An honest question for information...

[soylentgreen]

The vast majority of shootings in this country are by people who cannot and do not own guns legally shooting others of the same ilk. And the vast majority of THOSE happen in our inner cities where drugs and gangs are rampant.

Simple denial, an attempt to cover up the fact that there are also many cases of shootings where innocent people have died because some legal owner of a gun acted stupidly with it.

Your issue of why crime happens is an entirely different arguement. People do not commit crimes because they have a gun they just use a gun because in america it is convenient. Your issue of why guns are seen as a convenient solution to problem is part of the arguement.

 

[MaggieD]

I am uninformed? and then you give me an unsure example of what it is i say.

The difference is not in geography it is in a wilingness to kill. The difference is in that zimmerman was found not guilty because the attitude of people is that their is a right to kill.

Crime happens is a different arguement altogether. This arguement is about people who legally own guns and will kill for very little cause. In other words this is about the selfish understanding they have that rights belong only to them and no other.

And there is your problem and why the constitution of america should be put into a museum where it belongs. It is not sacred. it is a legal document nothing more. To consider it sacred is to make useless it goes against the whole reason for a constitution. As the will of the people not a god.

Your misguided opinion that people in the states are loose cannons who are not accountable for their deadly actions is misguided. They are not loose cannons. They are accountable for their actions. And, again, by FAR, the vast majority of shooting deaths occur within the criminal element in our society. Illegal people owning illegal guns.

The will of the people is the bedrock of our form of government. Guns could be completely banned and confiscated if the people amended the constitution. Not going to happen, but you get the point.

 

[MaggieD]

Simple denial, an attempt to cover up the fact that there are also many cases of shootings where innocent people have died because some legal owner of a gun acted stupidly with it.

Your issue of why crime happens is an entirely different arguement. People do not commit crimes because they have a gun they just use a gun because in america it is convenient. Your issue of why guns are seen as a convenient solution to problem is part of the arguement.

I’m sorry, Solyent Green, but you’re never changing your mind. I’m never changing mine. Time for me to move along.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your misguided opinion that people in the states are loose cannons who are not accountable for their deadly actions is misguided. They are not loose cannons. They are accountable for their actions. And, again, by FAR, the vast majority of shooting deaths occur within the criminal element in our society. Illegal people owning illegal guns.

The will of the people is the bedrock of our form of government. Guns could be completely banned and confiscated if the people amended the constitution. Not going to happen, but you get the point.

The vast majority of people also never get to fire off their guns at someone stupid enough to break into their house when they are there. That is just a lame excuse that has been given to pretend guns are needed to fight crime. The vast majority are quite sensble with their guns otherwise the streets of america would look like a zombie movie.

But none of that denies the fact that are many deaths in america were caused by complete stupidity with a gun. And it des not deny that the vast majority of americans simply shrug their shoulders and discount those deaths as nothing more than collateral damage for a freedom to kill.

And again i must repeat because the pro gun side will always fall back to the base standard of wailing that " They want to take our guns away". That i have not argued that guns should be banned. I am not even overly keen on the idea of registering either guns or gun owners. I argue that the problem is in attitude such as the attitude that the constitution is a sacred text. Or the attitude that a right is only something that a person has and is not to be considered for any other person. Or the idea that it is a right to kill and that america for some weird reason thinks stupidity is a right.

None of these things have anything to do with a gun. Put a knife in someones hands with these attitudes and they are just as dangerous. But guns, not knives are the weapon of choice in america.

I’m sorry, Solyent Green, but you’re never changing your mind. I’m never changing mine. Time for me to move along

.
My mind has not changed at all. You however are attempting to move the goal post from people who legally own guns and act stupidly to those who illegally own guns are the problem. Did zimmerman illegally own a gun as you seem fond of using him as an example .

 

[MaggieD]

The vast majority of people also never get to fire off their guns at someone stupid enough to break into their house when they are there. That is just a lame excuse that has been given to pretend guns are needed to fight crime. The vast majority are quite sensble with their guns otherwise the streets of america would look like a zombie movie.

But none of that denies the fact that are many deaths in america were caused by complete stupidity with a gun. And it des not deny that the vast majority of americans simply shrug their shoulders and discount those deaths as nothing more than collateral damage for a freedom to kill.

And again i must repeat because the pro gun side will always fall back to the base standard of wailing that " They want to take our guns away". That i have not argued that guns should be banned. I am not even overly keen on the idea of registering either guns or gun owners. I argue that the problem is in attitude such as the attitude that the constitution is a sacred text. Or the attitude that a right is only something that a person has and is not to be considered for any other person. Or the idea that it is a right to kill and that america for some weird reason thinks stupidity is a right.

None of these things have anything to do with a gun. Put a knife in someones hands with these attitudes and they are just as dangerous. But guns, not knives are the weapon of choice in america.
.
My mind has not changed at all. You however are attempting to move the goal post from people who legally own guns and act stupidly to those who illegally own guns are the problem. Did zimmerman illegally own a gun as you seem fond of using him as an example .

I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to counter your silly opinion based on news media reports of the gun culture in America. How long did you live here? Did you live in the inner city? A preppy urban neighborhood perhaps? Or did you live in rural Kentucky where the sheriff is an hour a way and there are three cars to respond? Perhaps you lived in an upscale suburban neighborhood? Or a trashy trailer park? Have you lived in The States at all?

How did you become so familiar with our gun culture? Reading The Godfather a few times perhaps? Watch some spaghetti westerns? Some American Gangster movies maybe? Maybe a Dirty Harry movie or four? Or Al Pacino?

Or perhaps you spent considerable time bonding with those people who shoot at a gun range for entertainment and skill sharpening? Can you take a gun apart and put it back together? Know how you must take care of it? Do you know what our gun laws are in this country? How our courts work in self-defense shootings? How the DAs decide whether or not to press chargesor bring a shooting to ta grand jury? Know What our gun safety classes teach? Do you know how most responsible fathers teach their youngsters to shoot, hunt and respect firearms?

Or perhaps you’re a constitutional scholar who understands the Second Amendment and it’s rich history within our society.

To most of my sensible questions, you will probably answer, “Well...no.” And you’ll say, “But I still know Americans are violent people who use guns to indiscriminately kill others.”

And that’s bull****. You know what they say about body orifices and opinions, right?

As to moving the goalposts, that is something you yourself have done. I was never arguing the constitutionality of owning firearms. This thread was started to ask people who chant, “We need better gun control!” to quantify just exactly what it is they want.

You? If you want to argue THAT subject, first you need to understand our laws and accept that Americans aren’t wanton murderers running around aiming their legal guns at people.

 

[BretJ]

Even nicer that you do nothing more than go into simple denial. The intent ws obvious and mostly never denied. they feared for their sfety and so shot to kill without bothering to see if their was any real justification for their fear.

They shot to stop the assault. Not to kill. The fact that it sometimes kills is secondary. In an assault, I do not have nor should I have the obligation to determine if I will or will not survive the assault. Well, maybe he only wanted to rough you up a little and did not really want kill you....awesome. Do some get away with murder claiming self defense? Certainly. But the majority are justifiable. You are painting those with a very, very broad brush.

 

[Maccabee]

SCOTUS is often wrong, please reconsider.

People have dued or severaly beaten by fists.

 

[Lursa]

I am uninformed? and then you give me an unsure example of what it is i say.

The difference is not in geography it is in a wilingness to kill. The difference is in that zimmerman was found not guilty because the attitude of people is that their is a right to kill.

There's a right to self-defense, up to and including using lethal force...do you disagree with that?

 

[Lursa]

And yet you have laws that say a person can kill another on the mere suggestion of self defense rather than any real need for self defense.

That's not true. There are criteria, that must be fulfilled, before using lethal force, and then be judged by the Reasonable Man standard:

Lethal Force Triad
--Jeopardy
--Opportunity
--Ability

Use of deadly force is determined to be justifiable or not in the eyes of the courts and/or a jury. Of the many factors that come into play regarding use of force, the determination whether the use of force was justified or not, depends on the defendant demonstrating that three criteria were present in the incident: Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy, or AOJ.

Ability: Ability is most commonly associated with some kind of weapon, whether hands and feet, gun, knife, ink pen or a bag of frozen squirrels (watch Sean Maloney's seminar video above for more on this). In order for use of force to be justifiable under the law, your attacker must have the power — or ability — to cause serious bodily injury or death. He or she must be strong enough and have the capability to do you harm to a level that would justify a deadly force response.

Courts also take into consideration the concept of disparity of force. A large muscular person can have a force advantage over a smaller, less athletic person. A man can have a force advantage over a woman due to size and strength differences.

Opportunity: Opportunity is the second component of AOJ that must be demonstrated to a jury to justify the use of deadly force. The person with the ability to attack you with lethal force must also have the opportunity to do so, and do so immediately. Distance or proximity to you is the most important factor regarding opportunity.

Jeopardy: The third component in the AOJ triad is jeopardy. In order to fulfill the jeopardy criteria, you must demonstrate that the attacker clearly indicated that he was going to carry out an attack. Jeopardy speaks to the attacker's intent. This can be either through words such as a direct threat to do harm, or actions, such as moving toward you in a threatening manner, or both. Like opportunity, jeopardy must also be immediate to justify a lethal response, and a defendant must demonstrate that he or she acted in a manner consistent with the Reasonable Person Standard:

It is important to understand that the justification of self-defense will be analyzed under the Reasonable Person Standard. This standard is described by Sean Maloney in his seminar as "what would a reasonable, prudent person have done in the same situation knowing what the defendant knew." The presence of Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy will be analyzed from this standard.

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy | Second Call Defense

 

[Maccabee]

First of all our forefathers never intended that the 2nd amendment be used for mass slaughter innocent American citizens. I think there needs to be a ban on assault weapons. You can't put them in a holster, you can't get a concealed permit to carry, and frankly if you can't defend yourself with a pistol, shotgun or hunting rifle you've got some real issues with your gun, and need to head out to the target range. Assault type weapons are people killers, plain and simple, and are not used for anything else.

9 out of 10 gun owners in this country want extended background checks, including mental health. The only ones that don't want them are people that couldn't pass one.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...a-political-slam-dunk/?utm_term=.7bc558187544

They do need to close the loophole at gun shows, including private sales. In my state of Colorado after the Aurora theatre shooting we enacted that. If you want to sell your gun you take it to a licensed dealer--and they sell it for you on commission.

So yes it can be done on the Federal Level--to make this country safer, and to not interfere into the 2nd amendment. The problem has always been the NRA--and gun nutcases out there that believe this is the first step to taking away all guns when it's not. The next argument they'll give you is what if our government attacks us? Well they have predator drones and tanks and your military type assault weapons are going to keep you safe.

Something definitely has to be done--but I doubt it will happen with a Republican congress.

60% of all mass shootings are done with handguns. Also, rifles such as the AR15 provides the best of both the shotgun and the pistol in a scenario defense scenario. It provides the stability of a shotgun while it has tge round capacity of a handgun incase there are multiple attackers or it takes multiple shots to end the threat. And lets not forget the recent mass shooting was stopped by a person with an AR.

 

[Maccabee]

That's not true. There are criteria, that must be fulfilled, before using lethal force, and then be judged by the Reasonable Man standard:

Lethal Force Triad
--Jeopardy
--Opportunity
--Ability

I literally laighed out loud when I read "bag of frozen squirrels. I can only imagine how would a situation end up that way.

 

[soylentgreen]

I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to counter your silly opinion based on news media reports of the gun culture in America. How long did you live here? Did you live in the inner city? A preppy urban neighborhood perhaps? Or did you live in rural Kentucky where the sheriff is an hour a way and there are three cars to respond? Perhaps you lived in an upscale suburban neighborhood? Or a trashy trailer park? Have you lived in The States at all?

How did you become so familiar with our gun culture? Reading The Godfather a few times perhaps? Watch some spaghetti westerns? Some American Gangster movies maybe? Maybe a Dirty Harry movie or four? Or Al Pacino?

Or perhaps you spent considerable time bonding with those people who shoot at a gun range for entertainment and skill sharpening? Can you take a gun apart and put it back together? Know how you must take care of it? Do you know what our gun laws are in this country? How our courts work in self-defense shootings? How the DAs decide whether or not to press chargesor bring a shooting to ta grand jury? Know What our gun safety classes teach? Do you know how most responsible fathers teach their youngsters to shoot, hunt and respect firearms?

Or perhaps you’re a constitutional scholar who understands the Second Amendment and it’s rich history within our society.

To most of my sensible questions, you will probably answer, “Well...no.” And you’ll say, “But I still know Americans are violent people who use guns to indiscriminately kill others.”

And that’s bull****. You know what they say about body orifices and opinions, right?

As to moving the goalposts, that is something you yourself have done. I was never arguing the constitutionality of owning firearms. This thread was started to ask people who chant, “We need better gun control!” to quantify just exactly what it is they want.

You? If you want to argue THAT subject, first you need to understand our laws and accept that Americans aren’t wanton murderers running around aiming their legal guns at people.

Your questions are not sensible, they are presumptious. You assume that violence is my problem with america. It is not, violence occurs in any country. America is no different. Instead what i concern myself about is the arguements used to justify guns in america. They make no sense and are usually nothing more than a person regurgitating the propaganda they have ben taught to think.
As usual with the pro gun crowd it always comes back to guns. But as i keep repeating the problem is not ownership of guns it is the attitude of a right to kill that is the problem, Guns just happen to be the most prfered method.

I have already given examples of how your laws and courts work but i understand the subterfuge in your continuous questioning. Cannot rebut, then deny.

And yes i do understand constitutions, not only americas whih is used as a basis in most teaching but even of those countries like mine which do not have a written constitution. I certainly understand it better than those who think it some kind of holy writ to be held as sacred.
Need i remind you that is was you who brought up the constitution with a claim that it is sacred.

I have not made the claim that americans are wanton murderers. I am making the claim that americans do not understand the fact that their right to own a gun stops at the point the bullet from that gun touches my body.
Your arguem,ents here of “We need better gun control!” is silly and needs to be countered. Not just continued to be pushed around the mill so that nothing ever gets done.

 

[Rucker61]

I have not made the claim that americans are wanton murderers. I am making the claim that americans do not understand the fact that their right to own a gun stops at the point the bullet from that gun touches my body.

If they don't understand your last sentence regarding rights, what do we understand? That self defense with a firearm simply isn't allowed, even if the attack has potentially fatal results?

 

[soylentgreen]

They shot to stop the assault. Not to kill. The fact that it sometimes kills is secondary. In an assault, I do not have nor should I have the obligation to determine if I will or will not survive the assault. Well, maybe he only wanted to rough you up a little and did not really want kill you....awesome. Do some get away with murder claiming self defense? Certainly. But the majority are justifiable. You are painting those with a very, very broad brush.

Your claim op the majorty is justifiable is spurious considering that most courts will find in avour of the shooter regardless of the circumstances. Certainly the statistics are skewered.

As for the claim that they shot to stop the assault is even more ridiculous considering your own laws.

https://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

For example, in my state of Florida, it is an offense under Florida law to display a dangerous weapon in an angry, careless, or threatening manner.

A person shooting a gun off or displaying it is committing a crime. Where as it is perfectly legal to kill a person in self defense.

In other words if you are in an arguement with someone and they pull out a gun they will kill you because at that point if they do not then they have committed a crime. But it is perfectly legal if they kill you and claim self defense.

 

[Lursa]

I am making the claim that americans do not understand the fact that their right to own a gun stops at the point the bullet from that gun touches my body.

In America, do you know how likely it is to be harmed by a law-abiding citizen's bullets? It's almost a non-existent risk.

In America, sometimes people are killed by bullets in the commission of crimes. Crimes of intent. Criminals are all about not giving a crap about your rights, any of them.

So preventing law-abiding people from owning and carrying guns is a useless waste of time...it only harms those citizens and yes, we have a 2A right to protect us.

Your point is no more than a a meaningless slogan.

 

[soylentgreen]

There's a right to self-defense, up to and including using lethal force...do you disagree with that?

No i agree. I have already stated as such. What i disagree with is that the attitude in america is one of allowing situations where it cannot be shown that self defence was needed to still be treated as if it was. An attitude of, " Oh well! A mistake was made, someone died, thats life, get over it." Such a careless disregard for life.

 

[soylentgreen]

That's not true. There are criteria, that must be fulfilled, before using lethal force, and then be judged by the Reasonable Man standard:

Lethal Force Triad
--Jeopardy
--Opportunity
--Ability

Use of deadly force is determined to be justifiable or not in the eyes of the courts and/or a jury.

When the attitude is that you have a right to kill and stupidity with a gun somehow comes under the privilage of the 2nd amendment then juries will find innocent where they shoould find guilt.

 

[Lursa]

When the attitude is that you have a right to kill and stupidity with a gun somehow comes under the privilage of the 2nd amendment then juries will find innocent where they shoould find guilt.

I posted in the response that you briefly quoted, the "reasonable man standard."

 

[BretJ]

Your claim op the majorty is justifiable is spurious considering that most courts will find in avour of the shooter regardless of the circumstances. Certainly the statistics are skewered.

As for the claim that they shot to stop the assault is even more ridiculous considering your own laws.

https://www.usacarry.com/brandishing-firearm/

A person shooting a gun off or displaying it is committing a crime. Where as it is perfectly legal to kill a person in self defense.

In other words if you are in an arguement with someone and they pull out a gun they will kill you because at that point if they do not then they have committed a crime. But it is perfectly legal if they kill you and claim self defense.

Breath......If I pull a firearm (or any weapon) as an assailant with the intent to threaten, scare, intimidate someone or display it in a careless manner, that is considered brandishing. That is illegal. That is not self defense. Big difference. You are misinterpreting what is being said. If I displaty a weapon with the intent to stop an attack, it is lawful. That is not brandishment.

 

[TurtleDude]

When the attitude is that you have a right to kill and stupidity with a gun somehow comes under the privilage of the 2nd amendment then juries will find innocent where they shoould find guilt.

you apparently are as lacking in knowledge about our laws as you are about gun issues.

 

[TurtleDude]

No i agree. I have already stated as such. What i disagree with is that the attitude in america is one of allowing situations where it cannot be shown that self defence was needed to still be treated as if it was. An attitude of, " Oh well! A mistake was made, someone died, thats life, get over it." Such a careless disregard for life.

you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT

 

[BretJ]

you understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT

Obviously, not. His country works on the premise that you are a potential homicidal maniac and rights are dispensed only if you can prove otherwise. Criminals and homicidal maniacs should not own firearms therefore therefore no one should own firearms.

 

[soylentgreen]

If they don't understand your last sentence regarding rights, what do we understand? That self defense with a firearm simply isn't allowed, even if the attack has potentially fatal results?

How many times must it be explained that i have no problem with self defense when it is actually self defense. What i do not care for is the attitude that it is a right to take a life.

 

[soylentgreen]

In America, do you know how likely it is to be harmed by a law-abiding citizen's bullets? It's almost a non-existent risk.

In America, sometimes people are killed by bullets in the commission of crimes. Crimes of intent. Criminals are all about not giving a crap about your rights, any of them.

So preventing law-abiding people from owning and carrying guns is a useless waste of time...it only harms those citizens and yes, we have a 2A right to protect us.

Your point is no more than a a meaningless slogan.

Yet how many times am i given the reason to own a gun in america is because of the likelihood that some criminal either to stupid or so desperate that they will break into a house while the family is there and kill everyone just to steal a tv.

Case in point, first sentence of yourds claim americans are peaceful, second sentence tells us that their criminals are homicidal maniacs.

And once again the pro gun person will always fall back to the position of " they want to take my gun away". An arguement i have never made.

If you wish to carry a gun that is your business. However if you shoot someone because they were carrrying a cell phone then you should be prosecuted for maslaughter and not let off on a self defense plea,

 

[soylentgreen]

I posted in the response that you briefly quoted, the "reasonable man standard."

My arguement is that in fact it is not "reasonable" It is an attitude that your right supercedes anothers life