[QUOTE=faze;32397452]And stopped = them being on the floor with you kicking the gun away from their reach.[/QUOTE]
right, when your life is in danger obviously like deadly force is totally okay, but only if necessary
police offers are allowed to use deadly force, but they shoot to stop targets, not kill targets
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32397503]No, shooting to kill implies that you shoot them in a spot/spots where it could kill them. That's what the failure shot is. Failure shot is shooting to kill. It's a simple double tap in the heart, which is probably death right there, and then putting a round into their brain, which is a definite death.[/QUOTE]
no, shooting to kill someone doesn't imply anything, it's rather concrete actually. it means you are shooting someone with the intent to end their life.
you shoot to neutralize someone, not kill them
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32397518]right, when your life is in danger obviously like deadly force is totally okay, but only if necessary
police offers are allowed to use deadly force, but they shoot to stop targets, not kill targets
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
no, shooting to kill someone doesn't imply anything, it's rather concrete actually. it means you are shooting someone with the intent to end their life.
you shoot to neutralize someone, not kill them[/QUOTE]
To kill a target [I]is[/I] to neutralize a target.
Let's say someone breaks into your house. You confront the person while he/she is about to carry away some of your stuff. The person have no visible weapons, and they start to run when they see you. Would you let the person run or would you shoot?
I'm just asking because there seems to be a lot of people here who would actually kill someone, even if they were no threat.
Edit:
Removed the first one because I didn't think it through because it was extremely badly worded.
[QUOTE=rosar0980;32397592]To kill a target [I]is[/I] to neutralize a target.[/QUOTE]
right they are dead, they're not going to do anything from that point on
what i'm saying is that people are not trained to shoot to kill
[QUOTE=Carne;32397675]Let's say you get mugged on the street in the following way;
- Robber pulls out let's say a knife, and you carry a concealed weapon. He stands at a distance, so you would have time to pull out your gun.
Would you give him your wallet (etc), or pull out the gun? If he then runs towards you, would you actually kill the person? Would you be able to live with yourself for killing a person that was trying to take your wallet? Yes, they decided to do something illegal, but would you be happy to pull the trigger on another human being?
Just another example because the one above might be a tad one sided; let's say someone breaks into your house. You confront the person while he/she is about to carry away some of your stuff. The person have no visible weapons, and they start to run when they see you. Would you let the person run or would you shoot?
I'm just asking because there seems to be a lot of people here who would actually kill someone, even if they were no threat.[/QUOTE]
If he tries to kill me, I would kill him, and would have no remorse for doing so. I say if you're coming to harm/kill me you're getting a 9mm slug to the fucking forehead.
I don't mind gun ownership, what i do mind is people in the US using the second amendment as there defense for gun ownership. The second amendment only says in a well regulated militia can you bear arms.
[QUOTE=Carne;32397675]Let's say someone breaks into your house. You confront the person while he/she is about to carry away some of your stuff. The person has no visible weapons, and they start to run when they see you. Would you let the person run or would you shoot?
I'm just asking because there seems to be a lot of people here who would actually kill someone, even if they were no threat.
Edit:
Removed the first one because I didn't think it through because it was extremely badly worded.[/QUOTE]
If you could you can chase them down and do a citizens arrest, but that can be risky. I'd chase after them, armed, and order them to drop it. I [b]wouldn't[/b] shoot unless he tries to pull a weapon on me. Now this is playing to your hypothetical that such conditions are ideal that you are able to see this.
And I do agree people would shoot either way, threat or not and quite frankly I don't like it very much, but I don't blame them.
[QUOTE=An Actual Bear;32397919]I don't mind gun ownership, what i do mind is people in the US using the second amendment as there defense for gun ownership. The second amendment only says in a well regulated militia can you bear arms.[/QUOTE]
Learn your shit.
[quote=Wikipedia]The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[/quote]
[QUOTE=An Actual Bear;32397919]I don't mind gun ownership, what i do mind is people in the US using the second amendment as there defense for gun ownership. The second amendment only says in a well regulated militia can you bear arms.[/QUOTE]
case law, case law nowhere
[QUOTE=aydin690;32386947]Or you know, your gun might scare/aggrevate the robber, mugger, rapist, etc and now you're in a deeper shit than you were before.[/QUOTE]
Oh no i might startle a criminal.
[QUOTE=nivek;32396671]Here in NY, all I have to do it walk in the store, pick out a gun, buy it, fill out a form, wait 10 minutes while the store owners calls the FBI to see if I'm good to go, then walk out.[/QUOTE]That is how it should be.
[QUOTE=faze;32398992]That is how it should be.[/QUOTE]
I agree, except for pistols and automatic weapons. I do intend to get my hands on a pistol soon; by going through the proper procedure.
[QUOTE=nivek;32399473]I agree, except for pistols and automatic weapons. I do intend to get my hands on a pistol soon; by going through the proper procedure.[/QUOTE]Full auto weapons need a waiting period. Pistols do not.
I think that you should be background checked when purchasing firearms and maybe even a pyche test should be in order just in case.
I own several rifles, 2 shotguns, and one .22 revolver; all registered and legal and locked in a safe.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=faze;32399485]Full auto weapons need a waiting period. Pistols do not.[/QUOTE]
I was under the assumption that full auto weapons were banned across the board without grandfathering or special liscenes in the USA at least.
[QUOTE=faze;32399485]Full auto weapons need a waiting period. Pistols do not.[/QUOTE]
Here in NY it takes a long time to get the permit (about 6 months) but after that you can just purchase any pistol and walk out.
[QUOTE=nivek;32399576]Here in NY it takes a long time to get the permit (about 6 months) but after that you can just purchase any pistol and walk out.[/QUOTE]That is how it should be!
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;32399524]I think that you should be background checked when purchasing firearms and maybe even a pyche test should be in order just in case.
I own several rifles, 2 shotguns, and one .22 revolver; all registered and legal and locked in a safe.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
I was under the assumption that full auto weapons were banned across the board without grandfathering or special liscenes in the USA at least.[/QUOTE]I have a Mossberg 640, shoots 22WMR, Mosin Nagant, Tokarev, AK-47 and a Hi-Point 45ACP.
Full auto requires a class 3 license and the weapon must be made before 1986
[QUOTE=faze;32396776]And in New England states, there is a law called "Duty to Flee" where one has a legal obligation to leave their dwelling when broken into. [b]This is why I don't live in any state governed by laws obtained from Britain.[/b][/QUOTE]
Castle doctrine laws are derived from English law as well.
Also:
[release]the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.
For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws.[/release]
(from wikipedia)
Even in states with a duty-to-retreat clause, you can use deadly force to protect yourself if necessary - just not to protect your possessions.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32399661]Castle doctrine laws are derived from English law as well.
Also:
[release]the duty-to-retreat clause expressly imposes an obligation upon the home's occupants to retreat as far as possible and verbally announce their intent to use deadly force, before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves.
For states that do not require the announcement to be "verbal", other indicators may be used. These are typically not defined by statute, and would be left to the court's interpretation, but may include things such as laser sights or the cocking of a firearm. Care should be exercised in studying applicable individual state laws.[/release]
(from wikipedia)
Even in states with a duty-to-retreat clause, you can use deadly force to protect yourself if necessary - just not to protect your possessions.[/QUOTE]Yeah, so you MUST leave your house. If you happen to run into them and they pull a gun on you, you can shoot them. You are still obligated to leave as a first priority.
Ok, thats what I had thought. Thanks for the clarification.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;32399742]Ok, thats what I had thought. Thanks for the clarification.[/QUOTE]Yeah, blame Clinton for not being able to buy a new fully automatic weapon. Also blame him for making them cost 12 grand or more. I'm told there are temporary modifications you can do to an AK to make it full auto, though this is illegal.
[QUOTE=faze;32399702]Yeah, so you MUST leave your house. If you happen to run into them and they pull a gun on you, you can shoot them. You are still obligated to leave as a first priority.[/QUOTE]
"retreat [b]as far as possible[/b]"
If your only escape is blocked by someone who wants to physically harm you and you can't retreat, fire at will.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32399866]"retreat [b]as far as possible[/b]"
If your only escape is blocked by someone who wants to physically harm you and you can't retreat, fire at will.[/QUOTE]Here in Maryland you have to give them "amicable notice" to flee. If you fire at them without warning them several times, you're guilty of at least attempted murder. Bullshit eh?
Also: [url]http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/[/url]
[QUOTE=faze;32399903]Here in Maryland you have to give them "amicable notice" to flee. If you fire at them without warning them several times, you're guilty of at least attempted murder. Bullshit eh?[/QUOTE]
"Amicable notice" doesn't sound like there needs to be multiple warnings. If someone has a gun in their hand and they're attempting to get into your house, something along the lines of "I'm armed, you don't want to do that buddy" seems amicable to me, and I don't think a judge would disagree.
I dont know my states laws on that, I doubt its very strict considering im in the south. I didnt buy or keep the guns I have for self defense, sporting purposes only, but when it comes to an emergency I will use them.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32399968]"Amicable notice" doesn't sound like there needs to be multiple warnings. If someone has a gun in their hand and they're attempting to get into your house, something along the lines of "I'm armed, you don't want to do that buddy" seems amicable to me, and I don't think a judge would disagree.[/QUOTE]You don't know Maryland judges then. Read some news articles on the outcomes of murder and home invasion cases here. Judges have no accountability in this state.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;32399969]I dont know my states laws on that, I doubt its very strict considering im in the south. I didnt buy or keep the guns I have for self defense, sporting purposes only, but when it comes to an emergency I will use them.[/QUOTE]Me too. I will not hesitate to protect my wife, cats, and my assets.
[QUOTE=faze;32399987]You don't know Maryland judges then. Read some news articles on the outcomes of murder and home invasion cases here. Judges have no accountability in this state.[/QUOTE]
Can you link them to me? I shouldn't have to dig around to try and prove the thing you're arguing.
[QUOTE=faze;32399987]
Me too. I will not hesitate to protect my wife, cats, and my assets.[/QUOTE]
Your cats and assets aren't worth a human life.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;32400097]Can you link them to me? I shouldn't have to dig around to try and prove the thing you're arguing.
Your cats and assets aren't worth a human life.[/QUOTE]wbal.com and foxbaltimore.com have tons of Baltimore news.
So, some some homicidal person breaking in is worth more than the life in my house?
[QUOTE=aydin690;32386691]I think you're missing my point. Why would anyone need a gun? And i'm not looking for smart ass answers like "well, hunters need them lol".[/QUOTE]
I'm replying to this, but I feel the need to voice my opinion on this.
Buying a gun in this day in age doesn't meet you're planning on ending someone's life for your own safety, not at all. A vast majority of gun owners buy and collect guns for the same reason other hobbyists do: For fun. Guns are fun to shoot out at a range or in your massive secluded property. If you're an avid hunter, you'll most likely own a gun or two to take down prey. Not only that, but guns make excellent collectors items and wall hangers.
Also, the reasoning that "ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE USED TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE" is absolutely true, sure, but that doesn't mean all gun owners are psychopaths who plan to gun down innocent people. Thousands are killed every year due to guns in the US, and I doubt that all of those murderers were members of the NRA.
If someone broke into my house I would try to use nonlethal force but im going to protect my family and my possesions. If they pose an immediate threat, then there is no other choice. Handing someone everything you own in real life is not as easy as even the most naive or optimistic person would think.
[QUOTE=faze;32400181]wbal.com and foxbaltimore.com have tons of Baltimore news.[/quote]
Give me some sources that prove [i]exactly[/i] what you're saying or I'm well within my rights to just dismiss it as bullshit. It isn't my job to substantiate your arguments, it's your job. It's also one of the rules on this forum.
[QUOTE=faze;32400181]So, some some homicidal person breaking in is worth more than the life in my house?[/QUOTE]
1) You don't know they're homicidal.
2) Yes
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
