Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre

[sottaly]

[QUOTE=VistaPOWA;36963350]I wouldn't shoot the thief even if I had a weapon. It's not worth taking a human life over losing a TV set.
Robbers are not murderous maniacs who want everyone dead.

Just think about this: there are 3 motivations for murder.
Profit, passion and compulsion. The robber does not profit off your death in any way, the robber most likely does not live in the same neighborhood as you, and if he hated you so much he wanted you dead, he'd have offed you much much earlier.[/QUOTE]

I've stayed out of this thread, but the robber does profit from your death. Loose lips sink ships.

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;36964188]A more approximate scenario for a sudden government takeover using the military (hugely unlikely but we will go with your hypothetical for now) would be similar to the occupation of Afghanistan with two major caveats: The US government actually knows the land it's fighting in, and doesn't have to send men, materiel, and resources across the world. The idea that a few million people with handguns and semi-automatic rifles are going to take down the tyrannical United States government wielding the most sophisticated fighting force the world has ever seen on it's own territory is insane.[/QUOTE]

a war between the US and millions of armed citizens would be a bloodbath, technological resources or not.

[Daemonshadow]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36963856]and what happens if you assume he's here to kill you and it turns out he was unarmed and nonthreatening? you're playing a dangerous game too.

what ifs don't justify lethal force.

if you don't know their intent, then your life isn't in immediate danger. only then is lethal force justified.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964169][b]and if they do try to aim a weapon or otherwise attack you,[/b] then by all means blow them away, [b]but not a moment sooner than that.[/b]

if you can't verify that someone is a threat, then they are not an immediate threat to your life. this is simple thinking.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36963911]a guy who breaks into your house isn't [b]actively threatening your life therefore you are not justified in shooting him.[/b][/QUOTE]

I guess that depends on what your local laws are. Here are some of mine:
[Quote]((a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a person who is justified in using nondeadly force in self-defense under AS 11.81.330 may use deadly force in self-defense upon another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes the use of deadly force is necessary for self-defense against
(1) death;
(2) serious physical injury;
(3) kidnapping, except for what is described as custodial interference in the first degree in AS 11.41.320;
(4) sexual assault in the first degree;
(5) sexual assault in the second degree;
(6) sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree; or
(6) robbery in any degree.
(b) A person may not use deadly force under this section if the person knows that, with complete personal safety and with complete safety as to others being defended, the person can avoid the necessity of using deadly force by leaving the area of the encounter,, except there is no duty to leave the area if the person is
(1) on premises
(A) that the person owns or leases;
(B) where the person resides, temporarily or permanently; or
(C) as a guest or express or implied agent of the owner, lessor, or resident;
(2) a peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's employment or a person assisting a peace officer under AS 11.81.380;
(3) in a building where the person works in the ordinary course of the person's employment; or
(4) protecting a child or a member of the person's household.[/quote]

This says that you may use lethal force as a means of self defense against death, serious injury, kidnapping, various forms of sexual assault, and [b]robbery[/b]. This privilege is limited by the responsibility to leave the situation without using lethal force if possible, [b]unless you are on property you own or lease, where you reside, private property you are permitted to be on by the owner, your job, protecting a child or household member, or acting as a police officer.[/b]

By this law, use of lethal force is for '[b]self-defense against[/b]' '[b]robbery in any degree[/b]' on '[b]premises where the person resides.[/b]'

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=Resfan;36964193]I wouldn't feel sorry if some idiot got killed after breaking into a home, I really wouldn't. Also, when you're in fear for your life, you don't have time for "simple thinking", you do the first thing that comes to your mind regarding the safety of your person.
Fight or flight.

Also, I would never assume that a burglar would be unarmed. That'd be just stupid to think that.[/QUOTE]

i'm not asking you to feel sorry.

you can't assume "hmm he probably has a weapon so i'm gonna shoot him JUST IN CASE."

your life has to be in danger, how many times am i gonna have to repeat this?

[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36964206]I've stayed out of this thread, but the robber does profit from your death. Loose lips sink ships.[/QUOTE]

because a robber totally wants to escalate burglary into a murder charge, and leave a dead body for the police to deal with?

yeah, you're an idiot.

[NateLB]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964260]i'm not asking you to feel sorry.

you can't assume "hmm he probably has a weapon so i'm gonna shoot him JUST IN CASE."

your life has to be in danger, how many times am i gonna have to repeat this?

[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]

because a robber totally wants to escalate burglary into a murder charge, and leave a dead body for the police to deal with?

yeah, you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]
You obviously have no idea how the world around you works.

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=Resfan;36964296]You obviously have no idea how the world around you works.[/QUOTE]

okay cowboy, enjoy your manslaughter charge when you shoot an unarmed man because you assumed he was here to kill you and you were wrong.

[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Daemonshadow;36964251]I guess that depends on what your local laws are. Here are some of mine:

This says that you may use lethal force as a means of self defense against death, serious injury, kidnapping, various forms of sexual assault, and [b]robbery[/b]. This privilege is limited by the responsibility to leave the situation without using lethal force if possible, [b]unless you are on property you own or lease, where you reside, private property you are permitted to be on by the owner, your job, protecting a child or household member, or acting as a police officer.[/b]

By this law, use of lethal force is justified to '[b]prevent robbery in any degree[/b]' on '[b]premises where the person resides.[/b]'[/QUOTE]

local and state laws defer to federal law via supremacy clause, and the federal law states that using lethal force in self-defense is only justified when your life is in immediate danger.

[NateLB]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964315]okay cowboy, enjoy your manslaughter charge when you shoot an unarmed man because you assumed he was here to kill you and you were wrong.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Resfan;36964143]Oh, but I wouldn't actually shoot unless I needed too. [B]Pointing a shotgun at a person is enough to make them stop or run off.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Read please. I know how to value life, despite how worthless said life is, but I keep the thing loaded so if that person tries to move in any way other than right back out the door, I will shoot.

[POLOPOZOZO]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964315]local and state laws defer to federal law via supremacy clause, and the federal law states that using lethal force in self-defense is only justified when your life is in immediate danger.[/QUOTE]

If that was true all city-wide handgun bans and other things should immediately be nullified because it does violate the second and fourteenth amendments

[Daemonshadow]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964315]local and state laws defer to federal law via supremacy clause, and the federal law states that using lethal force in self-defense is only justified when your life is in immediate danger.[/QUOTE]

My understanding of the supremacy clause is that it only applies where state and federal laws contradict on matters within the scope of the federal government's constitutional authority. Would you be so kind as to provide the federal law that this particular state law contradicts, as well as demonstrating that the contradicting federal law falls under constitutional authority?

[Raidyr]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964237]a war between the US and millions of armed citizens would be a bloodbath, technological resources or not.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying it wouldn't be, nor am I saying it's not necessary, nor do I think an armed society as a safeguard against government tyranny is entirely unfounded.

But comparing modern day situations to those in the 1770's is ridiculous.

[sottaly]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964260]i'm not asking you to feel sorry.

you can't assume "hmm he probably has a weapon so i'm gonna shoot him JUST IN CASE."

your life has to be in danger, how many times am i gonna have to repeat this?

[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]

because a robber totally wants to escalate burglary into a murder charge, and leave a dead body for the police to deal with?

yeah, you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/robbers-accused-torturing-killing-south-african-family-plead-guilty-article-1.1123254[/url]

[url]http://uptownmessenger.com/2012/07/shooting-on-carrollton-may-have-been-robbery-gone-wrong-police-say/[/url]

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=Resfan;36964366]Read please. I know how to value life, despite how worthless said life is, but I keep the thing loaded so if that person tries to move in any way other than right back out the door, I will shoot.[/QUOTE]

so what are you arguing against me for? i am totally for you if said home invader tries to attack you.

[Xenomoose]

The problem with gun control is that people think that's the only step they should take to prevent tragedies like this. No, it doesn't work that way, just take a look at places like Washington D.C. and Detroit and you can see this. You have to do a shit ton of things to prevent another tragedy like this, and it would take a LOT of time and money to accomplish. And THAT'S the real problem. Everyone wants a better country, but nobody's willing to pay for it, and they want it to happen NOW. They just think things will magically and instantaneously get better because they want it to be better.

[NateLB]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964440]so what are you arguing against me for? i am totally for you if said home invader tries to attack you.[/QUOTE]

Because I understand the other side of the coin.

Quick, someone has broken into your home dressed in a black hoodie and it's dark, so you can't see if he has a weapon, however you do, it's a shotgun, what do you do?

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36964417][url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/robbers-accused-torturing-killing-south-african-family-plead-guilty-article-1.1123254[/url]

[url]http://uptownmessenger.com/2012/07/shooting-on-carrollton-may-have-been-robbery-gone-wrong-police-say/[/url][/QUOTE]

the first one is in south africa which i think is a BIT DIFFERENT than the US in regards to social problems.

the second one wasn't even a home invasion.

wow two isolated cases that aren't even related to the situation you sure showed me.

[editline]27th July 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Resfan;36964476]Because I understand the other side of the coin.

Quick, someone has broken into your home dressed in a black hoodie and it's dark, so you can't see if he has a weapon, however you do, it's a shotgun, what do you do?[/QUOTE]

announce that i am armed and calling the police, and if he makes a threatening move or brandishes a weapon i will shoot?

i'm not gonna shoot someone if i can't confirm they're a threat.

[Daemonshadow]

SgtCr4zyGunz, I posted earlier asking you something. It was at the end of the page, so I think it may have gone unnoticed with as quickly as this topic is developing.

I'll quote it here just in case you missed it.
[QUOTE=Daemonshadow;36964411]My understanding of the supremacy clause is that it only applies where state and federal laws contradict on matters within the scope of the federal government's constitutional authority. Would you be so kind as to provide the federal law that this particular state law contradicts, as well as demonstrating that the contradicting federal law falls under constitutional authority?[/QUOTE]

I looked a little bit to try and find such a law, and wasn't able to. Since you seem to have a specific federal law in mind, I'd like to see it to better understand your argument.

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36964378]If that was true all city-wide handgun bans and other things should immediately be nullified because it does violate the second and fourteenth amendments[/QUOTE]

the people of chicago and the like can keep and bear arms, just not certain types and they need to jump through lots of hoops.

loopholes are funny like that.

[sottaly]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964517]the first one is in south africa which i think is a BIT DIFFERENT than the US in regards to social problems.

the second one wasn't even a home invasion.

wow two isolated cases that aren't even related to the situation you sure showed me.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/16428628/home-invasion-robbery-leads-to-murder-in-florence[/url]
[url]http://www.pinellascriminallaw.com/blog/2012/06/shooting-at-pinellas-park-home-invasion-leads-to-murder-charges.shtml[/url]
[url]http://www.stjosephpost.com/2012/07/18/20-years-for-murder-during-home-invasion-robbery/[/url]
[url]http://www.times-standard.com/ci_21171844/nightmare-this-community-sonia-hunsucker-was-allegedly-involved?source=most_viewed[/url]
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/3-teens-face-murder-charges-home-invasion-death-3729837.php[/url]

i can keep going if you want

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36964592][url]http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/16428628/home-invasion-robbery-leads-to-murder-in-florence[/url]
[url]http://www.pinellascriminallaw.com/blog/2012/06/shooting-at-pinellas-park-home-invasion-leads-to-murder-charges.shtml[/url]
[url]http://www.stjosephpost.com/2012/07/18/20-years-for-murder-during-home-invasion-robbery/[/url]
[url]http://www.times-standard.com/ci_21171844/nightmare-this-community-sonia-hunsucker-was-allegedly-involved?source=most_viewed[/url]
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/3-teens-face-murder-charges-home-invasion-death-3729837.php[/url]

i can keep going if you want[/QUOTE]

Only in the last two can I find a reason for the shootings and in BOTH cases it is because the home owner(s) took a stance against the intruders.

[QUOTE]Witnesses say when the gunman threatened one of Ulmer’s children, he tried to intervene and was fatally shot.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The shooting reportedly occurred when Hunsucker, Surber and two others -- Samantha Machado and Bruce “Jason” Stallings-Hunsucker -- returned to the home, having burglarized it the previous day while the home's occupants were out of town. The residents had returned home and Darrell Hanger and his son, Ryan Hanger, were staying there the night of May 4, 2011, armed with handguns.
When the four suspects arrived shortly after midnight on May 5, 2011, they were confronted by the Hangers and a gunfight ensued, leaving Darrell Hanger dead and Stallings-Hunsucker and Surber wounded. In his ongoing trial, Surber has admitted that he fired the shots that killed Darrell Hanger but has insisted the slaying was in self-defense.[/QUOTE]

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=Daemonshadow;36964579]SgtCr4zyGunz, I posted earlier asking you something. It was at the end of the page, so I think it may have gone unnoticed with as quickly as this topic is developing.

I'll quote it here just in case you missed it.

I looked a little bit to try and find such a law, and wasn't able to. Since you seem to have a specific federal law in mind, I'd like to see it to better understand your argument.[/QUOTE]

from handy dandy wikipedia.

[quote]Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.[/quote]

i'll go look for the federal definition of justified use of deadly force, gimme a sec.

[Timebomb575]

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36964712]Only in the last two can I find a reason for the shootings and in BOTH cases it is because the home owner(s) took a stance against the intruders.[/QUOTE]

[quote]Witnesses say when the gunman threatened one of Ulmer’s children, he tried to intervene and was fatally shot[/quote]

What was he supposed to do?

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;36940020]tell me what is accomplished by owning an assault rifle, if it's such a useful "tool"[/QUOTE]

Enjoyment. Why should I be denied the right to own a functional AK47 simply because someone else can't control themselves? I like the look and sound of it, and I'll never point it at another human being as long as I own it. The only thing I'd ever shoot at with it is inanimate targets in the back yard, and possibly possums if I'm bored and I see one on the porch.

And honestly an AK47 is a dumb choice for personal defense anyway. It's a bit bulky and unwieldy, and if you're shooting at an intruder chances are the bullet will sail right on through and destroy the TV, or perhaps a loved one, something you [i]don't[/i] want to shoot. A pistol firing hollowpoints, however, will not do this, the bullet will stop in the target you want to destroy. I'd reach for a Colt 1911 with hollowpoint 45ACP in it if a burglar broke in. Powerful enough to deal with the threat, weak enough to not destroy everything behind it as well.

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=Sottalytober;36964592][url]http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/16428628/home-invasion-robbery-leads-to-murder-in-florence[/url]
[url]http://www.pinellascriminallaw.com/blog/2012/06/shooting-at-pinellas-park-home-invasion-leads-to-murder-charges.shtml[/url]
[url]http://www.stjosephpost.com/2012/07/18/20-years-for-murder-during-home-invasion-robbery/[/url]
[url]http://www.times-standard.com/ci_21171844/nightmare-this-community-sonia-hunsucker-was-allegedly-involved?source=most_viewed[/url]
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/3-teens-face-murder-charges-home-invasion-death-3729837.php[/url]

i can keep going if you want[/QUOTE]

do you have any statistics that prove the majority of robbers are also murderers? vague handfuls of cases don't prove anything.

[mobrockers2]

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;36964742]What was he supposed to do?[/QUOTE]

All the robber did was threaten, and while I understand why the father tried to intervene, and am pretty sure I'd have done the same, it is still not smart to try to stop a guy with a gun from doing anything, and he would not have been shot had he not intervened.

[POLOPOZOZO]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964589]the people of chicago and the like can keep and bear arms, just not certain types and they need to jump through lots of hoops.

loopholes are funny like that.[/QUOTE]

The first amendment doesn't say "the right to free speech, just not certain types of speech and you need to jump through lots of hoops". If federal law nullifies local self-defense laws then it also nullifies gun-control.

[Daemonshadow]

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36964999]The first amendment doesn't say "the right to free speech, just not certain types of speech and you need to jump through lots of hoops". If federal law nullifies local self-defense laws then it also nullifies gun-control.[/QUOTE]

That's a bit of an overly simplistic view of things. Often, Federal Laws are left vague so that states have room to define the law further as is fitting for that particular state. Gun control laws do not always infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. For example, many states have adopted legislation that explicitly states how firearms are to be stored when not in use (namely, in a safe or locked up.) That's gun control, but it's not preventing people from purchasing, owning, keeping, or maintaining firearms, and thus is not in conflict with the second amendment. Thus, the Supremacy Clause would not come into effect, because the local law (the gun storage law) does not conflict with the Federal law that you just invoked (the second amendment.)

In the case of the use of lethal force, we're still discussing that. Sgt is currently looking for the federal law that conflicts with the state law that I provided. Once that is provided, we will continue to discuss the issue. As it stands, Sgt claims that the state law I provided contradicts a federal law, and is invalid as per the supremacy clause. I disagree, because I don't think such a federal law exists, but we will see what Sgt comes up with in his researching.

Basically what I'm saying here is that the supremacy clause only applies when a state contradicts federal law. You claim that federal law nullifies gun control because it also nullified self defense laws. That depends entirely on how the federal law is written in each separate case (self-defense is one case, gun control another.) Each case and it's applicable laws are different, and the state laws would need to be compared to the federal laws separately for each issue. As of yet, nobody in this topic has actually pulled and compared information on state or federal laws for gun control as relating to 'keeping or bearing arms' so you can't reasonably claim that the Supremacy Clause nullifies those laws.

[sottaly]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;36964759]do you have any statistics that prove the majority of robbers are also murderers? vague handfuls of cases don't prove anything.[/QUOTE]

they're not vague and it isn't a handful; there is plenty of proof of armed robbers killing people. use fucking google.

I can't find a statistic for robberies gone wrong; but it doesn't change the fact that it does happen frequently

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36964712]Only in the last two can I find a reason for the shootings and in BOTH cases it is because the home owner(s) took a stance against the intruders.[/QUOTE]

he said robbers don't have motive for murder; i just proved they do.

[RobbL]

Purely using logic now, if a man breaks into your house they're almost always just looking to steal a few of your possessions, nothing important in the scheme of things. Weigh that against the relatively few cases where they're actually out to kill or severely injure someone and the justification of using lethal force against every single one of them seems a bit silly. Take into account the fact that pulling a gun on a criminal very often just causes them to retaliate and escalates the situation into unnecessary violence (if they truly are a psychopath you don't really want to get on the wrong side of them), whereas if you didn't do so the burglar would most likely just go about his business (they don't generally intend to kill anyone). And if citizens can't own firearms then the criminals aren't likely to have them either (organised criminal gangs are completely irrelevant here so please don't bring that up)
So many of you here seem to believe that all thieves are unstable mentalcases, but in reality most of them are normal people in desperate situations who just want to carry out what they do with as little repercussions as possible

[sottaly]

[QUOTE=RobbL;36966035]Purely using logic now, if a man breaks into your house they're almost always just looking to steal a few of your possessions, nothing important in the scheme of things. Weigh that against the relatively few cases where they're actually out to kill or severely injure someone and the justification of using lethal force against every single one of them seems a bit silly. Take into account the fact that pulling a gun on a criminal very often just causes them to retaliate and escalates the situation into unnecessary violence (if they truly are a psychopath you don't really want to get on the wrong side of them), whereas if you didn't do so the burglar would most likely just go about his business (they don't generally intend to kill anyone). And if citizens can't own firearms then the criminals aren't likely to have them either (organised criminal gangs are completely irrelevant here so please don't bring that up)
So many of you here seem to believe that all thieves are unstable mentalcases, but in reality most of them are normal people in desperate situations who just want to carry out what they do with as little repercussions as possible[/QUOTE]

desperate people do desperate things

[Deunan]

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36964457]The problem with gun control is that people think that's the only step they should take to prevent tragedies like this. No, it doesn't work that way, just take a look at places like Washington D.C. and Detroit and you can see this. You have to do a shit ton of things to prevent another tragedy like this, and it would take a LOT of time and money to accomplish. And THAT'S the real problem. Everyone wants a better country, but nobody's willing to pay for it, and they want it to happen NOW. They just think things will magically and instantaneously get better because they want it to be better.[/QUOTE]

The bigger problem really is the US and the sheer gun culture in it. There's just so many guns outside in the country, that it's very tough to actually have oversigh or control over them.

In countries with less of a gun culture, less gun ownership overall, you tend to have less issues.

For instance, it's not much harder for me to get a weapon license and a weapon here than in the US. But because there's not the same cutlure here, I can expect that hardly anyone has a gun.