When is it okay to kill another human being?
 

Legislature run amok (this is just one example). Check out http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assemb...lls/HB1890.pdf , which has been introduced into our state house of representatives. The bill establishes the "Castle Defense" which will allow use of deadly force (immune from prosecution and civil suit) under various circumstances, including some where the individual's life is not in danger.

Bill pretty much says you can kill a burglar in your home or on your property. Period. Some restrictions, of course, such as you cannot kill someone who has a right to be there (landlord for example) and you cannot kill a policewoman who has identified herself and/or you have reason to believe (or should have) she is the police.

Anybody in this state can have firearms in the home (except convicted felons)..... and almost all do.

What do you guys think? No more Mr. Nice Guy!

(I should note similar legislation failed to be enacted last session. But, hey, shouldn't the law protect the good guys, too, and not the criminals?)

Whenever they post an article to Gizmodo.

oh snap

Well, I hope that at very least burglar is extremely well defined. I mean, shooting any trespasser is pretty simple, but how do you know they really meant to steal something. How do you prove it completely? Beyond reasonable doubt? Because if you can't prove it, you'll be charged with murder, or at very least manslaughter.

Personally, I only believe in using force in self-defense or defense of others, I think most people agree with me. What makes it difficult is deciding when it's "Self Defense", when it's "Preemptive attack" and when it's just, as Mikey-San so delicately put it, "Justifiable Homicide"...

"What if he say, 'Yor mom's a ho and I knows cuz I is done it wifha?'" -- Ali G

sorry I couldn't resist...

But I see your points. Personally, I don't believe that most of the population is capable of making good decisions when it deals with that sort of thing. -- I wrote quite a bit more, but I think this has the potential to be a very heated topic, so I withdraw my further remarks. :)

so basically, if a kid knocks a baseball into someone's yard and jumps the fence to retrieve it, lethal force is allowed? and how long will it be before someone invites someone they dislike over for dinner, shoots them as they enter the property, and then claims they had the perfect right to do so?

remind me not to accept dinner invitations from your state. :D

How about inviting the legislators over for a fancy-dress party, gangster-themed? Should be a blast. :D

OMG. Seriously?? I assume that it will have no hope of being voted in?

I mean does that mean any stupid kid who breaks someone's window to grab a pack of cigarettes and $20 deserves to be shot? No trial, no judge, just straight to execution. But then no trial or penalty for the "defender"?

Interesting points from all. The basic point of view here is you should have the right to protect your castle, yourself and your family. You should not be required to flee from danger, but should be able to stand your ground... at least at home.... and you should be able to do so without fear of prosecution or a law suit for wrongfully injuring/killing someone else. You should not be required to surrender your property to a guy with a baseball bat just because he hasn't yet hit you or yours with that bat.

Also involved is the domestic abuse issue.... a spouse threatens to kill the other so the the endangered spouse gets a court issued restraining order. But the perpetrator shows up at the door and tries to force her way in.... and is obviously drunk and violent.

This law would not affect the use of deadly force outside the home and off of the homeowners/renter's property.

The days of shoot the burglar first, then drag her the rest of the way into the house to avoid prosecution would be gone.

Heh, a lot of bank CEOs had better go into hiding. :D

I own a few firearms. I don't hunt but on occasion enjoy going to the range and shooting at pieces of paper. It is fun.

I have had my place broken into twice while I was home. Both times I scared them off just by being there. If someone broke into my home and had any intentions of harming me, they would be shot.

I have some martial arts training and I know that taking another human being down in defense with your bare hands is not an easy task with out seriously hurting them. A gun is simply more efficient and it is an equalizer.

My buddy a few years back was out at the bars with this girl he had just started dating. So they went out all night and ended up walking home, which was about 5 or 6 blocks from the bars. When they got home some guy had followed them, waited till they got inside and then broke in and tried to rob the house. He was high on something and my buddy just beat the crap out of him and the guy ran off. That guy had a knife and my friend got lucky.

I have another friend who was shot and killed last year, she was robbed getting into her car. Some kids shot her and she died. Another girl I know had gotten shot around the same time. She was also walking to her car and someone just came up and shot her and took her purse.

The world is not a nice place. The police and the government can't be there to protect you. You will need to protect yourself. Arming yourself for self defense is totally OK with me. I don't even mind conceal and carry. Guns don't pull their own triggers, people pull them. We need to start holding people responsible for their own actions plain and simple.

The Castle Doctrine does not mean you can just up and shoot someone, there are conditions. You are going to be held responsible for your actions and if you kill someone outside of those conditions, ie not in self defense, then you will and should be held accountable for them. If someone is illegally in your home then you are the one at risk not them. They already broke the law breaking into your home.

The downside to the Castle Doctrine is, that criminals may use it to their advantage. They may invite other criminals over to their home (be it opposing drug dealer, whatever) and then shoot them dead and claim castle doctrine.

The right of self defense is one that no one should take away from you. Sure someone mentioned the kid breaking into someone's home to steal $20 and a pack of smokes. You pull a gun on that kid and he probably won't ever break into homes again. It doesn't mean you have to automatically shoot anyone that is in your home. It just means you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if need be.

But you have that right already. There has to be more to it than that, or why create this law?

I think it is there to trump laws that give criminals more rights. Guy breaks into an ex Marine's home (true story by the way) the ex marine disarms him, beats the crap out of the guy and hog ties him. Calls the police, the police arrest him, the criminal presses assault charges against said Marine.

I am not a lawyer nor am I a law maker. That is just my guess.

I heard a story, which might very well be an urban legend or a tort-reformer's black propaganda, about a burglar who tripped over something in the victim's home and sued for negligent injury. If that is true, however, it's an even crazier example of the opposite extreme to the castle doctrine.

As a card-carrying evil-socialist-liberal-pinko-commie-terrorist-loving-European-faggot (*) I am rather conflicted about this. Where I live, burglars don't hot-prowl much, and aren't armed; I have never seen a gun except on a Home Guardsman or a hunter. Not even the police carry routinely. Furthermore, when you walk in the mountains here, you generally start and finish by walking through a farmyard. The farmer waves at you, or you can have a nice chat about the weather. He's certainly got guns in the house, but the assumption is that a stranger walking over his property is a hiker, not a predator. There's no law of trespass here, he can't actually stop you! I don't know how an isolated farmer would react at night, but the default assumption would probably be a neighbour in distress. We're on the right side of the Stadium Effect.

(* some of those items are true, some not :))

But things may be changing, and the crisis will accelerate this; the capital is now getting gang shootouts, with collateral damage. I don't have the physique, training or reflexes for any kind of unarmed combat. Logically, such a person ought to carry, and shoot first -- though in practice he is precisely the one who won't be decisive and ruthless enough to do so. But the local doctrine of self-defence is very restrictive indeed. Basically you have to be killed first and complain afterwards. I think we may need to think about adjusting this.

Regarding the lady who was shot on her way to the car, I always wonder how a concealed-carry prevents you being gunned down from ambush. Same for the girl on her night out on the main boulevard of our capital the other day who got caught in a gunfight -- the perp was almost certainly aiming for someone else. If she were carrying, in a panic she would more likely have shot yet another innocent bystander in the confusion. I really don't think an armed populace is the answer to people who shoot up streets, though I'd be open to a certain movement in the direction of castle doctrine here. Meeting the Americans in the middle somewhere.

It is illegal, as far as I know, in the USA to booby trap your home. That is considered premeditation of causing injury to someone. Perhaps that is where the urban legend stemed from.

Trust me, people carry weapons all the time. You think I want to take my chances if a guy has a knife? Hell no, I want to shoot them and I don't want to get stabbed.

I am also actually very liberal (but overall kind of a moderate in some aspects) but I do believe in our individual rights and I believe we have the right to arm ourself to not only defend ourselves against criminals but also any form of tyranical government.

No it does not guarantee your safety. It does not even make a difference in some situations. It does however at least give you a small chance of defending yourself. Gun control has to be compared to the culture you are comparing it too. Obviously, Israel everyone packs heat and Israel is far from a peaceful nation. However, the Swiss, which I believe have mandatory military service are required to keep their service gun (full auto assault rifle) after they get out of the service so they can defend their country in a time of war. The Swiss have no gun violence, different culture. In Japan they have strict gun control and it works for them. In the UK they banned them and now only criminals have them and guess what. Violent crimes did not go down at all.

I am fairly accurate out to 15 yards with my hand gun. I put holes in groups of 3 inches or less. I have never been in a stressful situation so I can't say that I would be like a soldier or an LEO in a gun fight. I don't think I would get involved either unless I felt an obligation too, so it would depend on the circumstance. If someone had a gun at say Columbine or at Virgina Tech maybe the mass murders would have been less.

Guns don't guarantee safety, and they don't create a safer environment per se. They do give the individual the ability to defend them self against someone they normally would not have a chance. I think women should carry guns for sure, so they don't get over powered by someone.

The world is not a nice place, rape, murder, theft, assault, etc all happen in my city every single day.

Actually I have no idea what the "private" crime rate is in Israel. Do you? (I've strap-hung in Israeli buses looking down the barrel of an Uzi -- probably unloaded. Soldier going home from his unit. I didn't feel that he was likely to shoot me.)

After the Swiss do their initial military training, they go home with their assault rifle, then come back for frequent and serious refreshers -- far more frequent than in Norway. They then transfer to the Landwehr (the home guard) until the age of (mumble), and yes, I believe they do retain their weapon even afterwards. I stayed with a Swiss once who had his own issued weapon (a pistol, since he was a paramedic), his father's rifle and his grandfather's rifle. He said that if you are out with your military weapon, and want to shoot someone, you must go home, replace it, take your private weapon and then shoot them. For if you shoot someone with your military weapon, they lock you up and throw away the key. OTOH, I think the system is now unravelling, with calls for weapons to be kept in armouries. Some loony sects doing a Jim Jones, I think it was.

I do agree that the examples of Switzerland, Norway and Canada show that it's gun culture rather than no. of guns per head that does it. But gun culture is surely a complex question.

Is this Texas? :)

My state doesn't have any specific castle doctrine laws that I know of, but it is very lenient on self-defense burglary shootings.

I have a pretty narrow field of "ok to kill." If you break into my home, ignore my verbal warning to leave while you still can, you will get shot. I won't just shoot without warning--I will tell them a gun is aimed at them and order them to exit the premises--but if they ignore that warning I take it as a threat.
I don't carry a gun anywhere, it stays at home, locked up.
I've never been burglarized, so this is all still just supposition. But it is my plan. I'm not taking any chances on my wife or kids being hurt--the burglar can die.

funny thing is, statistically the most likely victim of a home-owned gun (by far) is family. compared to suicide, domestic homicide, accidental shootings, and cases where a burglar gets to your gun before you do, the odds of your gun actually protecting you and your family from some third party is negligible. you'd do much better to invest your money in a good home security system (or a big dog). most of the attraction of a gun, I think is the power thing - people like to think they can be an active force in their own defense (as opposed to passively relying on an alarm). plus, maybe, it makes it easier to deal with your idiot neighbors to know that you could shoot them (but out of the goodness of your heart, you don't). :rolleyes:

What I'd like to see is some new tech of non-lethal defence that at the same time makes an untamperable-with recording of what it's doing: sort of a marriage of the Taser with the life-monitoring in Robert Sawyer's "Hominids" trilogy. So you stun the guy and then the judge can play back its memory and see whether it was justified and so pick the party to do jail time.

Nope. Texas is whole other country. Agree.... push comes to shove, family (and me, too) comes first in a confrontation with a potentially dangerous intruder in my home. Outside my home, well, I just don't feel a whole lot different about that.

@TW And that's why I don't let the wife have access to a firearm.:)

The proposed law does have restrictions. Note I said one could shoot a burglar... as in an intruder onto your property with the intent of committing a felony. So, no, you couldn't shoot a kid fetching a baseball or a trespasser.

I think maybe the intent is to switch the burden of proof to the intruder rather than leaving the homeowner open for criminal prosecution and civil suit over a split second decision made under extreme duress in a hectic and dangerous situation. Homeowner did not ask to be put into this position, the intruder did that.

Time to give the good guy the benefit of the doubt and assume she acted in good faith, out of perceived necessity, and with the full intent of protecting her family and castle only, and for no other reason. Sounds fair to me.

Standard advice around here is if you ever have to shoot a home intruder, the first words out of your mouth to the police are, "I was in fear for my life, and I want a lawyer." Never make a statement to police without the attorney, particularly when you are shaken by a traumatic event such as having to shoot someone. No telling what you might say or how confused you might be on details.... details that could really harm you in court.

Yeah let me simplify this. When is it OK to kill another human being? When they are trying to kill you, or harm you in a manner that may be fatal.

We need to stop giving criminals rights in this country. If a man gets assaulted for breaking into someone's home he should not have the right to file lawsuit in any court for any damages since he was in the home illegally.

The rules of using deadly force still apply. At CCW training classes they say if you shoot someone more than 7 yards away, it maybe looked at that you were not in immediate danger. So all the rules still apply in the Castle Doctrine & the Make My Day legislation.

God says "Thou shalt not ...!" and man says "Oookay. But what about...?"

and you wonder why God gets pissy sometimes. :D

Only if you believe in that sort of thing.

that was irony tlarkin. :rolleyes:

Statistics. The third type of lie.
If a burglar can break into my home, get past my German shepard and doberman (yes I have both) creep into my bedroom, figure out the combination lock on my gun safe, then pick the trigger lock on my gun--they are a god amongst men and I will fellate them right then before they shoot me.
But you're right. The only reason I keep a gun in a safe in my bedroom is to intimidate the old man that lives next door. That old bastard is damned lucky I haven't shot his ass yet, just for looking at me wrong.

Which god is that again?
I worship the god Zeus and his son Bacchus. I don't remember either of them making such a decree.

Surely Bacchus said, "Thou shalt not put ice in single malt!"

You mean like the great flood or something, right?

I think the proposed legislation goes a little further and allows you to protect your property as well. It includes immunity for shooting someone who is trying to remove another person from your home, except for children when the perpetrator is a parent (domestic disputes) , etc. The intruder must be in the act of, or obvious intent to, commit a felony.

Suspect public sentiment is likely behind this bill. Late last year, a local news personality.... very attractive lady, very well known to the public, very well liked & admired.... was assaulted in her home. She was beaten with a baseball bat and had unspeakable things done to her. She died in the hospital a few days after the attack having never regained consciousness. (Yes, they caught the guy within a few weeks after the brutal assault.)

As long as incidents like this happen, right here in river city in the "good" part of town, people are going to demand the right to protect themselves.

In a violent confrontation, a HUGE advantage accrues to the aggressor.... the one willing to act first whether it is fire the first shot or take the first swing with a baseball bat. Giving up this advantage, in most every instance, is likely to put the honest defender in a position of losing the confrontation (hard to fight back when you've just been shot). Why in the world would we want to put a homeowner in that position or second guess their reaction when they believe, with cause, that the attack is imminent?

Quaker to a burglar: "I would never intentionally kill a fellow human being, but you’re standing where I am about to fire my shotgun."

.
Some years ago, when I was attending high school in California, there was a tragic incident that made a deep impression on me and many other people:

A teenager crossing the street in a hurry was almost run over by a bloke in a sports car. The kid got upset and spat on the car...

...whereupon the driver got out and shot him. The teenager died of his injuries.


(I’ve always had an exceptionally hard time understanding US homicide rates.)

yeesh! tell me about it. I've always felt that 'mindless arrogance' should be added to the special circumstances list for the death penalty. not that I apporve of the death penalty, mind you, but at least that way we'd be executing people who really deserve it.

variation on a theme: a robber breaks into a house and surprises a husband and wife in their living room. He pulls out a knife and says 'give me all your valuables, quickly!' the husband waves his arms around the room and says 'We are just poor Quaker people - we have few goods. you may take what you like, though.' the robber says 'this isn't enough, you must have more!' the husband shakes his head, saying 'no. but you might try the Smith house next door - they have lots of expensive goods'. so the robber runs out of the house heading towards the house next door. at that point, the wife looks at her husband and says 'shame on you, husband. what if that robber hurts someone over at the Smith's house?', to which the husband replies 'oh, that's not likely, wife. the Smiths are Baptists.'

New terms for guns and hunting
 

I say, bring it on. Then ban guns.

Allow only knives with 6-inch blades for hunting. Winner takes all. If the bear/caribou/mountain lion/rabid racoon wins, then the hunter’s fortune gets willed to animal conservation efforts.
...under these new terms, investment bankers and shareholders of companies producing personnel mines should be particularly encouraged to hunt.

oh, snap

Now, if you had asked the guy the day before, "Say, would you consider it was worth doing X years in jail because someone spat on your car?", do you think he would say yes?

I've been wondering about some sort of rite-of-passage to adulthood, whereby poor impulse control leads to failure to survive the initiation. Like the opening scene of the first "Dune" book. Such a rite could be voluntary, but if you decline it, you don't get to drive a car, possess a gun or have kids.

Are you suggesting this was done legally? I think we would all oppose illegal, senseless killing.

Me, too. Then, again, there it is, and it is real. Should we live in the world as it is, or should we live as though the world is the way we would like it to be?

We do imprison more people, by percentage of population, than most anybody else in the world. We execute more people for crime than most. Some states have a 3 strike law.... 3 felonies and you go away for life. Still, the crime continues. I have no answers, at least none that would be politically correct to those who oppose capital punishment.

Why can't we all just get along? (Rodney King I think said that?)

@Woodsman
Hey, our legislature is working on it. But that's the subject of another thread.:)

The world as it is, or the world as we would like it to be?
Hmm... personally I think that’s the wrong question.

The low homicide rates & high level of gun ownership in Canada are real.
So are the high homicide rates & high level of gun ownership in the USA.

I think the difference merits a thorough analysis.
There is something very very wrong here!

That difference, whatever it is, cannot be ignored when discussion issues such as gun ownership, defense of home and family, etc.
.

I think it's our emphasis on rights and our dismissal of responsibility. That combined with an irrational desire to let corporations dictate how we live while claiming that we want freedom.

Perhaps, in the context of the bigger picture. But, one cannot deny the threat is real simply because they wish it weren't and believe violence is evil. (I wasn't thinking about gun ownership, but rather self defense in the home.)

Agree the difference is worth exploring. Would the difference not imply that, at least perhaps, the problem is something other than gun ownership?

I kinda like the emphasis on individual rights. As for responsibility, we do lock up and/or execute as many as we can. The prisons are overflowing. These guys do accept (albeit unwillingly) responsibility for their actions.

If we just up and repealed all the drug laws and let the drugs flow freely through normal commercial channels, I think that would cut our crime rate big time and free up nearly half our prison beds. Fewer laws, fewer prisoners and less crime.

(Let's be honest, the drug laws and the war on drugs have been ineffective in getting drugs off the streets. And, I do believe drugs are evil and have a devastating impact on our kids and our society. I just think what we are currently doing isn't solving the problem.... time to try plan B. The current laws and drugs are the single largest contributors to our extremely high homicide rate.)

I went to college in a dry county (no alcohol). At first glance, one would assume it would be more difficult to get alcohol. Wrong, it was the opposite... bootlegger on every corner more than happy to sell alcohol to all comers regardless of age or current state of inebriation.

The emphasis on rights has been used to eliminate responsibility. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

What makes you think I was talking about street criminals?* :confused:
If you're going to hold people accountable for their actions, you lock up the criminals with the most power first. Guys like Madof — and there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands like him — should be locked up in places like Riker's island without possibility of bail, and then they should get a fair trial complete with a swift hanging. You don't stop a group of thugs by taking on the small fry first.


*Leadership leads! When the rich and powerful routinely get away with destroying people's lives on large scales, then little guys like drug dealers find it easy to rationalize their "business" decisions. Enron & Madoff are merely two well known examples where the punishment does not come close to matching the crime. So-called "legitimate" business is full of many more.

Absolutely! Which given the radical difference in homicide statistics might suggest the following provocative solution: Ban private handguns south of said border, allow them north of it.

That might not be politically tenable, but it would probably save a lot of lives!

I am of the mindset if my government is armed, then so should the people. I don't want to live in a police state or a military ran nation. The people need to be able to defend them self against anyone who may do them harm, that includes the government.

Yup, that would be provocative.

We really do have a long and storied relationship with guns, and I am not just referring to the old west gun slingers.

Here's an historical review of some 20th century events where big business was taking extreme advantage of the coal miners, essentially enslaving them. The miners took up arms against the companies and a limited war followed.... organized labor forces against the companies. This was not a riot, more like a mini civil war over a period of time. Some believe this is where the term "redneck" came into being.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../coal-mine.htm

This is the classic example of big business power gone crazy and the sure to follow uprising of the masses. But, of course, we need our guns to effectively be able to rise up against our oppressors.

I agree, but I see the government as impotent. It's hands are tied by its own laws. The much greater threat comes from undemocratic dictatorial institutions bent on profit at any cost: your freedom, your health, your life, none of these matter to them.

The government is a big business. I dislike both our parties. I do like to go see who is contributing to who and how much money is being tossed around. It is ridiculous, and so is this damn stimulus thing.

Even the NRA is a business. 200 million dollar a year non profit business. They donate less than 1% of their 200 million dollars a year to politicians. They donate several million dollars here and there to court cases. They spend lots on mass media. The rest goes into their pockets. It is a sad shame that I have to pay money to an organization ran like a big business to defend my fellow citizen's rights to bear arms. So why would the NRA want to abolish gun control? Then they would no longer be needed and maybe lose their 200 million dollar a year business.

I don't want to get too off topic here though, since this is about the castle doctrine.

But the castle doctrine is about business! It's about the gun lobby, attorney's, and probably a few other businesses either making money or increasing their political power. This is not the kind of thing that ordinary people have an interest in making into a big issue. It's like saying that the government is responsible for making mortgages too easy to get: it just doesn't happen that way! There needs to be at least one powerful lobby to make it happen, and that powerful lobby is almost always about money.

Yeah but this is about the ethics and morals of the castle doctrine, not necessarily the driving force behind it. I agree that the pro gun lobby is probably at hand with legislation like this, but I actually tend to agree with it.

Well I agree with being able to defend yourself, but I have a moral problem with being hoodwinked into supporting the NRA's political agenda.

I think the notion of "being armed to defend yourself against the government" is most peculiar -- and, unfortunately, very American.

Well now, let’s see... If there was a showdown between the US government and its citizens, the most likely insurgents would be your various and sundry militias. Very comforting thought! :eek: Is there any one of them that you would care to have running the country?

Isn’t it better to elect politicians that will ensure a well-run government, rather than a collection of politicians that, essentially, purport to be against government?

.

Not that simple, and in the USA we only have one political party. They are a bunch of fat cats that keep their other fat cat friends rich. It truly is more of an oligarchy than anything. Why do you think they control and take such stances. Both of them create more government just in more ways and both of them pick and our rights as individuals.

They use what I call the three pillars of politics and their sub categories, which are: Religion, Pro Life/Choice, and gun control. Each party plays into that demographic in one way or another, and then the opposite party makes money off of it.

One example is the NRA. Do you think the NRA wants to abolish all gun control? Why would they? They make 200 million dollars a year fighting gun control, and spend less than 1% (around a million dollars) in endorsing politicians. So, when people who want their gun rights reserved join the NRA are they really helping the politicians they want in office get elected? Is 1 million dollars enough to lobby in the USA government?

Our founding fathers set us up a Republic (not a democracy, people get those confused), a Republic that allowed us to give ourselves freedoms. Pretty radical at the time actually when it was conceived. They had just got done dealing with a Tyranical government them self. They knew 2 things needed to happen to keep their independence, that there needed to be a standing malitia to guard the republic (our military) and that the people could keep the right to bear arms so the government could not control and oppress them. Many refugees from England came to Americas because of the Glorious revolution where the King disarmed them, then oppressed them. Hitler also took all the guns from citizens, and then marched into town and started taking all the jews and non germans and tossing them in camps. How could the people fight? Hitler had over 15 attempts on his life from his own people during his short reign.

Have we not learned from our past? Our fore fathers had no idea what technology would do to us, and do the military. Do I think that the citizens hold their own against the US military in a situation like I am talking about? Nope, but I do think that many military personnel would never fire at another American on American soil, even if ordered to.

During national disasters, like Katrina, where was the government? The local LEOs (law officers) came and grabbed guns leaving people defenseless and there was plenty of robbing and other crimes going on. The police were not there, they left to protect their own families. The rich who could afford private security had black water guards with machine guns guarding their properties. Their rights were infringed upon, and the government can not always be there to save you, and people are not nice, they are evil. So you may need to defend yourself.

I don't ever seen the USA ever falling into a situation where everyone is for them self unless something ungodly bad happens, and that bad would destroy parts if not most of the earth most likely. However, I do not feel my government can take care of me or protect me in a time of disaster. I know that some people by nature will take opportunities like that to commit crime, possibly try to harm people. I hold a right to protect myself, and I will exercise it.

So why don't I vote someone else in? Well, show me someone who is not a government fat cat, and maybe I will vote for them. Until that day happens I guess I will always just pick the lesser of two evils.

Seems like the last time we got into such a situation, the troops went home and fought for their states.... West Point graduates and all.

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits using federal troops to enforce civil laws. But that's only a law... just a guideline. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Arkansas (not that I disagree with that decision... but hey, a law is a law, right?)

And the natl guard did fire on Kent State students.

I'm with TLarkin... society is a lot more fragile than most are willing to admit.

Military action was taken against the coal miners in West virgina as previously linked here.

We walk a fine line of communism, socialism, fascism, militarism and neoconservatism all the time. It only takes a few steps in one direction for the political system to turn in this country. We are this way because we are pretty much an amalgamation of many forms of government in one republic.

People don't realize and live in their own worlds thinking that the government can and will take care of them in a time of need.

Or even more foolishly, they think that if they give corporations all they ask for, Big Business will take care of them!

I think you nailed this, CWT. Not just as it applies to guns, but across the board. The biggest lobbies in our state are, based on number of dollars spent in the lobbying effort, are..... surprise.... our state universities and their association, hospital association, physicians association. Any surprise that state university tuition as well as appropriations to state universities has gone through the roof?

Even the seemingly "good guys" such as MADD or National "Name your Disease" Foundation are about money. And, like the NRA, they are going to create the appearance of a problem whether one exists or not.

How many years in a row can MADD toughen up the DWI laws? The DWI limit has gone from .15 when I was a kid to .1 to .07. Penalties have gone through the roof with fine increases every year, increased time drivers licenses are lost, to jail time, to felonies for multiple offenses.... and on and on. And, they are back again this year for even tougher laws.

(No, I don't oppose DWI laws and have never received a DWI.... but damn, it's to the point if you spill a drink on your shirt you are DWI.... crazy. It is obvious what they are doing... justifying their existence and raising money. And yes, people are already going to jail for DWIs and DWI accidents. How tough is tough enough?)

They are all (lobby by any other name) about money, and all about business. The "cause" is just the mechanism to get there.

It doesn't bother me that they're (name your group, but in this case we can use the NRA) about money as much as that people miss that fact and its enormous implications: First, they're never going to finish the job they claim to be doing, whether it's gun rights or the cure for some disease, because if they did, they'd be out of business. Second, they become powerful institutions whose goals are not in line with the welfare of the people they claim to represent. And most importantly, their power is a huge threat to all democracies because it eliminates proper representation. It's also terrible for the economy, because it gives corporate interests both the mechanisms and the political cover to manipulate markets.

This is the first time I think I have ever 100% fully agreed with you. Holy crap, the end must be near!:rolleyes::eek::D

I also like to tell people it is funny how research these days is more about fund raising for that research than it is research.

Then do you see that the Castle bill or anything else like it is not about protecting homeowner's/gun owner's or any other individual rights, but instead it's about consolidating and demonstrating the political will/power of the NRA for its benefit, regardless of how that affects its members and the rest of the country?

yeah but I also agree with it. If someone is illegally in my home and I defend myself I don't want them to have an inch to file a lawsuit on me. There are many cases of criminals filing lawsuits in those situations and I find it asinine. I also find almost all gun control laws asinine as well. I find some gun regulations needed and balanced.

I also see criminals using the castle doctrine to their advantage. Invite another person over you want to kill and kill them, then say they were illegally in your home. However, it also protects honest people. A good friend of mine is dating a lawyer and she has worked for both public defenders and DOJ. She tells me that many times a criminal will try to play the victim and say that the criminal and the person involved had a previous relationship, whatever it may be. That can then draw in things like premeditaiton. That is where it gets scary. They claim like, oh I sold him drugs and he owed me money, or he asked me to come hang out and then shot me, or whatever they claim. It does happen. It is a complicated subject there is no right or wrong answer for really because our system is set up in a complex manner that can go many different ways.

I don't have an answer for it either.

Neither do I, but I don't think the NRA does either. I see this as simply another wedge issue that political organizations use to manipulate the public. It's like gay marriage: If they really wanted to solve that, they'd make every wedding in government records a civil union. If you want a Marriage, you could get that at a church, but it shouldn't be recognized legally. Will they do that? No, because it can't be used and abused politically.

My last boss (when I was working) came to us from the Governor's staff... one day in private he explained this all to me. Quote.... "All things are politics."

Politicians believe this. It is a way of life.

Which explains why the economy is in the toilet, corporations run the government, and the NRA has people thinking that it's protecting their rights to bear arms when it's really protecting gun maker profits. Oh, it also sheds some light on the violence in Mexico. They've got to get their guns somewhere!

That is Mexico's problem. Half of their LEOs are corrupted, like 25 families rule all the wealth in Mexico, all politicians are corrupted more so than here, and their drug cartels are ex military trained by our military. They have full auto weapons, grenades, RPGs, body armor etc. They are trained and making money and half of the police are on the same pay roll.

The best thing the USA could do is to decriminalize drugs here and make it so criminals do not profit as well off of them.

Or, the NRA could agree to propper regulation of gun sales, even between private citizens. But closing such a large loophole would cut into profits.

There is no gun show loop hole, everyone I buy from I get a background check ran in my name. If you sell a gun in a private sale and it gets traced back to you, don't think they won't come after you at all.

There is no such thing as a loop hole. Less than 1% of legally bought guns are used in crimes.

Meanwhile, on the "defending my castle" front... ;)

Really? You could have fooled the ATF:
Hmmm, long term planning. Smarter than most corporate CEOs!

Those aren't legal gun sales, those are illegal gun sales. 1% of guns used in crime are from legal gun sales.

I think you're thinking of US crime. Something like 6,000 or more Mexicans were killed last year by the drug cartels alone. That violence is just beginning to spill over into the US. We're very likely to catch up. Here, the guns don't need to be smuggled.

No I am saying that the legal gun owners commit less than 1% of gun crimes. It is the illegal gun sales and the criminals that commit the crimes. If you are a FFL that ATF has the right to enter your business at any time and search your records. This keeps down on what they call straw gun sales and stuff like that.

All those guns used in crimes are sold illegally, there is no loop hole in gun sales. You either purchase it legally or you don't.

The loophole is that the gun is sold legally by the dealer to some one who then resells it illegally. The dealers and gunmakers get rich doing this. They can't not know it's happening.

And in the meantime, House Bill 1284 has been introduced.... The Open Carry Law.... no permit required.

"5-73-502. Open carry
Except for those places provided in § 5-73-306, a person who may
lawfully possess a handgun may publicly carry in plain sight a handgun on his
or her person or in his or her vehicle for the purpose of self-defense
regardless of any law to the contrary prohibiting the carrying of a handgun."

Don't think this will go anywhere, but who knows.

Three thoughts on the chimp:

1. Imposing peace on those who are really PO'd goes against nature.

2. Castle, cage.... pretty much the same thing to us married folk.

3. We should ban rocks.:)

That is not a loop hole, they aren't getting around any crimes. That is an illegal sale. Anyone can always legally buy a gun and then go and sell it illegally, there is no way to regulate that. It is the same thing as people getting prescription drugs and then selling them by the pill. There is no way to ever stop or even regulate those types of illegal transactions.

You got a link for this?

Sure there is! If you want to buy multiple guns, you should be required to provide proof that you still own previously purchased guns. It shouldn't be a problem to bring one into the store if you still own it. Own a bunch of guns? No problem. The computer can randomly pick one for you to bring in with you.

Once again, I'm sure the NRA wouldn't like that, as it would threaten gun profits.

No to buy a gun you must pass a background check by the ATF and by the NICS system. Every time you buy. If you sell it illegally on the streets there is no background check, and there is no paper trail.

Which is why they need to check that you still have the gun! With a check like that, you could only sell one gun illegally, then you'd never be able to buy another one legally. Who wants some one who can't keep track of their own gun getting another anyway?

That only creates more and more government and more red tape. It will be inefficient and it will still not stop illegal sales. Also since guns are a state level regulation on sales there is no way to regulate either.

In CA you must go get a permit to buy and turn that permit in. Where I live you don't need anything but to pass the mandatory background check. I can give a dealer cash and take the gun the same day as long as I pass the NICS check.

All people will do is claim to buy guns from a state that has less regulations. For example I own 4 firearms and none are registered in my name. My state does not require it, which is weird since MO is one of the most bureaucratic states I have ever been in. They have forms to fill out just so you can fill out more forms. I don't want to create more government and I don't believe in gun control at all, just reasonable regulations.

...because you say so? Alleged loss of efficiency is really loss of gun industry profits because of increased efficiency at keeping guns from bad guys, where the profits are.
And that's what needs to change. The banking industry isn't the only one that needs more regulation.

Well I am against gun control and I am against the government getting up in my business and personal affairs. Gun laws do not stop crime. Look at the UK and their gun ban, hasn't done them that well.

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books. 20,000, do you think that there are that many against big business, banks, illegal drugs, or crimes? Why so damn many gun laws?

It's undeniably simple: If you have to show that you still have the guns you've bought or you've legally sold them, then you can't get away with selling them illegally. At least not more than one of them. If you're legitimate, this couldn't be more than a minor inconvenience.
Because the gun lobby fights every single one of them so by the time they're enacted, they're so watered down that they're useless. It's why I can't support the NRA. They've proven that they're not on anyone's side but the gun maker's.

Ok but you can give guns as gifts, inherit them from dead family/friends, and you can rebuild them out of different parts. So every time you exchange something out will they need a serial number update? I mean how can you really prove that is the same gun you bought 9 years ago? I am about to replace the slides on one of my guns, and that is where the serial number is.

There is no good way to regulate the past guns. Also, the FBI and ATF do not keep track of gun sales, they just keep track of the number of background checks. If they had to keep track of sales they would have to have a whole lot more staff.

That is why they hold the FFL responsible and they will do random inspections to make sure you are legally selling guns.

There is never going to be a way to regulate private sales either. I mean no way to do it with out spying on people.

There are just too many what ifs, or things that if they get too over regulated are an infringement of our rights. Which I am against.

:rolleyes:
Gee, if only there were an example of some other potentially deadly piece of equipment that people already needed to register to own and use... something that might require some sort of license to operate, with rules regarding its sale and purchase... maybe even some sort of Verifiable Identification Number...

The link is http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assemb...lls/HB2184.pdf , but the legislature's web page is pretty much swamped during sessions. May have to wait to the evening.

You can go to http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us and click on "search bills" on the left column menu and track the status of any bill.... where it is in the process, amendments to the bill, when signed into law, etc.

hb1284 is the open carry bill, and hb1890 is the castle defense.

OK if you are such a genius where would you stamp it? Mind you that almost all guns can be stripped and parts can be removed and replaced. Even the VIN numbers on cars can be swapped.

On every part. And on the barrel, I'd engrave it deep enough that filing it out will practically guarantee that it will blow up in your face.

No system is perfect, but it doesn't need to be perfect to dramatically reduce the problem we have now.

So what happens when you put 5000 rounds through your gun and want to replace the barrel? Will you have to have it engraved with that matching stamp?

I get what you are saying. I think they should stop regulating guns as much and start pursuing people who break the law more. I think they need to hold people responsible for their actions and not try to blame guns.

That's the NRA talking. The reality is that we don't blame cars, but we do require them to be registered and we keep detailed records about who owns and sells them. It is more important to do that with guns than cars.

You mean like the assault weapon ban where nobody could define what an assault weapon was... at least not in a way that made any sense? Real assault weapons (as in fully automatic fire) have always been illegal.

I own 8 firearms. Not one of them is registered because they were all originally purchased before computers and accurate bookkeeping were required. The store where you bought them kept the records, and those stores are all out of business. Three of them are considered collector items now.... an old winchester .308 and two Belgian made Browning shotguns.

As my old Cajun friend used to say, "Everybody ought to have at least one cold piece."

That is like saying cars drive drunk. People drive drunk. There needs to be accountability for what you do. I don't like people blaming cars or blaming guns, or anything else for their own personal actions. Everyone wants to blame something these days. If registered legally owned guns are used in less than 1% of violent crimes I think it is pointless to have a government agency or agencies regulating such things in a highly strict manner. I'd rather my tax dollars go towards education or research on something that may improve our lives.

The brady bill people are a bunch of idiots. Here is what they did with the assault weapons ban. They banned the body style of a gun. If you take a semi auto hunting rifle, be it Remmington or Winchester or whomever, and compare it to a semi automatic military style rifle and you have the exact same technology under the hood. The same bolt carrier, extractor, gas tube, etc. I mean they are literally the same thing under the hood. The only difference is an AR15 has the black rifle evil look body style to it, while a Winchester may just look like a semi auto hunting rifle.

They can't define what an assault weapon is.

Actually, fully auto machine guns are completely legal, if you can afford your Class III firearms license and you can pass the extensive background checks, and if you can afford the massive taxes that go along with it. I don't know why you would, because you would spend even more money on ammo.

No, it's saying that when you drive drunk and crash your car into somebody's house, we've got an easy way of identifying who did it. Your car is registered to you.

Yeah but do you enjoy the DMV, is it ran well, is it worth your tax dollars? I hate my DMV with passion, once a year I have to spend 5 hours in one. Simply because they only take discover credit cards to renew them on line, and I don't use discover.

Cause they are really, really neat! Yeah, illegal was a poor choice of words... should have said highly regulated and cannot be purchased at the Sporting Goods store. Had a buddy buy a fully functional gun turret off a B-58 bomber at a base salvage sale, machine guns and all. He put it together in his back yard. Air Force eventually said oops and came after the machine guns.

I hate DMV, too. There is only one reason to require everybody to have a license plate on their car and that is to collect taxes on it.

Hate it as much as you like. That doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Taxes are necessary too. When your activity costs the government money, you should pay that cost through taxes.

Sorry but until guns start getting up and pulling their own triggers then I think there needs to be some sort of action taken against them.

To government should be here to defend our rights, property, our pursuit of happiness, and provide the individual with as much non bias information as possible for the citizen can make the educated choice of what is best for them.

Gun control is about as effective as the war on drugs, or the war on terror. One giant waste of time, money and energy.

So then you think that cars start themselves and crash into people? Or you think that registering guns is an act against guns, but registering cars is not an act against cars? :confused:

As for defending our rights, property, and pursuit of happiness, it seems obvious to me that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals would be an excellent start.

Agree, criminals shouldn't have guns. We should pass a law against criminals owning guns.

:confused:
What do you think registering guns is about? It's to ensure that people who can buy legally guns don't then sell them to people who can't legally buy them!

Guess I am missing your point. Felons cannot legally own a gun, and a felon in possession of a gun is, in itself, a felony. Selling a gun to a felon is participating in an illegal act.

Apparently we are going to differ on how much crap the state should be allowed to put an honest citizen through and how much should the state infringe on an honest citizen's constitutional rights in the name of crime prevention.

Well, I will say this, I think it unfortunate that people cannot defend their property for fear of going to jail. There are fine points to debate on the limits, but hey - I personally think we go too far with coddling criminals - violent criminals I should say.

In China they give the death penalty for drug possession. Drug possession still happens all the time in China. Those laws infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. I take it you most likely don't own a gun. Legislation like that will just create more government, cost more tax dollars, and not be effective at all.

Interesting topic now that we had a few mass murders happen in the media now.