question to Moore. He tells us, for example, that over 11,000 people die each year because of guns. But how many Americans credit their lives with their ability to use a gun to defend themselves?

"Michael & Me" asks why, if America possesses "too many guns," is the murder rate among Japanese Americans actually lower than in Japan? And why, in England, with severe gun restriction, is the English murder rate growing, and the violent crime rate — assaults, car thefts, hot burglaries — now exceeding ours?

As Moore did in his entertaining film "Roger & Me," I sought out the director — some might say "ambushed" — in order to ask him a few questions. (You'll have to see my film to find out what happens.)

My film interviews victims of crimes, those who protected themselves with firearms, gun owners, criminals, police officers, authors and academicians. Texas State Representative Susanna Hupp describes how she witnessed her mother and father executed by a gunman in a restaurant. The film also interviews Jane Doe, who, two days before she got raped, attempted to purchase a handgun — only to be thwarted by California's 10-day waiting period.

Some believe that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right — as part of a state militia — rather than an individual right to keep and bear arms. The film notes that the Founding Fathers clearly intended the Second Amendment to serve as a bulwark against possible tyranny by government. Why would the Founding Fathers limit the right to "keep and bear arms" to a government militia if threatened with tyranny by government?

Many Founding Fathers wrote extensively on the subject. Thomas Jefferson said, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." George Washington stated, "A free people ought to be armed."

Former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey agrees. In 1959, he said, "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Respected historian Garry Wills, in a recent C-SPAN interview, called the individual-rights school flat-out wrong: "The idea that my gun protects me from my government is not in the Founders . . . it's just not there. . . . The use of the militia originally was to be a defense of the country, and the proof of that is very simple. The federal government can federalize, can put into federal service any militia at any time it wants. So the idea that the militia can be used against the federal government is nonsense."

Nonsense? Former Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote: "[L]et me state unequivocally . . . the Second Amendment clearly protect(s) the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."

Alan Dershowitz said, "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Harvard Constitutional Law professor Laurence Tribe writes that the Second Amendment is subject to "reasonable regulation," but calls gun control extremists wrong when they say the Second Amendment restricts the right to "state militias" like the National Guard. Tribe said, "The Fourteenth Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms was a 'privilege' of each citizen."

Maybe historian Wills believes guns cannot thwart a tyrannical government, but tyrants do.

Vladimir Lenin said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Mao Tse-tung said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their fall by doing so."

"Michael & Me," in my humble opinion, also features an entertaining animated sequence in which Moore finally sits down for a "hard" interview with the filmmaker. Liberals, however, be forewarned: Some of you may find the contents disturbing. For a fact to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

Enjoy "Michael & Me."

Larry Elder



Link (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder082505.asp)

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I can answer that blokes question in the 1st sentance. And guns have nothing to do with it.

[joe mama]

I can answer that blokes question in the 1st sentance. And guns have nothing to do with it.

You don't mean to say guns aren't the problem, do you? Careful, that's the kind of thing only us gun nuts that want mandatory ccw from birth say...
p-)

[Bugalugs]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

[StukaJr]

Oh, boy! I'll buy this movie just to see Michael Moore ambushed by his own cheap tactics!

I think the real problem of violent crimes lays in ability of one person to harm another, sometimes with a weapon. That weapon can range from a gun down to the criminals extremities. Taking out the highest possible denominator of a weapon off the list will do nothing to thwart the crime - criminals still "gotta eat" and will still commit a crime with what they got.

If one was seriously going to stop crime by outlawing the posession of a weapon - I'd expect to see a ban on baseball bats, sashimi knives, bricks, toilet plungers, heavy work boots, nailfile, scissors, hammers... Civilization stops as anything can be used as a weapon.

What is the reasoning behind banning a million guns when a hundred of them are used in a crime? Should we outlaw bricks because a homeless guy smashed a woman's head in with a brick in NYC sybway in 2000?

[Bugalugs]

If one was seriously going to stop crime by outlawing the posession of a weapon - I'd expect to see a ban on baseball bats, sashimi knives, bricks, toilet plungers, heavy work boots, nailfile, scissors, hammers... Civilization stops as anything can be used as a weapon.

can I buy a suitcase bomb off you then?

[Geezah]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Troll!

[Bugalugs]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Troll!

Sorry, I forgot you were also a one-syllable wonder!

wheres my frikkin freud?????

[StukaJr]

If one was seriously going to stop crime by outlawing the posession of a weapon - I'd expect to see a ban on baseball bats, sashimi knives, bricks, toilet plungers, heavy work boots, nailfile, scissors, hammers... Civilization stops as anything can be used as a weapon.

can I buy a suitcase bomb off you then?

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones? When you masturbate while covered in your own feces - does it not burn and sting from gagging on a skiing pole the night before?

[Bugalugs]

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right? ;)


When you masturbate while covered in your own feces - does it not burn and sting from gagging on a skiing pole the night before?
rofl rofl rofl

[StukaJr]

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right? ;)



Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

[Kaapeli]

Michael Moore argues that America possesses "too many guns."

I don't think he did.
If this man has actually seen the movie he should know that Moore's main conclusion was that the main problem isn't the number of guns but the culture of obsessing over them and most of all; fear.

[Bugalugs]

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right? ;)



Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

modern law begone. Only the text of the second amendment matters, and i'll interpret it as i please!
You lose. :backhand:

[StukaJr]

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right? ;)



Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

modern law begone. Only the text of the second amendment matters, and i'll interpret it as i please!
You lose. :backhand:

I didn't know they no longer taught "Government" and "US History" in American high schools. You'll find out the Darwin's Law the hard way, I'm afraid

[Bugalugs]

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right? ;)



Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

modern law begone. Only the text of the second amendment matters, and i'll interpret it as i please!
You lose. :backhand:

I didn't know they no longer taught "Government" and "US History" in American high schools. You'll find out the Darwin's Law the hard way, I'm afraid


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

why arent explosives a legitimate militia weapon? Where does it say "no expolsive devices?"

[Bugalugs]

p.s dont insult me by presuming I'm a Septic

[StukaJr]

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right? ;)



Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

modern law begone. Only the text of the second amendment matters, and i'll interpret it as i please!
You lose. :backhand:

I didn't know they no longer taught "Government" and "US History" in American high schools. You'll find out the Darwin's Law the hard way, I'm afraid


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

why arent explosives a legitimate militia weapon? Where does it say "no expolsive devices?"

Constitution, Federal, State and Local Laws - the sh1t rolls downhill. The latter pretty much can overule the US Constitution with a proposition - if you live in an oppressive state or city, move. Some parts of the US let you enjoy destructive devices with a background check and a $200 stamp - some places don't.

Constitution generally states - the laws specifically describe. If the Constitution is the final law - have fun arming your militia with flintlock blackpowder muzzle loaders circa 1776 - because that's what the founding fathers meant when they said "arms"

[Laworkerbee]

Michael Moore argues that America possesses "too many guns."

I don't think he did.
If this man has actually seen the movie he should know that Moore's main conclusion was that the main problem isn't the number of guns but the culture of obsessing over them and most of all; fear.

Correct my Finnish friend, he covers the media spin and how it uses fear to grip viewers quite well

[Bugalugs]

Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right? ;)



Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

modern law begone. Only the text of the second amendment matters, and i'll interpret it as i please!
You lose. :backhand:

I didn't know they no longer taught "Government" and "US History" in American high schools. You'll find out the Darwin's Law the hard way, I'm afraid


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

why arent explosives a legitimate militia weapon? Where does it say "no expolsive devices?"

Constitution, Federal, State and Local Laws - the sh1t rolls downhill. The latter pretty much can overule the US Constitution with a proposition - if you live in an oppressive state or city, move. Some parts of the US let you enjoy destructive devices with a background check and a $200 stamp - some places don't.

Constitution generally states - the laws specifically describe.

If thats the case, why do all the gun nuts keep bleating about their 2nd amendment rights being taken away by evil govts who want to subjugate and enslave them - or are they full of ****e?

[StukaJr]

If thats the case, why do all the gun nuts keep bleating about their 2nd amendment rights being taken away by evil govts who want to subjugate and enslave them - or are they full of ****e?

Try to prohibit anything currently leagal and you'll have some nuts to oppose that desission... If a government is trying to prohibit something I happen to enjoy - why should I not exersise my leagal right to oppose that desission? Try banning alcohol (x2), tobacco, transfats etc - you'll be creeping in on someone's freedoms.

Do gun nuts really bleat? I've never met one so I wouldn't know.

It's a personal freedom - to purchase a firearm or not... It's not freedom when your government tells you that you can't purchase a firearm for self protection or recreational use. If it's not of public safety/hazzard concern - government really shouldn't mess with it. If it's a freedom that has been enjoyed for hundreds of years - the lawmakers should be presented with viable reasons why that freedom should be taken away. The reason why you can't set ****ytraps as means of deffending your house, or make explossives - you can't be responcible for the results.

[joe mama]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Yeah Geezah, you f'ing f, don't you know that Lord Bugalugs has decreed that shalt not post about that with thouest findeth interesting unless thouest posteth about many topics? It's downright inhuman and at least as evilly wrong as not liking ice cream to think you can post just about things that interest you even if there's just one you care to post about. Now go sit in the corner and you can forget about having any dessert.

[Erik2a4]

I can answer that blokes question in the 1st sentance. And guns have nothing to do with it.

Yes, but you would be up in arms if they were banning latex, now wouldn't you?

:lol:

[Bugalugs]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Yeah Geezah, you f'ing f, don't you know that Lord Bugalugs has decreed that shalt not post about that with thouest findeth interesting unless thouest posteth about many topics? It's downright inhuman and at least as evilly wrong as not liking ice cream to think you can post just about things that interest you even if there's just one you care to post about. Now go sit in the corner and you can forget about having any dessert.

Its funny as **** when someone has a single-track mind, spends all him time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "the sky is falling in! england is burning! the world sucks! arm yourselves! arm yourselves!"

[StukaJr]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Yeah Geezah, you f'ing f, don't you know that Lord Bugalugs has decreed that shalt not post about that with thouest findeth interesting unless thouest posteth about many topics? It's downright inhuman and at least as evilly wrong as not liking ice cream to think you can post just about things that interest you even if there's just one you care to post about. Now go sit in the corner and you can forget about having any dessert.

Its funny as f*** when someone has a single-track mind, spends all him time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "the sky is falling in! england is burning! the world sucks! arm yourselves! arm yourselves!"

Geezah is in the US, you dumb fusk!

There is a difference between raising general concerns over attempts to ban firearms/ability to deffend oneself and call to arms.

[Bugalugs]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Yeah Geezah, you f'ing f, don't you know that Lord Bugalugs has decreed that shalt not post about that with thouest findeth interesting unless thouest posteth about many topics? It's downright inhuman and at least as evilly wrong as not liking ice cream to think you can post just about things that interest you even if there's just one you care to post about. Now go sit in the corner and you can forget about having any dessert.

Its funny as f*** when someone has a single-track mind, spends all him time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "the sky is falling in! england is burning! the world sucks! arm yourselves! arm yourselves!"

Geezah is in the US, you dumb fusk!

but most of his posts are about crime rates in the UK, you rude prick

[StukaJr]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Yeah Geezah, you f'ing f, don't you know that Lord Bugalugs has decreed that shalt not post about that with thouest findeth interesting unless thouest posteth about many topics? It's downright inhuman and at least as evilly wrong as not liking ice cream to think you can post just about things that interest you even if there's just one you care to post about. Now go sit in the corner and you can forget about having any dessert.

Its funny as f*** when someone has a single-track mind, spends all him time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "the sky is falling in! england is burning! the world sucks! arm yourselves! arm yourselves!"

Geezah is in the US, you dumb fusk!

but most of his posts are about crime rates in the UK, you rude prick

Well, absense of civilian gun ownership does nothing to the growing violent crime rates in the gun free UK.

Abundance of guns in US does nothing for falling violent crime rate in the US.

Maybe if you read some of the Geezah's articles - you wouldn't be riding on the wrong bandwagon into the sunset.

[StukaJr]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

I'll buy another gun and that rate will drop even lower.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

[joe mama]

Its funny as f*** when someone has a single-track mind, spends all him time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "the sky is falling in! england is burning! the world sucks! arm yourselves! arm yourselves!"

It's not nearly as funny as when someone spends all his time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "geezah only posts about guns and uk crime oh gawde it's so awful and hurtful to me, guns are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil!".
p-)

[Bugalugs]

OMG its Geezah the One-Issue Wonder again!!

Yeah Geezah, you f'ing f, don't you know that Lord Bugalugs has decreed that shalt not post about that with thouest findeth interesting unless thouest posteth about many topics? It's downright inhuman and at least as evilly wrong as not liking ice cream to think you can post just about things that interest you even if there's just one you care to post about. Now go sit in the corner and you can forget about having any dessert.

Its funny as f*** when someone has a single-track mind, spends all him time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "the sky is falling in! england is burning! the world sucks! arm yourselves! arm yourselves!"

Geezah is in the US, you dumb fusk!

but most of his posts are about crime rates in the UK, you rude prick

Well, absense of civilian gun ownership does nothing to the growing violent crime rates in the gun free UK.

Abundance of guns in US does nothing for falling violent crime rate in the US.

Maybe if you read some of the Geezah's articles - you wouldn't be riding on the wrong bandwagon into the sunset.

I do- only when i'm very bored. occasinally i get stuck in, but nowhere as much as the crap deserves.

[joe mama]

but most of his posts are about crime rates in the UK, you rude prick

And if they didn't your panties in such a twist, you'd just ignore them...

[Bugalugs]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

I'll buy another gun and that rate will drop even lower.

why, because youll kill someone before they can commit a crime?

[Bugalugs]

but most of his posts are about crime rates in the UK, you rude prick

And if they didn't your panties in such a twist, you'd just ignore them...

I learned quickly that anything with (UK) in front is probably Geezah crap, usually just read the title!

[StukaJr]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

I'll buy another gun and that rate will drop even lower.

why, because youll kill someone before they can commit a crime?

What does gun ownership have to do with murder?

[Bugalugs]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

I'll buy another gun and that rate will drop even lower.

why, because youll kill someone before they can commit a crime?

What does gun ownership has to do with murder?

Merely trying to make sense of your comment.

If you only want the gun for self-defence, how can you GUARANTEE that the crime rate will drop?

Presumably you are GUARANTEEING that you will use it to stop someone comitting crime. Unless you are a cop, you cannot guarantee that unless you go out looking for it.....!

[divisionbyzero]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.

[StukaJr]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

I'll buy another gun and that rate will drop even lower.

why, because youll kill someone before they can commit a crime?

What does gun ownership has to do with murder?

Merely trying to make sense of your comment.

If you only want the gun for self-defence, how can you GUARANTEE that the crime rate will drop?

Presumably you are GUARANTEEING that you will use it to stop someone comitting crime. Unless you are a cop, you cannot guarantee that unless you go out looking for it.....!

My graphic is just an example of your senseless logic - if number of firearms directly responcible for violent crime rates, then that graphic illustrates that rise in firearm owners somehow reduces crime rates.

I guess I was too subtle for you.

[Bugalugs]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.
thanks for that contribution :|

[StukaJr]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.
thanks for that contribution :|

Here is a goal against your team:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58087

Since you can't be in all places at once... Carry a gun - shoot rapists in the nuts... I kid, I kid - center of mass p-)

Edit - he was stabbing a woman with a knife...

[Bugalugs]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.
thanks for that contribution :|

Here is a goal against your team:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58087

Since you can't be in all places at once... Carry a gun - shoot rapists in the nuts... I kid, I kid - center of mass p-)

good, we get to the heart of the matter,and find out where you are really coming from :cantbeli:

[StukaJr]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.
thanks for that contribution :|

Here is a goal against your team:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58087

Since you can't be in all places at once... Carry a gun - shoot rapists in the nuts... I kid, I kid - center of mass p-)

good, we get to the heart of the matter,and find out where you are really coming from :cantbeli:

And you would just stand and take pictures I take it? That's why "liberals" are so useless when off the paper.

What would you do if you saw a crime being committed?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I would be more open to relaxing gun laws if thew link between crime rates and lax gun laws was proven to be true.

Let me ask you this.

What factors contribute to a person commiting a crime in the 1st place?

The answer being the persons socio-economic position in society. A unemployed person with a limited means of supporting themselves. 99% of crimes are committed for personal gain to improve ones socio-economic standing. IE they do it for the money.

Now the big drop in crime is largely in part caused by the increased economic growth of the past 10-15 years which at the same time was also when stricter gun laws were introduced.

Come now. Surely you have an answer for this someone?

[StukaJr]

I would be more open to relaxing gun laws if thew link between crime rates and lax gun laws was proven to be true.

Let me ask you this.

What factors contribute to a person commiting a crime in the 1st place?

The answer being the persons socio-economic position in society. A unemployed person with a limited means of supporting themselves. 99% of crimes are committed for personal gain to improve ones socio-economic standing. IE they do it for the money.

Now the big drop in crime is largely in part caused by the increased economic growth of the past 10-15 years which at the same time was also when stricter gun laws were introduced.

Come now. Surely you have an answer for this someone?

You speak of 1993 Assault Weapons Ban - which has ended, yet I have yet to hear of increase in violent crime with all of these scary Assault Weapons let back onto the streets.

Harsh gun laws do not make cities safer - NYC, NJ, LA for example have some of the strictest gun laws. NYC doesn't allow to leagally own paintball guns - look at their crimerates.

So serial killers, rapists, arsonists and other mentally ill violent offenders consist 1% of crimes committed? weak arguement!

Increased Economic Growth in the 10-15 years? I remember depression that started in the late 80's and did not let up until the mid 90's - then there was dot.com crash which resulted in some of the highest unemployment rates in the past decades. Another weak arguement! Did all those jobless dotcommers went on robbing, killing and raping once they lost their jobs and means to make a living?

Gun nutts do not rally to make guns more attainable or roll back on any of the existing laws - we'd just like to make sure that the existing freedoms and laws are not treaded by people who don't know any better.

[Bugalugs]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.
thanks for that contribution :|

Here is a goal against your team:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58087

Since you can't be in all places at once... Carry a gun - shoot rapists in the nuts... I kid, I kid - center of mass p-)

good, we get to the heart of the matter,and find out where you are really coming from :cantbeli:

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)



And you would just stand and take pictures I take it? That's why "liberals" are so useless when off the paper.

What would you do if you saw a crime being committed?

[StukaJr]

Current gun laws and convicted felons:

Most felonies will prohibit a convicted felon from owning a gun for life

Most misdemeanors and mild felonies will prohibit a convicted felon from owning a gun for 10/5 years since conviction.

It's a felony to purchase a firearm for any person for whom it's illeagal to own a firearm.

Kalifornia:

Getting CCW - good luck. 10 day waiting period on any firearm purchase. 1 concelable firearm purchase/request per 30 day period. No magazine with capacity higher then 10 rounds. Assault weapons are still banned, transport only in locked container with ammo sepparate...

This is not to mention the dumb law that will require every piece of ammunition to have a serial number in 2009 - I hope that doesn't pass!

Obviously, the Criminals don't have to worry about any of these rules - so I gotta ask in return, where are the laws that make sure that Criminals don't get their hands on firearms?

The US jails are overcrowded (mostly from 40% of minor drug offenses) - many criminals serve out 12 days for every 6 months they are sentenced to (at least that's how it is in Los Angeles county). I wonder if the people trying to remove the 3 strike laws are the same whom are trying to ban the firearms p-) that would be ironic.

[Bugalugs]

no guns in circulation means the crims find it hard to get guns, and use them rarely (except on each other, and you never hear about these ones). Only the highly motivated and connected ones can get a high-end weaon, like auto weapon, and this is usually to use against other crims in turf wars. Australia is a good example of this principle. Gun control has worked a treat here.

[woofer]

I would be more open to relaxing gun laws if thew link between crime rates and lax gun laws was proven to be true.

Let me ask you this.

What factors contribute to a person commiting a crime in the 1st place?

The answer being the persons socio-economic position in society. A unemployed person with a limited means of supporting themselves. 99% of crimes are committed for personal gain to improve ones socio-economic standing. IE they do it for the money.

Now the big drop in crime is largely in part caused by the increased economic growth of the past 10-15 years which at the same time was also when stricter gun laws were introduced.

Come now. Surely you have an answer for this someone?

OK im from the UK and probably not in a position to argue what factors cause crime in america.... But yes a socio economic position can cause people to commit crime...but in fact its bollox. The Social services in the UK hand out so much money and pump so much money and effort into these people its unbelievable...I work 40 hours a week and if im lucky I get overtime. I cannot afford the luxery's that these people have 'on the state' my kids dont get free meals, free sport, free swimming a big handout every christmas for presents and another to make sure they have the latest trainers.

I dont go and rob old ladies or the local 7-11...Im sorry but **** blood breeds **** blood. It doesnt matter what colour or financial background!

My views have changed I believe we should empour the middle people again. The polititions dont give a toss they dont live with the drug dealer or the smack head in their street. They have'ARMED' Police to protect them and the latest alarm system paid for by us.
No one wants to be Rambo we just want to get on with our sad lives going to ball games and barbeques without worrying about being a victim. :(

[joe mama]

no guns in circulation means the crims find it hard to get guns, and use them rarely (except on each other, and you never hear about these ones). Only the highly motivated and connected ones can get a high-end weaon, like auto weapon, and this is usually to use against other crims in turf wars. Australia is a good example of this principle. Gun control has worked a treat here.

And just how, exactly, do you get there to be "no guns in circulation"? Let's say you take away all legally owned guns, and magically all of them go away, and none are hidden or sold or stolen before you get them. There's still the illegally held guns, which are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Are they going to now magically disappear because they're...illegal? THEY ALREADY WERE ILLEGAL.
I'm not saying reducing the overall supply of guns couldn't possibly help reduce gun crime availability to criminals and therefore possibly help reduce gun crime rates, but what I am saying is that criminals ALREADY HAVE GUNS AND ALREADY HAVE THEM ILLEGALLY, and since the vast majority of guns are owned legally and have not been nor will they be used in a crime, the overwhelming impact of reducing the supply will be to affect the law abiding owners. (If you dispute that the vast majority of guns are owned legally and have not been nor will be used in a crime, please say so, and, if you don't mind, please tell us if this is just your feeling (which is fine) or if it's based on some kind of statistic.)
In Massachusetts in the late 70's there was a very big (at least it was portrayed that way) problem with drunk driving. Did we ban drinking? Did we ban driving? Did we ban cars? Nope, we toughened the laws against the problem - drinking and driving - and enforced them. The vast majority of people, who were not part of the problem, were not targetted by the laws. The situation improved. This is the approach that should be taken with guns and crime. My guns aren't the problem, the criminals and their guns are.

[joe mama]

...My views have changed I believe we should empour the middle people again. The polititions dont give a toss they dont live with the drug dealer or the smack head in their street. They have'ARMED' Police to protect them and the latest alarm system paid for by us.
No one wants to be Rambo we just want to get on with our sad lives going to ball games and barbeques without worrying about being a victim. :(

woofer, are you saying you're in favor of allowing the regular citizens to be armed in some way that is effective for self defense?

[joe mama]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are, no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?

[joe mama]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.
thanks for that contribution :|

Actually it's a pretty good observation. Aren't liberals supposed to be all concerned about personal freedoms and liberty and not having others, especially the government, tell people what they can and cannot do?

[RGRBOX]

Oh, boy! I'll buy this movie just to see Michael Moore ambushed by his own cheap tactics!

I think the real problem of violent crimes lays in ability of one person to harm another, sometimes with a weapon. That weapon can range from a gun down to the criminals extremities. Taking out the highest possible denominator of a weapon off the list will do nothing to thwart the crime - criminals still "gotta eat" and will still commit a crime with what they got.

If one was seriously going to stop crime by outlawing the posession of a weapon - I'd expect to see a ban on baseball bats, sashimi knives, bricks, toilet plungers, heavy work boots, nailfile, scissors, hammers... Civilization stops as anything can be used as a weapon.

What is the reasoning behind banning a million guns when a hundred of them are used in a crime? Should we outlaw bricks because a homeless guy smashed a woman's head in with a brick in NYC sybway in 2000?

Your 110% correct man.... woot

[-Caveman-]

:Libral thinking:
Person A + gun + person B = death :(
solution
Person A - gun + person B = no death :D
now everyone is happy.......right?

[Blarney]

....michael & Me is a movie about Flint Michigan....hes trying to find Michael whatshisface to ask why hes shutting down the GM factories and goes around watching people get evicted and a lady kill a rabbit for food whilst giggling....

THe Bowling for Columbine movie is for gun ownership liberal crap.

[Herrmannek]

I said it once, i'll say it twice, trice, fortice... It all about fashhion. humans mentality, what media(movies,popular music, and "authorities" )says and etc things, and what example behavior they show...There are examples of societies that are virtualy saturated with guns and yet comparing harmed/users ratio guns inflict much less deaths&damage than bicycles. And there are societies that have virtualy no guns and yet people slaughter themselves with machetes, axes, knives and explosives... Its not about taking guns from people, but about teaching them from the small about being responsible for they actions. USA is droping stressles raising of children(with obviously haven't teached anyone responsibility) thats why drop in crimes and gun crimes in speciffic, while in europe that raising method is still strong and we get results everyday...

And its not about showing detailed gun violence in war movies or criminal ones, but justifing egoistic behavior in general, justiffing and prising unlawfull criminal activities, esspecialy in pseudo artistic form...

[Bugalugs]

Any 'liberal' who supports the banning of guns is a liberal in name only.
thanks for that contribution :|

Actually it's a pretty good observation

yeah, some people think the whole cosmos can be summed up in a one-liner...is is that all they can squeeze out? ;)


Aren't liberals supposed to be all concerned about personal freedoms and liberty and not having others, especially the government, tell people what they can and cannot do?

that sounds like the differance between a liberal and an anarchist

it also sounds like youre trying to chuck everyone's political views into two boxes of your own sizing

[Bugalugs]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif

I'll buy another gun and that rate will drop even lower.

why, because youll kill someone before they can commit a crime?

What does gun ownership has to do with murder?

Merely trying to make sense of your comment.

If you only want the gun for self-defence, how can you GUARANTEE that the crime rate will drop?

Presumably you are GUARANTEEING that you will use it to stop someone comitting crime. Unless you are a cop, you cannot guarantee that unless you go out looking for it.....!

My graphic is just an example of your senseless logic - if number of firearms directly responcible for violent crime rates, then that graphic illustrates that rise in firearm owners somehow reduces crime rates.

I guess I was too subtle for you.

You left out the graph to show increasing gun ownership, if you had one. without that the graph cannot begin to have anything to do with your conclusion

It looks to me like it could equally be evidence that the incresed gun control everyone is bleating about on this forum may be having a positive effect woot

- theres a hole in your logic a truck could drive through

[BarkingSquirrel]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are, no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?Hey, remember those videos they show on those cop videos shows where some punk robs a gas station - leaves - comes back two minutes later and murders the clerk? Can't even count how many times I've seen videos like that. Guess the clerks shoulda used their m@d l33t n1nJ@ Sk1lLZ!

[Bugalugs]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are, no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?Hey, remember those videos they show on those cop videos shows where some punk robs a gas station - leaves - comes back two minutes later and murders the clerk? Can't even count how many times I've seen videos like that. Guess the clerks shoulda used their m@d l33t n1nJ@ Sk1lLZ!

maybe you can count 'em becaue you cant count past 6 p-)

[Bugalugs]

no guns in circulation means the crims find it hard to get guns, and use them rarely (except on each other, and you never hear about these ones). Only the highly motivated and connected ones can get a high-end weaon, like auto weapon, and this is usually to use against other crims in turf wars. Australia is a good example of this principle. Gun control has worked a treat here.

And just how, exactly, do you get there to be "no guns in circulation"? Let's say you take away all legally owned guns, and magically all of them go away, and none are hidden or sold or stolen before you get them. There's still the illegally held guns, which are ALREADY ILLEGAL. Are they going to now magically disappear because they're...illegal? THEY ALREADY WERE ILLEGAL.
I'm not saying reducing the overall supply of guns couldn't possibly help reduce gun crime availability to criminals and therefore possibly help reduce gun crime rates, but what I am saying is that criminals ALREADY HAVE GUNS AND ALREADY HAVE THEM ILLEGALLY, and since the vast majority of guns are owned legally and have not been nor will they be used in a crime, the overwhelming impact of reducing the supply will be to affect the law abiding owners. (If you dispute that the vast majority of guns are owned legally and have not been nor will be used in a crime, please say so, and, if you don't mind, please tell us if this is just your feeling (which is fine) or if it's based on some kind of statistic.)
In Massachusetts in the late 70's there was a very big (at least it was portrayed that way) problem with drunk driving. Did we ban drinking? Did we ban driving? Did we ban cars? Nope, we toughened the laws against the problem - drinking and driving - and enforced them. The vast majority of people, who were not part of the problem, were not targetted by the laws. The situation improved. This is the approach that should be taken with guns and crime. My guns aren't the problem, the criminals and their guns are.

Its about supply and demand -

the less guns in circulation, the harder it is to get them and the more expensive they are on the black market. pretty soon theyre out of the price range of common druggies looking to finance their next hit etc., and the number of armed rims drops significantly. woot

driving is a necessary part of a developed society. guns arent.

[Bugalugs]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

so what?

finish the thought pls....

[joe mama]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

so what?

finish the thought pls....

It's there - maybe the way I wrote it is confusing, it wasn't clear from the previous message if the "...takedown and pain..." comment was yours. Here's the reply again: And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are (all you need is your takedown and pain skills), no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?

[Bugalugs]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

so what?

finish the thought pls....

It's there - maybe the way I wrote it is confusing, it wasn't clear from the previous message if the "...takedown and pain..." comment was yours. Here's the reply again: And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are (all you need is your takedown and pain skills), no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?

i see, looking back i did stuff up the post. And I did wink and the facetious comment "what would I do if I saw a crime being committed?" my answer (with a wink ( ;) )) was intended to convey that there are a thousand things you would do before just shooting a guy in that situation.

just going for your gun would be the soft option in 998 out of the thousand possible scenarios

[joe mama]

driving is a necessary part of a developed society. guns arent.

So society should only allow law abiding adults to possess things that are necessary, even if they use/possess those things responsibly? Or, if some things that are necessary are used irresponsibly, society should try to fix that without infringing on law abiding people's responsible use of those necessary things...but if the things aren't necessary, and some are used irresponsibly, then who cares about the law abiding people who use those things responsibly, let's take those things away from everyone.

[Bugalugs]

driving is a necessary part of a developed society. guns arent.

So society should only allow law abiding adults to possess things that are necessary, even if they use/possess those things responsibly? Or, if some things that are necessary are used irresponsibly, society should try to fix that without infringing on law abiding people's responsible use of those necessary things...but if the things aren't necessary, and some are used irresponsibly, then who cares about the law abiding people who use those things responsibly, let's take those things away from everyone.

an unnecessary killing device should be removed from society. that is what 90% of civilian guns are.

[joe mama]

i see, looking back i did stuff up the post. And I did wink and the facetious comment "what would I do if I saw a crime being committed?" my answer (with a wink ( ;) )) was intended to convey that there are a thousand things you would do before just shooting a guy in that situation.

just going for your gun would be the soft option in 998 out of the thousand possible scenarios

And how many of those thousand things would be likely to be as immediately effective as shooting a guy who's in the middle of stabbing a woman (i'd classify that as attempting to kill her right that instant)? How do you know this guy wasn't a skilled martial artist who saw that shooting was the best (best might mean fastest and most likely to be effective) option? You seem on the edge of saying that he shot just because he had a gun (ie took the cowboy/gun nut approach). Maybe you're not saying that, but it seems like you kind of are - am I wrong?

[joe mama]

an unnecessary killing device should be removed from society. that is what 90% of civilian guns are.

OK, you convinced me. 90% of civilian guns are unnecessary killing devices. It doesn't matter that the extreme vast majority of them are possessed legally and responsibly and will never be used in the commission of a crime, and doesn't matter how many of them are used for legal hunting that feeds families. They're unnecessary killing devices and that's that.
I'm curious, what are the other 10%? Necessary killing devices?

[joe mama]

Its about supply and demand -

the less guns in circulation, the harder it is to get them and the more expensive they are on the black market. pretty soon theyre out of the price range of common druggies looking to finance their next hit etc., and the number of armed rims drops significantly. woot


Possible, even though there already are tons of guns in criminal hands now (at least in the US). This might be something that would work better in the UK or Australia or somewhere else where there may not have already been a large amount of guns in circulation illegally. Whatever...as long as the vast majority of guns are not being used for crimes, I don't agree with taking them away from the law abiding just because criminals might steal them or some people who got their guns legally turn around and sell them illegally. I don't care if "all they do is kill" or "they're unnecessary" or anything similiar - I care if the if the vast majority of them can be owned and used responsibly. They can be and are.

[Bugalugs]

i see, looking back i did stuff up the post. And I did wink and the facetious comment "what would I do if I saw a crime being committed?" my answer (with a wink ( ;) )) was intended to convey that there are a thousand things you would do before just shooting a guy in that situation.

just going for your gun would be the soft option in 998 out of the thousand possible scenarios

And how many of those thousand things would be likely to be as immediately effective as shooting a guy who's in the middle of stabbing a woman (i'd classify that as attempting to kill her right that instant)? How do you know this guy wasn't necessary, as required by law, are you?a skilled martial artist who saw that shooting was the best (best might mean fastest and most likely to be effective) option? You seem on the edge of saying that he shot just because he had a gun (ie took the cowboy/gun nut approach). Maybe you're not saying that, but it seems like you kind of are - am I wrong?

so youre not really interested in he using the minimum force required, as required by law, are you?

have a good time being arse-reamed in jail during your stretch for murder p-)

[RGRBOX]

Its about supply and demand -

the less guns in circulation, the harder it is to get them and the more expensive they are on the black market. pretty soon theyre out of the price range of common druggies looking to finance their next hit etc., and the number of armed rims drops significantly. woot


Possible, even though there already are tons of guns in criminal hands now (at least in the US). This might be something that would work better in the UK or Australia or somewhere else where there may not have already been a large amount of guns in circulation illegally. Whatever...as long as the vast majority of guns are not being used for crimes, I don't agree with taking them away from the law abiding just because criminals might steal them or some people who got their guns legally turn around and sell them illegally. I don't care if "all they do is kill" or "they're unnecessary" or anything similiar - I care if the if the vast majority of them can be owned and used responsibly. They can be and are.

There are more guns in crimminals hands everywhere, not just the states... Go to the east, hell should have been here in CH when some Albanians desided to rob an armored car a few years ago...

[Bugalugs]

Its about supply and demand -

the less guns in circulation, the harder it is to get them and the more expensive they are on the black market. pretty soon theyre out of the price range of common druggies looking to finance their next hit etc., and the number of armed rims drops significantly


Possible, even though there already are tons of guns in criminal hands now (at least in the US). This might be something that would work better in the UK or Australia or somewhere else where there may not have already been a large amount of guns in circulation illegally. .

I'd say probable, if you conduct a gun buyback. you'd make the money back in a year from all the money saved not haveing to treat the thousands of gunshot injuries that come into public hospitals in the US every year.

worked a treat here.

[Herrmannek]

Guns are very crude and simple tools, you can't make criminals to not get them. Nor in Britain nor in Australia... Remeber criminals smugle drugs, people, and gods know what else and I say smugling guns is much easier than 2 first ones. Every junkie in europe who know who to ask will be able to buy gun for its unemployment social money...

[BarkingSquirrel]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are, no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?Hey, remember those videos they show on those cop videos shows where some punk robs a gas station - leaves - comes back two minutes later and murders the clerk? Can't even count how many times I've seen videos like that. Guess the clerks shoulda used their m@d l33t n1nJ@ Sk1lLZ!

maybe you can count 'em becaue you cant count past 6 p-)Whats that? Can't respond to the statement presented so you must try to insult me? I most certaintly can count past six. Seven, see. Now eight, that's a toughy, only for edumacted folk such as yourself.

By the way, when trying to say I'm stupid, maybe you should use gramma, punctuation and spelling.

[Bugalugs]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are, no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?Hey, remember those videos they show on those cop videos shows where some punk robs a gas station - leaves - comes back two minutes later and murders the clerk? Can't even count how many times I've seen videos like that. Guess the clerks shoulda used their m@d l33t n1nJ@ Sk1lLZ!

maybe you can count 'em becaue you cant count past 6 p-)Whats that? Can't respond to the statement presented so you must try to insult me? I most certaintly can count past six. Seven, see. Now eight, that's a toughy, only for edumacted folk such as yourself.

By the way, when trying to say I'm stupid, maybe you should use gramma, punctuation and spelling.

awww poor widdle sqwiwwel got his nuts in a knot :petting:

[Bugalugs]

Guns are very crude and simple tools, you can't make criminals to not get them. Nor in Britain nor in Australia... Remeber criminals smugle drugs, people, and gods know what else and I say smugling guns is much easier than 2 first ones. Every junkie in europe who know who to ask will be able to buy gun for its unemployment social money...

evem if one australian crim had one pistol, the gun nuts would say that everyone should be armed in response.

however the fact is, for the benefit of thinking people out there, that it is a negligible problem in Oz, because of gun control.

I've said before, others should learn from our example.

[BarkingSquirrel]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are, no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?Hey, remember those videos they show on those cop videos shows where some punk robs a gas station - leaves - comes back two minutes later and murders the clerk? Can't even count how many times I've seen videos like that. Guess the clerks shoulda used their m@d l33t n1nJ@ Sk1lLZ!

maybe you can count 'em becaue you cant count past 6 p-)Whats that? Can't respond to the statement presented so you must try to insult me? I most certaintly can count past six. Seven, see. Now eight, that's a toughy, only for edumacted folk such as yourself.

By the way, when trying to say I'm stupid, maybe you should use gramma, punctuation and spelling.

awww poor widdle sqwiwwel got his nuts in a knot :petting:Hey, atleast I got a pair of balls, that's more than anyone can say for you.

[Bugalugs]

I wouldnt need a gun. some takedown and pain compliance techniques are all i'd need to use ;)


I'm assuming this was the comment you added to the above post - is that right? If so...

And since everyone else in the world is just a good a martial artist as you are, no one else would ever need a gun either, right? Because no criminals are going to hurt anyone who just goes along with what they want, right?Hey, remember those videos they show on those cop videos shows where some punk robs a gas station - leaves - comes back two minutes later and murders the clerk? Can't even count how many times I've seen videos like that. Guess the clerks shoulda used their m@d l33t n1nJ@ Sk1lLZ!

maybe you can count 'em becaue you cant count past 6 p-)Whats that? Can't respond to the statement presented so you must try to insult me? I most certaintly can count past six. Seven, see. Now eight, that's a toughy, only for edumacted folk such as yourself.

By the way, when trying to say I'm stupid, maybe you should use gramma, punctuation and spelling.

awww poor widdle sqwiwwel got his nuts in a knot :petting:Hey, atleast I got a pair of balls, that's more than anyone can say for you.
haha you counting to prove you could make it past 6 was champagne comedy! rofl

[BarkingSquirrel]

After posting that I realised you have more balls than you know what to do with. What with the nightly teabagging and all.

[Bugalugs]

After posting that I realised you have more balls than you know what to do with. What with the nightly teabagging and all. rofl rofl rofl

[BarkingSquirrel]

I know, I know. It's one of those things that's funny because it's true.

[Geezah]

I'm amazed how quickly Bugger All turned this into a flame fest, congrats Troll!


Its funny as f*** when someone has a single-track mind, spends all him time on a forum running frantically in little circles yelling "the sky is falling in! england is burning! the world sucks! arm yourselves! arm yourselves!"

I didn't think this thread had anything to do with England or the fact the sky is falling, more to do with getting answers from Michael Moore.

As far as your idea that removing firearms from society will somehow reduce firearms deaths is commical.
If you remove a tool, this does not remove the desire to commit crime. People do bad things for a number of reasons, owning a firearm is not one of them!

[joe mama]

so youre not really interested in he using the minimum force required, as required by law, are you?

nice assumption on your part that i'm not interested in using minimum force. it seems to be the assumption of so many people that think like you that once someone has a gun they're incapable of controlling it's use and just blast at anything they see when something happens. why is that? do you think you wouldn't be able to control yourself and just have the gun as one more option?

anyway, my point was, he had to decide that instant what to do, as the woman is being killed (extremely likely) right in front of him and he decided to take the option most likely to end the attack as quickly as possible and possibly save her life.
if he had tried to hit the guy in the head with a brick or tried to tackle him or whatever else, and the woman died because it didn't end the attack as quickly as shooting the guy would have, would you feel better? if he'd tried something other than shooting, and she lived, that would be great. but it appears he didn't have time to try something else, and if it didn't work, then shoot, as he felt her life was in too immediate danger.

[joe mama]

evem if one australian crim had one pistol, the gun nuts would say that everyone should be armed in response.

yup, that's right, we want everyone armed. in fact, we want the right hand of all babies replaced, at birth, with a 44 magnum.
nope, we don't favor allowing law abiding citizens to be armed if they choose to be (with REASONABLE controls, such as ccw licensing) and that they should be held accountable for irresponsible or illegal use of their arms...nope, that's not it...we say that everyone should be armed. period. there's no choice involved.

[Bugalugs]

so youre not really interested in he using the minimum force required, as required by law, are you?

nice assumption on your part that i'm not interested in using minimum force. it seems to be the assumption of so many people that think like you that once someone has a gun they're incapable of controlling it's use and just blast at anything they see when something happens. why is that? do you think you wouldn't be able to control yourself and just have the gun as one more option?

anyway, my point was, he had to decide that instant what to do, as the woman is being killed (extremely likely) right in front of him and he decided to take the option most likely to end the attack as quickly as possible and possibly save her life.
if he had tried to hit the guy in the head with a brick or tried to tackle him or whatever else, and the woman died because it didn't end the attack as quickly as shooting the guy would have, would you feel better? if he'd tried something other than shooting, and she lived, that would be great. but it appears he didn't have time to try something else, and if it didn't work, then shoot, as he felt her life was in too immediate danger.

just carry on carreering around in tiny little logic circles matey, eventually youll get queasy and puke all over your tricycle

[StukaJr]

I remember, when I first came to LA in '91, there was a huge surge in carjackings - I think that was the time when the crime got first really popular... Stick a gun in someone's face and take off in their ride - easy money and mind you - this was a decade before GTA became popular p-)

LAPD was pretty much hopeless to stop these crimes - did not help the fact that the laws were lax and chumpchange in the regards to the payoff and total lack of skills from the wanna-be car thieves. So they passed a law/city ordninace which pretty much exumed anybody automatically if they shot and killed a car-jacker in the process of the assault... First case happened the morning after the law was announced - a CCW carrying citizen gunned down a would be car jacker from the inside his vehicle.

Needless to say, a few more highly publicized cases later - car jacking rate dropped like a bomb. These crimes still exist among other violent crimes, but it's odd that "taking the law into your own hands" among with tougher violent crime laws being put in place seems to have capped a growing trend of victimizing on helpless victims. However, it's illeagal to conceal a loaded firearm in the salon of your vehicle unless it's in a locked container with ammunition sepparetely - I don't know when that ordinance was passed.

I live in LA - the city with worst history of riots and how incappable the police has been to protect its citizens. There is one shopping center which was left untouched in the sea of burnt/looted business - you guessed it, because there were armed store owners with guns guarding it. We had our neighbors with shotguns and Mini-14's on the roofs and I felt safer with them then with the Police or the National Guards.

I say - less "helpless victims" = less violent crimes.

Just a story I've remembered.

[Bugalugs]

I remember, when I first came to LA in '91, there was a huge surge in carjackings - I think that was the time when the crime got first really popular... Stick a gun in someone's face and take off in their ride - easy money and mind you - this was a decade before GTA became popular p-)

LAPD was pretty much hopeless to stop these crimes - did not help the fact that the laws were lax and chumpchange in the regards to the payoff and total lack of skills from the wanna-be car thieves. So they passed a law/city ordninace which pretty much exumed anybody automatically if they shot and killed a car-jacker in the process of the assault... First case happened the morning after the law was announced - a CCW carrying citizen gunned down a would be car jacker from the inside his vehicle.

Needless to say, a few more highly publicized cases later - car jacking rate dropped like a bomb. These crimes still exist among other violent crimes, but it's odd that "taking the law into your own hands" among with tougher violent crime laws being put in place seems to have capped a growing trend of victimizing on helpless victims. However, it's illeagal to conceal a loaded firearm in the salon of your vehicle unless it's in a locked container with ammunition sepparetely - I don't know when that ordinance was passed.

I say - less "helpless victims" = less violent crimes.

Just a story I've remembered.

exumed eh? so they killed them, buried them, and dug them up again.

the core of the issue is the carjackers had guns in the first place, or they couldnt have carjacked a locked car

[StukaJr]

the core of the issue is the carjackers had guns in the first place, or they couldnt have carjacked a locked car

Car is inpenetrable fortress? What do you drive, a BTR?

Carjacking does not always involve guns - but it does involve supperior force. My friend's car got carjacked without a gun - someone followed him into security parking garage, blocked him in and threatened him to unlock the vehicle with tire irons and other bludgeoning tools - it was 3 on 1. There were cases of elderly people being simply intimidated of their vehicles because they had no physical strength to fend for themselves - victims ended up bludgeoned to death. Surrendering to a car jacker would get you killed more often then one would want to believe.

Leathal assault permits leathal response - such is the law. A firearm is a quickest and the surest way to deliver such response, in many cases, by a person otherwise unable to respond to a threat. Would deffending yourself with a pipe wrench or a 6" folder blade somehow more humane?

[joe mama]

just carry on carreering around in tiny little logic circles matey, eventually youll get queasy and puke all over your tricycle

that's a pretty disappointing response...what's wrong, not willing to consider the possibility that he made a reasonable choice to shoot? or that shooting may have been the minimum amount of force/response that could reasonably (in the tiny amount of time available to decide what to do) have the best chance of saving this woman's life?

[Bryson C]

Oh, boy! I'll buy this movie just to see Michael Moore ambushed by his own cheap tactics!

Yep thats why I am goning to get it.

[Bugalugs]

the core of the issue is the carjackers had guns in the first place, or they couldnt have carjacked a locked car

Car is inpenetrable fortress? What do you drive, a BTR?

Carjacking does not always involve guns - but it does involve supperior force. My friend's car got carjacked without a gun - someone followed him into security parking garage, blocked him in and threatened him to unlock the vehicle with tire irons and other bludgeoning tools - it was 3 on 1. There were cases of elderly people being simply intimidated of their vehicles because they had no physical strength to fend for themselves - victims ended up bludgeoned to death. Surrendering to a car jacker would get you killed more often then one would want to believe.

One case wont help you much. And how do you know he would not be shot himself by one of the three other guys, if guns are so prevalent amongs the crims as you say? You don't - he lost his car, but could havce lost his life.

Where are all these granny storties? find 'em, and if you can count them on more than one hand, I'll congratulate you.

Face it, no matter what happens, you want to keep your guns. these fatuuous arguments are just smokescreens.


Leathal assault permits leathal response - such is the law. A firearm is a quickest and the surest way to deliver such response, in many cases, by a person otherwise unable to respond to a threat. Would deffending yourself with a pipe wrench or a 6" folder blade somehow more humane?

The law doesnt say "you may defend yourself by the quickest and surest method, in any circumstance, even if it involves blowing big holes in people,and we promise we wont put you in a jail to be arse-raped by a big guy named Bubba."

[Bugalugs]

just carry on carreering around in tiny little logic circles matey, eventually youll get queasy and puke all over your tricycle

that's a pretty disappointing response...what's wrong, not willing to consider the possibility that he made a reasonable choice to shoot? or that shooting may have been the minimum amount of force/response that could reasonably (in the tiny amount of time available to decide what to do) have the best chance of saving this woman's life?

possibly, but the circumstances where ALL you can do is blow a big hole in someone are miniscule, outside an actual combat zone.

you, however, are clinging on to that little crumb because it serves your purpose and agenda - to keep your fun gun collection.

[joe mama]

possibly, but the circumstances where ALL you can do is blow a big hole in someone are miniscule, outside an actual combat zone.

you, however, are clinging on to that little crumb because it serves your purpose and agenda - to keep your fun gun collection.

I specifically said that shooting MAY have been the best choice. Didn't say that it WAS the best choice. What are the results? Dead attempted murderer (almost a successful murderer), living attacked woman, no one else hurt. Even if this wasn't the best choice, those results tell me it was a good choice.

I'll cling to my crumb, you cling to yours...

[Bugalugs]

possibly, but the circumstances where ALL you can do is blow a big hole in someone are miniscule, outside an actual combat zone.

you, however, are clinging on to that little crumb because it serves your purpose and agenda - to keep your fun gun collection.

I specifically said that shooting MAY have been the best choice. Didn't say that it WAS the best choice. What are the results? Dead attempted murderer (almost a successful murderer), living attacked woman, no one else hurt. Even if this wasn't the best choice, those results tell me it was a good choice.

But if it wasnt the legally CORRECT choice, he may off for an arse-raping.
Your one size-fits-all theory doesnt work in front of a Judge and Jury

[StukaJr]

One case wont help you much. And how do you know he would not be shot himself by one of the three other guys, if guns are so prevalent amongs the crims as you say? You don't - he lost his car, but could havce lost his life.

Ummm... It was a personal case - having experienced one carjacking to someone you know is enough in my lifetime. He was taken into the desert and left in a junkyard duct taped at his hands and knees - he was lucky they did a poor job in restraining him and he was able to inch his way out and loosen some of the tape... With quite a bit of his skin. I don't know if the carjackers did that on purpose or were just very bad at trying to kill a man in worst case possible.




Where are all these granny storties? find 'em, and if you can count them on more than one hand, I'll congratulate you.



News - mostly high profile cases that get a media attention




Face it, no matter what happens, you want to keep your guns. these fatuuous arguments are just smokescreens.


And you would do anything to take away my gun. Nobody proposed a way to get the guns out of criminals' hands nor give a good reason why I should not own a gun when I play my life by the book. Now, I note that you are not free of typos yourself.




The law doesnt say "you may defend yourself by the quickest and surest method, in any circumstance, even if it involves blowing big holes in people,and we promise we wont put you in a jail to be arse-raped by a big guy named Bubba."

Ummm... Of course the law doesn't say that, especially not in that backward halfassed attempt at being funny - I can only speak for the California law or City of LA ordinances in regards of shooting someone or keeping a firearm. It is something that you get even before you get your first firearm - firearm safety and law test. If someone assaults me, I can exact leathal response if there is a threat present to myself or those around me. I can't shoot them in retaliation, fleeing or in any manner that would justify that they weren't a threat - also, if the investigation concludes that the response was not justified I would get to serve out a manslaughter sentence. If I kill someone in self-deffense - I spend one night in mandatory soilitary confinement and such is the law across most/all of the US.

[StukaJr]

possibly, but the circumstances where ALL you can do is blow a big hole in someone are miniscule, outside an actual combat zone.

you, however, are clinging on to that little crumb because it serves your purpose and agenda - to keep your fun gun collection.

I specifically said that shooting MAY have been the best choice. Didn't say that it WAS the best choice. What are the results? Dead attempted murderer (almost a successful murderer), living attacked woman, no one else hurt. Even if this wasn't the best choice, those results tell me it was a good choice.

But if it wasnt the legally CORRECT choice, he may off for an arse-raping.
Your one size-fits-all theory doesnt work in front of a Judge and Jury

That's why CCW lisense comes with such extensive study into the law, situational awareness and the recognition of the situation - while the use or even carrying of the weapon is a dangerous responsibility, it is a responsibility nevertheless. The arguement that the shooter in the case had no understanding of the righteousness of his actions or the leagal bounds is laughable - the use of a leathal force was well justified before by the shooter and uphelf by the law/court.

Have he had thrown a brick or even a shoe at the knife wielding assailant and found guilty of doing something wrong - he (the shooter) would still be convicted of a felony! Just in this case - assault with a deadly weapon/missile.

[joe mama]

But if it wasnt the legally CORRECT choice, he may off for an arse-raping.Your one size-fits-all theory doesnt work in front of a Judge and Jury

That comes dangerously close to argeeing that maybe it was a good choice...

At no point have I said it's one size fits all. I've repeatedly said this guy had almost no time at all to decide what to do and the choice he made appears to have: 1) saved a womans life 2) stopped a criminal 3) been within the law (she was pretty clearly in danger of death or serious injury, and in most states (possibly all) in the US you can use deadly force to protect yourself or another person when in that situation). His having a gun (legally carried because he had a ccw license) simply made available to him an option that he would not have had otherwise. Just because you have an additional option doesn't mean you'll immediately use it.

If you'd rather talk about if his choice was legal (pretty sure it was, at least where he was), or regardless of if it was or wasn't, if it should be legal, that's fine with me too. The point of my posts so far have been to counter your implications/statements that this was the wrong thing to do and/or us gun nuts are only in favor of what he did because as soon as we have our guns, we don't consider any other options. If you really think that way, you'd be in for a surprise if you actually talked with any significant number of people who are licensed to carry. In my experience (I've met quite a few of them), they tend to avoid potentially dangerous places and situations and confrontations even more than the average person does. Sorry if that ruins the belief some people have that if you ccw or want to then you just want to look for dark alleys to walk down hoping you get attacked. But, if that's your crumb, in the words of someone around here, you go ahead and cling to it...

Edit: Just checked the original article...in it, a police spokesman says it appeared (at the time of the article) that the shooting was justified - ie legal.

[Bugalugs]

[quote=Bugalugs]But if it wasnt the legally CORRECT choice, he may off for an arse-raping.Your one size-fits-all theory doesnt work in front of a Judge and Jury

That comes dangerously close to argeeing that maybe it was a good choice...

[\quote]

no, youre just coming close to an arse-raping oif you use your theory in practice


Edit: Just checked the original article...in it, a police spokesman says it appeared (at the time of the article) that the shooting was justified - ie legal.

too bad its not the Police spokesman who decides whether to prosecute, its the Prosecutors.

[StukaJr]

But if it wasnt the legally CORRECT choice, he may off for an arse-raping.Your one size-fits-all theory doesnt work in front of a Judge and Jury

That comes dangerously close to argeeing that maybe it was a good choice...


no, youre just coming close to an arse-raping oif you use your theory in practice


Edit: Just checked the original article...in it, a police spokesman says it appeared (at the time of the article) that the shooting was justified - ie legal.

too bad its not the Police spokesman who decides whether to prosecute, its the Prosecutors.

I don't think Bugalugs even cares about guns - he is just strangely fascinated with arse rape though and just arses in particular... What is about arse and you, Bugalugs?

[joe mama]

I don't think Bugalugs even cares about guns - he is just strangely fascinated with arse rape though and just arses in particular... What is about arse and you, Bugalugs?

Well...I don't mean to imply anything...but he is also the one that started the whole thing about guns putting a tingle in us gun nut's groins...
p-)

[joe mama]

no, youre just coming close to an arse-raping oif you use your theory in practice

Exactly what theory of mine is this? The one that says that in this case, shooting, while possibly not the best choice, appears to have been a good choice since it ended with 1) a living woman who had a damn good chance of being dead otherwise 2) a dead attempted murderer prevented from succeeding in becoming a murderer 3) no one else hurt, despite the frequently touted idea that ccw'ing people will hit granny across the street and the kids down at the playground 4) an initial, at least, statement from the police that this is probably a justifiable and therefore legal shooting? Is it that theory? Or did I state some other theory? If I did, please point it out to me.

[StukaJr]

I don't think Bugalugs even cares about guns - he is just strangely fascinated with arse rape though and just arses in particular... What is about arse and you, Bugalugs?

Well...I don't mean to imply anything...but he is also the one that started the whole thing about guns putting a tingle in us gun nut's groins...
p-)

Hehe... take a guy who plays tennis or raquetteball and a competition shooter - guess whom is going to get gawked at... Tired of answering "Why do you enjoy shooting guns" I'm going to start asking "Why do you enjoy (fill in the blank)?" I mean, hammering a ball against a wall can't be any less rewarding...

Funny story that happened to me last weekend - I'm at my friend's house party and cozied up to a group of girls, making small talk... All of a sudden, my friend emerges from behind me and says "This is my friend so and so - he shoots guns!" and takes off... Nice c0ck block, mate! And come on, once a month at the range and now that defines me? p-) However, I did score a couple of fake dates throughout my life with girls whom never fired a gun and wanted to try - those are a lot more adventurous then the once afraid of everything that's not pink and cuddly p-)

[Bugalugs]

no, youre just coming close to an arse-raping oif you use your theory in practice

Exactly what theory of mine is this? The one that says that in this case, shooting, while possibly not the best choice, appears to have been a good choice since it ended with 1) a living woman who had a damn good chance of being dead otherwise 2) a dead attempted murderer prevented from succeeding in becoming a murderer 3) no one else hurt, despite the frequently touted idea that ccw'ing people will hit granny across the street and the kids down at the playground 4) an initial, at least, statement from the police that this is probably a justifiable and therefore legal shooting? Is it that theory? Or did I state some other theory? If I did, please point it out to me.

see below



possibly, but the circumstances where ALL you can do is blow a big hole in someone are miniscule, outside an actual combat zone.

you, however, are clinging on to that little crumb because it serves your purpose and agenda - to keep your fun gun collection.

I specifically said that shooting MAY have been the best choice. Didn't say that it WAS the best choice. What are the results? Dead attempted murderer (almost a successful murderer), living attacked woman, no one else hurt. Even if this wasn't the best choice, those results tell me it was a good choice.

[StukaJr]

You've missed the fact that the woman or the victim is alive, thanks to the shooting. Saving one life in exchange for the life of derranged psychopath in the process of a process of killing of another person is very different from just killing one man.

The shooter did not fire his weapon to kill another man - he shot to stop a murder of a helpless woman.

[Bugalugs]

You've missed the fact that the woman or the victim is alive, thanks to the shooting. Saving one life in exchange for the life of derranged psychopath in the process of a process of killing of another person is very different from just killing one man.

The shooter did not fire his weapon to kill another man - he shot to stop a murder of a helpless woman.

No, you miss the point -

that was unlikely to have been the minimum force necessary to achieve his aim.

You hit someone over the head with a piece of wood, in real life, they stop doing what theyre doing pretty damn quick. i.e. they lie on the ground twitching and moaning, between bleeding from the ears and nose, no matter how intent they were on doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

If youre being attacked yourself, lethal force in self-defence I have no problem with, as long as you cant run away (i.e. he's chasing you around the car parking lot with a gun/knife) but when its someone else being attacked and that is where the attackers focus lies, you have far more options availabe to you than just pulling out a gun and shooting.[/quote]

[joe mama]

You've missed the fact that the woman or the victim is alive, thanks to the shooting. Saving one life in exchange for the life of derranged psychopath in the process of a process of killing of another person is very different from just killing one man.

The shooter did not fire his weapon to kill another man - he shot to stop a murder of a helpless woman.

No, you miss the point -

that was unlikely to have been the minimum force necessary to achieve his aim.

You hit someone over the head with a piece of wood, in real life, they stop doing what theyre doing pretty damn quick. i.e. they lie on the ground twitching and moaning, between bleeding from the ears and nose, no matter how intent they were on doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

If youre being attacked yourself, lethal force in self-defence I have no problem with, as long as you cant run away (i.e. he's chasing you around the car parking lot with a gun/knife) but when its someone else being attacked and that is where the attackers focus lies, you have far more options availabe to you than just pulling out a gun and shooting.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I forgot, you were there. You were inside this guys head, and you saw that he didn't consider any options at all except for shooting. Sorry for making that mistake, it's all clear now, you're right. This was the only option he considered, because he had a gun, and that's how all gun nuts think. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[joe mama]

no, youre just coming close to an arse-raping oif you use your theory in practice

Exactly what theory of mine is this? The one that says that in this case, shooting, while possibly not the best choice, appears to have been a good choice since it ended with 1) a living woman who had a damn good chance of being dead otherwise 2) a dead attempted murderer prevented from succeeding in becoming a murderer 3) no one else hurt, despite the frequently touted idea that ccw'ing people will hit granny across the street and the kids down at the playground 4) an initial, at least, statement from the police that this is probably a justifiable and therefore legal shooting? Is it that theory? Or did I state some other theory? If I did, please point it out to me.

see below



possibly, but the circumstances where ALL you can do is blow a big hole in someone are miniscule, outside an actual combat zone.

you, however, are clinging on to that little crumb because it serves your purpose and agenda - to keep your fun gun collection.

I specifically said that shooting MAY have been the best choice. Didn't say that it WAS the best choice. What are the results? Dead attempted murderer (almost a successful murderer), living attacked woman, no one else hurt. Even if this wasn't the best choice, those results tell me it was a good choice.

Funny what I see there is me stressing that it MAY have been the best choice, NOT that it WAS. And it was a good choice, because in addition to the results, I left out something important: it appears, from the information available, to have been COMPLETELY LEGAL. In this country, in every state, as far as I know, use of deadly force IS LEGAL when another person's life is in danger, and hers clearly was. I have never disputed your belief that less force MIGHT have stopped this attack. BUT IT MIGHT NOT HAVE. Just because less force might have worked, more force isn't necessarily illegal, especially in this situation, where she is in immediate danger and a split second decision had to be made. This wasn't a guy running across a parking lot, 100 yards from her, with his knife out, screaming "i'm gonna cut you beeeeeeeeatch!", and the guy just blew him away without thinking when he would have had plenty of time to think.

[StukaJr]

You've missed the fact that the woman or the victim is alive, thanks to the shooting. Saving one life in exchange for the life of derranged psychopath in the process of a process of killing of another person is very different from just killing one man.

The shooter did not fire his weapon to kill another man - he shot to stop a murder of a helpless woman.

No, you miss the point -

that was unlikely to have been the minimum force necessary to achieve his aim.

You hit someone over the head with a piece of wood, in real life, they stop doing what theyre doing pretty damn quick. i.e. they lie on the ground twitching and moaning, between bleeding from the ears and nose, no matter how intent they were on doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

If youre being attacked yourself, lethal force in self-defence I have no problem with, as long as you cant run away (i.e. he's chasing you around the car parking lot with a gun/knife) but when its someone else being attacked and that is where the attackers focus lies, you have far more options availabe to you than just pulling out a gun and shooting.[/quote]

I'm sorry - I practice kendo and after 3 years of hitting men (and women) on the head with a piece of wood - I still suck at it, even though I practice twice a week. Guys bigger then me - forget about it. Swinging a piece of wood with enough momentum to incapacitate someone leaves you open and vulnerable - to counter attack with a knife, for example. Frontal lobe area is rather imprevious to blunt trauma.

If you hit someone on the head to the point of concussion (bleeding from the ears) and brain trauma (laying and twitching) - you are equally endangering that person's life. Killing someone with a gun or a blunt object is equally killing in the end - doesn't explain you arse raping theory that awaits all the gun nuts.

So if you see someone seconds away from receiving a fatal slash or a stab - you are going to run around, looking for a bit of wood? After all, there are bits of wood neately placed per every 10 yards in your city, right?


but when its someone else being attacked and that is where the attackers focus lies, you have far more options availabe to you than just pulling out a gun and shooting

Well, then you are in disagreence with the law of the land... So should a mother deffend her own life with a gun but if a life of her child is in danger - she should consider other means?

[StukaJr]

If youre being attacked yourself, lethal force in self-defence I have no problem with, as long as you cant run away (i.e. he's chasing you around the car parking lot with a gun/knife) but when its someone else being attacked and that is where the attackers focus lies, you have far more options availabe to you than just pulling out a gun and shooting.

I think we are finally seeing a light in the end of the tunnel here...

So we are not gun nuts if we use guns to deffend our own life, but we are suddenly gun nuts if we deffend a life of others? So, selfishness and egotism makes us perfect upright citizens in your book?

"Sorry mom - this serial rapist is attacking only you and you are the sole attention of his attack... I could use this fancy 9mm automatic I bought to deffend myself but I just can't and have to seek other options... I will just pummel this guy with this feather duster, since the height of the room's ceiling just won't let me swing anything larger then that..."

"Sure this guy is 300 pounds and two feet taller then you - just hit him on the head with a bit of wood and get him laying on the ground, twitching"

Yeah, F$%ing right p-)

[Bugalugs]

If youre being attacked yourself, lethal force in self-defence I have no problem with, as long as you cant run away (i.e. he's chasing you around the car parking lot with a gun/knife) but when its someone else being attacked and that is where the attackers focus lies, you have far more options availabe to you than just pulling out a gun and shooting.

[Bugalugs]

You've missed the fact that the woman or the victim is alive, thanks to the shooting. Saving one life in exchange for the life of derranged psychopath in the process of a process of killing of another person is very different from just killing one man.

The shooter did not fire his weapon to kill another man - he shot to stop a murder of a helpless woman.

No, you miss the point -

that was unlikely to have been the minimum force necessary to achieve his aim.

You hit someone over the head with a piece of wood, in real life, they stop doing what theyre doing pretty damn quick. i.e. they lie on the ground twitching and moaning, between bleeding from the ears and nose, no matter how intent they were on doing whatever they were doing beforehand.

If youre being attacked yourself, lethal force in self-defence I have no problem with, as long as you cant run away (i.e. he's chasing you around the car parking lot with a gun/knife) but when its someone else being attacked and that is where the attackers focus lies, you have far more options availabe to you than just pulling out a gun and shooting.

I'm sorry - I practice kendo and after 3 years of hitting men (and women) on the head with a piece of wood - I still suck at it, even though I practice twice a week. Guys bigger then me - forget about it. Swinging a piece of wood with enough momentum to incapacitate someone leaves you open and vulnerable - to counter attack with a knife, for example. Frontal lobe area is rather imprevious to blunt trauma.

If you hit someone on the head to the point of concussion (bleeding from the ears) and brain trauma (laying and twitching) - you are equally endangering that person's life. Killing someone with a gun or a blunt object is equally killing in the end - doesn't explain you arse raping theory that awaits all the gun nuts.

We are talking about hthe situation where someone is absorbed in attacking someone else - counter-attack is not an issue, unless your attempt to neutralise the person by force LESS than shooting them is unsuccessful. only THEN would you be ooking to escalate

Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone in the head is as serious an injury as blowing a large hole in their body? You said yourself it is hard to seriously injure someone that way, and all youre trying to do, after all, is to dissuade them from their course of action, not make them bleed from the ears.

This should be well within anyones capacity as a viable option to try before just pulling out a gun and shooting, unless you are a small child of course. Legally, you are obliged to at least consider the option before filling someone with lead.

[Bugalugs]

Okay lets summarise you one-size-fits all theory, which shines through whichever way you approach this situation

1. get ccw licence
2. walk down street
3. see a crime being committed (type is irrelevant, as long as violence is somewhere involved)
4. approach the perpetrator
5. shoot him/her withyour gun
6. talk to nice policeman on scene who supports you because he hates crims too
7. provide statement to nice policeman
8. less-nice prosecutor reads statement, recommends charges
9. You meet nice Judge and jury
10. Meet Bubba. You revisit your definition of "nice"

[StukaJr]

Okay lets summarise you one-size-fits all theory, which shines through whichever way you approach this situation

1. get ccw licence
2. walk down street
3. see a crime being committed (type is irrelevant, as long as violence is somewhere involved)
4. approach the perpetrator
5. shoot him/her withyour gun
6. talk to nice policeman on scene who supports you because he hates crims too
7. provide statement to nice policeman
8. less-nice prosecutor reads statement, recommends charges
9. You meet nice Judge and jury
10. Meet Bubba. You revisit your definition of "nice"

Of course, no verbal threat and a muzzle of a handgun pointed straight in "would be attacker's" face never stopped anybody from assault or any other violent crime.

If Police justifies the shooting - it doesn't go any further then that. So that kind of blows your theory right there since no pursecutor, judge or jury would ever get involved. Usually, a dead guy still clutching a weapon and/or victim of the crime still being treated by the ER stuff is enough.

If the Police does not justify the shooting - then the pursecutor comes in. Hopefully, this is where your diligent attention to detail and making sure that you've acted in the lines of the law pays off and your lawyer/public deffender is able to talk some sense into the pursecutor. Having the would be victim on the witness stand - balling how grateful he or she is for saving their life will sway any jury.

In California, if the perpetrator survives the shooting - he or she can sue you in Civil Court, but that's just for $$$. If the perp is dead and certain types of high powered ammunition were used in the shooting - his or hers family can sue you in the Civil Court.

Also, in California, you can't just get CCW unless you have tons of cash on you as part of your daily business or got threatened earlier - so I don't carry. Carrying a handgun (if it's leagally yours) is a misdemeanor in California and most of US (where guns are leagal).

[StukaJr]

We are talking about hthe situation where someone is absorbed in attacking someone else - counter-attack is not an issue, unless your attempt to neutralise the person by force LESS than shooting them is unsuccessful. only THEN would you be ooking to escalate


I've outlined in bold where I think you are speaking out of boundaries - first, you don't know that the attacker was absorbed, second - where do you get that counter attack is not an issue. Come up on two guys fighting - hit one and see him attack you or at least swing you if you are still in age. If he had a knife - you'd be sorry. Simple.



Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone in the head is as serious an injury as blowing a large hole in their body? You said yourself it is hard to seriously injure someone that way, and all youre trying to do, after all, is to dissuade them from their course of action, not make them bleed from the ears.


The guy got a woman bleeding from multiple cut wounds and all he needs is to be dissuaded from any further action? The guy was crazed (and you can tell when people are crazed) - I'm sure any psychiatrist will agree with you that a smacking crazed people with history of mental instability is a sure way to get them to calm down.



Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone in the head is as serious an injury as blowing a large hole in their body?

People are different - just watch IFC... Some guys can take 20 punches to their face and not go down - adrenaline, drugs, pure crazy will just make you imprevious to pain.

You are missing out on the main issue - time.

Let's say the distance between the shooter and the assailant is 30 feet, the assailant is attacking a woman with a knife - the shooter pulls the gun and discharges the weapon. A second or two passes - the assailant is down without making another strike.

Take your theory. Same set up. Only the shooter charges to cover 30 feet. Bashes the guy in the head. No effect. In that time, the assailant has enough time to stab the woman again. Maybe twice. Maybe three times - I mean, the shooter is not a superman. The Shooter pulls the gun. Now the shooter is only feet away from the assailant - giving the knife wielding baddy the ability to lunge at the guy with the gun. The woman could collapse from the other hits and now the assailant turns and faces the shooter, whom couldn't save the woman and put himself in hand-to-hand range with an assailant.

[Bugalugs]

haha i hope you can access mp.net from prison

What annoys me is your apparent disregard for the concept of graduated force - hell, it applies on the battlefield, let alone the streets of america!

As well, you seem to spend a lot of your time thinking up elaborate, detailed scenarios to justify carrying a gun, and pointing to sensational media reports (only the ones that support you, of course) without any regard for reality.

Heck, if I put the same effort in I could be punching out hypothetical scenarios that justify carrying sarin-in-a-can, but none of my efforts would make that a true reflection of reality. You are in that bind.

face it, you love your gun(s) and you'll do as much mental gymnastics as necessary to keep it/them, or get more in more scenarios. I could reason with you until i was blue in the face and you'd still kepp going around and around in your tight little circles with glazed eyes fixed on the prize. :roll:

[Herrmannek]

so many pages and no link to torrent?

[seva108]

haha i hope you can access mp.net from prison

What annoys me is your apparent disregard for the concept of graduated force - hell, it applies on the battlefield, let alone the streets of america!

As well, you seem to spend a lot of your time thinking up elaborate, detailed scenarios to justify carrying a gun, and pointing to sensational media reports (only the ones that support you, of course) without any regard for reality.

Heck, if I put the same effort in I could be punching out hypothetical scenarios that justify carrying sarin-in-a-can, but none of my efforts would make that a true reflection of reality. You are in that bind.

face it, you love your gun(s) and you'll do as much mental gymnastics as necessary to keep it/them, or get more in more scenarios. I could reason with you until i was blue in the face and you'd still kepp going around and around in your tight little circles with glazed eyes fixed on the prize. :roll:

What is this 'graduated force' you speak of, young Skywalker? And which battlefield does it apply to?

Look, a gun is a tool. In some cases the tool is used to stop an activity which is threatening ones life or the life of another. It's as simple as that.

[Bugalugs]

haha i hope you can access mp.net from prison

What annoys me is your apparent disregard for the concept of graduated force - hell, it applies on the battlefield, let alone the streets of america!

As well, you seem to spend a lot of your time thinking up elaborate, detailed scenarios to justify carrying a gun, and pointing to sensational media reports (only the ones that support you, of course) without any regard for reality.

Heck, if I put the same effort in I could be punching out hypothetical scenarios that justify carrying sarin-in-a-can, but none of my efforts would make that a true reflection of reality. You are in that bind.

face it, you love your gun(s) and you'll do as much mental gymnastics as necessary to keep it/them, or get more in more scenarios. I could reason with you until i was blue in the face and you'd still kepp going around and around in your tight little circles with glazed eyes fixed on the prize. :roll:

What is this 'graduated force' you speak of, young Skywalker? And which battlefield does it apply to?

Look, a gun is a tool. In some cases the tool is used to stop an activity which is threatening ones life or the life of another. It's as simple as that.

check your military use of force principles, Jar-Jar. Its there

and no, its not simple as that. sorry to pop your bubble

[Bugalugs]

so many pages and no link to torrent?

haha youre right this is a waste of bandwidth

[seva108]

What is this 'graduated force' you speak of, young Skywalker? And which battlefield does it apply to?

Look, a gun is a tool. In some cases the tool is used to stop an activity which is threatening ones life or the life of another. It's as simple as that.

check your military use of force principles, Jar-Jar. Its there

and no, its not simple as that. sorry to pop your bubble

Which 'military use of force principles' are these?

I'm fascinated by your confident but utterly vacuous statements. Like I'm studying you in a science class or something.

[Bugalugs]

What is this 'graduated force' you speak of, young Skywalker? And which battlefield does it apply to?

Look, a gun is a tool. In some cases the tool is used to stop an activity which is threatening ones life or the life of another. It's as simple as that.

check your military use of force principles, Jar-Jar. Its there

and no, its not simple as that. sorry to pop your bubble

Which 'military use of force principles' are these?

I'm fascinated by your confident but utterly vacuous statements. Like I'm studying you in a science class or something.

The principles that we as soldiers are taught every time we go into a combat or peacekeeping operation as pert of our Rules of Engagement and Orders for Opening fire. Hardly vacuuous.

[BarkingSquirrel]

You forget that one of those rules of engagement is to not shoot unless you or you fellow soldiers are shot at. Amazing how you think its okay when one solder is saving another from being killed, but its not when one civilian is saving another from being killed.

Hypocracy at it's finest.

[Bugalugs]

You forget that one of those rules of engagement is to not shoot unless you or you fellow soldiers are shot at. Amazing how you think its okay when one solder is saving another from being killed, but its not when one civilian is saving another from being killed.

Hypocracy at it's finest.

depends on the operation, you see, ROE are mission-specific.

as i said, soldiers in the situation you describe are equally required to pay heed to the graduation of force principles.

call me when you know what the hell youre talking about

[BarkingSquirrel]

I've never heard of an operation where that ROE wasn't standard. Got an instance of that, that's not from the force of some pinko commie country?

[Bugalugs]

I've never heard of an operation where that ROE wasn't standard. Got an instance of that, that's not from the force of some pinko commie country?

well you obviously dont know much buddy.

Every single operation has its own ROE, often many issues of it to deal with differant phases of the Operation, in differant parts of the AO, and for differant parts of the force (e.g. differant for SF to normal infantry)

[BarkingSquirrel]

Are you really trying to say "don't shoot unless shot at" isn't standard for a peacekeeping force? Just how ****ed up is your country if any of its peacekeeping operations entail an ROE of "shoot at whatever the hell you feel like"?

Conceed that the point you made was rebuffed. You know damn well it was.

[Bugalugs]

Are you really trying to say "don't shoot unless shot at" isn't standard for a peacekeeping force? Just how f*** up is your country if any of its peacekeeping operations entail an ROE of "shoot at whatever the hell you feel like"?

Conceed that the point you made was rebuffed. You know damn well it was.

There are differant types of operation, pk ops, pe ops, combat ops, stability ops, etc.

there are differant sub-types within these, differing in intensity a thread level.

Unless the op is a full-blown conventional combat op i.e. the first few months of the Iraq invasion, or a very intense PE Op the graduation of force principles apply to everything we do. even in combat ops (e.g against Iraqi Army and insurgents) you are only allowed to shoot on sight those tightly specified groups.

[Geezah]

so many pages and no link to torrent?

haha youre right this is a waste of bandwidth

It's that way because instead of engagaing in an adult conversation you prefer the role of Troll and do nothign but flamebait!

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

so many pages and no link to torrent?

haha youre right this is a waste of bandwidth

It's that way because instead of engagaing in an adult conversation you prefer the role of Troll and do nothign but flamebait!

X2

Bugalugs STFU.

And I'm an ANTI! :P

[Herrmannek]

so many pages and no link to torrent?

haha youre right this is a waste of bandwidth
ill decide that

[Geezah]

Where are all these granny storties? find 'em, and if you can count them on more than one hand, I'll congratulate you.

Face it, no matter what happens, you want to keep your guns. these fatuuous arguments are just smokescreens.

Here you go, now maybe you might go away!?


77-year-old woman shoots intruder

By Lexington Herald Leader staff reporter
Publication date: October 30, 2001

A 77-year-old woman who lives alone on Rogers Gap Road shot one of two 19-year-old men who tried to break into her home early Sunday, police said.

Wesley Mays of Sadieville was still being treated yesterday for a wound to his abdomen at University of Kentucky Hospital, said Detective Jack Patrick of the Scott County sheriff's department.

He will probably be charged with second-degree burglary, Patrick said.

Thelma Vance told deputies she awoke around 1:30 a.m. to banging on her back door. She grabbed her .38-caliber gun and fired four shots, including one that struck Mays, who Vance said was trying to climb through a bedroom window.

They fled by car before crashing into a guardrail on I-75. Deputies later caught up with them at a gas station, where Mays, wounded, collapsed to the floor, Patrick said.

Andre Newcomb of Lexington was charged with complicity to commit burglary and is being held at the Scott County jail in lieu of a $10,000 bond.

Link (http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/index.htm)


Female invalid kills violent intruder

A 71-year-old Stevens County woman shot a 32-year-old man to death Saturday when, she told authorities, he entered her home uninvited and assaulted her.

Sheriff Craig Thayer said a preliminary investigation indicates the dead man, Brian F. Swiger, knew the woman's granddaughter. Thayer identified the shooter as Bethan Scutchfield, an invalid who has an around-the-clock caregiver in her home on Roitz Road, near Jump Off Joe Lake south of Chewelah.

But the sheriff said his investigation indicates Swiger seemed to be intoxicated when he entered Scutchfield's home uninvited. Swiger reportedly struck Scutchfield in the face and pushed her to the floor, threatening to break her neck.

Thayer said Scutchfield got a handgun and, when Swiger approached her again, she fired a single shot that struck him in the chest.

Court records show Jennifer L. Scutchfield, 28, was granted a domestic-violence protection order against Swiger in September.


Link (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=030502&ID=s1110938)


83-year-old woman kills burglar

An 83-year-old woman who awoke early Sunday to the sound of someone trying to force open her screen door, shot and killed a teen-age boy standing on her porch, officials said.

Shortly after 4 a.m., the woman thought she heard a burglar at her front door, so she yelled through the closed door, warning the person to leave, police said. When it sounded like the person was close to breaking the screen, she fired one shot from a revolver through the door, according to a report.

Police arrived at her East Side home, in the 1400 block of Wyoming, and found the teen dead on her porch with a bullet wound in his chest. Investigators found no weapon or identification on the boy, who they estimated was between 14 and 16.

Police believe the teen was attempting to burglarize the home, spokesman Richard Solis said.

Authorities continued late Sunday trying to find out his identity.

"I'm sorry. I'm sorry he died," said the woman, who asked not to be named. "He was trying to break in on me. What he was going to do once he got in, I don't know."

At her home hours later, she said she was too shaken to talk about the shooting.

"If I talk about it too much, I won't be able to sleep tonight," she said.

She has lived alone at the house for more than 25 years, she said. She bought the gun as a precaution about 15 years ago and, until Sunday, had never had to fire it at anyone.

"I've never had any kind of trouble like this," she said.

No charges were pending Sunday against the woman, and the case remained under investigation.


Link (http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=180&xlc=628560)


Elderly woman holds intruder for police

An armed, 78-year-old woman prevented a drunken intruder from breaking into her house early Sunday, firing at him and holding him at bay until police arrived.

Monice Peterson, who lives in the 600 block of South Home Avenue, was awakened shortly before 1 a.m. Sunday when she heard someone pounding on her back door, she told police.

She went to investigate and found a man — later identified as Earl S. Feathers — kicking a hole in the wall next to the door to her back porch, according to the police report.

Peterson called 911 at 12:58 a.m. While she was on the phone with the 911 operator, Feathers created a hole big enough to enter and came inside the porch, she told dispatchers.

Peterson then warned Feathrs that if he came any further she would shoot him, according to the police report.

He started to move toward her again, and she fired one shot from her .25-caliber semiautomatic handgun, she told police. The bullet missed Feathers and went through the porch wall.

Feathers tried to escape through the opening he had kicked, but Franklin police arrived as he was trying to wriggle out, according to the police report. Officers John Moore and Roger Logsdon dragged Feathers the rest of the way out of the hole and handcuffed him, Moore’s report says.

Feathers told officers he was just trying to get into his own home. He said he thought he was at another address in the 600 block of South Home Avenue, according to the police report.

Moore reported that Feathers’ eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred, prompting the officer to administer a breath test to check for alcohol use. The 50-year-old Franklin resident tested 0.136 percent BAC, according to Moore’s report.

Feathers told police he’d only had two beers.

Feathers was taken to the Johnson County jail and released on $4,000 bond Sunday. He faces a Class D felony charge of residential entry and a Class B misdemeanor charge of public intoxication.

Peterson reportedly was not injured.


Link (http://thejournalnet.com/Main.asp?UID=20340330&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=211&ArticleID=24764)


Elderly Woman Chases Burglars

An 82-year-old woman pulled a shotgun on two burglars Tuesday and chased them from her home Tuesday after they barged inside, claiming to be roofing inspectors.

Authorities are alarmed.

And on Wednesday, they issued a strong warning to seniors and others to remain wary of what has becoming a continuing burglary scheme targeting the elderly.

"People need to keep their doors locked," said Lt. Craig Shelton, Smith County Sheriff's Office. "If someone comes to the door that you don't recognize, talk through the door - don't open it. If they persist in trying to come in, call 911."

Thus far, more than half a dozen residents have reported unknown white male suspects have entered their homes, claiming they needed to inspect the roof for leaks as part of a warranty agreement.

Once inside, they created a distraction and then stole wallets, cash and billfolds while the homeowners were not looking.

That same method of operation was used Tuesday at a home on Neches Parkway after unknown suspects approached the woman, claiming they wanted to inspect earlier roof work for leaks, Smith County sheriff's officials said.

She refused, but they moved her aside and barged inside.

"She followed one into a bedroom," Shelton said. "Then she remembered she left one in the living room. She went back and found him digging in her purse."

Authorities said she punched the man on his back and shouted at him to "get out of there."

"He hollered and stood up and she grabbed a shotgun," Shelton said.

The spry senior chased the man outside and stomped down the hall in search of the second suspect, who was rifling through her belongings.

"She confronted the guy in the bedroom and took off," Shelton said.

The pair fled in a newer-model, red extended-cab pickup, taking the woman's wallet and checkbook with them.

The pair are described as white males in their 20s with close-cut, shaved hairstyles. They were last seen wearing black shirts and blue jeans.

A lawn mower was observed in the rear of the truck.

Authorities theorize the suspects may also be linked to incidents reported last week in Tyler.

"One woman reported that two men claiming to work for Garcia's Roofing came to her home on Lingner Street to inspect for damage," said Chris Moore, Tyler police public information officer. "The woman had not called them, but allowed them in when one told her he was an inspector."

A similar occurrence happened at a home on Martin Luther King Boulevard, records show.

So far, no one has been injured in the incidents, officials said.

But the suspects are becoming more brazen.

Last week, they snatched a Smith County man's checkbook as they left.

At another home, one man climbed a woman's cable pole. As she protested from the ground below, a second suspect entered the home and grabbed her wallet.

Last week's suspects, who also targeted residents in Tyler, were described as white males in a two-toned brown truck, records show

Authorities acknowledge it could be only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.

Some people are taking steps to increase their sense of personal safety.

Smith County is ranked among the top five counties in the number of concealed weapons permit holders, records show.

Firearms instructor Jay Carson, who teaches conceal carry classes at Lock and Load Indoor Shooting Range, 3408 SSW Loop 323, said he's noticed a sudden upsurge in the number of people seeking firearms for personal protection.

Many of them are seniors, he said.

"I had a 72-year-old lady last week getting a concealed handgun permit," he said. "She's not the only one."

Most of his Wednesday night classes are filled with women of all ages seeking to increase their peace of mind through gun ownership.

Carson said also the number of people signing up to re-qualify for their weapons is swelling to the point that they are making extra space available to accommodate them.


"We literally are turning them away," he said. "There's that many of them signing up for the re-qualifying class. Criminals tend to look for easy targets - people don't want to be one of them."


Link (http://www.tylerpaper.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6871093&BRD=1994&PAG=461&dept_id=226369&rfi=6)


Home Invasions in Elbert County

The Elbert County Sheriff's Department needs your help to find a man who tried to invade elderly women's homes on October tenth.

Police say he's a young black man, with a light complexion, and a small, narrow face. He might be driving a dark green vehicle with taillights completely across the back.

Police say they don't know his motive for invading the homes. But they do know that the 80-year-old homeowners had weapons to protect themselves.

The Elbert County investigators say they have no idea why home invasions are becoming popular these days. Elbert County has had three in two weeks.

Police are looking for this man who they think tried to invade two homes owned by 80-year-old women.

"The suspect went to the house on Longcreek Road and tried to kick the front door in. The elderly women let the suspect know she had a gun and when she did, he took of running. Minutes later, there was another home invasion on Middleton Road and she shot at the suspect and he left,” says Sheriff Barry Haston. He thinks the invasions are connected because the houses were six miles away from each other. The sheriff says the man didn't steal anything from the second home, but did try to rape the woman. Sheriff Haston says having the guns kept those women alive.

"In these two cases I’m actually glad they did because it could have been a different story if they didn't,” says Haston.

The Crime Scene Unit and GBI are investigating the cases and other home invasions in the area. But the sheriff's department wants people to learn from two women in their eighties and protect themselves.

"That's why we give these courses so people will know firearm safety, how to operate a firearm, it just gives the elderly a sense of security when they take these classes,” says Haston.


Link (http://www.wneg32.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WNEG/MGArticle/NEG_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778537908&path=)

Amazing, just saying you have a firearm or brandishing one is enough of a deterrent, and in some extreme cases these old people had to use them.

That's more cases than I can count on one hand!

[BarkingSquirrel]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/Parasaur/unpossible.jpg

[joe mama]

Okay lets summarise you one-size-fits all theory, which shines through whichever way you approach this situation

1. get ccw licence
2. walk down street
3. see a crime being committed (type is irrelevant, as long as violence is somewhere involved)
4. approach the perpetrator
5. shoot him/her withyour gun
6. talk to nice policeman on scene who supports you because he hates crims too
7. provide statement to nice policeman
8. less-nice prosecutor reads statement, recommends charges
9. You meet nice Judge and jury
10. Meet Bubba. You revisit your definition of "nice"

Actually, this is YOUR one size fits all theory. YOU're the one who repeatedly says and or implies that any one with a gun has not nor will not consider any other option besides shooting. I may cling to my crumb about someday needing a gun to save someone therefore my guns shouldn't be taken away, but, if I do, I don't cling to it any tighter than you cling to your crumb about people who do ccw not considering any other option besides shooting.

[joe mama]

We are talking about hthe situation where someone is absorbed in attacking someone else - counter-attack is not an issue, unless your attempt to neutralise the person by force LESS than shooting them is unsuccessful. only THEN would you be ooking to escalate

Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone in the head is as serious an injury as blowing a large hole in their body? You said yourself it is hard to seriously injure someone that way, and all youre trying to do, after all, is to dissuade them from their course of action, not make them bleed from the ears.

This should be well within anyones capacity as a viable option to try before just pulling out a gun and shooting, unless you are a small child of course. Legally, you are obliged to at least consider the option before filling someone with lead.

1) How do you know the guy in this situation didn't consider other options before deciding shooting was a reasonable (and possibly the best, or the best available in the limited time given) choice?
2) The woman is being stabbed, right this instant. In the time it takes for a person attempting to intervene with something less than shooting and attempt to stop him and possibly be unsuccessful (you specificaly mention this above), the guy stabbing her might easily inflict enough damage to kill her. She isn't being punched, which, it's fairly reasonable to believe, isn't as immediate a threat to her life as being stabbed. He isn't 30 feet away, about to stab her soon. It's now. RIGHT NOW.

Would you feel better about this if the guy that helped had tackled/grabbed/hit/whatever the stabbing guy, and the attempt had not gone as successfully as he hoped, and the woman died because he didn't attempt to help by using the quickest and strongest attack means at his disposal, ie his gun?

I probably shouldn't bother to keep arguing this, since you appear convinced that all people who ccw are gun nuts and all gun nuts response is "just pulling out a gun and shooting" without any other consideration. Tell me, are you psychic powers that allow you to see inside all our heads and know this is what we think also good for picking lottery numbers or stocks?

[Geezah]

Here's one for Bugger All, this woman didn't have the option of owning a firearm to protect herself from those that prefer to target the old!


Elderly woman 'killed by burglar' (UK)

An 85-year-old woman has been murdered in her own home during what police believe was a burglary.

Anne Mendel's 80-year-old husband Leonard found her body at their house in Elmcroft Crescent, in Golders Green, north-west London, on Monday morning.

Police said she had been stabbed. A post-mortem examination is due to be held later.

Officers think Mrs Mendel disturbed an intruder sometime between 1000 GMT and 1115 GMT.

They said they could not reveal if Mrs Mendel, who was well respected in the community and worked as a volunteer in a charity shop, had struggled with her killer.

Mr Mendel is being comforted by his family. His son Ian, had arrived from Manchester, and daughter Barbara is understood to be travelling to the UK from Israel.

Det Supt Mark Jackson said: "What has taken place here is a horrific crime. A person has entered the home of an elderly woman and stabbed her to death. How horrific that is goes beyond words."

He said officers are liaising with Jewish community leaders.

'Cowardly murder'

The couple are Jewish and had been worshippers in the area but police say there is no indication of a racial or religious motive.

Golders Green councillor Aba Dunner said Mrs Mendel would not have a heard a knock at the door as she was deaf, so an intruder may have thought the house was empty.

She said: ""The family lived in a very working class street in a terraced house and it is a worry that burglaries here are on the rise."

A post-mortem examination revealed the cause of death was a stab wound and police said an inquest is to be held at Hornsey Coroner's Court.

Work is continuing at the scene to check for forensic evidence or any signs of a forced entry.

Det Chf Insp Steve Morris said: "We are determined to work closely with the local communities, particularly the Jewish community, to bring to justice those responsible for this awful and cowardly murder."

An incident room has been opened at Hendon and officers there want to hear from anyone who may have seen someone loitering or acting suspiciously in the area at the time.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4349953.stm)

[joe mama]

haha i hope you can access mp.net from prison

What annoys me is your apparent disregard for the concept of graduated force - hell, it applies on the battlefield, let alone the streets of america!

What "annoys" me, to put it your way, is your apparent disregard for the possibility that anyone who chooses to shoot in a self defense (or defense of another) situation has disregarded all other options. Just because someone doesn't try something less than shooting doesn't mean they didn't consider using less force than shooting. Just because you have the option of using less force doesn't mean you MUST start with less force IF more force is reasonable, at least under our laws.

As well, you seem to spend a lot of your time thinking up elaborate, detailed scenarios to justify carrying a gun, and pointing to sensational media reports (only the ones that support you, of course) without any regard for reality.

Heck, if I put the same effort in I could be punching out hypothetical scenarios that justify carrying sarin-in-a-can, but none of my efforts would make that a true reflection of reality. You are in that bind.

face it, you love your gun(s) and you'll do as much mental gymnastics as necessary to keep it/them, or get more in more scenarios. I could reason with you until i was blue in the face and you'd still kepp going around and around in your tight little circles with glazed eyes fixed on the prize. :roll:

You're the one with glazed eyes convinced that all we do is sit around thinking of arguments for why we should carry and planning for how, if we ever see someone spit on the sidewalk or commit any other crime we'll blow them out of their shoes without any thought for any other response.
There's another forum I frequent (you'd see everyone on it as an insanely paranoid gun nut, of course) where lots of people who ccw discuss things that have happened to them and situations they've read about and whether or not they (or the person in the situation) were right to display their gun or shoot if if they didn't, would they have been. You'd be surprised that the extreme vast majority of them lean AWAY from going to the gun as the right option. Of course that's not true, they really just shoot instantly at the slightest provocation because, as you're obviously sure of, there's no difference between a licensed ccw'er (who's most likely passed a background check and attended required training and had to learn a little about our laws before getting that license) and a south central los angeles gang banger bustin caps wif his gat, yo! If you see people who have guns and/or ccw and discuss scenarios involving the possible use of those guns as nothing more than those people trying to figure out ways they can use the guns they're so desperate to use, that's your crumb, and you go right on clinging to it.

[Bugalugs]

so many pages and no link to torrent?

haha youre right this is a waste of bandwidth

It's that way because instead of engagaing in an adult conversation you prefer the role of Troll and do nothign but flamebait!

did i scare you off? poor puppy

[Bugalugs]

in a ccountry of 240 million you think you could find more than a few tales of woe geezah- its barely a blip on any statistical radar.

noneltheless i congratulate you - you obviously went to a lot of effort to find SIX stories, quite impressive effort.

point is, you obviously had to take you hand off your ding-dong for five minutes to count them all! rofl

p.s. maybe you should put the same effort into finding my freud quote, or is paperback out of your league? rofl

[Bugalugs]

We are talking about hthe situation where someone is absorbed in attacking someone else - counter-attack is not an issue, unless your attempt to neutralise the person by force LESS than shooting them is unsuccessful. only THEN would you be ooking to escalate

Are you seriously suggesting that hitting someone in the head is as serious an injury as blowing a large hole in their body? You said yourself it is hard to seriously injure someone that way, and all youre trying to do, after all, is to dissuade them from their course of action, not make them bleed from the ears.

This should be well within anyones capacity as a viable option to try before just pulling out a gun and shooting, unless you are a small child of course. Legally, you are obliged to at least consider the option before filling someone with lead.

1) How do you know the guy in this situation didn't consider other options before deciding shooting was a reasonable (and possibly the best, or the best available in the limited time given) choice?
2) The woman is being stabbed, right this instant. In the time it takes for a person attempting to intervene with something less than shooting and attempt to stop him and possibly be unsuccessful (you specificaly mention this above), the guy stabbing her might easily inflict enough damage to kill her. She isn't being punched, which, it's fairly reasonable to believe, isn't as immediate a threat to her life as being stabbed. He isn't 30 feet away, about to stab her soon. It's now. RIGHT NOW.

Would you feel better about this if the guy that helped had tackled/grabbed/hit/whatever the stabbing guy, and the attempt had not gone as successfully as he hoped, and the woman died because he didn't attempt to help by using the quickest and strongest attack means at his disposal, ie his gun?

I probably shouldn't bother to keep arguing this, since you appear convinced that all people who ccw are gun nuts and all gun nuts response is "just pulling out a gun and shooting" without any other consideration. Tell me, are you psychic powers that allow you to see inside all our heads and know this is what we think also good for picking lottery numbers or stocks?

if there was any suggestion in the story that he CONSIDERED other options, this wouldnt be an issue. Maybe he did.

But your constant frothing at the mouth at the SUGGESTION that people should be obliged to look at options short of shooting (coupled with your apparent "just glad he's dead" attitude, is what pisses me off

[joe mama]

if there was any suggestion in the story that he CONSIDERED other options, this wouldnt be an issue. Maybe he did.

But your constant frothing at the mouth at the SUGGESTION that people should be obliged to look at options short of shooting (coupled with your apparent "just glad he's dead" attitude, is what pisses me off

LOL. Yup, that's exactly what I've been doing. I haven't repeatedly stated that he may have considered other options. I haven't repeatedly pointed out that in most if not all states in the US, whether he considered other options or not, due to the nature of the incident (as reported), he appears to have acted LEGALLY. Nope, all I've done is screech "how dare you suggest he or anyone else consider anything other than shooting that guy!!!!".

I'm considering the possibility that it might be more fun to just post what you've already decided I'm thinking, or what you choose to hear from what I do post. Since you're incapable of understanding that just because I think considering the use of a gun as one more option in situations like this one, I don't immediately discount all other options, maybe I'll give up trying to indicate that and just give you the responses you're going to see (regardless of what they actually say) anyway. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right? If I decide to do this, you'll know it...it'll be funny to see the responses to it, especially from anti's who won't know I'm f'ing with them...

By the way, you also seem obsessed with the idea of me (and other?) gun nuts "frothing at the mouth" "with glazed eyes" as we "get queasy and puke" and end up "being arse-reamed".

As to my apparent just glad he's dead attitude, I don't feel the slightest bit bad that he's dead BECAUSE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO MURDER A WOMAN WHO IS ALIVE AND THE PERSON WHO ATTEMPTED TO HELP HER IS ALIVE. Sorry if I value the lives of an apparently innocent woman and an innocent bystander who had the courage to try to help a woman being stabbed more than the life of a man attempting to stab a woman to death. And sorry that I wouldn't feel better if he was alive because some lesser amount of force was used and it failed to stop the stabbing quick enough to save the woman's life. (By the way, you're now free to tell me that if some lesser amount of force was used and everyone was still alive, I'd be upset that my bloodlust didn't get satisfied with at least one death, or whatever else I'm thinking, which you'll be able to tell with those same psychic powers you use to know that they guy didn't consider any other options.)

[StukaJr]

Bugalugs:

Post something of substance of shut up

Post something leagally sound or shut up - obviously, you are not all that well caught up with the laws of the US.

You've asked for stories about the cases of elderly getting attacked and fending for their lives - you got them. Obviously, there are more then 6 stories - you can't be serious that these publically cases are the only ones there are.

You are making inflamatory and personal remarks regarding forum members personally (uncalled at that), nothing substantial on the subject and in confussion/disagreement with the Federal Law of the United States.

You couldn't be further up the creek without a paddle

[Geezah]

in a ccountry of 240 million you think you could find more than a few tales of woe geezah- its barely a blip on any statistical radar.

noneltheless i congratulate you - you obviously went to a lot of effort to find SIX stories, quite impressive effort.

point is, you obviously had to take you hand off your ding-dong for five minutes to count them all! rofl

p.s. maybe you should put the same effort into finding my freud quote, or is paperback out of your league? rofl

I'm amazed, you asked "Where are all these granny storties? find 'em, and if you can count them on more than one hand, I'll congratulate you. "
Unless you have 6 fingers, you were supplied with more stories than you could count on one hand.
6 stories where old grannies used firearms to protect themselves, now rather than throw in a red herring, why not attack the stories you asked for?

[joe mama]

GODDAMNIT I'M PISSED!!! This goddamned communist twinkletoes fairy! I bet he actually thought of something other than shooting that attacker! I bet he considered whether it was legal or not! I'm disgusted! He shouldn't have considered anything else! He should have shot without thinking, like all law abiding gun owners in the US would have! And then shot the guy again. At least 19 or 20 times. NO! Even that's not enough! He should have shot him with a cannon! No! A 2000 pound bomb! NO! An atomic bomb! NO! A hyrdogen bomb!!!!
NOTHING else would satisfy me, how DARE there even be the possibility that he considered his options before choosing this one!!! Even that possibility threatens my ability to cuddle with my guns all night whilst sucking my thumb in the closet covered in feces reading guns and ammo spanking my monkey whilst drooling with glazed eyes and frothing mouth (like those references? (grin)) at the pics of guns I must possess!!!

(how'd I do? sorry if it's lame, i'm out of practice f'ing with people...i'll try to do better soon, i promise...which will be too late, because my post will certainly send geezah into an insane rage during which he will shoot me with his guns since he's a legal gun owner and ALL 80 million of us just go into insane rages and shoot everyone in sight all the time...)

[Bugalugs]

if there was any suggestion in the story that he CONSIDERED other options, this wouldnt be an issue. Maybe he did.

But your constant frothing at the mouth at the SUGGESTION that people should be obliged to look at options short of shooting (coupled with your apparent "just glad he's dead" attitude, is what pisses me off

LOL. Yup, that's exactly what I've been doing. I haven't repeatedly stated that he may have considered other options. I haven't repeatedly pointed out that in most if not all states in the US, whether he considered other options or not, due to the nature of the incident (as reported), he appears to have acted LEGALLY. Nope, all I've done is screech "how dare you suggest he or anyone else consider anything other than shooting that guy!!!!".

I'm considering the possibility that it might be more fun to just post what you've already decided I'm thinking, or what you choose to hear from what I do post. Since you're incapable of understanding that just because I think considering the use of a gun as one more option in situations like this one, I don't immediately discount all other options, maybe I'll give up trying to indicate that and just give you the responses you're going to see (regardless of what they actually say) anyway. Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right? If I decide to do this, you'll know it...it'll be funny to see the responses to it, especially from anti's who won't know I'm f'ing with them...

By the way, you also seem obsessed with the idea of me (and other?) gun nuts "frothing at the mouth" "with glazed eyes" as we "get queasy and puke" and end up "being arse-reamed".

As to my apparent just glad he's dead attitude, I don't feel the slightest bit bad that he's dead BECAUSE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO MURDER A WOMAN WHO IS ALIVE AND THE PERSON WHO ATTEMPTED TO HELP HER IS ALIVE. Sorry if I value the lives of an apparently innocent woman and an innocent bystander who had the courage to try to help a woman being stabbed more than the life of a man attempting to stab a woman to death. And sorry that I wouldn't feel better if he was alive because some lesser amount of force was used and it failed to stop the stabbing quick enough to save the woman's life. (By the way, you're now free to tell me that if some lesser amount of force was used and everyone was still alive, I'd be upset that my bloodlust didn't get satisfied with at least one death, or whatever else I'm thinking, which you'll be able to tell with those same psychic powers you use to know that they guy didn't consider any other options.)

couldnt have said it better myself

[Bugalugs]

Bugalugs:

Post something of substance of shut up

Post something leagally sound or shut up - obviously, you are not all that well caught up with the laws of the US.

You've asked for stories about the cases of elderly getting attacked and fending for their lives - you got them. Obviously, there are more then 6 stories - you can't be serious that these publically cases are the only ones there are.

You are making inflamatory and personal remarks regarding forum members personally (uncalled at that), nothing substantial on the subject and in confussion/disagreement with the Federal Law of the United States.

You couldn't be further up the creek without a paddle
haha blow me

[BarkingSquirrel]

Some people just need killin'. Like Bugalugs for example.

[joe mama]

couldnt have said it better myself

Hey Mr Psychic, can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are for tonite? The prize is estimated at 111 million...I'll split it with you, I promise. And you'll be so rich, you won't care that I'll spend my half all on guns. Or whatever I'm going to spend it on, which I'm sure you'll tell me, since you know what I'm thinking...

where's my tinfoil hat...

[Bugalugs]

in a ccountry of 240 million you think you could find more than a few tales of woe geezah- its barely a blip on any statistical radar.

noneltheless i congratulate you - you obviously went to a lot of effort to find SIX stories, quite impressive effort.

point is, you obviously had to take you hand off your ding-dong for five minutes to count them all! rofl

p.s. maybe you should put the same effort into finding my freud quote, or is paperback out of your league? rofl

I'm amazed, you asked "Where are all these granny storties? find 'em, and if you can count them on more than one hand, I'll congratulate you. "
Unless you have 6 fingers, you were supplied with more stories than you could count on one hand.
6 stories where old grannies used firearms to protect themselves, now rather than throw in a red herring, why not attack the stories you asked for?

I promised to congratulate you. you got it.

why would i attack the stories? i'm sure theyre true. Theyre statistically insignificant, as well.

You were always fond of statistical graphs Geezah, why have you gone off them? is it that they keep getting shot down?

[Bugalugs]

couldnt have said it better myself

Hey Mr Psychic, can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are for tonite? The prize is estimated at 111 million...I'll split it with you, I promise. And you'll be so rich, you won't care that I'll spend my half all on guns. Or whatever I'm going to spend it on, which I'm sure you'll tell me, since you know what I'm thinking...

where's my tinfoil hat...

damn you coud buy a lotta guns with that money. you could rool the werld! Bwahahahahaa.....!

[Geezah]

Bugalugs:

Post something of substance of shut up

Post something leagally sound or shut up - obviously, you are not all that well caught up with the laws of the US.

You've asked for stories about the cases of elderly getting attacked and fending for their lives - you got them. Obviously, there are more then 6 stories - you can't be serious that these publically cases are the only ones there are.

You are making inflamatory and personal remarks regarding forum members personally (uncalled at that), nothing substantial on the subject and in confussion/disagreement with the Federal Law of the United States.

You couldn't be further up the creek without a paddle
haha blow me

You know what Bugalugs, you have no arguement apart from red herrings and insults. It would be nice if you could back up your arguements rather than projecting your own fears onto others.

[Bugalugs]

Some people just need killin'. Like Bugalugs for example.

Thank you for once again proving my point about your type.

[joe mama]

couldnt have said it better myself

Hey Mr Psychic, can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are for tonite? The prize is estimated at 111 million...I'll split it with you, I promise. And you'll be so rich, you won't care that I'll spend my half all on guns. Or whatever I'm going to spend it on, which I'm sure you'll tell me, since you know what I'm thinking...

where's my tinfoil hat...

damn you coud buy a lotta guns with that money. you could rool the werld! Bwahahahahaa.....!

HEY! I know that! What I don't know are the numbers, get busy posting them you f! Don't make me come down there!

[BarkingSquirrel]

Well, I don't know of any dictators who took over with tofu, pointy sticks and stern language.

[Geezah]

in a ccountry of 240 million you think you could find more than a few tales of woe geezah- its barely a blip on any statistical radar.

noneltheless i congratulate you - you obviously went to a lot of effort to find SIX stories, quite impressive effort.

point is, you obviously had to take you hand off your ding-dong for five minutes to count them all! rofl

p.s. maybe you should put the same effort into finding my freud quote, or is paperback out of your league? rofl

I'm amazed, you asked "Where are all these granny storties? find 'em, and if you can count them on more than one hand, I'll congratulate you. "
Unless you have 6 fingers, you were supplied with more stories than you could count on one hand.
6 stories where old grannies used firearms to protect themselves, now rather than throw in a red herring, why not attack the stories you asked for?

I promised to congratulate you. you got it.

why would i attack the stories? i'm sure theyre true. Theyre statistically insignificant, as well.

You were always fond of statistical graphs Geezah, why have you gone off them? is it that they keep getting shot down?

Another red herring.

These old women used firearms to protect themselves, there are plenty of success stories out there, why not be happy that these old ladies get to live another day?

[BarkingSquirrel]

Some people just need killin'. Like Bugalugs for example.

Thank you for once again proving my point about your type.Don't thank me yet, I haven't even purchased a plane ticket yet.

[Bugalugs]

Bugalugs:

Post something of substance of shut up

Post something leagally sound or shut up - obviously, you are not all that well caught up with the laws of the US.

You've asked for stories about the cases of elderly getting attacked and fending for their lives - you got them. Obviously, there are more then 6 stories - you can't be serious that these publically cases are the only ones there are.

You are making inflamatory and personal remarks regarding forum members personally (uncalled at that), nothing substantial on the subject and in confussion/disagreement with the Federal Law of the United States.

You couldn't be further up the creek without a paddle
haha blow me

You know what Bugalugs, you have no arguement apart from red herrings and insults. It would be nice if you could back up your arguements rather than projecting your own fears onto others.

are you disputing my reading of the law of self-defence ond use of force in general? well i suggest you grab a law textbook and swot up because i did. very illuminating.

[Bugalugs]

Some people just need killin'. Like Bugalugs for example.

Thank you for once again proving my point about your type.Don't thank me yet, I haven't even purchased a plane ticket yet.

youll never get your guns through customs. bring it on MincingMouse. My oompa-loompas are waiting.

[BarkingSquirrel]

What good does reading the law do when you are obviously incapable of understanding it?

As for getting guns through customs, why bother when you know damn well I can get 'em from your own criminals cheap as hell.

[Bugalugs]

What good does reading the law do when you are obviously incapable of understanding it?

Once again, when youve read it and know what the **** youre talking about, get back to me

[Bugalugs]

As for getting guns through customs, why bother when you know damn well I can get 'em from your own criminals cheap as hell.

It truly warms my heart that I have got sufficiently under your skin that you now care enough to issue a death threat against me,

a BarkingSquirrel fatwah if you will. :hug:

[Bugalugs]

couldnt have said it better myself

Hey Mr Psychic, can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are for tonite? The prize is estimated at 111 million...I'll split it with you, I promise. And you'll be so rich, you won't care that I'll spend my half all on guns. Or whatever I'm going to spend it on, which I'm sure you'll tell me, since you know what I'm thinking...

where's my tinfoil hat...

damn you coud buy a lotta guns with that money. you could rool the werld! Bwahahahahaa.....!

HEY! I know that! What I don't know are the numbers, get busy posting them you f! Don't make me come down there!

okay im on it

[BarkingSquirrel]

I don't know what I'm talking about when I interpret "unless in defence of your of someone elses life" as "unless in defence of your of someone elses life"?

Dude, you know jack **** about American firearm laws. Hell in Texas I could kill you simply for being on my property at night, perfectly justified. Florida sure as hell isn't far behind.

The very fact that the guy wasn't arrested by an officer nor was a warrant sought by the DA shows straight up and down that you know absolutely nothing.

You are arguing for nothing but the sake of arguing. You have no valid points. When you're rebuffed all you can do is insult and tell them they don't know what they're talking about. No, it is you sir who doesn't know what the **** he's talking about. It is also you sir who is the one that needs to sit down and shut the **** up.

[Bugalugs]

in a ccountry of 240 million you think you could find more than a few tales of woe geezah- its barely a blip on any statistical radar.

noneltheless i congratulate you - you obviously went to a lot of effort to find SIX stories, quite impressive effort.

point is, you obviously had to take you hand off your ding-dong for five minutes to count them all! rofl

p.s. maybe you should put the same effort into finding my freud quote, or is paperback out of your league? rofl

I'm amazed, you asked "Where are all these granny storties? find 'em, and if you can count them on more than one hand, I'll congratulate you. "
Unless you have 6 fingers, you were supplied with more stories than you could count on one hand.
6 stories where old grannies used firearms to protect themselves, now rather than throw in a red herring, why not attack the stories you asked for?

I promised to congratulate you. you got it.

why would i attack the stories? i'm sure theyre true. Theyre statistically insignificant, as well.

You were always fond of statistical graphs Geezah, why have you gone off them? is it that they keep getting shot down?

Another red herring.

These old women used firearms to protect themselves, there are plenty of success stories out there, why not be happy that these old ladies get to live another day?

I didnt dispute the truth of the stories. I said they were statistically insignificant

[Bugalugs]

I don't know what I'm talking about when I interpret "unless in defence of your of someone elses life" as "unless in defence of your of someone elses life"?

Dude, you know jack **** about American firearm laws. Hell in Texas I could kill you simply for being on my property at night, perfectly justified. Florida sure as hell isn't far behind.

The very fact that the guy wasn't arrested by an officer nor was a warrant sought by the DA shows straight up and down that you know absolutely nothing.

You are arguing for nothing but the sake of arguing. You have no valid points. When you're rebuffed all you can do is insult and tell them they don't know what they're talking about. No, it is you sir who doesn't know what the **** he's talking about. It is also you sir who is the one that needs to sit down and shut the **** up.

we are talking about a particular broad set of circumstances. youre the one throwing in red herrings about being on someones property.

find me the law that says you can just shoot a guy attacking someone else without any more, without even onsidering any other options and with complete impugnity? becuse unless that exists, the principles of self-defence i have enunciated apply.

[StukaJr]

we are talking about a particular broad set of circumstances. youre the one throwing in red herrings about being on someones property.

find me the law that says you can just shoot a guy attacking someone else without any more, without even onsidering any other options and with complete impugnity? becuse unless that exists, the principles of self-defence i have enunciated apply.

For example - New Jersey:


Deadly Force and Criminal Prosecution

The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force or the threat of force of nearly equally severity and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect (himself/herself) against death or serious bodily harm. By serious bodily harm, we mean an injury that creates substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or which causes a protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

One cannot respond with deadly force to a threat of or even an actual minor attack. For example, a slap or an imminent threat of being pushed in a crowd would not ordinarily justify the use of deadly force to defend against such unlawful conduct.

In addition, one can under limited instances use force in the protection of others (NJSA 2C:35-5). Limited force under certain instances is also afforded in the criminal code for the defense of personal property (NJSA 2C:3-6C).


Defense of Others

One may justifiably intervene in defense of any person who is in actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and in so doing he may use such force as he has reason to believe, and does believe, necessary under the circumstances. The defender must be reasonable in his belief that the third party is in dire peril of death or serious bodily harm. He must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the force he uses is necessary to protect the apparent victim from the threatened harm.

That's the law - nothing about seeking any options, escallating anything up to the leathal response - none of your bullsh1t. The attacker has a knife - knives kill/guns kill - I have a gun that is an equal response to the attacker's threat to my life or life of others. Permition for leathal response - so there you go. Simple as math.

These are the state laws of New Jersey - a state with 2nd strictest gun control laws in the US. The only stricter place would be NYC as ownership of firearms is simply prohibited - but that's why people get killed in the streets and nobody even looks out the window or calls the cops. Gun control at its finest p-)

Source: http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm

[Geezah]

Here's another source to check Ohio's CCw laws

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/web_applications/concealcarry/About.asp

And regarding the stories where 6 Old Grannies defended themselves with firearms being statistically insignificant, that has nothing to with your original request, so stop moving the goal post.

[BarkingSquirrel]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

[Bugalugs]

Here's another source to check Ohio's CCw laws

http://www.ag.state.oh.us/web_applications/concealcarry/About.asp

And regarding the stories where 6 Old Grannies defended themselves with firearms being statistically insignificant, that has nothing to with your original request, so stop moving the goal post.

hah i didnt say if you found six gannies in the whole wide US of A you would win our little game. I said If you could count them one more than one hand I would congratulate you.

You only just scraped in , but nonetheless I congratulated you.

I'll do it again

:petting: <---- head pat. well done. gold star for googling prowess.

the conclusion you are seeking to draw from your half-dozen old folk is that they should all be armed to the teeth. I do not concur, nor do I think your single SUV load of oxy-thieves are statistically significant in a country the size of the US.

1st year unversity statistics taught me that (I got a High Distinction woot not that im bragging or anything ;) I think it was my only HD in my whole uni career :| )

[Bugalugs]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

From now on I'll always remember you fondly my friend

ahh my first ever death threat. :hug:

its a moving moment in anyones life.

[Bugalugs]

we are talking about a particular broad set of circumstances. youre the one throwing in red herrings about being on someones property.

find me the law that says you can just shoot a guy attacking someone else without any more, without even onsidering any other options and with complete impugnity? becuse unless that exists, the principles of self-defence i have enunciated apply.

For example - New Jersey:


Deadly Force and Criminal Prosecution

The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force or the threat of force of nearly equally severity and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect (himself/herself) against death or serious bodily harm. By serious bodily harm, we mean an injury that creates substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or which causes a protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

One cannot respond with deadly force to a threat of or even an actual minor attack. For example, a slap or an imminent threat of being pushed in a crowd would not ordinarily justify the use of deadly force to defend against such unlawful conduct.

In addition, one can under limited instances use force in the protection of others (NJSA 2C:35-5). Limited force under certain instances is also afforded in the criminal code for the defense of personal property (NJSA 2C:3-6C).


Defense of Others

One may justifiably intervene in defense of any person who is in actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and in so doing he may use such force as he has reason to believe, and does believe, necessary under the circumstances. The defender must be reasonable in his belief that the third party is in dire peril of death or serious bodily harm. He must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the force he uses is necessary to protect the apparent victim from the threatened harm.
That's the law - nothing about seeking any options, escallating anything up to the leathal response - none of your bullsh1t. The attacker has a knife - knives kill/guns kill - I have a gun that is an equal response to the attacker's threat to my life or life of others. Permition for leathal response - so there you go. Simple as math.

These are the state laws of New Jersey - a state with 2nd strictest gun control laws in the US. The only stricter place would be NYC as ownership of firearms is simply prohibited - but that's why people get killed in the streets and nobody even looks out the window or calls the cops. Gun control at its finest p-)

Source: http://www.njlaws.com/self-defense.htm

your answer lies in your own quote. (highlighted in red) The defender must have a reasonable belief that lethal force is the only viable option. (Ibelieve that it is a subjective belief in most jurisdictions)

If it is blatantly apparent in the given situation that there are other options, then if s/he decides to disregard them kill the offender nonetheless then hes going to have to explian himself to a jury, and possibly start buying up big on lube.

[StukaJr]

your answer lies in your own quote. (highlighted in red) The defender must have a reasonable belief that lethal force is the only viable option. (Ibelieve that it is a subjective belief in most jurisdictions)

If it is blatantly apparent in the given situation that there are other options, then if s/he decides to disregard them kill the offender nonetheless then hes going to have to explian himself to a jury, and possibly start buying up big on lube.

You are unbelievable :)

a) the shooter is already cleared by the police - therefore, no charges are filed against him. Here in US - people don't go to court unless they are charged with a crime - this man has not commited a crime and not being charged with one. He can now go out and buy another handgun for CC since the old one will rot away in an evidence locker - small price to pay for saving a woman's life. He, however, does not need to worry about the expenses of lubricants, you so highly desire.

In US - you are inoscent until proven guilty. The shooter is inoscent since he is not being charged with a crime.

b) "The defender must have a reasonable belief that lethal force is the only viable option." - obviously, at the moment of the shooting the deffender (or the shooter in this case) saw that as an only option. The police, having reviewed the events - have justified that as an only available option - otherwise they would have pressed charges.

Knife is a murder weapon - especially has already received multiple wounds and that has not dettered the attacker. The woman was in "actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm"

If a victim is about to get killed - the law allows to kill the assailant to save the woman's life in this case.

[StukaJr]

Bugalugs:

Now, (completely hypothetically) you tell me - how do you stop a healthy built male, slashing away at a woman whom is already cut up and bleeding, from a distance of 20 feet (just random distance) in a time of 4 seconds (just random time - say next could be fatal)... You are standing in a neately swept up grocery store isle - in the Feminine Needs isle so your weapons are limited to cushy tampon packs and anal lube (you highly covet) in plastic bottles. Clock is ticking!

[Bugalugs]

Bugalugs:

Now, (completely hypothetically) you tell me - how do you stop a healthy built male, slashing away at a woman whom is already cut up and bleeding, from a distance of 20 feet (just random distance) in a time of 4 seconds (just random time - say next could be fatal)... You are standing in a neately swept up grocery store isle - in the Feminine Needs isle so your weapons are limited to cushy tampon packs and anal lube (you highly covet) in plastic bottles. Clock is ticking!

does this relate to the situation at hand, or are you just furiously trying to justify your need to carry a gun? The latter, I'm afraid. Read the red, you'll have your answer.

[Bugalugs]

your answer lies in your own quote. (highlighted in red) The defender must have a reasonable belief that lethal force is the only viable option. (Ibelieve that it is a subjective belief in most jurisdictions)

If it is blatantly apparent in the given situation that there are other options, then if s/he decides to disregard them kill the offender nonetheless then hes going to have to explian himself to a jury, and possibly start buying up big on lube.

You are unbelievable :)

a) the shooter is already cleared by the police - therefore, no charges are filed against him. Here in US - people don't go to court unless they are charged with a crime - this man has not commited a crime and not being charged with one. He can now go out and buy another handgun for CC since the old one will rot away in an evidence locker - small price to pay for saving a woman's life. He, however, does not need to worry about the expenses of lubricants, you so highly desire.

In US - you are inoscent until proven guilty. The shooter is inoscent since he is not being charged with a crime.

b) "The defender must have a reasonable belief that lethal force is the only viable option." - obviously, at the moment of the shooting the deffender (or the shooter in this case) saw that as an only option. The police, having reviewed the events - have justified that as an only available option - otherwise they would have pressed charges.

Knife is a murder weapon - especially has already received multiple wounds and that has not dettered the attacker. The woman was in "actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm"

If a victim is about to get killed - the law allows to kill the assailant to save the woman's life in this case.

not if there are other options reasonably available that he should have considered.

I dunno because i wasnt there. But then again neither were you.

[Durandal]

Ironically, Michael Moore answered his own questions in "Bowling For Columbine".

His little foray into Canada was a prime example, where there are more gun owners per capita than in the United States.

Unfortunately, the dumb ox completely missed it. Missed it badly.

Gigantes Ignorantus.

:D

Edit: Sorry I got into this one late. I figure this comment was needed.

Oh, and Bugalug...the 2nd Amendment is quite clear, its about firearms, not suitcase nukes, so cut the strawman arguments.

[StukaJr]

not if there are other options reasonably available that he should have considered.

I dunno because i wasnt there. But then again neither were you.

The shooter was there - he made the choice within the situation, time and possible outcomes, ouy of which he chose to use his firearm. Police investigated the event and the scene - found the shooter within the limits of the law and having the right to use the firearm.

You can bringing up other options - since you weren't there, you can't know what options were available so just shut de ef up. You also can't know what went racing through the man's head - so shut de ef up. You want to see the shooter convicted and get ******ly violated, together with every US citizen owning a firearm - that's your own problem and maybe you should consult a psychiatrist or just come to terms with your ******ity... You are at about that age, that you come to terms with it or you'll just damage your psychee repressing it.

I'm simply stating the facts from the article:

Woman being assaulted with a deadly weapon by a derranged male with a history of mental illness and prior aggression. A leagally carrying citizen stops a deadly assault with a firearm - the assailant dies from wounds received. The Woman survives the attack. I'll go out on a stretch and state that people usually die from multiple stab/slash wounds. I will also venture on thin ice and state that any regular individual would require a use of a leathal weapon in order to incapacitate another individual wielding a leathal weapon - people who hone take down techniques still have their arms marred in red from multiple slip ups during training drills.

[BarkingSquirrel]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

From now on I'll always remember you fondly my friend

ahh my first ever death threat. :hug:

its a moving moment in anyones life.Stating that you should die, and threatening to kill you are two different things, no matter how much you try to put words in my mouth.

[hughdotoh]

I'm pro-choice:

I choose to own a gun responsibly to protect myself and members of my gene pool from criminals who want to deprive me of my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and that includes state agencies acting outside the law.

On a different point, doesn't it strike you as odd that pro-abortionists are also anti-gun? They'd readily kill those unable to defend themselves, and would readily deprive others of the right to self-defense.

[Bugalugs]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

From now on I'll always remember you fondly my friend

ahh my first ever death threat. :hug:

its a moving moment in anyones life.Stating that you should die, and threatening to kill you are two different things, no matter how much you try to put words in my mouth.

thats alright, I forwarded the conversation to the FBI.

We'll let the nice agents decide whether it was a death threat

[Bugalugs]

Ironically, Michael Moore answered his own questions in "Bowling For Columbine".

His little foray into Canada was a prime example, where there are more gun owners per capita than in the United States.

Unfortunately, the dumb ox completely missed it. Missed it badly.

Gigantes Ignorantus.

:D

Edit: Sorry I got into this one late. I figure this comment was needed.

Oh, and Bugalug...the 2nd Amendment is quite clear, its about firearms, not suitcase nukes, so cut the strawman arguments.

Thanls for the suggestion, but I think I shall continue. especially given the rifle cartridge had probably been invented when your beloved 2nd amendment was drafted

[Bugalugs]

your answer lies in your own quote. (highlighted in red) The defender must have a reasonable belief that lethal force is the only viable option. (Ibelieve that it is a subjective belief in most jurisdictions)

If it is blatantly apparent in the given situation that there are other options, then if s/he decides to disregard them kill the offender nonetheless then hes going to have to explian himself to a jury, and possibly start buying up big on lube.

You are unbelievable :)

a) the shooter is already cleared by the police - therefore, no charges are filed against him. Here in US - people don't go to court unless they are charged with a crime - this man has not commited a crime and not being charged with one. He can now go out and buy another handgun for CC since the old one will rot away in an evidence locker - small price to pay for saving a woman's life. He, however, does not need to worry about the expenses of lubricants, you so highly desire.

In US - you are inoscent until proven guilty. The shooter is inoscent since he is not being charged with a crime.

b) "The defender must have a reasonable belief that lethal force is the only viable option." - obviously, at the moment of the shooting the deffender (or the shooter in this case) saw that as an only option. The police, having reviewed the events - have justified that as an only available option - otherwise they would have pressed charges.

Knife is a murder weapon - especially has already received multiple wounds and that has not dettered the attacker. The woman was in "actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm"

If a victim is about to get killed - the law allows to kill the assailant to save the woman's life in this case.

did i say this individual should be charged? No, because I wasnt there.

Did I say your take on it was simplistic and presupposes that every such circumstance will result in gun-toting rescuer being found "inoscent" - Bingo

[BarkingSquirrel]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

From now on I'll always remember you fondly my friend

ahh my first ever death threat. :hug:

its a moving moment in anyones life.Stating that you should die, and threatening to kill you are two different things, no matter how much you try to put words in my mouth.

thats alright, I forwarded the conversation to the FBI.

We'll let the nice agents decide whether it was a death threat0hn03s! n0tZ t3h Fb1s!!!!111oneoneeleven.

I'm waaaaaaaaaaaiting. What's that? Nothing? How....expected. You're starting to sound like that mobster kid. "Wah, I'm losing a debate. Wah, he stated that some non-specified people should die, see he directly threatened me! IM CALLING THE FBI ON YOU!!! Waaaah!' and yet, nothing happens. Piss off kiddo.

[seva108]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

From now on I'll always remember you fondly my friend

ahh my first ever death threat. :hug:

its a moving moment in anyones life.Stating that you should die, and threatening to kill you are two different things, no matter how much you try to put words in my mouth.

thats alright, I forwarded the conversation to the FBI.

We'll let the nice agents decide whether it was a death threat

HILARIOUS!! Congrats, Bugalugs, you are the winner!!!

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/12342.jpg

[Bugalugs]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

From now on I'll always remember you fondly my friend

ahh my first ever death threat. :hug:

its a moving moment in anyones life.Stating that you should die, and threatening to kill you are two different things, no matter how much you try to put words in my mouth.

thats alright, I forwarded the conversation to the FBI.

We'll let the nice agents decide whether it was a death threat

HILARIOUS!! Congrats, Bugalugs, you are the winner!!!

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/12342.jpg

I'm so proud!

[seva108]

:D

[Bugalugs]

:D

a death threat AND an assclown award!

Is it Christmas already?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Bugulugs please STFU

You give us Anti's a bad ****ing name. :bash:

[Bugalugs]

Bugulugs please STFU

You give us Anti's a bad f*** name. :bash:

youre the one who said he should be done for manslaughter in the other topic - WTF was that????

sorry if i dont care. but i dont care

[joe mama]

Bugulugs please STFU

You give us Anti's a bad f*** name. :bash:

LOL!

[joe mama]

Fellow gun nuts, it's not worth arguing this with Bugs - he's right! He's absolutely right! The ONLY thing we ever say is that everyone MUST be armed (preferably at birth), and that no one should ever consider any option besides shooting when in a situation even remotely like the Walmart one, and how dare anyone suggest that we consider any option that involves less force then blowing the criminal out of his shoes with our 88 magnum. It's true, it's all true. Why last nite, I looked out my window and saw a car turn into a parking lot without using it's signal...of course, I was consumed by bloodlust and insane rage, as Bugs knows all gun nuts are...so I grabbed my M4gery and fired off 30 rounds at the guy. Of course, I'm completely convinced that I won't get into any trouble for this as I'm totally within the law. Bugs has assured me that I'm convinced of this, therefore it's true, since he knows all. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to leave my pc and go shoot somebody because I'm certain that they've spit on the sidewalk or broken a speed limit or something at least once in their life...and even if they haven't, they would have some day, I'm a gun nut, after all, as are all 80 million legal gun owners in the US, and this is clearly how we all think, Bugs has assured me of this, and he can't be wrong...especially if Minardiau says he should STFU!
p-)

[Geezah]

Bugulugs please STFU

You give us Anti's a bad f*** name. :bash:

youre the one who said he should be done for manslaughter in the other topic - WTF was that????

sorry if i dont care. but i dont care

Thank you for proving my point that you are nothing more than a Troll.

From what I've seen(as I don't follow your posts), the ones I've seen seem to be nothing more than a flame, oh well, no need to prove me wrong on this.

While we back up our arguement, you prefer to flame :cantbeli:

[joe mama]

Bugulugs please STFU

You give us Anti's a bad f*** name. :bash:

youre the one who said he should be done for manslaughter in the other topic - WTF was that????

sorry if i dont care. but i dont care

I'd tell ya that you could learn from Min, because even though he's an anti, he's quite capable of actually reading what us gun nuts write and understanding it and doesn't just interpret it through some unmovable position that all gun owners are bloodthristy maniacs, but, as you quite clearly put it "i dont care". Besides, it's more fun to feed your fantasies about how we all think. On that note, I'm going to take a short nap whilst cuddling with one of my pistols, dreaming of encountering guys stabbing their ex wives in walmart while I'm carrying and how I won't consider any other options, I will just shoot, since, because I'd carry a gun in the first place, I'm clearly incapable of doing anything but just shooting.

[Durandal]

Its all about Knob Creek...

39 days left...

[Geezah]

I will be there, getting t-shirt #3 p-)

[StukaJr]

I will be there, getting t-shirt #3 p-)

You lucky sob's p-) Have my share of fun out there though!

[Durandal]

I will be there, getting t-shirt #3 p-)

You lucky sob's p-) Have my share of fun out there though!

Always do. ;)

[StukaJr]

I will be there, getting t-shirt #3 p-)

You lucky sob's p-) Have my share of fun out there though!

Always do. ;)

That goes without saying :D

[Bugalugs]

sorry if i cant help getting stuck into fcukwits wherever i find them, even when it 6 on 1 and the enemy is more glazed-eyed than a bunch of jihadis. I dont affiliate myself with any group, i'm just anti-fcukwit!

[Geezah]

Hopefully it will be short wearing weather again, always makes for a fun roadtrip woot

[BarkingSquirrel]

An old british man in shorts...

...Ewwwwwwwww :P

[RGRBOX]

He has to keep moving it, he knows he'll never reach it.

From now on I'll always remember you fondly my friend

ahh my first ever death threat. :hug:

its a moving moment in anyones life.Stating that you should die, and threatening to kill you are two different things, no matter how much you try to put words in my mouth.

thats alright, I forwarded the conversation to the FBI.

We'll let the nice agents decide whether it was a death threat

HILARIOUS!! Congrats, Bugalugs, you are the winner!!!

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/12342.jpg

Man you didn't pull out that picture did you..

damn, that's one fvcked up pic...

[joe mama]

sorry if i cant help getting stuck into fcukwits wherever i find them, even when it 6 on 1 and the enemy is more glazed-eyed than a bunch of jihadis. I dont affiliate myself with any group, i'm just anti-fcukwit!

If we're such fcukwits, why bother arguing with us? Funny how you're the only one that keeps coming up with these comments like "glazed-eyed" when people like Minardiau and others, who pretty strongly disagree with me and Geezah and our fellow gun nuts on most gun law issues, don't see us as "glazed-eyed" and "frothing at the mouths" and "puking", isn't it? They actually seem to be able to read what we write and, even when they disagree with it, not translate all of it into "my guns make me horny, how dare anyone suggest i consider anything less than shooting every criminal i see, etc, etc." Whatever.
Hey, aren't you overdue for telling me that when I say "just because the guy at the walmart chose to shoot when confronted by a situation where a woman is, arguably, and in the eyes of most reasonable people, moments away from being killed by an armed attacker who is in the middle of stabbing her repeatedly, that doesn't mean he didn't consider some other option, and, based on the laws in most parts of the US, what he decided to do, whether it was the only option he considered or the 10000th, was completely legal (there being no requirement to try less force before trying more force, there only being the requirement to use force that is reasonable, and shooting a person with a knife, once they're close enough, is considered reasonable in the US*)", what I really mean is "i'd a blew him out'n his shoes, hoo-ey! and then i'd a had me a swig of dat moonshine! and damn anyone that suggest i consider anything else!!!" After all, your magic psychic powers allow you to know what I'm really thinking, right?

*I'd tell you that I have quite a thorough understanding of the laws regarding deadly force in my state, seeing as I had to pass a written test on them and have an interview with the chief of my police department before getting my ccw license, but of course, I can't have any such understanding, cuz I's just a gun nut, right? Funny how the chief thought I understood them pretty well, well enough for him to issue the license, here in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Oh well, the chief must be another moron gun nut too. Care to tell me what he's thinking, too? It should be easy for you...

I'm not sure what's more fun, pretending to be who you think I am, or watching you fire off comments about me being "glazed-eyed" or "frothing at the mouth" when you translate my statements into your beliefs about gun nuts...maybe they're tied, and that's why I keep playing.

By the way, I still don't feel bad that a CRIMINAL in the process of trying to murder his wife was killed by legal intervention and this action allowed her to live. I love how that bothers you. I'm sure you'd feel better if the intervention had failed and the criminal was alive and the woman was dead. That's definitely a better outcome.

[Bugalugs]

sorry if i cant help getting stuck into fcukwits wherever i find them, even when it 6 on 1 and the enemy is more glazed-eyed than a bunch of jihadis. I dont affiliate myself with any group, i'm just anti-fcukwit!

If we're such fcukwits, why bother arguing with us? Funny how you're the only one that keeps coming up with these comments like "glazed-eyed" when people like Minardiau and others, who pretty strongly disagree with me and Geezah and our fellow gun nuts on most gun law issues, don't see us as "glazed-eyed" and "frothing at the mouths" and "puking", isn't it? They actually seem to be able to read what we write and, even when they disagree with it, not translate all of it into "my guns make me horny, how dare anyone suggest i consider anything less than shooting every criminal i see, etc, etc." Whatever.
Hey, aren't you overdue for telling me that when I say "just because the guy at the walmart chose to shoot when confronted by a situation where a woman is, arguably, and in the eyes of most reasonable people, moments away from being killed by an armed attacker who is in the middle of stabbing her repeatedly, that doesn't mean he didn't consider some other option, and, based on the laws in most parts of the US, what he decided to do, whether it was the only option he considered or the 10000th, was completely legal (there being no requirement to try less force before trying more force, there only being the requirement to use force that is reasonable, and shooting a person with a knife, once they're close enough, is considered reasonable in the US*)", what I really mean is "i'd a blew him out'n his shoes, hoo-ey! and then i'd a had me a swig of dat moonshine! and damn anyone that suggest i consider anything else!!!" After all, your magic psychic powers allow you to know what I'm really thinking, right?

*I'd tell you that I have quite a thorough understanding of the laws regarding deadly force in my state, seeing as I had to pass a written test on them and have an interview with the chief of my police department before getting my ccw license, but of course, I can't have any such understanding, cuz I's just a gun nut, right? Funny how the chief thought I understood them pretty well, well enough for him to issue the license, here in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Oh well, the chief must be another moron gun nut too. Care to tell me what he's thinking, too? It should be easy for you...

Theres a reason why coppers don't double as prosecutors in anything but the most simple matter - they usually have little comprehensioin ofthe law. They leave such things to the lawyers and judges, if they have any sense at all. So because you answered a few questions on an exam that Mr Plod didnt even write, doesnt impress me



I'm not sure what's more fun, pretending to be who you think I am, or watching you fire off comments about me being "glazed-eyed" or "frothing at the mouth" when you translate my statements into your beliefs about gun nuts...maybe they're tied, and that's why I keep playing.

By the way, I still don't feel bad that a CRIMINAL in the process of trying to murder his wife was killed by legal intervention and this action allowed her to live. I love how that bothers you. I'm sure you'd feel better if the intervention had failed and the criminal was alive and the woman was dead. That's definitely a better outcome.

well that was a tome

too bad you cannot bring yourself to look at the flip-side, that there may have been other options available, and at least examine that possibility rationally. That would threaten your world-view and would therefore be unacceptable.

I also like the assumed connection between the person's actions and him being a criminal, even in light of the statement that he was somehow mentally disturbed. Its especially interesting in light of your statement that the shooter is "innocent until proven guilty". Has there been a finding of criminal culpability against the assailant? Only in your eyes.
This "presumption of innocence" doesnt go both ways, does it - once again, that would threaten your world view and would therefore be unacceptable. It also makes his death far more palpable to you, to the extent you appear to be rejoicing about it!

Pathetic.

[StukaJr]

heres a reason why coppers don't double as prosecutors in anything but the most simple matter - they usually have little comprehensioin ofthe law. They leave such things to the lawyers and judges, if they have any sense at all. So because you answered a few questions on an exam that Mr Plod didnt even write, doesnt impress me


That's where you are wrong - Cops work tightly with prosecutors to build a case, prosecutors often work tightly in an investigation/doubling as investigators to make sure they have a tight case to present in court. Detectives and street cops have an excellent understanding of the law - or every 2nd criminal would go free thanks to the evidence being inadmissable in court. Detectives solve the case and pass the puck onto the State Prosecutor - not knowing the law pretty much means that the prosecutor would end up with a case they can't prosecute. Think before you speak.

If you were "lucky" enough to catch Robert Blake's murder trial - the prosecutors were pretty much on the investigation team from the moment Blake became prime suspect. Prosecutors inspected most of the evidence and even made some leads in the case.




I also like the assumed connection between the person's actions and him being a criminal, even in light of the statement that he was somehow mentally disturbed. Its especially interesting in light of your statement that the shooter is "innocent until proven guilty". Has there been a finding of criminal culpability against the assailant?


The derranged man had a knife coming in and out of the flesh of a woman - I personally would constitute it as murder in progress. Note - not attempted murder since an attempt is something one tries and doesn't accomplish, leaving it well alone. The knife assailant was mentally disturbed - he appeared derranged during the crime, had prior history of violence and reported mental conditions - read the article, it's right there in black and white!

The shooter took a life of the attacker but was cleared by the police as he was deffending another person's life - no charge, no court equals innoscense in the US. The assailant with a knife attacked his wife and inflicted serious harm and permanent damage to her body - if that's not a crime, I don't know what is. Has he survived - he would have been charged - 100%




Pathetic.

Yes, you are... oh yes, you are...

[StukaJr]

Bugalugs - you certainly can't read or don't want to read... Here is what you've missed:

Due Moore - the shooter, had a concealed arms permit and was an unpaid volunteer with the Police Department's cold case unit

Due Moore is 72 - I don't know too many options available to 72 year olds when it comes to stopping a knife wielding assailant.

Moore was taken into custody Thursday, questioned and released - so he was not just quiestioned on the scene by a single cop and then set loose.


"While working in the deli, Joyce Cordoba, 46, was approached by Felix Vigil around 5 p.m. Thursday, Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Hoffman said this morning." - looks like a premedidated action to me if you ask.

I'll reffer you to the original post here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58087

and another article here:

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4032728,00.html

Good night

[Bugalugs]

Bugalugs - you certainly can't read or don't want to read... Here is what you've missed:

Due Moore - the shooter, had a concealed arms permit and was an unpaid volunteer with the Police Department's cold case unit

Due Moore is 72 - I don't know too many options available to 72 year olds when it comes to stopping a knife wielding assailant.

Moore was taken into custody Thursday, questioned and released - so he was not just quiestioned on the scene by a single cop and then set loose.


"While working in the deli, Joyce Cordoba, 46, was approached by Felix Vigil around 5 p.m. Thursday, Albuquerque police spokeswoman Trish Hoffman said this morning." - looks like a premedidated action to me if you ask.

I'll reffer you to the original post here:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58087

and another article here:

http://www.abqtrib.com/albq/nw_local/article/0,2564,ALBQ_19858_4032728,00.html

Good night

well, if cops have such an intimite knowledge of the law, prosecutors must be redundant. But wait, we still have prosecuters, and police NEED them on the investigation team to put together a sound prosecution.

So, contrary to your assertion, prosecutors can double as investigators, but coppers cant double as investigators.

Why?

Because the lawyers learn more in their first year of law school than it would take to do the investigators job!

its not an insult or put-down to the investigators, but some people have the academic bent, some don't.


Furthermore, merely because someone is released after questioning does not means they will not be charged - it simply means that there is not enough to charge them at that time, or the cops need to get the advice of the prosecutor as to whether charges should be laid (theres that damned redundant prosecuter sticking his/her nose in again where its not wanted).

I'm not presupposing he will be charged, but you are presupposing he won't.

knowing the basics of evidence preservation and chain of custody does not indicate a detailed knowledge of the law - just an understanding of police standard procedures, which does not necessiate a detailed undrstanding of the underlying legal principles. And from what I've seen, every 2nd "crim" does go free - very often due to police stuff-ups!

whether you constiute something as "murder in progress" is moot in respect to whether the individual is a "criminal". It is not until he has been convicted of murder that he is deemed to have committed a crime.

But dont let that get in the way of making your life easier by labelling him a "criminal" because it suits your agenda.

p.s. look up the speling of "innoscence" - you keep on mispelling it, and its getting annoying

[BarkingSquirrel]

I'm still waiting for the booooooogeymen you're sending for me.

[BarkingSquirrel]

well, if cops have such an intimite knowledge of the law, prosecutors must be redundant. But wait, we still have prosecuters, and police NEED them on the investigation team to put together a sound prosecution.

So, contrary to your assertion, prosecutors can double as investigators, but coppers cant double as investigators.

Why?

Because the lawyers learn more in their first year of law school than it would take to do the investigators job!

its not an insult or put-down to the investigators, but some people have the academic bent, some don't.


Furthermore, merely because someone is released after questioning does not means they will not be charged - it simply means that there is not enough to charge them at that time, or the cops need to get the advice of the prosecutor as to whether charges should be laid (theres that damned redundant prosecuter sticking his/her nose in again where its not wanted).

I'm not presupposing he will be charged, but you are presupposing he won't.

knowing the basics of evidence preservation and chain of custody does not indicate a detailed knowledge of the law - just an understanding of police standard procedures, which does not necessiate a detailed undrstanding of the underlying legal principles. And from what I've seen, every 2nd "crim" does go free - very often due to police stuff-ups!

whether you constiute something as "murder in progress" is moot in respect to whether the individual is a "criminal". It is not until he has been convicted of murder that he is deemed to have committed a crime.

But dont let that get in the way of making your life easier by labelling him a "criminal" because it suits your agenda.

p.s. look up the speling of "innoscence" - you keep on mispelling it, and its getting annoying

Big words only make you look smart if you spell them correctly.

[Bugalugs]

well, if cops have such an intimite knowledge of the law, prosecutors must be redundant. But wait, we still have prosecuters, and police NEED them on the investigation team to put together a sound prosecution.

So, contrary to your assertion, prosecutors can double as investigators, but coppers cant double as investigators.

Why?

Because the lawyers learn more in their first year of law school than it would take to do the investigators job!

its not an insult or put-down to the investigators, but some people have the academic bent, some don't.


Furthermore, merely because someone is released after questioning does not means they will not be charged - it simply means that there is not enough to charge them at that time, or the cops need to get the advice of the prosecutor as to whether charges should be laid (theres that damned redundant prosecuter sticking his/her nose in again where its not wanted).

I'm not presupposing he will be charged, but you are presupposing he won't.

knowing the basics of evidence preservation and chain of custody does not indicate a detailed knowledge of the law - just an understanding of police standard procedures, which does not necessiate a detailed undrstanding of the underlying legal principles. And from what I've seen, every 2nd "crim" does go free - very often due to police stuff-ups!

whether you constiute something as "murder in progress" is moot in respect to whether the individual is a "criminal". It is not until he has been convicted of murder that he is deemed to have committed a crime.

But dont let that get in the way of making your life easier by labelling him a "criminal" because it suits your agenda.

p.s. look up the speling of "innoscence" - you keep on mispelling it, and its getting annoying

Big words only make you look smart if you spell them correctly.

im not repeatedly misspelling a single simple word, theyre typos idiot. whatshisname is careful to avoid typos but CANT SPELL THE WORD!!!!! rofl

[Bugalugs]

I'm still waiting for the booooooogeymen you're sending for me.

I'm still waiting for you to book a flight to Australia, **** wit

now whos got no response to the argument in hand? ;)

[BarkingSquirrel]

You're continously misspelling yourself and you know it. Hell you still can't master proper punctuation. You have no place to chide others for their habits when you do the very same while you're chiding. I don't know which you are more, an idiot or a hypocrite. I'd guess they're in balanced percentages.

[Bugalugs]

You're continously misspelling yourself and you know it. Hell you still can't master proper punctuation. You have no place to chide others for their habits when you do the very same while you're chiding. I don't know which you are more, an idiot or a hypocrite. I'd guess they're in balanced percentages.

Its an internet forum, tool. we get the words down as fast as possible. however when someone repeatedly mangles a simple word in a way that shows he never knew how to spell it IN THE FIRST PLACE, i'll correct them.

In the meantime come back with some response to the issue, instead of grabbing onto side-bars that werent even directed to you to dodge the issue :cantbeli:

[joe mama]

Theres a reason why coppers don't double as prosecutors in anything but the most simple matter - they usually have little comprehensioin ofthe law. They leave such things to the lawyers and judges, if they have any sense at all. So because you answered a few questions on an exam that Mr Plod didnt even write, doesnt impress me

Cops have "little comprehension of the law", huh? Wouldn't that make them similar to...ummmm...civilians? Wouldn't that imply that this guy's judgement that shooting would be legal would probably be based on a similar small comprehension as an officer would have if he was the one deciding to shoot? Don't bother answering, I'm sure you'll just say that even if cops have little comprehension of the law, civilians have even less. (you don't mind me telling you what you're thinking, do you? after all, you continuously tell me what i'm thinking...)

well that was a tome

too bad you cannot bring yourself to look at the flip-side, that there may have been other options available, and at least examine that possibility rationally. That would threaten your world-view and would therefore be unacceptable.

Yup, you're absolutely right, I cannot bring myself to consider any other options. I haven't repeatedly stated that this guy may have considered other options before choosing to shoot. You're the one who's world view is threatened by the possibility that this guy may have considered other options. He's a ccw'ing civilian, therefore he's a gun nut, and we're all cowboys, or we wouldn't be ccw'ing in the first place, and the only option we consider is shooting, right? That's pretty clearly your precious world veiw considering the fact that you've repeatedly said that I refuse to look at any other options, despite my repeated posts that just because he chose this option and I might have too doesn't mean other options weren't considered or wouldn't be.

I also like the assumed connection between the person's actions and him being a criminal, even in light of the statement that he was somehow mentally disturbed.

If someone mentally disturbed commits a violent act which violates a law, is it not a crime? Is it unreasonable to refer to a person who can be reasonably believed to be committing a crime as a criminal? Would you feel better if I kept writing alledged criminal? He was stabbing this woman. I don't believe there's been any doubt aimed at that part of the story. Whether he was the sanest person in the world or the craziest, or somewhere in between, does that change this fact: HE WAS STABBING HER REPEATEDLY. Most reasonable people would equate stabbing someone repeatedly with attempting to murder them. Is it not murder (or attempted murder) if a crazy person kills someone (or tries to)?

Its especially interesting in light of your statement that the shooter is "innocent until proven guilty". Has there been a finding of criminal culpability against the assailant? Only in your eyes.
This "presumption of innocence" doesnt go both ways, does it - once again, that would threaten your world view and would therefore be unacceptable.

Excellent job at ignoring the fact that THE WOMAN WAS BEING STABBED REPEATEDLY AT THAT VERY MOMENT and was, therefore, it's reasonable to believe, in danger of being killed or injured so badly that she would die shortly. This wasn't a courtroom, or a long investigation. This guy had moments to decide if he was going to intervene, and what to do. This woman's life was in extreme danger (do you dispute this?) at this very moment. A huge point of the police investigation that either already has concluded or is happening or will be happening will be to determine if a reasonable person could have concluded IN THE TIME AVAILABLE (almost none) if the stabbing guy was attempting to kill the woman and if the woman was in serious enough danger to warrant the use of deadly force by the guy that helped her. Would you feel better if he hadn't acted, or acted in a way that didn't stop the attack, because he wasn't certain the guy was guilty, and the woman died? My world view here, contrary to what you may think, is that, sometimes, people are faced with situations that don't allow much time for consideration, and decisions must be made quickly based on the information available. It's why cops can use deadly force in situations if, in their judgement, it's warranted, without first having an investigation and trial. If the cops and prosecutors determine this guy acted innapropriately, he'll be charged with a crime and tried. Which is exactly the way it should be. At NO point have I said anything indicating that determination shouldn't happen. Based on the limited facts we have, if they determine he did act innapropriately, I might disagree with that decision (again, based on what I know NOW), but I do NOT disagree with the examination of the event that will happen. I might agree with their decision that he did something wrong if it's based on further information I don't have and I was made aware of that information.

It also makes his death far more palpable to you, to the extent you appear to be rejoicing about it! Pathetic.

Actually, if I'm "rejoicing" about anything, it's that the woman WHO WAS BEING STABBED is alive. I'm sooooooooooooooooo sorry I'm not shedding any tears about the man WHO WAS STABBING HER.

[StukaJr]

well, if cops have such an intimite knowledge of the law, prosecutors must be redundant. But wait, we still have prosecuters, and police NEED them on the investigation team to put together a sound prosecution.

So, contrary to your assertion, prosecutors can double as investigators, but coppers cant double as investigators.

Why?

Because the lawyers learn more in their first year of law school than it would take to do the investigators job!


Crimes are solved by cops - they are called detectives. Persecutors protect the charges in court against attorneys - using the evidence provided by the Police. If the persecutor(s) take place in investigation - it's mostly so the know first hand that they have enough solid evidence to build a case from - not because the cops don't know the law. The persecutors often take part on the investigative teams when it's a high profile case or there are jurisdiction mishaps - not because cops can't read the Law.

Low ranking LEO's may not know the law as well, but promotions in Law Enforcement involve harsh exams - most of which is the legal knowledge. One cannot become a sergeant simply by the time spent on the force - knowledge of the law is needed. So is elevating to the detective level - detective knows the criminal law as well, if not better, then a lawyer. Of course, low ranking LEO's don't interrogate the murder suspects - detectives do.





Furthermore, merely because someone is released after questioning does not means they will not be charged - it simply means that there is not enough to charge them at that time, or the cops need to get the advice of the prosecutor as to whether charges should be laid (theres that damned redundant prosecuter sticking his/her nose in again where its not wanted).

I'm not presupposing he will be charged, but you are presupposing he won't.

knowing the basics of evidence preservation and chain of custody does not indicate a detailed knowledge of the law - just an understanding of police standard procedures, which does not necessiate a detailed undrstanding of the underlying legal principles. And from what I've seen, every 2nd "crim" does go free - very often due to police stuff-ups!


Even if the shooter is charged - the persecutor will have a highly impossible case to try:
a) Shooting is done by the book - Police accounted for that. Unless, of course, there is a story later that provides new evidence or different events from what is currently told - then of course. As current story stands - there is nothing that would convict the shooter.
b) US has a lot higher "deaths from domestic abuse" fear then that of the evil gun carrying citizens - I believe that Domestic Abuse is one of the highest causes of homicides. Since media pretty much runs the courts in US - persecuting a man who stopped a domestic dispute homicide would pretty much need to require the same jury as Michael Jackson's trial... From another planet, that is.



whether you constiute something as "murder in progress" is moot in respect to whether the individual is a "criminal". It is not until he has been convicted of murder that he is deemed to have committed a crime.

But dont let that get in the way of making your life easier by labelling him a "criminal" because it suits your agenda.


When you see someone in need of help or danger of getting killed - would you come to their aid? A mentally sound human being has enough observation and reasoning power to determine that - if you see a light turn red, do you need a judge and jury to tell you that the light turned red? If you see a woman, minding her business, then a man leaps at her and starts inserting a kitchen knife into her - do you need a judge and a jury to tell you that murder is taking place?

I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals". If you see someone cross the street on a red light - he is a jaywalker, if you see someone stabbing someone numerous times - he is a assailant, could be murderer.




p.s. look up the speling of "innoscence" - you keep on mispelling it, and its getting annoying

Yeah, yeah - double proof your typo's and you just might find me correct my spelling. What goes around - comes around.

[RGRBOX]

I'm still waiting for the booooooogeymen you're sending for me.

BOO!!!

[Bugalugs]

hah you need to be able to spell in the first place to proof!

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

[Geezah]

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

This guy did not get off because of media attention, the majority of the media(over here) do not like the idea of law abiding civilians owning firearms, so why the hell would they come to this guys aid?

In order to get your CCW, in nearly all States you have to go through a thorough background check and test, and the license can be revoked for any reason.
If you had read the AG Jim Petro's webpage(I supplied the link for) you would see what we can and cannot do within Ohio.
We have a duty to retreat, if we are unable to retreat and you fear for your life, then you can exercise lethal force.
You will be arrested and put under the spotlight until LEOs are able to verify what took place though.

You constantly try and play down the idea of law abiding citizens owning and carrying firearms to protect themselves, even when we provide links and information to back up what we are saying, you do nothing more than ignore it or poo poo at it.
It would be nice if you could provide some proof to back up what you are saying?

[StukaJr]

hah you need to be able to spell in the first place to proof!

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

I have a good handle on the English language - it being my second yet not my last, after all.

Maybe Australian cops have poor handle on the book - not sure how that applies to the US cops or what you base your knowledge of US law enforcement knowledge. In the US, the problems begin with media running the law circuit, convictions passed yet jail sentences not served due to overcrowding in jails, highest percentage of lawyers per capita in the world (California - 1 to 40) etc - not that Detectives do not understand the law... I'm sure when they don't - they just google it p-) Not like none of the US detectives are required a college education and multiple master's degrees in different criminology fields...

Maybe my understanding of the law is flawed, but what would you do if you met me in a store and I've began stabbing you with a kitchen knife? Would that be a crime and would I be a criminal?

[Bugalugs]

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

This guy did not get off because of media attention, the majority of the media(over here) do not like the idea of law abiding civilians owning firearms, so why the hell would they come to this guys aid?

In order to get your CCW, in nearly all States you have to go through a thorough background check and test, and the license can be revoked for any reason.
If you had read the AG Jim Petro's webpage(I supplied the link for) you would see what we can and cannot do within Ohio.
We have a duty to retreat, if we are unable to retreat and you fear for your life, then you can exercise lethal force.
You will be arrested and put under the spotlight until LEOs are able to verify what took place though.

You constantly try and play down the idea of law abiding citizens owning and carrying firearms to protect themselves, even when we provide links and information to back up what we are saying, you do nothing more than ignore it or poo poo at it.
It would be nice if you could provide some proof to back up what you are saying?

once again, you are presupposing he will get off, whilst I am presupposing neither one way or the other.

And no, I am not convinced of the social good of concealed weapons, especially when the resounding sentiment to a story like this is simply "good riddance, the criminal got what he deserved". The whole thing is a ****ing tragedy people, for everyone involved!

[Bugalugs]

hah you need to be able to spell in the first place to proof!

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

I have a good handle on the English language - it being my second, after all.

Maybe Australian cops have poor handle on the book - not sure how that applies to the US cops or what you base your knowledge of US law enforcement knowledge. In the US, the problems begin with media running the law circuit, convictions passed yet jail sentences not served due to overcrowding in jails, highest percentage of lawyers per capita in the world (California - 1 to 40) etc - not that Detectives do not understand the law... I'm sure when they don't - they just google it p-)

Maybe my understanding of the law is flawed, but what would you do if you met me in a store and I've began stabbing you with a kitchen knife? Would that be a crime and would I be a criminal?

no you would be a SUSPECT.

Theres a Biiiiiig differance - one you would cherish if you ever found yourself at the wrong end of a "terrible misunderstanding"

[Geezah]

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

This guy did not get off because of media attention, the majority of the media(over here) do not like the idea of law abiding civilians owning firearms, so why the hell would they come to this guys aid?

In order to get your CCW, in nearly all States you have to go through a thorough background check and test, and the license can be revoked for any reason.
If you had read the AG Jim Petro's webpage(I supplied the link for) you would see what we can and cannot do within Ohio.
We have a duty to retreat, if we are unable to retreat and you fear for your life, then you can exercise lethal force.
You will be arrested and put under the spotlight until LEOs are able to verify what took place though.

You constantly try and play down the idea of law abiding citizens owning and carrying firearms to protect themselves, even when we provide links and information to back up what we are saying, you do nothing more than ignore it or poo poo at it.
It would be nice if you could provide some proof to back up what you are saying?

once again, you are presupposing he will get off, whilst I am presupposing neither one way or the other.

And no, I am not convinced of the social good of concealed weapons, especially when the resounding sentiment to a story like this is simply "good riddance, the criminal got what he deserved". The whole thing is a f*** tragedy people, for everyone involved!

The Police released him, if the AG does not pursue convicting him then yes he will not recieve a criminal conviction. He may however lose everything in civil court as the deceaseds family may sue.

[StukaJr]

once again, you are presupposing he will get off, whilst I am presupposing neither one way or the other.

And no, I am not convinced of the social good of concealed weapons, especially when the resounding sentiment to a story like this is simply "good riddance, the criminal got what he deserved". The whole thing is a f*** tragedy people, for everyone involved!

You got it reversed - an innocent (can I get a gold star now?) woman is saved - I think it's a cause for celebration. You can't seriously value a life of an innocent (twice in a row!) person below a life of a guy who almost killed another. The victim, by the way, had a history of being domestically abused and filed for restraining order - obviously, the assailant was not ready to give up.

But then some people hold vigils for convicted serial killers before the executions - valuing every human life is laughable... You stop being human the moment you attempt to take away a life of an innocent (three!) person and become a rabid dog... Rabid dogs get euthanized

[Bugalugs]

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

This guy did not get off because of media attention, the majority of the media(over here) do not like the idea of law abiding civilians owning firearms, so why the hell would they come to this guys aid?

In order to get your CCW, in nearly all States you have to go through a thorough background check and test, and the license can be revoked for any reason.
If you had read the AG Jim Petro's webpage(I supplied the link for) you would see what we can and cannot do within Ohio.
We have a duty to retreat, if we are unable to retreat and you fear for your life, then you can exercise lethal force.
You will be arrested and put under the spotlight until LEOs are able to verify what took place though.

You constantly try and play down the idea of law abiding citizens owning and carrying firearms to protect themselves, even when we provide links and information to back up what we are saying, you do nothing more than ignore it or poo poo at it.
It would be nice if you could provide some proof to back up what you are saying?

once again, you are presupposing he will get off, whilst I am presupposing neither one way or the other.

And no, I am not convinced of the social good of concealed weapons, especially when the resounding sentiment to a story like this is simply "good riddance, the criminal got what he deserved". The whole thing is a f*** tragedy people, for everyone involved!

The Police released him, if the AG does not pursue convicting him then yes he will not recieve a criminal conviction. He may however lose everything in civil court as the deceaseds family may sue.
Good point. The burden of proof is Balance of Probabilities (i.e. 50/50) in civil courts, as opposed to "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" in Criminal matters.

[StukaJr]

hah you need to be able to spell in the first place to proof!

Im sure the police law exams are harsh - for a policeman. ;)
If the coppers know the law so well, once again, there would be no need for prosecutors - Evidence is a basic and fundamental area of law after all!

And now the guy will get off on the basis of the media, not the law? Get your story straight!


I'm sorry, but inserting sharpened steel objects into another person's body is a "crime" in the US - the people committing crimes in the US are "criminals" Your understanding of the basis of criminal liability is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you get thee to a text on legal fundamentals - you need it

I have a good handle on the English language - it being my second, after all.

Maybe Australian cops have poor handle on the book - not sure how that applies to the US cops or what you base your knowledge of US law enforcement knowledge. In the US, the problems begin with media running the law circuit, convictions passed yet jail sentences not served due to overcrowding in jails, highest percentage of lawyers per capita in the world (California - 1 to 40) etc - not that Detectives do not understand the law... I'm sure when they don't - they just google it p-)

Maybe my understanding of the law is flawed, but what would you do if you met me in a store and I've began stabbing you with a kitchen knife? Would that be a crime and would I be a criminal?

no you would be a SUSPECT.

Theres a Biiiiiig differance - one you would cherish if you ever found yourself at the wrong end of a "terrible misunderstanding"

You suspect someone if you don't quite know, but suspect them of doing it. If someone is stabbing someone in broad daylight, with witnesses etc - you are no longer a suspect.

sus·pect (s-spkt)
v. sus·pect·ed, sus·pect·ing, sus·pects
v.tr.
1. To surmise to be true or probable; imagine: I suspect they are very disappointed.
2. To have doubts about; distrust: I suspect his motives.
3. To think (a person) guilty without proof: The police suspect her of murder.
To have suspicion.
n. (sspkt)
One who is suspected, especially of having committed a crime.
adj. (sspkt, s-spkt)
Open to or viewed with suspicion: a suspect policy; suspect motives.

Citizen's arrest does not require a court order - and here in US, citizens are allowed to perform a citizen's arrest in case they witness a crime - quite a bit of a force can be used to subdue the attacker. In most states, citizen's arrests are a lot more brutal then the force LEO's are allowed to apply.

And if you walk in on your wife grinding some guy when she thinks you are away for business - do you suspect her of infidelity? p-) I mean, you certainly know what *** between consenting adults looks like, same with murder - do you wait for the court desission on both?


differance - spelled, difference

[Bugalugs]

I noticed you did not refer to a legal dictionary for the definition?

one is a SUSPECT until they are charged.

Then one is the ACCUSED or the DEFENDANT

When (and if) they are convicted of a CRIME by a properly constituted Court of Law then they can be labelled a CRIMINAL

[joe mama]

The whole thing is a f*** tragedy people, for everyone involved!

It may be a tragedy, but it's considerably less of one when the innocent (the woman being stabbed and the man that helped her) are alive and the attacker is dead.

[Geezah]

Here's an article by Masaad Ayoob,


Against a rapist

By Massad Ayoob

Can you use lethal force in self-defense against a rapist? The answer, of course, is yes. Deadly force is permissible only in a situation of “immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or great bodily harm.” No victim of rape has ever submitted unless the attacker clearly or implicitly gave her (or, sometimes, him) the choice of compliance or “immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or great bodily harm.” These concepts mesh rather clearly.

Where people get in trouble is employing the force too early or too late. The misogynist police officials who don’t like to issue concealed handgun permits to women fear that they’ll “get hysterical” and “shoot some guy for patting them on the butt.” Obviously, such an action would not justify responding with a firearm. At the same time, once the attack is over and the suspect is making his escape, the law frowns on killing the offender after the danger has ended. While there is a limited window for use of deadly force against a fleeing felon per the Supreme Court’s decision in Garner v. Tennessee, there are certain specific, situational factors that have to be in place. That’s a “fine-point” topic we don’t have room to address here at the moment.

Consider the case of People of California v. Inez Garcia. Some years ago, Ms. Garcia was raped in an apartment by multiple attackers. After they had left, the hysterical victim armed herself with a .22 rifle and staggered into the street. She soon encountered a couple of the perpetrators. When one of them reached for his knife, she shot him dead. She was criminally charged.

Her first defense lawyer used an impaired capability defense: she was temporarily out of her mind, she was hysterical, yada yada. She was convicted. Juries don’t like the idea of people getting hysterical and killing people they aren’t supposed to kill, and the jurors don’t like to leave such defendants walking around loose.

She won her appeal, though, and won her freedom in her next trial. This time, her new lawyer pleaded straight-up self-defense. She didn’t hunt down the rapist and kill him for revenge, it was explained, which is why she didn’t shoot the other rapist with him; rather, she defended herself when he went for his knife. The jury agreed, acquitting her.

It’s most clear-cut when the attacker is shot during the actual assault. In a Los Angeles case, the rapist grabbed a woman on the street and was forcing her to the ground and attempting the rape when she drew her miniature Freedom Arms .22 Magnum, shoved the muzzle into his chest, and inflicted a swiftly-fatal contact wound. The sympathetic District Attorney’s office ruled the shooting itself a justifiable homicide, and allowed her to plead guilty to a misdemeanor with no time served for illegally carrying a concealed and loaded handgun.

Of course, the victim doesn’t need to wait for the rape to begin, either. One of my graduates faced a rapist who had broken into her home while she was at work. She drew her licensed SIG .380 and ordered him to halt. He came toward her. She shot him in the wrist. He disobeyed her command again, and this time she shot him in the center of the chest, ending the matter decisively. He died from the wound. The grand jury refused to indict her, effectively ruling the death a justifiable homicide.

Another of my female graduates wasn’t able to get to her gun when an evening of drinking with a man she liked enough to bring home turned into date rape. She managed to get out of his arms on a pretext, and grabbed her Smith & Wesson .22 revolver. She ordered him to leave. He lunged at her in a rage, obviously about to take the gun and turn it against her, and she emptied it into him. He staggered into an outside hall and died. This, too, was ruled a justifiable homicide. Neither of these killings resulted in a lawsuit.

A couple of one-armed ****** predators who didn’t understand reality are still alive. One attempted to rape at gunpoint an electrologist who had her father’s S&W .44 Magnum in her purse. She shot it out with him. His one shot with his .25 auto missed. She got him two for two in the gun arm with her Dirty Harry commemorative model, leaving him with only one functional upper limb. The shooting, of course, was ruled justifiable. A female paramedic in the Great Lakes area told me how she grabbed her S&W .38 Special when she heard a noise in the hall, and emerged from her bedroom to confront a man climbing through the hall window. She said, “Stop or I’ll shoot!” His reply was a classic example of famous last words: “You ain’t got the balls to shoot me, bitch!” BLAM! The .38 hollowpoint dropped him with a shoulder so badly shattered his arm had to be amputated. One wonders what stories he told his cellmates about how his condition came to be; she was ruled justifiable, and he was sent to prison, she reports.

There is a twofold argument—some lawyers would say threefold—why rape is an act of deadly force that warrants a deadly force response. First, there is the stated or implicit threat of death or serious injury if the victim does not comply. Second, the act of rape is an “invasion of the body proper.” Third, in the time of blood-borne pathogens, some attorneys argue that there is a reasonable fear of death by AIDS, Hepatitis-B, etc., if the rapist is allowed to complete his act.

Review the above. Six women. Four rapes prevented. Six very possible murders prevented. Four dead attackers, and two crippled for life as a result of their own vicious misadventure. Only one of these six women criminally charged, and she, finally acquitted. There are lessons here.

Note, for example, that four of these six women were ruled justifiable in shooting their attackers even though the men they shot turned out to be unarmed. The principle is called “disparity of force.” The law understands that when a male violently attacks a female, even with just his bare hands, the likelihood of him inflicting death or crippling injury is so great that she is justified in using a lethal weapon against him in self-defense.

Publisher Dave Duffy feels the pain when terrified citizens over-react and use deadly force improperly. He told me about a homeowner recently convicted for a wrongful shooting when he chased an intruder from his home and shot him down some 500 yards from the crime scene. Dave muttered to me sadly, “If he had just read your book…”

(Massad Ayoob is the author of several books, including the authoritative text on deadly force, In the Gravest Extreme: the Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection. He is a police captain in New Hampshire, and is the director of Lethal Force Institute, P.O. Box 122, Concord, NH 03302, which offers training and judicious use of deadly force and firearms at locations around the country. He has won several state combat pistol championships and two regional championships, and he has published more than 2,000 articles on firearms, self-reliance, and law enforcement.)

Link (http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob65.html)

[Bugalugs]

The whole thing is a f*** tragedy people, for everyone involved!

It may be a tragedy, but it's considerably less of one when the innocent (the woman being stabbed and the man that helped her) are alive and the attacker is dead.

...and you sniff a cause celebre

[StukaJr]

I noticed you did not refer to a legal dictionary for the definition?

one is a SUSPECT until they are charged.

Then one is the ACCUSED or the DEFENDANT

When (and if) they are convicted of a CRIME by a properly constituted Court of Law then they can be labelled a CRIMINAL

I'll repeat:

And if you walk in on your wife grinding some guy when she thinks you are away for business - do you suspect her of infidelity? I mean, you certainly know what *** between consenting adults looks like, same with murder - do you wait for the court desission on both?

The knife wielding assailant got killed in the process - such is life... sh1t happens. Obviously, that was not a just punishment but people make choices for creating situations where they may hurt others and get hurt themselves...

I don't want to get shot. There are things I can do... Like I don't beat my girlfriend. If my girlfriend choses to end a relationship - I work it out in civilized matter. I don't give her reasons to file for restraining order. I don't walk the streets with a kitchen knife. I don't deposit cold steel into people's bodies - therefore, if somone choses to take my life with a handgun - the Police will hopefuly have enough to prosecute the shooter.

End of story - we rip what we sow.

[joe mama]

The whole thing is a f*** tragedy people, for everyone involved!

It may be a tragedy, but it's considerably less of one when the innocent (the woman being stabbed and the man that helped her) are alive and the attacker is dead.

...and you sniff a cause celebre

Yeah, what an animal I am: I actually think it's a good thing that, from a horrible situation, a woman being stabbed, which will very possibly lead to her death, things change, because of the legal intervention of a man, and the woman lives. How barbaric of me to look for and see something good in a bad situation. The real tragedy of this situation is that the woman was stabbed in the first place, not that her attacker was stopped before he could kill her, even if it was at the cost of his life.

[Bugalugs]

I noticed you did not refer to a legal dictionary for the definition?

one is a SUSPECT until they are charged.

Then one is the ACCUSED or the DEFENDANT

When (and if) they are convicted of a CRIME by a properly constituted Court of Law then they can be labelled a CRIMINAL

I'll repeat:

And if you walk in on your wife grinding some guy when she thinks you are away for business - do you suspect her of infidelity? I mean, you certainly know what *** between consenting adults looks like, same with murder - do you wait for the court desission on both?
Infidelity isnt a crime. Stop using pop-culture logic to analyse legal situations, it wont get you far.

The knife wielding assailant got killed in the process - such is life... sh1t happens. Obviously, that was not a just punishment but people make choices for creating situations where they may hurt others and get hurt themselves...
How do you know he chose to act in that way? That he wasnt , for example, a hallucinating schitzophrenic? You are presuming that because it suits you.
[/quote]I don't want to get shot. There are things I can do... Like I don't beat my girlfriend. If my girlfriend choses to end a relationship - I work it out in civilized matter. I don't give her reasons to file for restraining order. I don't walk the streets with a kitchen knife. I don't deposit cold steel into people's bodies - therefore, if somone choses to take my life with a handgun - the Police will hopefuly have enough to prosecute the shooter.

End of story - we rip what we sow. [/quote]

reaping what you sow - very Biblical. Also bloodthirsty

[StukaJr]

How do you know he chose to act in that way? That he wasnt , for example, a hallucinating schitzophrenic? You are presuming that because it suits you.
I don't want to get shot. There are things I can do... Like I don't beat my girlfriend. If my girlfriend choses to end a relationship - I work it out in civilized matter. I don't give her reasons to file for restraining order. I don't walk the streets with a kitchen knife. I don't deposit cold steel into people's bodies - therefore, if somone choses to take my life with a handgun - the Police will hopefuly have enough to prosecute the shooter.

End of story - we rip what we sow. [/quote]

reaping what you sow - very Biblical. Also bloodthirsty[/quote]

Protecting the rights for would be killers - I won't give you names, but I don't agree with you in the very least.

hallucinating schitzophrenic? Wouldn't change the fact that the woman would have been killed has the shooter not intervened.


I don't read the Bible - can I say "What goes around, comes around"? If I were bloodthirsty - I'd want more women to get stabbed in public while the likes of you stand around and wait for the court to delibirate if it's murder or not.

I will repeat - You reap what you sow. Has the knife wielding assailant chosen to pick up a half pound of cold cuts instead of stabbing his wife - he would still be alive!

[StukaJr]

reaping what you sow - very Biblical. Also bloodthirsty

Actually, last time I was faced with blood - I got light headed and fainted... Could be because it was my own blood gushing out of a major artery in my leg...

I do, however, take responsibility for my own actions - I do stupid things, I pay the peiper, I accept that as my responcibility. I don't go around blaming others.

[StukaJr]

Infidelity isnt a crime. Stop using pop-culture logic to analyse legal situations, it wont get you far.


In some states - it is p-)

And human perception is used in the court of law - the surest way to convict someone is an eyewitness account that attourney(s) can't discredit.

But hey, apprently you would rather see every crime to succeed and go through a court of law, instead of crimes being stopped in progress with the assailants sometimes getting killed in the process...

And shooting a man yet not killing him is not bloodthirsty - oh no... Living for the rest of your life in jail and crippled is so humane.

[Bugalugs]

reaping what you sow - very Biblical. Also bloodthirsty

Actually, last time I was faced with blood - I got light headed and fainted... Could be because it was my own blood gushing out of a major artery in my leg...

I do, however, take responsibility for my own actions - I do stupid things, I pay the peiper, I accept that as my responcibility. I don't go around blaming others.

Withthat black-and-white attitude, god forbid you ever have moment of red-out, when you do something you regret. Or God forbid noone you know ever develops paranoid schitzophrenia, because you'll be obliged to "put them down" at the first sign of violence.

[Bugalugs]

Infidelity isnt a crime. Stop using pop-culture logic to analyse legal situations, it wont get you far.


In some states - it is p-)

And human perception is used in the court of law - the surest way to convict someone is an eyewitness account that attourney(s) can't discredit.


eyewitness accounts are not the be-all-and-end-all. you ask 10 differant eyewitnesses, and you will usuallt get 10 differant stories. When they match up exactlty, a decent investigator suspects collusion, because the Defending lawyer will often be able to expose it.


But hey, apprently you would rather see every crime to succeed and go through a court of law, instead of crimes being stopped in progress with the assailants sometimes getting killed in the process...
no, I would like to see eveyong subject to due process of the law AFTER the event.

But then again I keep forgetting the new US motto - "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out".

That was applied to "criminals" long before you applied it to "terrorists" ;)


And shooting a man yet not killing him is not bloodthirsty - oh no... Living for the rest of your life in jail and crippled is so humane.

You cant be serious :cantbeli:

Anyhow, its your attitude to the whole event which is bloodthirsty, not necessarily the actions of the shooter

[StukaJr]

reaping what you sow - very Biblical. Also bloodthirsty

Actually, last time I was faced with blood - I got light headed and fainted... Could be because it was my own blood gushing out of a major artery in my leg...

I do, however, take responsibility for my own actions - I do stupid things, I pay the peiper, I accept that as my responcibility. I don't go around blaming others.

Withthat black-and-white attitude, god forbid you ever have moment of red-out, when you do something you regret. Or God forbid noone you know ever develops paranoid schitzophrenia, because you'll be obliged to "put them down" at the first sign of violence.

I'm obliged to stop a crime with equal or less force - that's about as black and white as one can get.

Crimes commited under the influence of substance, adrenaline or chemical imbalances are still crimes in the court of law - if anything, the punishment is more severe. I take steps in controlled agression to make sure I don't bottle up anger and pent up agression. If I commit a crime against other persons in the state where I can't control my own agression - I will be a criminal in my own eyes. I take responcibility for my own actions.

Paranoid Schitzophrenia can be treated effectively IF it's treated - using it as an excuse to commit crimes is rather pathetic. Paranoid Schitzophrenia does not develop overnight nor escallates to murderous rampage in short time - if someone I care about goes on a murderous rampage however, I am afraid my feelings would prevent me from being effective in stopping a crime. I would most likely become a victim of my own inability to act.

[Bugalugs]

reaping what you sow - very Biblical. Also bloodthirsty

Actually, last time I was faced with blood - I got light headed and fainted... Could be because it was my own blood gushing out of a major artery in my leg...

I do, however, take responsibility for my own actions - I do stupid things, I pay the peiper, I accept that as my responcibility. I don't go around blaming others.

Withthat black-and-white attitude, god forbid you ever have moment of red-out, when you do something you regret. Or God forbid noone you know ever develops paranoid schitzophrenia, because you'll be obliged to "put them down" at the first sign of violence.

I'm obliged to stop a crime with equal or less force - that's about as black and white as one can get.

Crimes commited under the influence of substance, adrenaline or chemical imbalances are still crimes in the court of law - if anything, the punishment is more severe. I take steps in controlled agression to make sure I don't bottle up anger and pent up agression. If I commit a crime against other persons in the state where I can't control my own agression - I will be a criminal in my own eyes. I take responcibility for my own actions.

Paranoid Schitzophrenia can be treated effectively IF it's treated - using it as an excuse to commit crimes is rather pathetic. Paranoid Schitzophrenia does not develop overnight nor escallates to murderous rampage in short time - if someone I care about goes on a murderous rampage however, I am afraid my feelings would prevent me from being effective in stopping a crime. I would most likely become a victim of my own inability to act.

I think the fact that you could not act appropriately against someone you know is human, but equally human is the tendancy to dehumanise others that we dont know personally - that is what I am afraid it is becoming apparent has happened in this discussion. Someone loved the dead man too. If there was a way to stop him short of killing him, I'm sure they would have liked that to have happened.

[StukaJr]

I think the fact that you could not act appropriately against someone you know is human, but equally human is the tendancy to dehumanise others that we dont know personally - that is what I am afraid it is becoming apparent has happened in this discussion. Someone loved the dead man too. If there was a way to stop him short of killing him, I'm sure they would have liked that to have happened.

Given that the situation in quiestion - one person dies no matter what the action is. In case of a pulled trigger - the man stabbing a woman has a high chance of getting killed by the bullet wounds. In case of innactivity or delayed action - there is a high likelyhood of the woman dying from wounds suffered. In my personal view - the woman fighting for her life and suffering from multiple stab wounds is more of a human while the knife wielding assailant is a lot less of a human in my eyes.

It's not the quiestion of dehumanizing someone in my eyes - I believe the assailant, in this case, has gone a long way to dehumanize himself.

[Bugalugs]

I think the fact that you could not act appropriately against someone you know is human, but equally human is the tendancy to dehumanise others that we dont know personally - that is what I am afraid it is becoming apparent has happened in this discussion. Someone loved the dead man too. If there was a way to stop him short of killing him, I'm sure they would have liked that to have happened.

Given that the situation in quiestion - one person dies no matter what the action is. In case of a pulled trigger - the man stabbing a woman has a high chance of getting killed by the bullet wounds. In case of innactivity or delayed action - there is a high likelyhood of the woman dying from wounds suffered. In my personal view - the woman fighting for her life and suffering from multiple stab wounds is more of a human while the knife wielding assailant is a lot less of a human in my eyes.

It's not the quiestion of dehumanizing someone in my eyes - I believe the assailant, in this case, has gone a long way to dehumanize himself.

I'll accept that last bit as a conclusive overview of your attitude, and walk away shaking my head.

In any event, its too bad we dont have access to the Police report - it was answer a lot of questions that I think you are presupposing, on very little real information.

[StukaJr]

I think the fact that you could not act appropriately against someone you know is human, but equally human is the tendancy to dehumanise others that we dont know personally - that is what I am afraid it is becoming apparent has happened in this discussion. Someone loved the dead man too. If there was a way to stop him short of killing him, I'm sure they would have liked that to have happened.

Given that the situation in quiestion - one person dies no matter what the action is. In case of a pulled trigger - the man stabbing a woman has a high chance of getting killed by the bullet wounds. In case of innactivity or delayed action - there is a high likelyhood of the woman dying from wounds suffered. In my personal view - the woman fighting for her life and suffering from multiple stab wounds is more of a human while the knife wielding assailant is a lot less of a human in my eyes.

It's not the quiestion of dehumanizing someone in my eyes - I believe the assailant, in this case, has gone a long way to dehumanize himself.

I'll accept that last bit as a conclusive overview of your attitude, and walk away shaking my head.

In any event, its too bad we dont have access to the Police report - it was answer a lot of questions that I think you are presupposing, on very little real information.

Too much of a realist for you, I take it? I don't really have an attitude - I just have legal and moral guidelines, so I can stay within legal limits of US law and my own conscience if, and only if, I'm forced to counter someone else's action aimed to harm myself or another person. By myself, I'm a pretty easy going person who doesn't seek out any negative drama or looks for a way to inflict pain, death or destruction.

Nor do I seek out backward psychoanalysis from a kid half my age, whom knows the meaning of life without having lived much or any of it independently. I also care little of what you think of US law, since you've shown complete ignorance of it in the first pages of this very discussion.

On the up side, you did stop with the constant mention of sodomy and the related products - for that, you have my deep gratitude.

[Bugalugs]

I think the fact that you could not act appropriately against someone you know is human, but equally human is the tendancy to dehumanise others that we dont know personally - that is what I am afraid it is becoming apparent has happened in this discussion. Someone loved the dead man too. If there was a way to stop him short of killing him, I'm sure they would have liked that to have happened.

Given that the situation in quiestion - one person dies no matter what the action is. In case of a pulled trigger - the man stabbing a woman has a high chance of getting killed by the bullet wounds. In case of innactivity or delayed action - there is a high likelyhood of the woman dying from wounds suffered. In my personal view - the woman fighting for her life and suffering from multiple stab wounds is more of a human while the knife wielding assailant is a lot less of a human in my eyes.

It's not the quiestion of dehumanizing someone in my eyes - I believe the assailant, in this case, has gone a long way to dehumanize himself.

I'll accept that last bit as a conclusive overview of your attitude, and walk away shaking my head.

In any event, its too bad we dont have access to the Police report - it was answer a lot of questions that I think you are presupposing, on very little real information.

Too much of a realist for you, I take it? I don't really have an attitude - I just have legal and moral guidelines, so I can stay within legal limits of US law and my own conscience if, and only if, I'm forced to counter someone else's action aimed to harm myself or another person. By myself, I'm a pretty easy going person who doesn't seek out any negative drama or looks for a way to inflict pain, death or destruction.

Nor do I seek out backward psychoanalysis from a kid half my age, whom knows the meaning of life without having lived much or any of it independently. I also care little of what you think of US law, since you've shown complete ignorance of it in the first pages of this very discussion.

On the up side, you did stop with the constant mention of sodomy and the related products - for that, you have my deep gratitude.

how do you know my age? and how do you know I dont speak from experience? You presume all this because i dare to dissent. Another example of how you slot people in little boxes as suits you, as ingrained habit - so a differant view of the world must be "childish" :cantbeli:

And you never answered my queries, e.g HOW exactly does the US Constitution specifically prohibit the use of suitcase bombs. It must be in one of the secret amendments between amendment 200 and 300 somewhere p-).

[StukaJr]

how do you know my age? and how do you know I dont speak from experience? You presume all this because i dare to dissent. Another example of how you slot people in little boxes as suits you, as ingrained habit - so a differant view of the world must be "childish" :cantbeli:

Nah - just remember some old posts of yours with identifying information you've posted about yourself, which would make you about high school/just out of high school age.



And you never answered my queries, e.g HOW exactly does the US Constitution specifically prohibit the use of suitcase bombs. It must be in one of the secret amendments between amendment 200 and 300 somewhere p-).

If you bother to read through the past posts - you'll find that information. However, here is a summary for your sake.

Constitution is not a law - it's the fundamental system, which establishes the fundamental rules and principles by which the nation is governed. In the case of the US, the Constitution delegates and divides powers between legislative branches of the governments, it also guarantees certain rights to its citizens. The second amendment guarantees the rights for citizens to bear arms. But it's the legislative branches that write the laws - these laws however cannot take away the freedoms provided by the constitution. If any law oversteps its constitutional boundaries - it can be challenged in another branch of the government and overturned.

A citizen abides by Local laws, then State, then Federal - there are areas of US which completely prohibit ownership of firearms. In the frontier days, pioneers and settlers had every weapon available to men - let's call barrel of black powder a suitcase bomb. When the territories became settled and later on became the states - the laws were passed. Some of these laws called on prohibition of the Explosive devices - people voted them out as being unnecessary and they became illegal. Some areas voted out the ownership of firearms as being unnecessary. In Arizona, you can pick up construction grade explosives with a valid state driver's license - put it in a suitcase and enjoy your constitutional right. All of the prohibitions of "arms" in the US originate from a vast majority of citizens of a certain State or the entire nation agreeing that certain "arms" should not be allowed for civilian ownership - passing a law. Owning civillian version weapons does not violate my 2nd ammendment.

ATF allows for civilians to own destructive devices - RPG's, mortars, anti-tank guns... Just be a law abiding citizens, pass random visit inspections and pay a small fortune in fees and stamps. There are lots of ways for an American Citizen to own about anything under the sun - it just takes creativity, resourcefullness and above all - perfectly good standing with the law!

The moral of the story is - it is your constitutional right to legally own a Nuclear ICMB... Just collect 500 signatures and get a Proposition going with your Local Government, then take the State and then Federal governments to court and etcetera...

[Bugalugs]

so it IS a right under the Constitution!!!!
FINALLY! THANK YOU! :hug:

You see, your previous posts were unclear


StukaJr wrote:
Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

Bugalugs wrote:
If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right?

StukaJr wrote:
Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

You see, my point was that the 2nd Amendment, WITHOUT MORE, allowed you to own a suitcase bomb, and golly gee i was right wasnt I?.

[Bugalugs]

p.s. pls identify the posts whereby my age was (supposedly) revealed, I think you'll find youre sorely mistaken

[Geezah]

so it IS a right under the Constitution!!!!
FINALLY! THANK YOU! :hug:

You see, your previous posts were unclear


StukaJr wrote:
Is a suitcase bomb part of a everyday nesessity? Can a suitcase bomb be used as means of protecting your life and lives of your loved ones?

Bugalugs wrote:
If you decide so, who am I to interfere with your 2nd amendment right?

StukaJr wrote:
Last time I've checked - suitcase bomb would be qualified as explossive or destructive device and Second Ammendment only protects the right to bear Arms (modern - armaments). The modern laws sepparates these under armaments, ammunition and explossives.

So nice try, but try again.

You see, my point was that the 2nd Amendment, WITHOUT MORE, allowed you to own a suitcase bomb, and golly gee i was right wasnt I?.

Maybe this will help you understand the 2nd.


Reflections on the Second Amendment

By Massad Ayoob

A reader named Molly e-mailed a note to the office of BHM asking what the editor thought of Attorney General Ashcroft’s recent affirmation of the Second Amendment as an individual right rather than an assurance of a state’s right to organize a militia. She also asked specifically how I felt about it.

Well, Molly, I can’t speak for Dave Duffy and John Silviera and the rest of the crew, though I strongly suspect that they were as delighted with it as I was. When I heard the news “I would have done two cartwheels and a backflip,” as the saying goes, if I wasn’t too old and stiff.

As you might imagine, the reaction was not the same in the gun-banning industry. (Yes, I use the term “industry” advisedly. It is unlikely that anyone but Handgun Control Incorporated, so bankrupt of public credibility that it recently re-named itself, would have paid Sarah Brady her hefty six-figure salary to go around giving boring speeches laced with long-discredited propaganda. Only the most greedy of plaintiffs’ lawyers would have brought the legally moronic liability actions against gun industries by the cities.) The anti-gunners screamed for the head of John Ashcroft, demanding everything from firing to disbarment, because he dared to undermine the work of the Clinton Administration that was intended to put the firearms industry out of business and begin the disarming of the citizenry in earnest.

Au contraire. What John Ashcroft did was what his predecessor Janet Reno lacked the legal acumen and/or judicial temperament and/or intellectual honesty to do: he correctly applied the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that are the foundational documents for the nation’s chief interpreter of law. For more than a decade, the overwhelming majority of studies of Second Amendment issues that emanated from competent, impartial sources had upheld the view that the Second Amendment is an individual right rather than a state’s right.

Consider the following

History:The disarming of the citizenry has always been the mark of the totalitarian government. From the asagai-wielding warriors of Shaka Zulu to the yeomen of England to the Minutemen of the fledgling United States to the citizen-soldiers of Switzerland, the armed citizen has always been a constant, indispensable ingredient to a free country.

Obvious legislative intent: When a law is interpreted later, by the public or by the highest appellate courts, one factor that must be considered is obvious legislative intent. That is, what would any reasonable, prudent, unprejudiced observer who came along later conclude was the intent of the lawmakers in making this particular thing the rule of the land?

Any approach to obvious legislative intent applied to the Second Amendment has to come down in favor of it being an individual right. If one reads the entire document, every single element in the Bill of Rights speaks to the rights of each individual citizen. This document is one of the most thoroughly planned and carefully crafted in the history of the collective human experience. Are we to assume that the Framers tossed in an element of state’s rights as an afterthought? Why, then, was it second on the list instead of last? Or should we assume that this braintrust of the most gifted, most eloquent, most insightful authorities of their time never noticed that state militias would come under states’ rights and not individual rights?

Such incongruity, such an over-reach of the imagination, simply boggles any logical and prudent mind. The obvious legislative intent is, well, obvious. Simply put, the greatest American intellects of the time knew that the citizen is the state, and knew also that the state exists for the citizen more than the citizen exists for the state.

We must never forget that every single patriot of the American Revolution was a citizen of a British colony before the excesses of the British government forced him to pick up his rifle and fight for independence. In the last analysis, it could be effectively argued that all the “colonists” wanted were the same rights as an Englishman in Old Blighty. At the time, that included the right of the individual to bear arms. Remember that the oft-quoted Draconian gun laws of England were a phenomenon of the 20th century; in the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, no citizen was more free to own the weapons of the King’s soldiers than the citizen of England.

Look to the “source documents:” History shows us that those who wrote the Bill of Rights pored scrupulously over the constitutions of each of the original thirteen states. It was from these sources that the often-mentioned rights to possess arms were drawn by those who wrote the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. A great many of them made it abundantly clear that the right of the citizen to protect himself and his family, individually, was at the core of the right to keep and bear arms. The ability of that citizen to become a citizen soldier and bear those arms in defense of his state was simply one more reason why the right to keep and bear arms served the common good of a free state.

Finally, there is the most logical answer, the short sound-bite answer that hits the hardest and is absolutely irrefutable. When someone with a non-existent to superficial understanding of constitutional law tells you that the Second Amendment speaks only to the National Guard (which did not even exist until long, long after the Bill of Rights went into effect), remind them of the following: At the time of the American Revolution, a “National Guard” would have been Tories loyal to King George.

The price they had paid for their freedom—in blood, in treasure, and in grief—had to still weigh heavy in the hearts of those who framed the Bill of Rights. Can anyone seriously believe that they would put secondmost on their list of That Which Would Keep Us Free, a mechanism that would have given indigenous occupying forces to the next tyrannical enemy?

As one of the Patriots said of another matter, “Forbid it, Almighty God!”

The bottom line is, there is simply no logical argument to be made for a state’s right to raise a militia being inserted into a manifesto of individual citizens’ rights.

Relationships to other individual rights: What is that oft-quoted phrase? Ah, yes: “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Without the wherewithal to defend life itself, it doesn’t take a philosopher to figure out that liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and obviously life itself) can be taken away from the helpless by the empowered. The gun has historically been an equalizer. Today the buzzword is “force multiplier.”

You are a black man in Michigan, with a howling mob of white racists outside who want to destroy your home and lynch you. Can you stop them with your bare hands? No. Can you stop them with a gun? Yes … and, as the Michigan case showed early in the 20th Century, you will be acquitted by a jury of your peers.

You are a woman attacked by a gang of vicious young rapists in a public park. Can you stop them with your bare hands? No. In the latter half of the 20th Century in New York City, the victim of the infamous “wilding” incident learned this the hard way, and remains physically brain-damaged from her ordeal in addition to the shattering emotional effect of the gang rape. Could this woman have protected herself if she’d had the same wherewithal as the armed citizen in Michigan?

Well, let’s just say her chances would have been a helluva lot better. Even when you don’t have enough bullets to shoot every member of the murderous, rapacious mob, you certainly have enough to shoot the leaders, and natural selection being what it is, this has a remarkably persuasive effect on leaders of mobs.

In Stephen King’s book, Stand Alone, later made into a movie, a group of young boys are about to be savagely mauled by a gang of man-size teenage delinquents. As the leader of the criminal gang prepares to do extreme violence, one of the boys withdraws from his backpack his father’s .45 automatic, which the boy has taken for protection on the long wilderness trek that is the core of the book. The gang leader sneers and asks the youth if he thinks he can shoot every member of the gang.

The boy resolutely aims the pistol and gives a classic reply: “No, Ace. Just you.”

It was one of that classic movie moments that did what cinema should do more often: “Art imitates life.” Studies from the California Attorney General’s Office to the work of eminent criminologist Gary Kleck to the absolutely unassailable work of Professor John Lott show that when criminal predators close in on innocent victims, and the innocent victims draw guns, the criminals back off most of the time without blood being spilled.

It is a fundamental law of mammalian nature: predators do not routinely attack other creatures that have powerful fangs and claws of their own. They sometimes do so, but only out of absolute desperation, or in turf wars, or when in the mind-bending rut of the mating season. This means that if you don’t deny food to the starving, don’t try to sell drugs in the territory of the Bloods or the Crips, and don’t hit on that pretty girl hanging on the arm of that big guy wearing Hell’s Angels colors, you have probably narrowed your assailant profile down to criminals seeking targets of opportunity. A criminal seeking a target of opportunity will historically back off from his assault when he realizes he has picked the wrong victim. If he doesn’t back off, well, Darwin’s Law of Natural Selection will take its course once again. I’ve come to call it, “Cause of death: sudden and acute failure of the victim selection process.”

Lord Blackstone, the greatest of all our commentators on the Common Law, said that self-defense was the highest of all human rights. This was understood by the framers of the Colonial States’ constitutions. They made it very clear that the right of the individual to protect himself and his family from unlawful criminal assault—in his home or in public, anytime, anyplace, anywhere—was at the core of the individual citizen’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms.

A matter of logic: Bring it all together. John Ashcroft was right. That overwhelming aggregate of Constitutional Law scholars was right. George W. Bush, the man who appointed John Ashcroft Attorney General of the United States, was right. The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, not a collective one.

The constitutions of each of the individual Thirteen Colonies, long before they United as States, made it overwhelmingly clear that the right to own guns was a citizen’s right, not a state’s right.

Working with these colonial constitutions as foundational documents, the Framers of the Bill of Rights obviously agreed. There is no other logical conclusion but that they found it a key right to each human component of a free society. Indeed, that they considered it so important that they made it second on their long list of imperative individual rights, second only to free speech.

There is no reason to believe that what may be the ultimate document of individual human rights somehow had a state’s rights clause thrown in. Not logically, not historically, not legally.

It stretches believability past the breaking point to believe that a foundational document of individual human rights would include a clause that would allow a tyrannical government that had taken over a free people to command a tyrannical reserve military force within the very breast of America.

So, let me complete this long answer to Molly’s question. What I think of John Ashcroft’s opinion, the official opinion of the Office of the Attorney General of the United States, that the Second Amendment is an individual right, is this:

It’s a good opinion. It’s the right opinion. Anyone who says otherwise insults your intelligence, and mine, and that of a very long history of thinking Americans that goes back all the way to the Framers of the Bill of Rights itself. And, indeed, back beyond that.

John Ashcroft’s opinion affirms the “obvious legislative intent” of those who wrote the Second Amendment. That obvious legislative intent was one that lies at the very core of what we call Justice: the protection of the innocent from evil.

And, as Daniel Webster said, “Justice is the highest concern of Man on Earth.”

Link (http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob77.html)

[Bugalugs]

Thats lovely, I understand the 2nd Amendment perfectly thanks. I think however it should be torn out and thrown away, thank you

[Geezah]

Thats lovely, I understand the 2nd Amendment perfectly thanks. I think however it should be torn out and thrown away, thank you

I do not believe for a minute you understand the 2nd, so please don't kid yourself. If youi understood it, you would not be argueing the toss with us over it!

Here's a good link for you to look over, http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm#2b

[Bugalugs]

Once again all who dissent with you must be idiots! :cantbeli:

I'm just glad theres a decent anti-gun lobby on the ground in the US that is putting runs on the board ;)

[StukaJr]

Thats lovely, I understand the 2nd Amendment perfectly thanks. I think however it should be torn out and thrown away, thank you

Just like 1st Amendment protects the freedom of speech - it doesn't mean it protects the constitutional rights of making kiddie ****, threatening a president or any other person for that matter, cursing or make obscene remarks on the broadcast television or radio (at least as the current FCC rules stand). You can yell about your constitutional right all you want, but if you break any current law - you pay the peiper. You can try and pass a law that would allow any of the aforementioned acts - however, the possibility of that is nill.

2nd Amendment grants constitutional rights for any citizen (or permanent resident in my case) to own "arms" - The Federal and State laws define what is okay and not okay to own. IF one wanted to own suitcase bomb (whatever the retarded thing you want) - one could try and legalize it. Once again - the possibility is nill.

While the laws are fundamentally based on the Constitution and can't go against it - it's the laws that are used to govern the land, not the Constitution itself. Purchase, transfer, possession, concealment of firearms are regulated by local, state and federal laws - not the Constitution...

While the US is the only nation which has a constitutional right to bear arms - there are plenty of countries which allow ownership of firearms within similarly restricted ways as California does.

[Bugalugs]

Thats lovely, I understand the 2nd Amendment perfectly thanks. I think however it should be torn out and thrown away, thank you

Just like 1st Amendment protects the freedom of speech - it doesn't mean it protects the constitutional rights of making kiddie ****, threatening a president or any other person for that matter, cursing or make obscene remarks on the broadcast television or radio (at least as the current FCC rules stand). You can yell about your constitutional right all you want, but if you break any current law - you pay the peiper. You can try and pass a law that would allow any of the aforementioned acts - however, the possibility of that is nill.

2nd Amendment grants constitutional rights for any citizen (or permanent resident in my case) to own "arms" - The Federal and State laws define what is okay and not okay to own. IF one wanted to own suitcase bomb (whatever the retarded thing you want) - one could try and legalize it. Once again - the possibility is nill.

While the laws are fundamentally based on the Constitution and can't go against it - it's the laws that are used to govern the land, not the Constitution itself. Purchase, transfer, possession, concealment of firearms are regulated by local, state and federal laws - not the Constitution...

While the US is the only nation which has a constitutional right to bear arms - there are plenty of countries which allow ownership of firearms within similarly restricted ways as California does.
but they don't need anything like a 2nd amendment, which becomes a rallying point for nutcases.

[StukaJr]

Thats lovely, I understand the 2nd Amendment perfectly thanks. I think however it should be torn out and thrown away, thank you

Just like 1st Amendment protects the freedom of speech - it doesn't mean it protects the constitutional rights of making kiddie ****, threatening a president or any other person for that matter, cursing or make obscene remarks on the broadcast television or radio (at least as the current FCC rules stand). You can yell about your constitutional right all you want, but if you break any current law - you pay the peiper. You can try and pass a law that would allow any of the aforementioned acts - however, the possibility of that is nill.

2nd Amendment grants constitutional rights for any citizen (or permanent resident in my case) to own "arms" - The Federal and State laws define what is okay and not okay to own. IF one wanted to own suitcase bomb (whatever the retarded thing you want) - one could try and legalize it. Once again - the possibility is nill.

While the laws are fundamentally based on the Constitution and can't go against it - it's the laws that are used to govern the land, not the Constitution itself. Purchase, transfer, possession, concealment of firearms are regulated by local, state and federal laws - not the Constitution...

While the US is the only nation which has a constitutional right to bear arms - there are plenty of countries which allow ownership of firearms within similarly restricted ways as California does.
but they don't need anything like a 2nd amendment, which becomes a rallying point for nutcases.
So you are okay with firearm ownership as long as there is no 2nd Amendment?
Australia doesn't have anything equivalent to the 2nd Ammendment yet they have their share of crimes involving guns (90% of crimes involving ileagally purchased firearms btw)... I also understand that certain areas of the country have very relaxed gun laws... Shouldn't you clean up your own backyard before yelling at other nation's constitutional rights?
What is the rallying point for Australian nutcases?