..... EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist  . This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions. I don't read your statements as being in line with any of the several state statutes which I am familiar with. First, you assert "we can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions."But that's not the way the law is worded because it does not create actionable guidance. Rephrase it as "threat of serious bodily injury" and maybe add "imminent" and yo have more realistic wording. But then your prior assertion is falsified.
Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. And this statement is simply false. But if you are referring to killing someone after the act is completed, then yeah, that shouldn't be done and would be murder. Your right about my word choice, it does not say that "someone has to die" lol. But it is illegal to un-holster where I live. The only exception is when defending yourself and since you can only defend your life with proportional force, it is an effective rule of thumb. Here the "threat of bodily injury" is not a high enough benchmark unless it is reasonable to believe that the injuries could result in death. So if someone punches you in the face you can't just shoot them in the face as a response. The rape example was drilled into our heads in class. Rape and murder laws are state laws and vary in definition. In some places it may be legal to stop a rapist with a bullet. I was taught that in Wisconsin you will go to jail for such an action. Rape is bad, it can cause physical trauma and will likely cause emotional trauma that will last for years. But you can't kill someone legally for making you feel bad. You can however fight back, and if the fight escalates into a life threatening fight, then you can use deadly force. Yeah, the example one of my instructors used was 'you come across a couple struggling, obviously the girl's being raped, and you shoot. Turns out they just liked to play rough..." If the instructor is good, and if he uses a variety of situations and scenarios, he can get across something about proper usage given a particular state's law. The 'proportional response' thing is just common sense. But again, your examples seem to presume knowledge of the result when all that exists is evidence of assault. The girl doesn't know if it's going to be rape followed by murder, and it could be. So the gun can be pulled when the assault is evident and threat of bodily harm imminent. Clearly in some cases, you might get punched and be reasonably sure or even certain that it wasn't part of a serious physical assault that would result in severe injury or death. But in other cases that might not be certain at all. Thing is, you never know for sure. Four punks track you at night and close in for some action. Those punks, maybe toss them the money out of your wallet, they go away. Particularly if one hand's inside the jacket, and if they see a hint of something there looks like it might be very bad news. Most criminals don't want trouble. They really don't want gunfights. |
|
|
|
.....It's illegal to possess or own a gun if you are convicted felon.....
Not in all cases and places, for example Texas a convicted felon is able to have guns for self defense in his home. I think that law days from the Indian days... |
|
|
|
....
Cops and soldiers in Germany have torough psychological test before you are able to become one. Can't say that for the general population.
Wait, now you believe that something like a psych test would be a good measure of whether someone ought to tote firearms?  ? IF THAT WERE SO, then the psych test would be in line with the motivations of the government, not the people. OBEY..... |
|
|
|
One in three people in the U.S. know someone who has been shot.1
On average, 32 Americans are murdered with guns every day and 140 are treated for a gun assault in an emergency room.2
Every day on average, 51 people kill themselves with a firearm, and 45 people are shot or killed in an accident with a gun.3
The U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 times higher than the combined rates of 22 countries that are our peers in wealth and population.4
Although guns can and have been used successfully in self-defense in the home, a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5
....
Well, you just done proved we need to take all those nasty guns away from cops and soldiers. "And the world... would be a HAPPY place.. for you... and me... you just wait... and SEE" BWHAHAHAHA! |
|
|
|
....That is why they put so much effort into raising non issues and downplaying real ones. It's called "engineering consent".
It's interesting that an argument by the anti gun mob is "well those little ar15 and ak47 pea shooters aren't going to do you any good against a real army, dude".... can be so easily answered by... "so why do the forces of government worry about them?" BWHAHAHAHAHA!!! ....Oh, and for what it's worth, I've had many discussions with tankers about what they fear. Almost to a man, it's a guy with a HE grenade sneaking up on them. NOT other tanks, NOT artillery, and NOT RPG's.
Oh, well. So they haven't figured out our little robot toys might... Never mind. |
|
|
|
Only difference you could possibly make would be to shoot some army guy in a bullet-proof vest, before they take you down using superior firepower.
Look at Afghanistan for an example of how well superior firepower serves the US. M The genocide piece is somewhat held at bay as long as we retain our gun rights. Without them, it'd be one helluva scary place.
M
But there's no genocide in question. If they would like to massacre everyone, they would do fine. Also it's a foreign country. Imagine if US decided to crackdown on it's own citizens. Nowhere to hide. And finally do your gun rights allow you to carry an rpg or some grenades, and would you strap a suicide vest on yourself and blow some tank? These contrived instances of opposition between the individual and the state cannot begin to adequately illustrate the long term consequences of an armed vs an unarmed citizenry. I would suggest the first difference is attitude. An unarmed public are subjects. Once they get that attitude, controlling them is very easy, even without the government pointing guns in their direction. Almost all control or influence which occurs by way of firearms, occurs subtly and without the guns actually being used. |
|
|
|
Or it could just be that, since about 5 other people have come to the conclusion that you are a sociopath, it's really as simple as that.
Funny how in personal messages with other members, the consensus is you're a troll. However, I will admit that you may also have some difficulty with English unless it's spelled out for you, seeing as how it's not your native language. Also, about that sociopath insult. It hardly means anything, since it only originates from the fringe libertarian faction, who seem to have difficulty referring to 90 percent of the public as anything but a 'statist'. I wouldn't refer to him as a troll. However I do agree with them, your logic makes no sense whatsoever, as I stated earlier. Most of the uninformed public buys the government propaganda hook line and sinker about the government being good. It's not their fault all they know is the lies spoon fed to them. I fail to see how ANYONE who believes in bitcoin, and hence probably sees through the lies of the government and central banking system, can believe anything the government says. Including the "gun control" lie. But you don't make sense to me in any way shape or form, so perhaps that shouldn't surprise me. M First_ascent is consistent, though. Just as with his opinions about global warming, he advocates big-government-solutions. Whether that means he actually believes 'government is good' is another story. He may just think the problems are so dire no other method is possible. In the end it's the same result, an advocacy of taking away individual liberties to make the world a better place through government control. Given that, the polemics vis a vis gun control are understandable. At least in this thread, I have not seen him address this fundamental belief pattern. |
|
|
|
My god you're an idiot. Oh, I said that before. I wonder why. Go back and read the very dialog we had, quoted right here. Look for the term "unified". Jesus fuck.
If he resists your polemic regarding fixing the world's problems through increasing the amount of jack booted thugs taking things away from people and ordering them around, he ain't no idiot. |
|
|
|
There was a case some years ago, Cory Maye, where he shot through a door at what he presumed was an armed intruder. It turned out to be a police officer that was doing a SWAT team style raid on the wrong house - a "no knock raid". He was convicted of capital murder, spent ten years or so in the state pen and was released on appeal to the state supreme court.
Moral of that story: DO NOT EVER THINK about shooting at something behind a door
His might actually have been a prudent decision. For shooting through the door, he got ten years in prison. What do you think he would have gotten had he waited for the SWAT team to break down his door and see him with a gun pointed at them? That is one hell of a point of view to even have to contemplate. Rules of engagement for police units typically do involve shooting immediately when something that looks like a gun is pointed at them. The implications of this are obvious when a Swat team no knock raid is involved. Toy guns, dogs, sticks, anything that looks like a pointy thingy, all get met with the bang bang bang. That's one side of bad. The other side is when the SWAT team hits the wrong house, which they do pretty commonly, playing their little game of Johnny Soldier Wanna-be. Then they encounter Mr. Average and whatever arsenal he's got. All of this would be solved with a polite knock on the door of course. But it seems that would give the 'bad guy in the house' (or the 'good guy in the wrong house') time to hide his drugs and more importantly his cash. GOTTA GET THAT CASH, MAN!!! |
|
|
|
.....
I suggest you refrain from replying to my statements until you have read all of my posts, otherwise you're just pissing in the wind without understanding my position.
All guns should be banned because sometimes they are used for bad things by bad people. All nitroglycerin products should be banned because some of their derivative products are used in bombs by bad people. All opium products should be banned because some of their derivative products are used for bad things by bad people. The only exception would be all government agencies at all levels who could use opium, nitroglycerin derivatives, and guns as they choose. That's your position. See anything a bit wrong with it? |
|
|
|
..... EDIT: I would find a fact of someone raping my daughter as a threat on her life and act accordingly. Later I would put a knife in hands of dead rapist . This is a tricky one for people. Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. It is common misconception about our rights as conceal carriers. We can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions. I don't read your statements as being in line with any of the several state statutes which I am familiar with. First, you assert "we can't draw our weapons unless someone is about to die. No exceptions."But that's not the way the law is worded because it does not create actionable guidance. Rephrase it as "threat of serious bodily injury" and maybe add "imminent" and yo have more realistic wording. But then your prior assertion is falsified.
Rape is horrible, however it is not on par with murder. Force can only be proportional and killing is not a proportional response. You would face murder charges for protecting your virginity by killing someone. And this statement is simply false. But if you are referring to killing someone after the act is completed, then yeah, that shouldn't be done and would be murder. |
|
|
|
About a criminal entering your house - I think most of you would be nervous/anxious/scared enough to pull a trigger first, rather than ask questions. Imagine a burglar next to your daughter room. And also they would not stand there waiting for you to call the police, best case scenario they would run off in other direction, worst case - in yours.
I have nothing against shooting a criminal on your property, even if he dies, he kinda deserves that. But there's a problem, where someone might shoot an innocent person in their house and claim it as robbery attempt.
That could happen. I have heard of people shooting through doors for example. However, I think of my carry gun as a responsibility and a right. If I shot an innocent person then I should go to jail. An accident is not excusable. Your life must be in immediate danger. You can't shoot just because someone was robbing you or raping your daughter. That is not a threat on her life. I would guess that trying to make it look like a robbery has very little chance of working. The police know a lot about that subject and will know what to look for. But when an armed intruder is in your house threating you, throwing your gun out the window so that no one is accidentally shot is bad form. A couple points. There was a case some years ago, Cory Maye, where he shot through a door at what he presumed was an armed intruder. It turned out to be a police officer that was doing a SWAT team style raid on the wrong house - a "no knock raid". He was convicted of capital murder, spent ten years or so in the state pen and was released on appeal to the state supreme court. Moral of that story: DO NOT EVER THINK about shooting at something behind a door, it could be one of your relatives, a friend, there is no knowing what. What is thought to be a threat must be verified as a threat, then action is taken. Then one must consider issues relating to spray shooting without a clear target, such as bullets traveling up the street and into the next house. This problem reduces to 'concealment and/or cover' if when possible. I can't envision something fundamentally crazy like spraying a bullet pattern out in the general direction of even a known threat without a serious and immediate mortal danger. Second point. Yes, you certainly can and on occasion should shoot to prevent a robbery or to stop a rape, when there is no "immediate or obvious mortal danger". In the US, state law varies on this, and obviously is the authoritative source for what to do when. |
|
|
|
....
I believe that there pretty likely another PRISM-like program which forces Google to keep their news search 'clean' during times when propaganda is of particular importance to the West. Another possibility is that Google themselves take such action autonomously, but my experience is that this is not as likely as being forced on them. Another would be, I suppose, that such alternate views are attacked at the network level and Google's algorithms respond by removing them. I don't know the news search algorithms they use of course.
You may have a point there and here's why. I just googled... "Media Innovations Group, LLC" syrian ambassador chemical weapons All that came up was this thread on bitcointalk. Then I went to Duckduckgo and used the same search prhase and got... hundreds..... |
|
|
|
....
The simple fact is the reason there are so many mass killings in the U.S isn't because of 'guns' it's because an unfortunately large number of people in your country is made up of the most extremely insecure, racist, homophobic, stupid, arrogant, paranoid, schizophrenic, self-righteous sociopaths I have ever seen.....
Then, most likely, those from the US on this forum fit your profiles. So why do you descend from your lofty perch to talk with us? |
|
|
|
I think your problem is very, very deep. I'm not saying that in an insultive or argumentative mode, rather that in your argument, your premises lead to your conclusions.
A) your premises are wrong across the board
B1) your conclusions do not follow from premises as stated
B2) other conclusions are possible from your wrong premises
I read it as if you've been fed misinformation for a lifetime and have built arguments which within a bubble of misinformation, seem logical. And thus the errors may not be obvious within that bubble...not immediately obvious. But with some examination, even within the bubble you should be able to discern the truth.
|
|
|
|
....
As you see the point of firearms protecting citizens against the Government is ludicrous (a point I read a lot here), especially taking into consideration we are speaking about the US, which Government (and army) supports the interests of the people ruling the world. ...
This is false. There is an interesting commonality between those anti-gun types and those who use firearms to commit horrible acts, both would force their views on others. Meanwhile most people owning or not owning firearms have no interest in forcing their views on anyone... |
|
|
|
Remember the Boeing/Airbus scandal?
And that was Echelon only, i dont even want to think what they are doing nowadays.
I guess the NSA will just have to go to some really secure method for making their bribes and payoffs. Like using bitcoin. |
|
|
|
I hope nobody is surprised.
What I'd like to know is whether companies that played ball with NSA or the 'powers that be' were secretly passed information that gained them serious competitive advantages or whether collusion between NSA-friendly companies and the NSA resulted in purpose destruction of competitors by government forces. In other words, is/was the NSA interfering with the economy? You know they were/are. |
|
|
|
Yep, and then people who have never been convicted of a crime (and in the cases of malicious persecution, never even had enough evidence against them to meet the probable cause requirement) have to spend thousands if not tens of thousands more dollars (other than their primary defense) on legal fees to obtain findings of factual innocence, arrest record expungement, and STILL there's no guarantee that 100% of those dollars will not go to waste, because the government "messed up" (and yet no government official is ever penalized and forced to pay the citizen back). Cost-prohibiting the poor out of their right to self-defense, and too often into premature graves.
I agree the rules and methods for correcting database errors and 'getting your rights back' are terrible and are no where explained accurately. Basically the NCIS appeal method is a joke. Want to get a set of your own personal information from the FBI database? Good luck on that, it takes a certified set of fingerprints then six months before they cough it up. One simple change to the law which would likely provide the greatest benefit would be to toss out the rule that someone convicted of just possession of one or another drug is barred from purchasing guns. Generally this implies felony convictions, but there is a rule in the federal law that brings in a number of misdemeanors. Something like "a misdemeanor which allows imprisonment for one year or longer". Would not surprise me if three fourths or more of those disallowed were for simple drug possession. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
