America's "gun problem"

[Red1966]

Liar! he did the minute he pulled that weapon out! In fact, he gave the chance to not only shoot the gun owner, but the store clerk also Just brandishing that weapon craeted the option for himself to be killed, and possible others....Smart Gun owner... See, just having a gun makes most feel obligated to stop tragedy. Sadly, most of the time it just rolls into another tragedy. CCW==DUMB IDEA In my eyes, if you feel entitled to use a weapon to protect yourself, you should just shot yourself.

You seem to not have mastered English. Are you trying to claim that the robber wasn't threatening the life of the clerk? Are you claiming that there was no possible way for the robber to pull the trigger until the other killed him? Are you really that out of touch with reality? The last line is just stupid. For a pacifist, you sure seem eager to condemn others to death for just disagreeing with you.

 

[PathofTime420]

Path, I have read your repeated assertions about, "murder being a federal offense..., self defense is forbidden under federal law..., etc.". You are completely and utterly wrong. The police power is reserved to the states. There are a few circumstances where federal law applies, but they are limited and very narrow, killing a federal officer and such.

Take the Zimmerman case as an example and assume that Zimmerman murdered dear little Trayvon. The feds cannot prosecute Zimmerman for murder because they have no jurisdiction. That is a Florida matter.

"Because the Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the states do. The exceptions are laws regarding Federal property and the military; the Federal government was also granted broad police powers by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power

I sincerely hope nobody takes you up on your offer to be paid to ferret out the federal statutes as you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

The Federal Government does not have a general police power??????????? What's the FBI then???? Just a federal organization???? Right.

Having laws on the book and the jurisdiction to prosecute them are two totally different matters. I agree that most cases that fall into federal jurisdiction just get handed down to state level to save on $$$$$ of prosecution!

Of the current US Federal Inmate Population, 11.8% of them are in for Homicide....FEDERAL HOMICIDE. according to Fedstats.gov Sooooo how do those guys get in there? All cop killers eh????

What you are missing is the understanding that just because there is a federal law against a act, does not mean that the Government can/will/do prosecute them. Jurisdiction is always in favor of FEDERAL as it TRUMPS state LAW. So if they tell the states, Uh-UH its our case...they back down. The fed's prosecute whom they wish.

Then you go on to say that "the federal government was also granted broad police powers by the ICA of 1887" Thought they have no general police power???

Police power and prosecution powers are two totally different subjects! The states police themselves WITH THE OVERSIGHT OF THE GOD DAMN FORSAKEN FEDERAL FEKIN GOVERNMENT!!!!

So who really has Jurisdiction here??? THE FEKIN FEDS THEY DON'T CARE WHAT STATE IT HAPPENED IN, IF THEY WANT YOU, THEY WILL GET YOU.....FEK THEY WILL GO TO ANY COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET TO GET YOU AND PROSECUTE YOU, REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN OR NOT! JUST ASK MARC EMERY!

FEK WE VIOLATED PAKISTAN AND WENT INTO THEIR COUNTRY AND APPLIED FEDERAL LAW STRAIGHT TO THE DOME PIECE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN!

Which reminds me, Federal Law, and Federal Authorities are two totally different matters! Again, they have the gavel, they have the nukes....they make the fekin rules!

 

[rooky1985]

Martin wasn't a neighbor. He hasn't even been tried, let alone sentenced. Your claim of Zimmerman "picking the fight" is just plain conjecture. You really have no problem at all lying to push your agenda. When you lie like that, no one but your fellow ideologues can respect you or your opinions. And that's only because they're low-life liars who push the same agenda as you.

Sorry if I mis-spoke on the topic of zimmerman, my agenda is for everyone to have the right to posses and use fire arms for self defense purposes. If you do not agree than that is why they call this a debate. I do believe that Zimmerman acted outside of what law allows pro-gun or not so his experience is starting to muddy the waters a bit on this topic. As far as lying and credibility I am only expressing my opinion not holding a legal hearing over the matter. Also low-life? I took offense to that comment, you seem like the type of person who just tries to demean someone who doesn't have your views (in mature).

 

[ArcticGranite]

This interactive map and also the white paper, (60pg. pdf) is interesting to me. http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens
I've had armed encounters with no shots fired. One in particular most likely would have harmed me had I not intervened. It's doubtful the few incidents I've been privy to are part of any database. Point being defensive arms and crimes prevented are common. Much more common than we realize but they don't receive comparable press. There's no real "story" to incite interest and move news. Seeing only part of a whole skews views imo. I'm trying to say defensive use of arms is commonplace, we just don't see it. And that kind of firearm use is a very good reason not to deprive us of the right to keep and bear.

 

[cannabineer]

This interactive map and also the white paper, (60pg. pdf) is interesting to me. http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/tough-targets-when-criminals-face-armed-resistance-citizens
I've had armed encounters with no shots fired. One in particular most likely would have harmed me had I not intervened. It's doubtful the few incidents I've been privy to are part of any database. Point being defensive arms and crimes prevented are common. Much more common than we realize but they don't receive comparable press. There's no real "story" to incite interest and move news. Seeing only part of a whole skews views imo. I'm trying to say defensive use of arms is commonplace, we just don't see it. And that kind of firearm use is a very good reason not to deprive us of the right to keep and bear.

They can't receive comparable press. Wounding/deadly assaults provide a countable datum; the others do not. Now while "man bites dog" is news, "man doesn't get hurt" is not.
And that makes it easy for the guns, eww! crowd to dismiss claims of gun carry preventing violent episodes. But to do so that have to either ignore or try to invert the stories of Australia and Britain, where large-scale disarmament led to large-scale, durable increases in total violent crime. cn

 

[Red1966]

There is no federal law against killing anyone other than assassination, only states prosecute murder..........Based on that statement, there is nothing I can say to you, sorry. Obviously you don't know what Murder is so : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law) Zone in on FEDERAL HOMICIDE STATUES If your looking for federal Homicide statistics...FBI is your man. Of course the "legal" use of deadly force wouldn't cause you to lose your rights....IT "LEGAL" I have an agenda????? Okay...news to me!

If you read your own reference, you would see that murder as a federal crime is only applicable in very narrow circumstances, namely assassination, unless you're in Washington, DC or some other Federal property. If you don't realize you have an agenda, then why did you lie so many times? Are you delusional, or just restrict your "news" sources to MSNBC?

 

[ArcticGranite]

They can't receive comparable press. Wounding/deadly assaults provide a countable datum; the others do not. Now while "man bites dog" is news, "man doesn't get hurt" is not.
And that makes it easy for the guns, eww! crowd to dismiss claims of gun carry preventing violent episodes. But to do so that have to either ignore or try to invert the stories of Australia and Britain, where large-scale disarmament led to large-scale, durable increases in total violent crime. cn

I agree with the news coverage and easy dismissal of defensive arms. I'm not tracking w/ Australia and Britain though. I believe they've had an increase of violent crime since gun bans. We saying the same thing?

 

[Red1966]

Respectable m8! But its blood on your hands not mine! I've sadly had a job that at time needed me to take the life of another human being. Its not over because he hit the ground! Taking a life is something that never leaves your mind nor your soul. Idk, to each there own m8!

Better than my blood on his. Getting killed yourself leaves your mind right away, not my preferred choice, thank you!

 

[PathofTime420]

Do you mean that CCW permits are a bad idea, or concealed carry itself?

If the first, I might agree since it can be defended on Constitutional grounds, but I still see value in a permit system that has "shall issue" as a basic premise if the applicant isn't nuts or on parole.

If the second, i would like to point out that is it not the police's job to protect us, but to solve crimes and catch criminals. I would support such a measure ONLY if the uniformed police were held to an identical standard. There is something irreducibly corrupt about a civil police force that outguns its constituency. I would accept a denial of CCW as a principle only if the police were denied the right as civilians themselves. Do not position the police as preventers of crime, because that has never worked. And since they can't and don't respond in time, denying the right of defense (in a society in which violent crime is common) effectively denies the right of survival. That is a tremendous perversion of the spirit of all law. Jmo. cn

" To protect and serve"---Thats there job.....The Military's job is to " Protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic".

Other than that I am totally with you. I believe CCW are a bad idea based on the grounds of the Constitution that nobody pays attention to anymore in Government. I don't have any faith in a permit system as its doesn't stop bad people from gaining a weapon. Doesn't even remotely slow them down either. I think it gives them direction to the black market for their arms.

 

[desert dude]

The Federal Government does not have a general police power??????????? What's the FBI then???? Just a federal organization???? Right.

Having laws on the book and the jurisdiction to prosecute them are two totally different matters. I agree that most cases that fall into federal jurisdiction just get handed down to state level to save on $$$$$ of prosecution!

Of the current US Federal Inmate Population, 11.8% of them are in for Homicide....FEDERAL HOMICIDE. according to Fedstats.gov Sooooo how do those guys get in there? All cop killers eh????

What you are missing is the understanding that just because there is a federal law against a act, does not mean that the Government can/will/do prosecute them. Jurisdiction is always in favor of FEDERAL as it TRUMPS state LAW. So if they tell the states, Uh-UH its our case...they back down. The fed's prosecute whom they wish.

Then you go on to say that "the federal government was also granted broad police powers by the ICA of 1887" Thought they have no general police power???

Police power and prosecution powers are two totally different subjects! The states police themselves WITH THE OVERSIGHT OF THE GOD DAMN FORSAKEN FEDERAL FEKIN GOVERNMENT!!!!

So who really has Jurisdiction here??? THE FEKIN FEDS THEY DON'T CARE WHAT STATE IT HAPPENED IN, IF THEY WANT YOU, THEY WILL GET YOU.....FEK THEY WILL GO TO ANY COUNTRY ON THIS PLANET TO GET YOU AND PROSECUTE YOU, REGARDLESS IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN OR NOT! JUST ASK MARC EMERY!

FEK WE VIOLATED PAKISTAN AND WENT INTO THEIR COUNTRY AND APPLIED FEDERAL LAW STRAIGHT TO THE DOME PIECE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN!

Which reminds me, Federal Law, and Federal Authorities are two totally different matters! Again, they have the gavel, they have the nukes....they make the fekin rules!

Sorry, buddy, but you are just dead wrong. The federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction in ordinary murder cases, or assault, or self defense, etc. They cannot charge George Zimmerman with murder, for example. There is no federal law on the books that covers the Zimmerman case. The feds tried to make it a federal case of civil rights violation but failed because there were nor civil rights violations.

You are also dead wrong about the use of self defense in almost all states. The majority of states use the "castle doctrine" for home invaders.

 

[PathofTime420]

Better than my blood on his. Getting killed yourself leaves your mind right away, not my preferred choice, thank you!

Good point. Its all in perspective. To each their own.

 

[Red1966]

Zimmerman doesn't matter anyhow the police specifically instructed him not to intervene in any way.

A dispatcher, not a policeman, said "We don't need you to do that." Hardly what you claim. I find it hard to believe you have gotten every detail wrong, so I still think you are just another dishonest partisan pushing an agenda.

 

[desert dude]

A dispatcher, not a policeman, said "We don't need you to do that." Hardly what you claim. I find it hard to believe you have gotten every detail wrong, so I still think you are just another dishonest partisan pushing an agenda.

He might be a partisan pushing an agenda, but he has a completely wrong understanding of federal law and jurisdiction. I say he is both dumb and partisan.

 

[PathofTime420]

Castle Doctrine regards people who had a clear alternative to do otherwise and still shot out of confusion of chaos. It is not a permit to shot people, like your implying. Prove the majority of state use that doctrine Literally, prove it.

You have an opinion Red. FYI, we are not discussing ordinary cases man.

Besides, you are supposed to be explaining to me how I and some other are liars that are pushing a agenda. I really need you to fill me in on this agenda deal to make sure I got my cards right.

The Federal Government is THE JURISDICTION. I don't know what you don't get about the fact that ALL FEDERAL LAWS TRUMP STATE LAWS, INCLUDING LAWS OF FEKIN JURISDICTION.

This is the last time I respond to you red...your fekin killin my brain man!

 

[CC Dobbs]

He might be a partisan pushing an agenda, but he has a completely wrong understanding of federal law and jurisdiction. I say he is both dumb and partisan.

You are hardly one to talk. You and red sound like sisters.

 

[ChesusRice]

You are hardly one to talk. You and red sound like sisters.

They are
And they like to don the white robes and pointy hats

 

[Red1966]

So wouldn't this guy : http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story/Homeowner-charged-with-murder-for-shooting/jH9PY20g8EavXtOL_qQQJg.cspx And he is just one of 1k's this has happened to sadly. If someone breaks into your house, and you kill them...Have fun in Prison. 9 times out of 10 that is what happens. The Government doesn't want the public to act like that for whatever reasons. I don't agree with it at all, but its a fact of life. You can't shoot someone that burglarizes your home. Unless you live in FL. Then you can shoot all god damn day...shoot till you can't shoot no more and you won't go to prison Ever heard a 911 dispatcher screaming at grandpa to shoot Johnny-O who just broke in????? Talk about aiding some homicide!

1k'sw this has happened to? Hardly. Making up numbers tend to prove you are a liar. He killed the guy OUTSIDE his house, he was no longer defending himself, that's why he was charge. It's sad you keep offer citations that disprove your statements. Your statement about Florida is just bullshit. I've heard a dispatcher calmly telling grandma to shoot an intruder if she had to. Does that count?

 

[desert dude]

Castle Doctrine regards people who had a clear alternative to do otherwise and still shot out of confusion of chaos. It is not a permit to shot people, like your implying. Prove the majority of state use that doctrine Literally, prove it.

You have an opinion Red. FYI, we are not discussing ordinary cases man.

Besides, you are supposed to be explaining to me how I and some other are liars that are pushing a agenda. I really need you to fill me in on this agenda deal to make sure I got my cards right.

The Federal Government is THE JURISDICTION. I don't know what you don't get about the fact that ALL FEDERAL LAWS TRUMP STATE LAWS, INCLUDING LAWS OF FEKIN JURISDICTION.

This is the last time I respond to you red...your fekin killin my brain man!

Sorry, buddy, but your brain seems to have died a while ago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

"States with a Castle Law No duty to retreat if in the home.

• Alaska - Alaska Statute 11.81.335(b) provides that an individual has no duty to retreat before using deadly force if they are in their home, their workplace, protecting a child or protecting a family member. The 27th Alaska Legislature is currently considering H.B. 80 "An Act relating to self defense in any place where a person has a right to be." which would essentially eliminate the duty to retreat for any place a person is legally, making Alaska a "stand your ground" state. However, an identical measure, H.B. 381, failed to pass the 26th Alaska Legislature.
• California California Penal Code § 198.5 sets forth that "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."[SUP][18][/SUP] This would make the homicide justifiable under CPC § 197.[SUP][19][/SUP] CALCRIM 506 gives the instruction, "A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his ground and defend himself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger ... has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating." However, it also states that "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'” The court held that because the defendant had constructed a gun-firing trap, the doctrine did not apply because mechanical devices are without mercy or discretion.[SUP][20][/SUP]
• Colorado "...any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant." 18-1-704.5 Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Georgia (a person who is attacked has no duty to retreat; [...] has a right to meet force with force, including deadly force
• Hawaii (Retreat required outside the home if it can be done in "complete safety.")
• Illinois (Use of deadly force justified. Specific legislation prevents filing claim against defender of dwelling. Illinois has no requirement of retreat.)
• Indiana
• Iowa (No duty to retreat from home or place of business in defense of self or a "third party".)
• Kansas (§ 21-5223. A person is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent or terminate unlawful entry into or attack upon any dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or another.)
• Maine (Deadly force justified to terminate criminal trespass AND another crime within home, or to stop unlawful and imminent use of deadly force, or to effect a citizen's arrest against deadly force; duty to retreat not specifically removed)[SUP][21][/SUP]
• Maryland See Maryland self-defense (Case-law, not statute, incorporates the common law castle-doctrine into Maryland self-defense law. Invitees or guests may have duty to retreat based on mixed case law.)
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in one's place of abode [SUP][22][/SUP]) This isn't as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld.[SUP][23][/SUP]
• Mississippi (to use reference, select "Code of 1972" and search "retreat")
• Missouri (Extends to any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile (e.g., a camper, RV or mobile home), which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, whether the person is residing there temporarily, permanently or visiting (e.g., a hotel or motel), and any vehicle. The defense against civil suits is absolute and includes the award of attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff.)
• Nevada
• New Jersey (Retreat required if actor knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force in complete safety, etc. EXCEPT not obliged to retreat from dwelling, unless the initial aggressor)
• North Carolina (Includes dwelling, motor vehicle and workplace)
• North Dakota
• Ohio (Extends to vehicles of self and immediate family; effective September 9, 2008.[SUP][24][/SUP] Section 2901.09)
• Oregon. (ORS 161.209-229. Use of force justifiable in a range of scenarios without a duty to retreat specified. Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in State of Oregon v. Sandoval that the law "sets out a specific set of circumstances that justify a person's use of deadly force (that the person reasonably believes that another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her) and does not interpose any additional requirement (including a requirement that there be no means of escape).")
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Utah
• West Virginia (Senate bill 145 signed March 12, 2008. WV code §55-7-22)
• Wisconsin (Assembly Bill 69, signed December 7, 2011)
• Wyoming"

"States with a Stand-your-ground Law No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
Main article: Stand-your-ground law

This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can. (August 2007)

• Alabama
• Arizona
• Florida
• Georgia
• Indiana
• Kentucky [SUP][12][/SUP]
• Louisiana
• Michigan [SUP][13][/SUP]
• Montana
• New Hampshire (A proposed law was vetoed in 2011[SUP][14][/SUP], but the veto was overridden and the new law took effect November 2011.[SUP][15][/SUP])
• Oklahoma Title 21§1290.1 et seq
• Pennsylvania (Recent legislation extends Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles and the work place, and stand-your-ground rights extended to any place the defender has a right to be with specified exceptions.)
• South Carolina (Persons not "required to needlessly retreat.")
• Tennessee 2007 Tenn. Pub. Acts Ch. 210 (Amends Tenn. Code. Ann. § 39-11-611)
• Texas (Established for individual's habitation in 1995 by House Bill 94 and extended to vehicle or workplace effective September 1, 2007 by Senate Bill 378.[SUP][16][/SUP] Senate Bill 378 also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[SUP][17][/SUP])
• Utah
• Washington (Homicide justifiable in the lawful defense of self or other persons present; and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished ...or in the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony... or upon or in a dwelling, or other place...)

 

[PathofTime420]

You are hardly one to talk. You and red sound like sisters.

I guessed lovers, so I guess not to far off.

 

[cannabineer]

I agree with the news coverage and easy dismissal of defensive arms. I'm not tracking w/ Australia and Britain though. I believe they've had an increase of violent crime since gun bans. We saying the same thing?

Yup. While gun crimes are much lower over there and nongun homicides about even, overall violent crime is 3x (Aus) and 4x (GB) as bad. That's why the antis focus on homicide stats, to divert attention from the more damning violent crime numbers. And since every violent crime has assault as a necessary component, it's the better metric for the effectiveness of lawful carry. cn