Outlawing guns in the US ...

[SonOfSparda]

No. In most states (except Texas and Louisiana I think) the assailant must be in your home and posing an imminent threat to your person.

Ok so that means if theres a burgulary you have to let it happen unless it turns into a robbery you can legally pop a cap.

Here the killing of anyone has no defence unless it can be pretty much 100% proven in duress which rarely happens. Awhile ago a farmer shot and killed a bloke stealing from his farm and was sent to prison for it, problem here isn't to do with the fact that we can't defend ourselves rather that the criminal has to many rights. There have even been cases where a burgular has fallen through a skylight cut himself on a knife that was in the kitchen and sued for it :crash:

 

[Lucky7000]

Ok so that means if theres a burgulary you have to let it happen unless it turns into a robbery you can legally pop a cap.

Here the killing of anyone has no defence unless it can be pretty much 100% proven in duress which rarely happens. Awhile ago a farmer shot and killed a bloke stealing from his farm and was sent to prison for it, problem here isn't to do with the fact that we can't defend ourselves rather that the criminal has to many rights. There have even been cases where a burgular has fallen through a skylight cut himself on a knife that was in the kitchen and sued for it :crash:

I HATE when stuff like that happens, HAAAAAAAATE it. It happens here all the time.

 

[Hot Mega]

Ok so that means if theres a burgulary you have to let it happen unless it turns into a robbery you can legally pop a cap.

Here the killing of anyone has no defence unless it can be pretty much 100% proven in duress which rarely happens. Awhile ago a farmer shot and killed a bloke stealing from his farm and was sent to prison for it, problem here isn't to do with the fact that we can't defend ourselves rather that the criminal has to many rights. There have even been cases where a burgular has fallen through a skylight cut himself on a knife that was in the kitchen and sued for it :crash:

Well no jurisdiction ought to give anyone the right to use deadly force unless threat to life or limb is imminent.

Look at it this way, the judicial punishment for theft of property is not death...so why would a jurisdiction extend to anyone the right to kill someone for stealing property??

 

[Mr. Daystar]

If the guvunmant wants to provide an honest and good program for its citizens...

... it should provide free 9mm rounds, or other ammunition, for those that have a conceal and carry permit.

:2 cents:

But I carry a .40 cal. What about me?

 

[stampede2873]

But I carry a .40 cal. What about me?

Yes... you too!

I did say... or other ammunition.

 

[Riffy]

It would be better if everyone had a gun.

Amazing!! :eek:

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Yes... you too!

I did say... or other ammunition.

Yeah I missed that...I should pay better attention.

 

[Member2019]

There are no "US laws" ...

What are the US laws on shooting burgular/robber/tresspassers?

There are no "US [federal] laws," only the laws of individual US states (that whole "United States" actually means something, and big ).

No. In most states (except Texas and Louisiana I think) the assailant must be in your home and posing an imminent threat to your person.

Florida passed the 10-20-Life law to keep people from pulling firearms at all, let alone discharging them. But after years of some high-profile prosecutions of people who were clearly defending themselves from imminent threads, Florida finally passed a countering and sane law that defines such well.

Frankly, I think the current Florida laws are the best balance. If you pull a gun, let alone aim it, it had better be with the intent to shoot it. Otherwise, you don't pull it at all. People need to learn that guns aren't for show, they are for use, when you do show it. Even the critics have had to agree, as they can't find many statistics where people were shot without good reason now. It was only 13 last year in Flordia IIRC, a state with more people than a great number of nations -- over 20M (and about to pass New York as the 3rd most populous state in 2011).

Well no jurisdiction ought to give anyone the right to use deadly force unless threat to life or limb is imminent. Look at it this way, the judicial punishment for theft of property is not death...so why would a jurisdiction extend to anyone the right to kill someone for stealing property??

And yet police shoot criminals because they feel threatened too, even if it's proven they were not later. Understand legal gun owners, just like law enforcement, do not go "out of their way" to kill someone. If you haven't been in a threatened state before, it's pretty easy to sit back and "look at it calmly" like a jury.

If you have, you'd know what I mean. Still, one does not pull and discharge a weapon at the mere sight of someone. But if someone comes at you, just like the police, they may get shot if they really were stupid enough to threaten in such a way.

Yeh unfortunatly things like that happen but if they were using guns there is that potential that they could kill more than that toll in a quicker time

Guns are designed to kill. They always have been. Firearms, explosives, etc... were always know to do this, even 250+ years ago. Mass death (with explosives) were very much a reality then as much as now.

In your home, depending on the state, you have certain rights to discharge a firearm at an intruder. If the intruder doesn't want to get shot, they should not enter the home. Like many things, deterrence is the main reason. The fact that legally armed homeowners deter crime rates is pretty much an universal deterrence in nearly all US locales.

and can be harder to intervene for police forces ending up in a shoot out.

The police aren't stupid. Furthermore, the police aren't silent. They make their presence known. A home owner, or at least one person, is also typically on the phone with 9-1-1, patches into local cars, so they are aware of where both the homeowner and intruder are in general.

Police don't just "rush in" to protect a homeowner. They secure the perimeter and try to locate the exact position of the intruder before doing such. They take care to protect the innocent, and not rush their own people in to die for that matter.

Most police in many jurisdictions support legal gun ownership for a reason. Deterrence and greatly outnumbering the number of criminals with firearms are two major reasons I've heard cited by police. I.e., when only criminals have them, let alone criminals know law abiding citizens can't have them in their own homes, home intrusions have some pretty interesting statistics (even if overall violent crime stays the same).

DC's pre as well as post-gun law ban is a very, very interesting study. People try to only quote portions of it to fit their agendas, but if you look at all of the numbers, especially in raw form, you can see much of this. Violent crime isn't reduced at all, and different types of crime are more common.

Ok so that means if theres a burgulary you have to let it happen unless it turns into a robbery you can legally pop a cap.

Depends on the state. But most states these days are starting to bring back some "sanity" with the bullshit that has happened in the courtrooms as of late. If you enter someone else's house, expected to be harmed if you are not expected.

Here the killing of anyone has no defence unless it can be pretty much 100% proven in duress which rarely happens.

And that's starting to change, again. The bullshit over the last 30-40 years is starting to get reversed back to the '40s-'60s attitude on personal property and rights. Years of non-sense crime and eminent domain have started to change attitudes.

Awhile ago a farmer shot and killed a bloke stealing from his farm and was sent to prison for it, problem here isn't to do with the fact that we can't defend ourselves rather that the criminal has to many rights. There have even been cases where a burgular has fallen through a skylight cut himself on a knife that was in the kitchen and sued for it :crash:

And those are starting to end. There are just too many damn lawyers in the US. And a lot of them are out-of-work right now.

 

[Member2019]

So does everyone who walks around the streets of the US carry a gun on them in case one of these criminals are around.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not. Even the great majority of Americans do not carry outside of their home. Several US states have restrictions on "carrying," including in your vehicle.

There is a lot of "grey area" regarding what "ownership" is. But at a bare minimum, as the US Supreme Court recently clarified, any "gun ban" law that outlaws actually ownership in the home itself is Unconstitutional. That's where the DC gun ban went wrong.

I am a resident of Florida which allows me to carry outside the home, and even discharge it now if I am threatened in more recent laws. The nay-sayers on that legislation have had to eat their words as the number of investigations into, let alone actual convictions, was only 13 last year IIRC (and only a few, actual convictions IIRC). Again, that more recent legislation was a counter to the 10-20-Life law in Florida that makes it impossible to pull a gun at all unless you are actually threatened. Far more people go to jail for the latter that than actual discharging.

But if I travel outside of Florida, it is my responsibility to follow the laws of other US states. I cannot claim to be a Florida resident and not follow local state laws. Since I'm rarely in Florida, and travel quite a bit, I choose not to own at all. But I reserve my right, and believe strongly in it.

If everyone has a right to have a gun and chooses to own it, fine

You should really read the US and State Constitutions and US and State Common Law on the matter. This debate is something that continues to rage on, and did even back in the Continental Congress before the US Constitution itself was drafted.

if they're responsible but people go through serious mental difficults like depression, one of these people who own a gun legally feels they need/want to kill someone or themselves because they're not thinking straight means that everyone who owns a gun can become one of these criminals who create a bigger danger.

Or anyone with a car, poison or because they are drunk, etc... The reality is that argument is so tunnel vision, yet commonplace, that if you can't "realize all the dangers" to "anyone, anywhere at anytime" from other citizens, then you can't look past guns.

I find that most people fear guns, and that's their problem, not legal gun owners. As much as people complain about W.'s "Free[dom] from Fear," and not letting that control our freedoms, it amazes me how much the same people who complain have their own "I want to be Free[dom] from Fear" on firearms. And yet, their entire basis for doing so goes after legal gun owners, and not the actual problem.

Why not ban them if it will make it harder for people to obtain guns or atleast have a very tight restriction on who can own them or what environment they can use them in.

Do you know how many assault weapons come into the US illegally every year? Do you know how many of them are responsible for all gun violence?

We cannot even control our borders at this time. We cannot even do shit. It's gotten to the point that local law enforcement in many US State Counties on borders have actually encouraged US citizens to keep firearms in the home. To help law enforcement deal with violent crime, which is typically over 50% as a result of illegal immigration in those border counties (let alone well over 50% of non-violent).

The UK no one can own a gun unless they have a gun license granted some criminals get a hold of guns but atleast restrictions limit how many could be used. Lowering how many gun crimes we have to deal with making the UK safer in a respect.

The US and States have background checks, but many people who want to ban actual gun ownership altogether regularly fight passing those laws or enforcing them if they are on-the-books. Why? Because they don't like the statistics that result.

Preventing guns getting into the hands of criminals is what stops violent crimes. The number of repeat, violent criminals is what matters, not worry about the "first time violent criminal" who is currently a "law abiding citizen." The number of "law abiding citizens" greatly outnumber those who will ever become "first time violent criminals." That's why the statistics on violent crime in the US with guns are so skewed by people who are pro-gun control and, typically, just want to outlaw them.

Then not only try to use laws representing criminals as "what the common, law abiding citizen does," but they also mistake gun control/outlawing as a way to prevent criminals from getting them when it only prevents "legal gun ownership" by "law abiding citizens." That's the folly!

Yeh US love your guns but the problem is you say it's all these people who aren't intelligent or responsible enough with their guns and they are the ones that create the problem but unfortunatly like a lot of things the minority ruin it for the majority.

Then we might as well outlaw alcohol then. Seriously. Not only does alcohol cause a great number of deaths in this country, but the number of gun discharges due to alcohol are also a problem.

Do we stop there?

I know outlawing guns will never happen in the US but it does create larger violent crimes and deaths.

And you have what statistics to back that up?

A lot of Europeans like to say that, until they actually read general US violent crime statistics, and how they are different than European ones in general. The US is an individually nation that is violent, has issues understanding the social responsibility of community and socialism ("what the government can give me" instead of "what I give up so others can get the need they really do need"), etc... Removing guns doesn't change those violent crime statistics.

If it did, then there would have been a lot more argument to keep the DC gun ban. Although it was ultimately about the US Constitution, it's kinda hard to argue outlawing even private gun ownership in the home -- which even Obama agreed is a violation of the 2nd Amendment -- when it doesn't reduce violent crime, including gun discharges.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: There are no "US laws" ...

There are no "US [federal] laws," only the laws of individual US states (that whole "United States" actually means something, and big ).

Florida passed the 10-20-Life law to keep people from pulling firearms at all, let alone discharging them. But after years of some high-profile prosecutions of people who were clearly defending themselves from imminent threads, Florida finally passed a countering and sane law that defines such well.

Frankly, I think the current Florida laws are the best balance. If you pull a gun, let alone aim it, it had better be with the intent to shoot it. Otherwise, you don't pull it at all. People need to learn that guns aren't for show, they are for use, when you do show it. Even the critics have had to agree, as they can't find many statistics where people were shot without good reason now. It was only 13 last year in Flordia IIRC, a state with more people than a great number of nations -- over 20M (and about to pass New York as the 3rd most populous state in 2011).

And yet police shoot criminals because they feel threatened too, even if it's proven they were not later. Understand legal gun owners, just like law enforcement, do not go "out of their way" to kill someone. If you haven't been in a threatened state before, it's pretty easy to sit back and "look at it calmly" like a jury.

I haven't read the Florida statute you cite but the way I read what you've posted doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "If you draw a weapon you better be prepared to use it"?? What does that mean statute-wise as many if not all jurisdictions already have laws prohibiting the brandishing of weapons including firearms?

In most cases (most cases being by law enforcement) when a firearm is drawn in self-defense it isn't with a shoot-first mentality. They are drawn in preparation of a threat and/or to halt a threat (by show of force or eventual use of it).

Police don't shot suspects when they merely feel a threat, they shoot suspects when they have no alternative but to protect themselves or others against a potentially lethal attack. Police have a number on non-lethal weapons (taser, pepper spray, bean bag rounds, etc.) for non-lethal threats.

Using a firearm against a threat is deadly force...period, whether you intend to kill or not. That's why the standard for legally using such force (in most states) is imminent threat to life or limb. Most assaults qualify as a imminent threat to life or limb.

 

[Member2019]

Re: There are no "US laws" ...

I haven't read the Florida statute you cite but the way I read what you've posted doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "If you draw a weapon you better be prepared to use it"?? What does that mean statute-wise as many if not all jurisdictions already have laws prohibiting the brandishing of weapons including firearms?

If you pull a firearm, you're often going to jail if it was not justified.

In most cases (most cases being by law enforcement) when a firearm is drawn in self-defense it isn't with a shoot-first mentality. They are drawn in preparation of a threat and/or to halt a threat (by show of force or eventual use of it).

As a civilian, you don't pull and point a weapon unless you intend to use it. That's the first thing any responsible gun owner will teach you.

Weapons are not designed to intimidate. Even law enforcement hesitates to pull and point a weapon. You must watch too many movies. Law enforcement individuals know how aggressive such a move is.

Police don't shot suspects when they merely feel a threat, they shoot suspects when they have no alternative but to protect themselves or others against a potentially lethal attack.

And they usually don't pull and point the weapon unless that is a very, real possibility. Again, I think you watch too many movies, or maybe play too many video games.

When police point a weapon at you, they are telling you, "you are now a threat, discontinue the threat."

Police have a number on non-lethal weapons (taser, pepper spray, bean bag rounds, etc.) for non-lethal threats.

Crowd control and other cases of people not being reasonable.

Using a firearm against a threat is deadly force...period, whether you intend to kill or not. That's why the standard for legally using such force (in most states) is imminent threat to life or limb. Most assaults qualify as a imminent threat to life or limb.

Correct.

 

[Hot Mega]

"Prof Voluptuary"

If you pull a firearm, you're often going to jail if it was not justified.

How is that different from laws banning the brandishing of a weapon in any other place???

As a civilian, you don't pull and point a weapon unless you intend to use it. That's the first thing any responsible gun owner will teach you.

Uh, okay. Not sure what the point of that statement was as it's common sense if you draw any weapon your intent ought to be to use it. But if you're trying to say drawing a firearm automatically means you will be discharging it...my real life suggestion to you would be that you pull that thing and point it BEFORE you decide to put someone down. Or else You Might be the one who finds himself in the hospital or the morgue. What's the point of having a firearm on you if you're going to wait for someone to make a move before you draw and point it?? That's why police draw and point theirs first before they have to use it.

Weapons are not designed to intimidate. Even law enforcement hesitates to pull and point a weapon. You must watch too many movies. Law enforcement individuals know how aggressive such a move is.

And they usually don't pull and point the weapon unless that is a very, real possibility. Again, I think you watch too many movies, or maybe play too many video games.

Assuming you agree with the fact that in the overwhelming majority of cases in which a firearm is lawfully drawn against another person, it is cops against suspects. I don't know what world you live in but cops ALWAYS draw and point their weapons at the conclusion of chases, on forced entry and any other situation where there is an unknown threat. Who ever said anything about "intimidate"?? They do so to protect themselves and others, period.

When police point a weapon at you, they are telling you, "you are now a threat, discontinue the threat."

Huh?? With that statement haven't you just dismantled your whole theory on "intend" to use?? Besides, they aren't telling you anything. They draw their weapons to protect themselves and others from potentially lethal threats. As I stated before they have other weapons for non lethal threats.

Crowd control and other cases of people not being reasonable.

People who fail to comply to lawful commands given by cops are a form of a threat to them and in such cases non lethal weapons are normally used against them.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Huh?? With that statement haven't you just dismantled your whole theory on "intend" to use?? Besides, they aren't telling you anything. They draw their weapons to protect themselves and others from potentially lethal threats. As I stated before they have other weapons for non lethal threats.

Or it could be that he is just a run of the mill not very well trained cop who pulls his gun cause he is a scared idiot.
I will give you a personal experience example.One summer when I was about 11 yrs old a bunch of the kids (about 10 of us) who lived in my apartment complex had walked to a mall not far from us led by one of my older brothers friends who was about 16.To get there we took a path through a park in between the apartments and the mall.On the way back while in the park we hear "freeze don't move" and are confronted by a park cop with gun drawn and the gun was visibly shaking in his hand.My brothers friend yelled for everbody to stop but the 2 kids furthest down the path decided to run for it ( even though as far as we knew we had done nothing wrong,stupid move of course).Next my brothers friend turned his attention to the cop telling him "take it easy were just a group of kids going home".Seems we were on a section of the park that was a camp for kids and was suppose to be private and the cop and the owners of the camp said we were trespassing.When they were asked where the signs saying this section was private were they said "you kids tear them down" lol.After a few minutes the cop realized he was way out of line and put his gun away but I must admit him standing there shaking with that gun in hand was one scary deal I have never forgotten.The cop is lucky none of us did anything but call him asshole as he drove away and that none of parents decided it was serious enough to get him fired for ,which i'm sure he sweated about later.
I still live near that park and that section is now fenced off,maybe they decided fences are better then guns on children.:eek:

 

[Hot Mega]

pulls his gun cause he is a scared idiot.

If he's "scared" by definition wouldn't he be drawing his weapon to protect himself?

Of course, there are always examples of cops exercising poor judgment...just like recently when the cop (just resigned today) who drew his weapon on Ryan Moats did.

 

[Friday on my mind]

If he's "scared" by definition wouldn't he be drawing his weapon to protect himself?

Of course, there are always examples of cops exercising poor judgment...just recently when the cop (just resigned today) who drew his weapon on Ryan Moats.

Yes I guess you could say he was protecting himself (in his own mind at least) but still the drawing of the gun was totally inappropriate.As I alluded to a lot of police depts have very little training to be a cop(come out the military and join a police force is how it worked around here for the local police usually) and almost no civilians are trained so this idea of more people should have guns and will use them responsibly has a lot of holes in IMO.I really don't intend to get into a big debate in this thread as this is another issue that has been gone over ad nauseum at freeones.But as I have said before that even as supporter of the 2nd amendment(although the more I debate the issue the less of a supporter I am becoming)the notion that the huge supply of legal guns in the US is not the reason there are lot of illegal ones just doesn't hold up,almost all those illegal guns started out as legal ones once.Or that most shootings in this country are the result of career criminals or people defending themselves against such is not supported by the facts eithier.Most shootings are by up to then law abiding citizens involved in personel disputes with eithier family members or neighbors or friends that type of thing or in suicide attempts.

 

[Hot Mega]

Most shootings are by up to then law abiding citizens involved in personel disputes with eithier family members or neighbors or friends that type of thing or in suicide attempts.

An unfortunate by-product of the freedom to be able to own firearms and defend one's self with them in a free society. It's worth it to me even if it allows that one innocent, law-abiding individual protects their life from some low-life scum willing to end it over $5.

When it gets to the point you cite in your examples, I'd imagine those same people would find another method of doing their rival in without a firearm. Look at the positive side, at least getting shot to death might spare you the agony of being bludgeoned to death with a bat or hacked to death with a blade.

 

[Friday on my mind]

An unfortunate by-product of the freedom to be able to own firearms and defend one's self with them in a free society. It's worth it to me even if it allows that one innocent, law-abiding individual protects their life from some low-life scum willing to end it over $5.

That has been my view overall as well but for different reasons.I still cling to the idea that an armed population might be usefull against an over-reaching govt as the founders thought as well I think.I just get annoyed at some who just want to deny the resulting carnage and ease of killing in general we get as a byproduct of the freedom.When they say the killings would still go on even if people had to use knives or some other weapons as a replacement for the guns they lose all credibility.

 

[titsrock]

I think the police officer in the Ryan Moats case was a racist incompetent who clearly can't make rational decisions. Why release a "press release" before you personally spoke with or attempted to speak with the offended party? Of course if you don't actually care about committing horrific blunders against people....then I suppose he was getting his audition tape ready for Texas TV?

 

[Hot Mega]

When they say the killings would still go on even if people had to use knives or some other weapons as a replacement for the guns they lose all credibility.

That's interesting. Do you think killing wouldn't continue by other methods?? After all, killing didn't begin with the invention of the firearm.

 

[Friday on my mind]

That's interesting. Do you think killing wouldn't continue by other methods?? After all, killing didn't begin with the invention of the firearm.

The quantity of killings would be dramatically reduced with less firearms assuredly.Just look at the the other countries with much less guns and its clear ,europeans as an example.We are not that different socially or that more violent IMO.We just have the ability with the supply of guns to act out more violently.