Then why have you already made up your mind about this?

Bullets from guns people pull the trigger of kill people.

There are two separate legal issues...
One is the Trayvon Martin case, itself... the other is the "Stand Your Ground" law and concept.

As Classic says, the "facts" are not in on the Martin case, but there is a lot of emotion.
And, as Classic posted above, there is a lot to be said about the "Stand Your Ground" law.

It's more appropriate to call this law a “Castle Doctrine” because
that is what the NRA called it when it was distributed via "ALEC",
the American Legislative Exchange Council"

Here is a link to the "model legislation" as proposed by ALEC and the NRA.
The link down-loads a 3-page PDF document of the "Castle Doctrine".
I urge Dwellars to download and read the entire PDF.

But here is my short version...

Basically, Section 1 The concept of "a man's house is his castle" is
extended to vehicles and to anything in which a person might sleep, and that
anyone who claims to have used defensive force is presumed to have been in fear of bodily harm
and deems any defensive force as permissible under this law

Here is Section 1, Item 1:
Section 1. {Home Protection, Use of Deadly Force, Presumption of Fear of Death or Harm}



Section 2 goes well beyond any previous legislation by giving immunity
from prosecution of any person using "defensive force"

It is section 2 that is controversial to the public,
and opposed by Depts of Justices, D.A.'s, and Law Enforcement.

Here is Section 2:

My position is based upon what we do know.

Guns don't let guns shoot at Starbucks

in addition to the stand your ground law, there is also the use of force continuim to be considered which takes in to account physical condition, prior knowledge, and age

Does that apply to "Neighborhood watch" volunteers as well or just Police Officers?

So did Edward Norton in "Fight Club" :cool:
X number of people texted whiles driving and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of people were over the legal blood alcohol limit, drove, and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
X number of priests sodomized young boys and didn't kill anyone yesterday.
Need I continue with this stupid rationale?
Bingo! Had the race roles been reversed, the black shooter would have been arrested. THAT is the issue.

When attempting to use an analogous form to demonstrate a problem with an argument, make sure you're actually being analogous! In xoxoxoBruce's case, it wasn't actually true. If you apply his analogy to Lamplighter's, you would be claiming that Trayvon Martin hadn't been shot. In your case, assisted suicides are the expected result of legalizing assisted suicide. Applying your analogy to Lamplighter's, we are expecting more innocent people to be shot due to the NRA.
If that's your last word, I won't miss you "indulging" me.

Just read that Zimmerman 'fears for his life'.

does that mean he's going to open fire on the world?

I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment and carry a gun daily. As I type this, it in my briefcase within arms-length. I don't want to be a statistic if some nut-ball comes to the office I work in (law firm) and decides to start shooting.

That being said, the Martin case is a textbook example of someone who steps outside the legal boundaries dictating LEGAL use of deadly force. The number one argument is that he gave chase. Once he did that, he became the aggressor and can no longer claim self defense.

In PA, we now have the Castle Doctrine which says that you no longer have to flee when threatened and can stand your ground in your "castle"...home or workplace. It used to be that, if someone broke into your home and threatened you, YOU had the duty to retreat if at all possible. No longer, which I am thankful for. Still...if someone breaks in to my house and I draw down on them with my handgun and they flee...the confrontation is over. If I give chase and shoot him, I am then the aggressor. That is what happened in this case and he should be charged.

ETA: When I say this is what happened in this case...I did not mean that the victim confronted the shooter. I meant that the shooter gave chase and subsequently shot the young man.

In Colorado this is called the "make my day" law.

Why are you thankful for this?

The idea that you don't have to run away if someone breaks into your house?

Yes

Castle laws recognize that retreating during a home invasion is no guarantee of the occupant's safety and may not even be the best way to save oneself and one's family. Not all home invaders will just take something and leave. Castle laws take into consideration that most people don't have the training and experience of police officers in threat assessment and countermeasures along the spectrum of force continuum, from retreat to the use of deadly force; so, Castle laws don't require it of them. Even police officers make mistakes when trying to apply their training and experience under the stress of making real time decisions (could be seconds or less) about the threat level a perpetrator poses and determining the minimum response necessary to counter that threat. Castle law also recognizes that the practical considerations of armed defense, for some civilian families in their homes, may indicate that their best recourse is decisive intervention as early as possible. I believe that the responsibility for the safety of home invaders should rest solely with the perpetrators and not with the victims even though I'm not a member of the NRA and I don't live in a Castle Law state.

An interesting comparison would be to look at the number of retreating occupants who are killed vs. the number killed by gun misuse, idiots, accidents, and criminals.

I'd kill if my family's safety was in question, and probably wouldn't need a gun. I don't know whether I would kill over "stuff".

Speaking of which -- what are you going to do about those termites?

Imma buy me a big gun and buttfuck them in the mouth with it. I can't afford bullets.

In these days of doped up perps, "stuff" can turn to "lives" (or rape or torture) in less than a heartbeat. I wouldn't kill for stuff either; but, I have the advantage of tactical training plus experience that might enable me to better discern what's at stake and avail myself of more options than most other civilians. I'm not going to sit in judgment of those who don't; unless, I'm legally charged to do so by way of jury duty.

The comparison you suggest would be interesting; but, of limited use even if that information could be accurately obtained. While the good of the many generally outweighs the needs of the few, when it comes to the right of self preservation, sometimes the good of the many is outweighed by the needs of the few - or the one.

It will always be a balancing act and it appears the process will be in the adversarial form of our judicial system with staunch advocates for both extremes going at each other while those in the middle hope to take from it what's best for them. I don't believe there's a one size fits all national solution and that it will continue to be the purview of the states. I hold the people of each state accountable for those decisions and not entire national organizations whether they be business, political, religious ... etc.

Why would we we want to focus solely on deaths? If that is the case, the argument is hypocritical from the start since gun deaths make up a very small portion of deaths in the US.

This is a very subjective issue that requires objective rules so there will never be a perfect law or solution. When it comes to self-defense or protection of property, I do believe that people should be allowed to 'stand their ground' as long as it adheres to certain objective rules. It should not be a 'almost anything goes' law like in Florida but it shouldn't be so restrictive that it prevents people from protecting themselves or their properties, if they understand the potential consequences of doing so.

Well said.
IF you like. It isn't really relevant though ... see below.
Really? Gee thats a new twist :rolleyes:
Agreed

One day, I plan to own a handgun and a rifle. maybe multiple. I'm not really into shotguns or "assault" weapons but could imagine owning an AK-47 or something.

I would never use a weapon to defend myself, or conceal carry it, even in Vermont, the holy grail of gun rights or something like that.

But I don't feel like, anywhere in Vermont, I would need to.

*This statement not intended to be political in any way. Just personal.

Not even if a bunch of the locals were outside your door with torches and pitchforks?

I couldn't do it. Like, I have no business using a weapon to defend myself. Gun owners talk about how some mythical Übermensch of the Responsible Gun Owner is who they mean when they talk about gun owners... I am not that. I don't believe that I could make the hard choices, be the right responsible actor in a high-stakes, high-stress situation like that. If I can't talk my way out of it, well, I'm SOL... but if I picked up a weapon to be used for violence, I do not believe that I would be able to use it responsibly, and using it irresponsibly, even under emotional stress, i don't believe is forgivable, even if you didn't create the situation. I'm not necessarily saying that should be the law, but I don't think the use of violent force, even in self-defense, is justified if the force is applied irresponsibly.

I think that is a completely valid argument for a single person to make. If you have others in your household, sacrificing them to a principle you hold is less noble. I look at it like the nutters who don't seek medical help because Jesus is gonna cure them. Fine die of cancer, but don't let your children die to improve your relationship with the guy in the sky. Thankfully, I live in a "castle" state where in the unlikely event of a home invasion I can do whatever needs to be done, without having to read the mind of my assailant. If possible I'd avoid confrontation, but I'm not sacrificing myself or my children.

Strange correlation: We've seen the video of the kids with the rc car pushing the guys golf balls around. Being a golf hater, I thought it was hilarious if a little mean, but then the kid confronted the old man over a not unpredictable response. The home invader is an extreme version of that kid, crossing a psychological line with unpredictable results, because his victim is surprised and has no way of knowing his intent and maybe buried his wife yesterday.

Why am I thankful for this? Because I work hard for what I have. I should not have a duty to leave a house that I own and pay for because some piece of shit who would rather steal than work wants to take what I worked hard for. That's why. I understand that this concept is contrary to the liberal mindset, but......

If I can safely avoid a physical confrontation, I would do it. If he has a weapon and threatens, all bets are off.

Well, that's the thing, Spex...you are not legally permitted to kill over STUFF. You have to be in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. If some drunk breaks in and lays on my couch because he thinks he's in his own house, I call the police. If someone breaks in tries grabbing my flat screen, my dogs will be on him along with myself and hand him an ass beating. If he is armed and threatens me, I drop him. It's not like the wild west...you have to know when you are legally permitted to use deadly force. I have studied it as a responsible gun owner.

Ibram: what WILL you do with your AK-47, then?

Griff: I suppose it would've also been funny had someone ran an RC around just as people in their bee-keeper costumes were getting ready to jab pointy things at each other in a time-honored and noble sport. ;)

dmg: I guess I'll pull out a conservative-ish thought and say that you can't really define a 'liberal mind-set' because I would protect myself (a single person, no dog, no gun, but a big knife) if someone invaded my home. I'd kill the hell out of someone who was trying to take away my life and my freedom to be safe in my own home. Or die trying.

We liberals aren't all pushovers.

I think I'm a liberal, but I think the castle laws as described in Sexobon's post (196) are as things should be, regardless of gun laws.

I believe we have a "reasonable force in self defence" clause, where reasonable might include lethal under the right circumstances.

I don't think I could actually stab someone, and couldn't get a gun even if I wanted one. I do have an extra large security torch beside the bed, and I think I could use it.

You are one funny guy

I encourage anyone who is not legally prohibited from owning firearms to get one. But ... if you have no willingness to defend yourself, and feel no need to ... why would you buy a pistol? Yeah, target shooting is a heck of a lot of fun, but you can fulfill that particular need by throwing darts or getting a bow.

Oh, and Vermont is a safer state because of the no-paper carry laws and responsible gun ownership.

I really, really enjoy firing guns. Target shooting is just really fun! I doubt I would even hunt with it, I'm not really into killing animals either. It's... not the same as archery or darts.

An assault weapon is one which you use to beat someone.

Hence the scare quotes, since I couldn't be bothered to figure out what to call an assault rifle.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Vermont is hardly a model for other states to follow

Vermont State Law Summary
Last updated February 2, 2012

Vermont does not:
In 2009, Vermont had the 16th lowest number of gun deaths per capita among the states.
Yet even this relatively low ranking means that, in that year, 60 people died
from firearm-related injuries in Vermont.

In addition, based on data published by Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
Vermont had the 16th highest rate of crime gun exports among the states in 2009–
meaning that crime guns originally sold in Vermont were recovered after being used in crimes
in other states at the 16th highest rate among the states.




VTdigger.org
Kate Robinson
3/27/12

Gun safety law is in limbo, despite recent teen suicides
by Kate Robinson
March 4, 2011

I fully agree with what wolf said. If you are not willing to take someone's life when yours is threatened, you should not have a gun for self defense. Hesitation will cause it to be taken from you and used against you.

The only problem with a knife or other "short" object for self defense is that you have to get get close enough to the threat that your weapon can be removed from you or they can hurt you with their weapon (knife, club, etc.).

If you are dead set (no pun) against (or unable to own) a gun, I would recommend a POLICE strength pepper spray in a cone fog. Fox Labs makes a good one that I keep by the bed. One blast of that and the person should be out of commission for a short time so you can escape and call the police. Also, a weapon with a little longer reach like a baseball bat or golf club. This is all assuming the other party does not have a gun. You know the joke about bringing a knife to a gunfight....

Pretty common anti-gun rhetoric there ...

• Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties;

Most states operate the same way for long arms (rifles and shotguns). On a quick search I have been unable to locate the specific statute addressing this for Vermont. It is, however, illegal in all states to knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who is legally not allowed to possess one, or to a person whom you know intends to commit a crime.

• Prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines;

As stated previously, an "assault weapon" is one you hit someone with. Most cap and ball weapons as .50 caliber or more. A shorter magazine makes things more dangerous rather than safer for self defense ... you have to reload more often.

• Require firearms dealers or purchasers to obtain a state license;

Again, most states don't. Firearms dealers are Federally licensed and have to comply with Federal Law with respect to record keeping, background checks, and sales records.

• Require the reporting of mental health commitments or adjudications for firearm purchaser background checks;

It's on the federal form. This is usually pushed forth as an issue because crazy people are perceived as scarier and more violent than "normal" people. They aren't.

• Limit the number of firearms that may be purchased at one time;

Most places don't. It's a commercial transaction. I can buy as many boxes of ceral at one time as I want.

• Impose a waiting period on firearm purchases;

Most states either don't have or have dropped waiting periods. In the face of an imminent threat or natural disaster, or unnatural one (riots), you're screwed rather than benefitted by this law. Sometimes it's called a "cooling off" period. Think about it. If you're pissed off enough to want to kill someone, will you really be that much calmer three to five days from now?

• Regulate unsafe handguns (“junk guns” or “Saturday night specials”)

They aren't "unsafe." They are inexpensive. They do exactly what they are made to do. You pull the trigger and it goes bang. "Saturday Night Special" is a name given to these sorts of weapons when in the 1800s they were banned to prevent blacks from owning firearms.

• Allow local governments to regulate firearms;

Local governments can't enact a law that contradicts state law. That applies to ALL laws, not just firearms law.

• Require any permit or license for the carrying of concealed firearms.

Yay for them." Vermont Carry" is much desired in the pro-gun lexicon. Alaska has it too. No wild west gunfights. How about that? The move, incidentally, is to refer to it as "Constitutional Carry."

I'm not convinced that gun ownership specifically causes lower crime in Vermont. In fact I would argue that the high popularity of hunting causes unnecessary accidental firearms injury or death... but that's irrelevant to gun control issues specifically I think. I think that there is a correlation between the high gun ownership and the culture of vermont, which is what more broadly contributes to the very low violent crime rates in the state. Much more important is the fact that the rural communities that make up most of vermont's population are so small that everyone knows everyone, and so violent crime is almost only committed between people who know eachother - where tighter gun control wouldn't help. Vermont is a state with perfect conditions for Vermont Carry to be safe. I wouldn't support Vermont Carry in, say, Maryland, or New Jersey, or any other densely-populated state, or any big, crime-ridden city, to be honest.

Firearm deaths appear to be more closely related to whether
the state's voted-share was for McCain (high) or Obama (low) :rolleyes:

The Atlantic
By Richard Florida
Jan 13 2011

Agree completely. I don't think guns cause or reduce violent crime, but depends on the culture. Cultures were guns are used as a method of attaining and holding power will tend to lead to more gun deaths. Cultures were guns are respected will tend to reduce them.

Here is a pdf from CDC showing the top 15 causes of death in the US over several years broken down into excruciating detail.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/dea...09_release.pdf

One thing is pretty clear, people die from firearm related injuries. But not that many as compared to the other forms of death

Assault (homicide) with a firearm counts for just under 11,500 deaths in 2009.

Intentional self harm (Suicide) by firearm about 18,700 (I would leave this out as a determined suicide will find other means.)

Aortic Dissection claimed about 10,500 in 2009.

For comparison's sake Aortic dissection is described as I am finding it very hard to think of guns, as they exist in this country, as being particularly lethal to the population.

So, if firearms aren't a huge problem, why do people want a firearm to protect themselves from being shot to death?

i think this is completely missing the point your trying to make - being 17, and carrying a gun with the safety off in her purse, it was illegal for her in the first place - so if she already broke existing gun control rules how would more gun control rules would help?

guns are a market that needs to be kept under control percisely because you dont want untrained teenagers to carry it in public places on a common basis, percisely because you want this sort of thing to be rare, and that means you want to marginalize the black market as much as you possibly can.

why? for the same reason me and probably most of the people here had no problem getting weed throughout highschool - let's not apply the same rotten logic to guns.

apparently so.

Once again this is non-comparative thinking:

It's only useful if by changing A, there is a causal change in B.
For a (hypothetical) example:
- suicide by gun does happen
- attempted suicide by gun does happen
- but, of the attempted suicides by gun, only 10% are later successful
Therefore, if you prevent an attempted suicide, there's a good chance you have prevented successful suicide.

Here is my misquote:
"When one person dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's a statistic."

I urge everyone to look beyond gun "deaths"
Look at the numbers of injuries, and specifically "unintended" incidents
For example, the numbers of Emergency Room visits related to guns.

Also, look at the use of guns as intimidators of women, and/or "domestic violence"
- threats of suicide
- threats to kill the wife/girl friend
- threats to kill the children


California found 66% of the battered women in shelters had been intimidated with a gun.

A national random survey found more hostile gun displays against women in the home
—primarily by intimate partners—
than self-defense gun uses in the home by women or anyone else.

Children do find guns...
If you ever have children in your home, are your guns already safe from them ?
If your children visit other homes, do you FIRST ask if there are any guns in that home?

For that to be even a remotely useful statistic you should probably ask how many were threatened with a legally owned gun. I'm certain some of them were, maybe even a large percentage. I'm also confident that anyone who batters his wife would be just as likely to use his hand, frying pan, or wrench.

Those are strawman arguments setup so you can say, "if we had tougher gun laws or better yet no guns, no women would be abused". *buzzzzz* Thanks for playing, but guess again.

People kill each other. They've done it for a long time and apparently without guns if you believe the whole Cain v Abel bit.

Maybe for the same reason I have excellent auto and homeowners insurance even though I haven't needed to use it. You know that whole, better to have it and not need it bit...

At the end of the day there are a lot of people who hate guns for a variety of reasons. In my opinion most of those reasons tie back to a fear of guns because of unfamiliarity. I don't care if you don't want to own a gun. If they scare you, you shouldn't have one. I fully support laws designed to keep handguns out of the hands of convicted felons. I don't support laws designed to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase and maintain firearms. I'll be damned if your fear of something leads to my not being able to protect my family should the need arise.

Applause.

There are Civil War re-enactors clubs. There are Old West re-enactors/Cowboy Shooting clubs. There are WWII re-enactors clubs. Maybe it's time for someone to start a Community Watch re-enactors club. The club might even get corporate sponsorship to provide free hoodies!




(just kidding, I know you said target shooting)

:lol: you naughty naughty person you.

Standing ovation!

Is that why people want firearms?

By the way ... I think somebody's cooking the numbers. 21K suicides by firearm is too high. There are around 30K completed suicides annually. Less than half of those are by firearm.

FWIW, what difference does it make how often ?
Is once enough, or does the intimidator get one freebee, or two, or... ?

Here is data from the Abstract:

I wholeheartedly agree. However having a firearm doesn't make a person an abuser.

Also the figure isn't 66% of battered women in shelters. It is 66% of one third. So, 417 * .33 = 137

137 * .66 = 90

The real number is 90/417 or about 21%

Still shitty if you are being abused, but closer to truth and accuracy.